Big encyclopedia of oil and gas. Historical development of society

The development process can be considered from the point of view of the simultaneous givenness of its moments (logical aspect) and from the point of view of the implementation of development in time (historical aspect). In this part of the work we will focus on the characteristics of the development of society over time.

The discovery of the materialist understanding of history by K. Marx and F. Engels made it possible to understand history as a natural historical process, as a process that occurs with necessity, naturally and at the same time is carried out thanks to the activities of people who have freedom of choice, free will (at different stages of historical development, the nature and degree freedoms are different).

To understand the process of historical development, it is necessary to determine its change over time, and if the development is natural, then the change must be carried out in some necessary direction. This natural development does not exclude the activity of people as conscious, thinking beings; on the contrary, the historical development of society is a resultant, consisting of the activity of masses of people. However, human activity is carried out, ultimately, for the sake of maintaining the physical existence of their own and their species (under certain objective), initially primarily natural conditions. And for this reason alone, the historical development of society, that is, the historical interaction of people, cannot be carried out purely arbitrarily.

The history of society cannot be free from accidents, zigzags, breaks, etc. But still, if you take a sufficiently long period (the duration of such a period varies depending on specific conditions), you will discover a direction of development that makes its way through all the accidents , zigzags, breaks, etc.

Characterization of any historical development process means, first of all and mainly, consideration of its general direction, and therefore the beginning of the process, the stages it goes through, as well as the “mechanisms” of transition from one stage to another, the specificity, continuity and direction of the development process .

It is necessary to specifically emphasize that by affirming the presence of a direction of development, we note the main direction of development, abstracting from the fact that along with the main direction there may be other, dead-end directions of development, that interaction can occur between them and the main direction.

Society is, as noted above, an “organic” whole, passing through a series of stages, steps, stages in its ascending, progressive development.

Really existing history society is not a process of development of an “organic” whole in a “pure” form. However, in order to understand the complexity of the historical development of society, it is necessary to highlight in a “pure” form, first of all, the main direction of development of society and only then introduce complicating circumstances into the field of consideration.

Society, the social form of movement, is qualitatively different from the biological form of movement, but at the same time, society arises from nature and most closely from the biological form of movement.

Consequently, if society is an “organic” whole, then the history of society must be divided into stages, stages that every “organic” whole goes through in its development:

1. The formation of the historical prerequisites of society, the formation of the social in the depths of the biological, in general the natural. At this stage, the prerequisites for the emergence of society appear, but society itself does not yet exist.

2. The initial emergence of society.

3. Formation of society. The process of transformation of the inherited natural foundation by the emerging society is underway.

4. Maturity of society. The process of transforming the inherited natural foundation is complete. The natural basis in a significantly transformed form is included as a moment in the process of development of society.

At the stage of formation of the historical prerequisites of society, natural laws reign supreme. The source of development here should be sought in the development of nature. At the stage of the initial emergence of society, a fundamentally new source of development is formed and begins to operate.

The leading, main factor of development with the emergence of man becomes the social, and not the natural, factor. True, the natural factor, the natural basis, is only beginning to be transformed by a new process. At the stage of formation of society, the transformation of the natural basis continues, but to one degree or another the natