Theory of socio-economic formation

K. Marx presented world history as a natural-historical, natural process of changing socio-economic formations. Using the economic type of industrial relations as the main criterion of progress (primarily the form of ownership of the means of production), Marx identifies five main economic formations in history: primitive communal, slave, feudal, bourgeois and communist.

The primitive communal system is the first non-antagonistic socio-economic formation through which all peoples without exception passed. As a result of its decomposition, a transition to class, antagonistic formations occurs. Among the early stages of class society, some scientists, in addition to the slave and feudal modes of production, identify a special Asian mode of production and the formation corresponding to it. This question remains controversial and open in social science even now.

“Bourgeois relations of production,” wrote K. Marx, “are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production... The prehistory of human society ends with the bourgeois social formation.” It is naturally replaced, as K. Marx and F. Engels foresaw, by a communist formation, opening up truly human history.

A socio-economic formation is a historical type of society, an integral social system that develops and functions on the basis of its characteristic method of material wealth. Of the two main elements of the production method ( productive forces and industrial relations) in Marxism, production relations are considered to be leading; they determine the type of production method and, accordingly, the type of formation. The totality of the prevailing economic relations of production is Basis society. Above the base rises the political, legal superstructure . These two elements give an idea of ​​the systemic nature of social relations; serve as a methodological basis in the study of the structure of the formation ( see: diagram 37).

The consistent change of socio-economic formations is driven by the contradiction between new, developed productive forces and outdated production relations, which at a certain stage turn from forms of development into fetters of productive forces. Based on the analysis of this contradiction, Marx formulated two main patterns of change in formations.

1. Not a single socio-economic formation dies before all the productive forces for which it provides sufficient scope have developed, and new higher production relations never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the bosom of the old society.

2. The transition from one formation to another is carried out through a social revolution, which resolves the contradiction in the mode of production ( between productive forces and production relations) and as a result of this the entire system of social relations changes.

The theory of socio-economic formation is a method of comprehending world history in its unity and diversity. Consistent change of formations forms the main line of progress of humanity, forming its unity. At the same time, the development of individual countries and peoples is characterized by significant diversity, which manifests itself:

· - in the fact that not every specific society goes through all the stages ( for example, the Slavic peoples passed the stage of slavery);

· - in the existence of regional characteristics, cultural and historical specificity of the manifestation of general patterns;

· - the presence of various transitional forms from one formation to another; During the transition period in society, as a rule, various socio-economic structures coexist, representing both the remnants of the old and the embryos of a new formation.

Analyzing the new historical process, K. Marx also identified three main stages ( so-called trinomial):

The theory of socio-economic formation is the methodological basis of modern historical science ( on its basis, a global periodization of the historical process is made) and social studies in general.

In the history of sociology, there are several attempts to determine the structure of society, i.e., social formation. Many proceeded from the analogy of society with a biological organism. In society, attempts were made to identify organ systems with corresponding functions, as well as to determine the main relationships between society and the environment (natural and social). Structural evolutionists consider the development of society to be conditioned by (a) differentiation and integration of its organ systems and (b) interaction-competition with the external environment. Let's look at some of these attempts.

The first of them was undertaken by G. Spencer, the founder of the theory of classical social evolution. His society consisted of three organ systems: economic, transport and management (I already talked about this above). The reason for the development of societies, according to Spencer, is both the differentiation and integration of human activity and the confrontation with the natural environment and other societies. Spencer identified two historical types of society - military and industrial.

The next attempt was made by K. Marx, who proposed the concept. She represents specific society at a certain stage of historical development, including (1) an economic basis (productive forces and production relations) and (2) a superstructure dependent on it (forms of social consciousness; state, law, church, etc.; superstructural relations). The initial reason for the development of socio-economic formations is the development of tools and forms of ownership of them. Consistently progressive formations Marx and his followers call primitive communal, ancient (slaveholding), feudal, capitalist, communist (its first phase is “proletarian socialism”). Marxist theory - revolutionary, she sees the main reason for the forward movement of societies in the class struggle of the poor and the rich, and Marx called social revolutions the locomotives of human history.

The concept of socio-economic formation has a number of shortcomings. First of all, in the structure of the socio-economic formation there is no demosocial sphere - the consumption and life of people, for the sake of which the socio-economic formation arises. In addition, in this model of society, the political, legal, and spiritual spheres are deprived of an independent role and serve as a simple superstructure over the economic basis of society.

Julian Steward, as mentioned above, moved away from Spencer's classical evolutionism based on differentiation of labor. He based the evolution of human societies on a comparative analysis of various societies as unique crops

Talcott Parsons defines society as a type, which is one of the four subsystems of the system, acting along with the cultural, personal, and human organism. The core of society, according to Parsons, forms societal subsystem (societal community) that characterizes society as a whole. It is a collection of people, families, businesses, churches, etc., united by norms of behavior (cultural patterns). These samples perform integrative role in relation to its structural elements, organizing them into a societal community. As a result of the action of such patterns, the societal community acts as a complex network (horizontal and hierarchical) of interpenetrating typical groups and collective loyalties.

If you compare it with, defines society as an ideal concept, rather than a specific society; introduces a societal community into the structure of society; refuses the basic-superstructural relationship between economics, on the one hand, politics, religion and culture, on the other hand; approaches society as a system of social action. The behavior of social systems (and society), like biological organisms, is caused by the requirements (challenges) of the external environment, the fulfillment of which is a condition for survival; elements-organs of society functionally contribute to its survival in the external environment. The main problem of society is the organization of the relationship between people, order, and balance with the external environment.

Parsons' theory also attracts criticism. First, the concepts of action system and society are highly abstract. This was expressed, in particular, in the interpretation of the core of society - the societal subsystem. Secondly, Parsons' model of social system was created to establish social order and balance with the external environment. But society seeks to upset the balance with the external environment in order to satisfy its growing needs. Thirdly, the societal, fiduciary (model reproduction) and political subsystems are essentially elements of the economic (adaptive, practical) subsystem. This limits the independence of other subsystems, especially the political one (which is typical for European societies). Fourthly, there is no demosocial subsystem, which is the starting point for society and encourages it to disturb its balance with the environment.

Marx and Parsons are structural functionalists who view society as a system of social (public) relations. If for Marx the factor that organizes (integrates) social relations is the economy, then for Parsons it is the societal community. If for Marx society strives for a revolutionary imbalance with the external environment as a result of economic inequality and class struggle, then for Parsons it strives for social order, equilibrium with the external environment in the process of evolution based on increasing differentiation and integration of its subsystems. Unlike Marx, who focused not on the structure of society, but on the causes and process of its revolutionary development, Parsons focused on the problem of “social order,” the integration of people into society. But Parsons, like Marx, considered economic activity to be the basic activity of society, and all other types of action to be auxiliary.

Social formation as a metasystem of society

The proposed concept of social formation is based on a synthesis of the ideas of Spencer, Marx, and Parsons on this problem. The social formation is characterized by the following features. Firstly, it should be considered an ideal concept (and not a specific society, like Marx), capturing the most essential properties of real societies. At the same time, this concept is not as abstract as Parsons’ “social system”. Secondly, the demosocial, economic, political and spiritual subsystems of society play initial, basic And auxiliary role, turning society into a social organism. Thirdly, a social formation represents a metaphorical “public house” of the people living in it: the initial system is the “foundation”, the base is the “walls”, and the auxiliary system is the “roof”.

Original the social formation system includes geographical and demosocial subsystems. It forms the “metabolic structure” of a society consisting of human cells interacting with the geographical sphere, and represents both the beginning and the completion of other subsystems: economic (economic benefits), political (rights and responsibilities), spiritual (spiritual values). The demosocial subsystem includes social groups, institutions, and their actions aimed at the reproduction of people as biosocial beings.

Basic the system performs the following functions: 1) acts as the main means of meeting the needs of the demosocial subsystem; 2) is the leading adaptive system of a given society, satisfying some leading need of people, for the sake of which the social system is organized; 3) the social community, institutions, organizations of this subsystem occupy leading positions in society, manage other spheres of society using means characteristic of it, integrating them into the social system. In identifying the basic system, I assume that certain fundamental needs (and interests) of people, under certain circumstances, become leading in the structure of the social organism. The basic system includes a social class (societal community), as well as its inherent needs, values, and norms of integration. It is distinguished by the type of sociality according to Weber (goal-rational, value-rational, etc.), which affects the entire social system.

Auxiliary the system of social formation is formed primarily by the spiritual system (artistic, moral, educational, etc.). This cultural orientation system, giving meaning, purposefulness, spirituality the existence and development of the original and basic systems. The role of the auxiliary system is: 1) in the development and preservation of interests, motives, cultural principles (beliefs, beliefs), patterns of behavior; 2) their transmission among people through socialization and integration; 3) their renewal as a result of changes in society and its relations with the external environment. Through socialization, worldview, mentality, and characters of people, the auxiliary system has an important influence on the basic and initial systems. It should be noted that the political (and legal) system can also play the same role in societies with some of its parts and functions. T. Parsons calls the spiritual system cultural and is located outside society as a social system, defining it through the reproduction of patterns of social action: creation, preservation, transmission and renewal of needs, interests, motives, cultural principles, patterns of behavior. For Marx, this system is in the superstructure socio-economic formation and does not play an independent role in society - an economic formation.

Each social system is characterized by social stratification in accordance with the initial, basic and auxiliary systems. Strata are separated by their roles, statuses (consumer, professional, economic, etc.) and united by needs, values, norms, traditions. The leading ones are stimulated by the basic system. For example, in economic societies this includes freedom, private property, profit and other economic values.

Between demosocial strata there is always a formation confidence, without which social order and social mobility (upward and downward) are impossible. It forms social capital social structure. “In addition to the means of production, qualifications and knowledge of people,” writes Fukuyama, “the ability to communicate, to collective action, in turn, depends on the extent to which certain communities adhere to similar norms and values ​​and can subordinate the individual interests of individuals interests of large groups. Based on such common values, a confidence, which<...>has a great and very specific economic (and political - S.S.) value.”

Social capital - it is a set of informal values ​​and norms shared by members of the social communities that make up society: fulfilling obligations (duty), truthfulness in relationships, cooperation with others, etc. Speaking about social capital, we are still abstracting from its social content, which is significantly different in Asian and European types of societies. The most important function of society is the reproduction of its “body”, the demosocial system.

The external environment (natural and social) has a great influence on the social system. It is included in the structure of the social system (type of society) partially and functionally as objects of consumption and production, remaining an external environment for it. The external environment is included in the structure of society in the broad sense of the word - as natural-social body. This emphasizes the relative independence of the social system as a characteristic society in relation to the natural conditions of its existence and development.

Why does a social formation arise? According to Marx, it arises primarily to satisfy material the needs of people, so economics occupies a basic place for him. For Parsons, the basis of society is the societal community of people, therefore the societal formation arises for the sake of integration people, families, firms and other groups into a single whole. For me, a social formation arises to satisfy the various needs of people, among which the basic one is the main one. This leads to a wide variety of types of social formations in human history.

The main ways of integrating people into the social body and means of satisfying corresponding needs are economics, politics, and spirituality. Economic strength society is based on material interest, people's desire for money and material well-being. Political power society is based on physical violence, on the desire of people for order and security. Spiritual strength society is based on a certain meaning of life that goes beyond the limits of well-being and power, and life from this point of view is of a transcendental nature: as service to the nation, God and the idea in general.

The main subsystems of the social system are closely interconnected. First of all, the boundary between any pair of systems of society represents a certain “zone” of structural components that can be considered as belonging to both systems. Further, the basic system is itself a superstructure over the original system, which it expresses And organizes. At the same time, it acts as a source system in relation to the auxiliary one. And the last one is not only back controls the basis, but also provides additional influence on the original subsystem. And, finally, different types of demosocial, economic, political, spiritual subsystems of society in their interaction form many intricate combinations of the social system.

On the one hand, the initial system of social formation is living people who, throughout their lives, consume material, social, and spiritual goods for their reproduction and development. The remaining systems of the social system objectively serve, to one degree or another, the reproduction and development of the demosocial system. On the other hand, the social system has a socializing influence on the demosocial sphere and shapes it with its institutions. It represents for the life of people, their youth, maturity, old age, as it were, an external form in which they have to be happy and unhappy. Thus, people who lived in the Soviet formation evaluate it through the prism of their life of different ages.

A social formation is a type of society that represents the interconnection of the initial, basic and auxiliary systems, the result of the functioning of which is the reproduction, protection, and development of the population in the process of transforming the external environment and adapting to it by creating an artificial nature. This system provides the means (artificial nature) to satisfy people’s needs and reproduce their bodies, integrates many people, ensures the realization of people’s abilities in various areas, and is improved as a result of the contradiction between the developing needs and abilities of people, between different subsystems of society.

Types of social formations

Society exists in the form of country, region, city, village, etc., representing its different levels. In this sense, a family, school, enterprise, etc. are not societies, but social institutions included in societies. Society (for example, Russia, the USA, etc.) includes (1) the leading (modern) social system; (2) remnants of previous social formations; (3) geographical system. Social formation is the most important metasystem of society, but is not identical to it, so it can be used to designate the type of countries that are the primary subject of our analysis.

Public life is the unity of social formation and private life. Social formation characterizes institutional relations between people. Private life - This is that part of social life that is not covered by the social system and represents a manifestation of the individual freedom of people in consumption, economics, politics, and spirituality. Social formation and private life as two parts of society are closely interconnected and interpenetrate each other. The contradiction between them is the source of the development of society. The quality of life of certain peoples largely, but not entirely, depends on the type of their “public house”. Private life largely depends on personal initiative and many accidents. For example, the Soviet system was very inconvenient for people’s private lives, it was like a fortress-prison. Nevertheless, within its framework, people went to kindergartens, studied at school, loved and were happy.

A social formation takes shape unconsciously, without a general will, as a result of the confluence of many circumstances, wills, and plans. But in this process there is a certain logic that can be highlighted. The types of social system change from historical era to era, from country to country, and are in competitive relationships with each other. Basicity of a particular social system not originally laid down. It arises as a result a unique set of circumstances, including subjective ones (for example, the presence of an outstanding leader). Basic system determines the interests and goals of the source and auxiliary systems.

Primitive communal the formation is syncretic. The beginnings of the economic, political and spiritual spheres are closely intertwined in it. It can be argued that original the sphere of this system is the geographical system. Basic is a demosocial system, the process of human reproduction in a natural way, based on a monogamous family. The production of people at this time is the main sphere of society that determines all others. Auxiliary there are economic, managerial and mythological systems that support the basic and original systems. The economic system is based on individual means of production and simple cooperation. The administrative system is represented by tribal self-government and armed men. The spiritual system is represented by taboos, rituals, mythology, pagan religion, priests, and also the rudiments of art.

As a result of the social division of labor, primitive clans were divided into agricultural (sedentary) and pastoral (nomadic) ones. An exchange of products and wars arose between them. Agricultural communities, engaged in agriculture and exchange, were less mobile and warlike than pastoral communities. With the increase in the number of people, villages, clans, the development of the exchange of products and wars, primitive communal society gradually transformed over thousands of years into a political, economic, theocratic one. The emergence of these types of societies occurs among different peoples at different historical times due to the confluence of many objective and subjective circumstances.

From a primitive communal society, he is socially isolated before others -political(Asian) formation. Its basis becomes an authoritarian political system, the core of which is autocratic state power in the slave-owning and serf-owning form. In such formations the leader becomes public the need for power, order, social equality, it is expressed by the political classes. It becomes basic in them value-rational and traditional activities. This is typical, for example, of Babylon, Assyria and the Russian Empire.

Then arises socially -economic(European) formation, the basis of which is the market economy in its ancient commodity and then capitalist form. In such formations the basic becomes individual(private) need for material goods, a secure life, power, economic classes correspond to it. The basis for them is goal-oriented activity. Economic societies arose in relatively favorable natural and social conditions - ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Western European countries.

IN spiritual(theo- and ideocratic) formation, the basis becomes some kind of ideological system in its religious or ideological version. Spiritual needs (salvation, building a corporate state, communism, etc.) and value-rational activities become basic.

IN mixed(convergent) formations form the basis of several social systems. Individual and social needs in their organic unity become basic. This was the European feudal society in the pre-industrial era, and the social democratic society in the industrial era. In them, both goal-rational and value-rational types of social actions in their organic unity are basic. Such societies are better adapted to the historical challenges of an increasingly complex natural and social environment.

The formation of a social formation begins with the emergence of a ruling class and a social system adequate to it. They take the leading position in society, subordinating other classes and related spheres, systems and roles. The ruling class makes its life activity (all needs, values, actions, results), as well as ideology, the main one.

For example, after the February (1917) revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks seized state power, made their dictatorship the basis, and the communist ideology - dominant, interrupted the transformation of the agrarian-serf system into a bourgeois-democratic one and created the Soviet formation in the process of the “proletarian-socialist” (industrial-serf) revolution.

Social formations go through stages of (1) formation; (2) flourishing; (3) decline and (4) transformation into another type or death. The development of societies is of a wave nature, in which periods of decline and rise of different types of social formations change as a result of the struggle between them, convergence, and social hybridization. Each type of social formation represents the process of progressive development of humanity, from simple to complex.

The development of societies is characterized by the decline of previous ones and the emergence of new social formations, along with the previous ones. Advanced social formations occupy a dominant position, and backward ones occupy a subordinate position. Over time, a hierarchy of social formations emerges. Such a formational hierarchy gives strength and continuity to societies, allowing them to draw strength (physical, moral, religious) for further development in historically early types of formations. In this regard, the liquidation of the peasant formation in Russia during collectivization weakened the country.

Thus, the development of humanity is subject to the law of negation of negation. In accordance with it, the stage of negation of the negation of the initial stage (primitive communal society), on the one hand, represents a return to the original type of society, and on the other hand, is a synthesis of previous types of societies (Asian and European) in a social democratic one.

The concept of socio-economic formation(economic society) can be formulated on the basis of studying specific types of such a formation: ancient and capitalist. Marx, Weber (the role of Protestant ethics in the development of capitalism) and other scientists played a major role in understanding these.

The socio-economic formation includes: 1) demosocial community of market-mass consumption ( original system); 2) a dynamically developing market economy, economic exploitation, etc. ( basic system); 3) democratic rule of law, political parties, church, art, free media, etc. ( auxiliary system). The socio-economic formation is characterized by purposeful and rational activity, the prevalence of economic interests, and a focus on profit.

The concept of private property and Roman law distinguish Western (market) societies from Eastern (planned) societies, which do not have the institution of private property, private law, or democracy. A democratic (market) state expresses the interests primarily of the market classes. Its foundation is formed by free citizens who have equal political, military and other rights and responsibilities and control power through elections and municipal self-government.

Democratic law acts as a legal form of private property and market relations. Without support from private law and power, the market basis cannot function. The Protestant Church, unlike the Orthodox Church, becomes the mental basis of the capitalist mode of production. This was shown by M. Weber in “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.” Bourgeois art comprehends and imagines bourgeois existence in its works.

The private life of citizens of an economic society is organized into a civil community that opposes the socio-economic formation as an institutional system organized on a market basis. This community is partly included in the auxiliary, basic and demosocial subsystems of economic society, representing in this sense a hierarchical formation. The concept of civil society (community) appeared in the 17th century in the works of Hobbes and Locke, and was developed in the works of Rousseau, Montesquieu, Vico, Kant, Hegel and other thinkers. It got the name civil Unlike class society subjects under feudalism. Marx considered civil society together with bourgeois state, as part of the superstructure, and the revolutionary proletariat considered both bourgeois civil society and the liberal state to be the gravedigger. Instead, communist self-government should appear.

Thus, the concept of socio-economic formation is a synthesis of Spencer's industrial society, Marx's socio-economic formation and Parsons' social system. It is more adequate to the laws of development of living nature, based on competition, than political, based on monopoly. In social competition, the victory is won by a free, intellectual, enterprising, organized, self-developing community, for which the dialectical negation of traditionality for the sake of modernity, and modernity for the sake of post-modernity, is organic.

Types of socio-economic formations

The socio-economic formation is known in the form of (1) ancient, agrarian-market (Ancient Greece and Rome) and (2) capitalist (industrial-market). The second social formation arose from the remnants of the first in feudal Europe.

The ancient formation (1) arose later than the Asian one, around the 8th century BC. e.; (2) from some primitive societies living in favorable geographical conditions; (3) influenced by Asian societies; (4) as well as the technical revolution, the invention of iron tools and war. New tools became the reason for the transition of the primitive communal formation into the ancient one only where there were favorable geographical, demographic and subjective (mental, intellectual) conditions. Such conditions developed in ancient Greece, and then in Rome.

As a result of these processes, arose ancient community free private landowner families, significantly different from the Asian one. Ancient city-states appeared - states in which the veche assembly and elected power constituted the two poles of the ancient democratic state. A sign of the emergence of such societies can be considered the appearance of coins at the turn of the 8th-7th centuries BC. e. Ancient societies were surrounded by many primitive communal and Asian societies, with which they had complex relationships.

In the Greek policies there was an increase in population, the withdrawal of excess population to the colonies, and the development of trade, which transformed the family economy into a commodity-money economy. Trade quickly became the leading sector of the Greek economy. The social class of private producers and traders became the leading one; his interests began to determine the development of ancient policies. There was a decline in the ancient aristocracy, based on the clan system. The excess population was not only sent to the colonies, but also recruited into the standing army (as, for example, Philip, the father of Alexander the Great). The army became the leading instrument of “production” - the robbery of slaves, money and goods. The primitive communal system of Ancient Greece turned into an ancient (economic) formation.

The original the system of the ancient system was made up of families of free Greek or Italian community members who could feed themselves in favorable geographical conditions (sea, climate, land). They satisfied their needs through their own farming and commodity exchange with other families and communities. The ancient demosocial community consisted of slave owners, free community members and slaves.

Basic The system of the ancient formation consisted of a privately owned economy, the unity of productive forces (land, tools, livestock, slaves, free community members) and market (commodity) relations. In Asian formations, the market group encountered resistance from other social and institutional groups when it became rich because it encroached on the power hierarchy. In European societies, due to a random combination of circumstances, the trade and craft class, and then the bourgeoisie, imposed their own type of purposeful, rational market activity as the basis for the entire society. Already in the 16th century, European society became capitalist in type of economy.

Auxiliary the system of ancient society consisted of: a democratic state (ruling elite, branches of government, bureaucracy, law, etc.), political parties, community self-government; religion (priests), which affirmed the divine origin of ancient society; ancient art (songs, dances, painting, music, literature, architecture, etc.), which substantiated and elevated ancient civilization.

Ancient society was civil, representing a set of demosocial, economic, political and religious amateur organizations of citizens in all systems of the social system. They had freedom of speech, access to information, the right of free exit and entry and other civil rights. Civil society is evidence of individual liberation, something the traditional East is not familiar with. It opened up additional opportunities for unleashing the energy, initiative, and entrepreneurship of individuals, which significantly affected the quality of the demographic sphere of society: it was formed by the economic classes of the rich, wealthy, and poor. The struggle between them became the source of the development of this society.

The dialectics of the initial, basic and auxiliary systems of the ancient formation determined its development. The increase in the production of material goods led to an increase in the number of people. The development of the market basis affected the growth of wealth and its distribution between social classes. Political, legal, religious, artistic spheres of the socio-economic formation ensured the maintenance of order, legal regulation of the activities of owners and citizens, and ideologically justified the commodity economy. Due to its independence, it influenced the basis of commodity society, inhibiting or accelerating its development. The Reformation in Europe, for example, created new religious and moral motives for work and the ethics of Protestantism, from which modern capitalism grew.

In a feudal (mixed) society, the foundations of a liberal-capitalist system gradually emerge from the remnants of the ancient one. A liberal-capitalist worldview and the spirit of the bourgeoisie appear: rationality, professional duty, the desire for wealth and other elements of Protestant ethics. Max Weber criticized the economic materialism of Marx, who considered the consciousness of the bourgeois superstructure above the spontaneously formed market-economic basis. According to Weber, first appear single bourgeois adventurers and capitalist farms influencing other entrepreneurs. Then they become massive in the economic system and form capitalists from non-capitalists. Simultaneously An individualistic Protestant civilization emerges in the form of its individual representatives, institutions, and way of life. It also becomes the source of market-economic and democratic systems of society.

Liberal-capitalist (civil) society arose in the 18th century. Weber, following Marx, argued that it appeared as a result of a combination of a number of factors: experimental science, rational bourgeois capitalism, modern government, rational legal and administrative systems, modern art, etc. As a result of the combination of these social systems, capitalist society does not know itself equal in adaptation to the external environment.

The capitalist formation includes the following systems.

Original the system is formed by: favorable geographical conditions, colonial empires; the material needs of the bourgeoisie, peasants, workers; inequality of demo-social consumption, the beginning of the formation of a mass consumption society.

Basic the system is formed by the capitalist mode of social production, which is the unity of capitalist productive forces (capitalists, workers, machines) and capitalist economic relations (money, credit, bills, banks, world competition and trade).

Auxiliary The system of capitalist society is formed by a democratic legal state, a multi-party system, universal education, free art, church, media, science. This system determines the interests of capitalist society, justifies its existence, comprehends its essence and development prospects, and educates the people necessary for it.

Features of socio-economic formations

The European path of development includes the following: primitive communal, ancient, feudal, capitalist (liberal-capitalist), bourgeois socialist (social democratic). The last of them is convergent (mixed).

Economic societies differ: high efficiency (productivity) of the market economy, resource saving; the ability to satisfy the growing needs of people, production, science, education; rapid adaptation to changing natural and social conditions.

A process of transformation has taken place in socio-economic formations informal values ​​and norms characteristic of a traditional (agrarian) society, in formal. This is the process of transforming a status society, where people were bound by many informal values ​​and norms, into a contract society, where people are bound by a contract for the duration of the realization of their interests.

Economic societies are characterized by: economic, political and spiritual inequality of classes; exploitation of workers, colonial peoples, women, etc.; economic crises; formational evolution; competition due to markets and raw materials; possibility of further transformation.

In economic society, the civil community assumes the function of expressing and protecting the interests and rights of citizens before a democratic, legal, social state, forming a dialectical opposition with the latter. This community includes numerous voluntary non-governmental organizations: a multi-party system, independent media, socio-political organizations (trade unions, sports, etc.). Unlike the state, which is a hierarchical institution and based on orders, civil society has a horizontal structure, based on conscious voluntary self-discipline.

The economic system is based on a higher level of people's consciousness than the political one. Its participants act primarily individually, rather than collectively, based on personal interests. Their collective (joint) action is more consistent with their common interests than what occurs as a result of centralized government intervention (in political society). Participants in a socio-economic formation proceed from the following position (I have already quoted): “Many of his greatest achievements are due not to conscious aspirations and, especially not to the deliberately coordinated efforts of many, but to the process in which the individual plays a role that is not entirely comprehensible to himself. role". They are moderate in rationalistic pride.

In the 19th century In Western Europe, a deep crisis of liberal capitalist society arose, which was severely criticized by K. Marx and F. Engels in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In the 20th century it led to the “proletarian-socialist” (Bolshevik) revolution in Russia, the fascist one in Italy and the national socialist one in Germany. As a result of these revolutions, there was a revival of the political, Asian type of society in its Soviet, Nazi, fascist and other totalitarian forms.

In World War II, Nazi and fascist societies were destroyed. The union of Soviet totalitarian and Western democratic societies won. Then Soviet society was defeated by Western society in the Cold War. In Russia, the process of creating a new state-capitalist (mixed) formation has begun.

A number of scientists consider societies of the liberal-capitalist formation to be the most advanced. Fukuyama writes: “All modernizing countries, from Spain and Portugal to the Soviet Union, China, Taiwan and South Korea, have moved in this direction.” But Europe, in my opinion, has gone much further.

Prerequisites for the development of the theory of socio-economic formation

In the middle of the 19th century. Marxism arose, an integral part of which was the philosophy of history - historical materialism. Historical materialism is Marxist sociological theory - the science of the general and specific laws of the functioning and development of society.

By K. Marx (1818-1883), his views on society were dominated by idealistic positions. He was the first to consistently apply the materialist principle to explain social processes. The main thing in his teaching was the recognition of social existence as primary, and social consciousness as secondary, derivative.

Social existence is a set of material social processes that do not depend on the will and consciousness of the individual or even society as a whole.

The logic here is this. The main problem for society is the production of means of life (food, housing, etc.). This production is always carried out with the help of tools. Certain objects of labor are also involved.

At each specific stage of history, productive forces have a certain level of development. And they determine (determine) certain production relations.

This means that the relations between people in the production of means of subsistence are not chosen arbitrarily, but depend on the nature of the productive forces.

In particular, over thousands of years, the rather low level of their development, the technical level of tools, which allowed their individual use, determined the dominance of private property (in various forms).

The concept of the theory, its supporters

In the 19th century productive forces acquired a qualitatively different character. The technological revolution brought about the massive use of machines. Their use was possible only through joint, collective efforts. Production acquired a directly social character. As a result, ownership also had to be made common, the contradiction between the social nature of production and the private form of appropriation had to be resolved.

Note 1

According to Marx, politics, ideology and other forms of social consciousness (superstructure) are derivative in nature. They reflect industrial relations.

A society that is at a certain level of historical development, with a unique character, is called a socio-economic formation. This is a central category in the sociology of Marxism.

Note 2

Society went through several formations: initial, slaveholding, feudal, bourgeois.

The latter creates the prerequisites (material, social, spiritual) for the transition to a communist formation. Since the core of formation is the mode of production as a dialectical unity of productive forces and production relations, the stages of human history in Marxism are often called not a formation, but a mode of production.

Marxism views the development of society as a natural-historical process of replacing one method of production with another, higher one. The founder of Marxism had to focus on the material factors of the development of history, since idealism reigned around him. This made it possible to accuse Marxism of “economic determinism,” which ignores the subjective factor of history.

In the last years of his life, F. Engels tried to correct this shortcoming. V.I. Lenin attached particular importance to the role of the subjective factor. Marxism considers the class struggle to be the main driving force in history.

One socio-economic formation is replaced by another in the process of social revolutions. The conflict between productive forces and production relations manifests itself in the clash of certain social groups, antagonist classes, which are the protagonists of revolutions.

The classes themselves are formed based on their relationship to the means of production.

So, the theory of socio-economic formations is based on the recognition of the action in the natural-historical process of objective tendencies formulated in the following laws:

• Correspondence of production relations to the nature and level of development of the productive forces;
• The primacy of the basis and the secondary nature of the superstructure;
• Class struggle and social revolutions;
• Natural-historical development of humanity through the change of socio-economic formations.

conclusions

After the victory of the proletariat, public ownership puts everyone in the same position regarding the means of production, therefore, leading to the disappearance of the class division of society and the destruction of antagonism.

Note 3

The biggest drawback in the theory of socio-economic formations and the sociological concept of K. Marx is that he refused to recognize the right to a historical future to all classes and strata of society except the proletariat.

Despite the shortcomings and the criticism that Marxism has been subjected to for 150 years, it has had a greater influence on the development of social thought of mankind.

Socio-economic formation- according to the Marxist concept of the historical process, society is at a certain stage of historical development, characterized by the level of development of the productive forces and the historical type of economic relations of production. Each socio-economic formation is based on a certain method of production (basis), and production relations form its essence. The system of production relations that forms the economic basis of the formation corresponds to a political, legal and ideological superstructure. The structure of the formation includes not only economic, but also social relations, as well as forms of life, family, and lifestyle. The reason for the transition from one stage of social development to another is the discrepancy between the increased productive forces and the remaining type of production relations. According to Marxist teaching, humanity in the course of its development must go through the following stages: primitive communal system, slave system, feudalism, capitalism, communism.

The primitive communal system in Marxism is considered as the first non-antagonistic socio-economic formation through which all peoples without exception passed. As a result of the decomposition of the primitive communal system, a transition to class, antagonistic socio-economic formations took place. Early class formations include the slave system and feudalism, while many peoples moved from the primitive communal system directly to feudalism, bypassing the stage of slavery. Pointing to this phenomenon, Marxists substantiated for some countries the possibility of a transition from feudalism to socialism, bypassing the stage of capitalism. Karl Marx himself, among the early class formations, singled out a special Asian mode of production and a corresponding formation. The question of the Asian mode of production remained controversial in philosophical and historical literature, without receiving a clear solution. Capitalism was considered by Marx as the last antagonistic form of the social process of production; it was to be replaced by a non-antagonistic communist formation.
The change in socio-economic formations is explained by the contradictions between new productive forces and outdated production relations, which are transformed from forms of development into fetters of productive forces. The transition from one formation to another takes place in the form of a social revolution, which resolves the contradictions between productive forces and production relations, as well as between the base and the superstructure. Marxism pointed to the presence of transitional forms from one formation to another. Transitional states of society are usually characterized by the presence of various socio-economic structures that do not cover the economy and everyday life as a whole. These structures can represent both the remnants of the old and the embryos of a new socio-economic formation. The diversity of historical development is associated with the uneven pace of historical development: some peoples rapidly progressed in their development, others lagged behind. The interaction between them was of a different nature: it accelerated or, conversely, slowed down the course of historical development of individual peoples.
The collapse of the world system of socialism at the end of the 20th century and disappointment in communist ideas led to a critical attitude of researchers towards the Marxist formational scheme. Nevertheless, the idea of ​​identifying stages in the world historical process is recognized as sound. In historical science and in teaching history, the concepts of primitive communal system, slave system, feudalism and capitalism are actively used. Along with this, the theory of stages of economic growth developed by W. Rostow and O. Toffler has found wide application: agrarian society (traditional society) - industrial society (consumer society) - post-industrial society (information society).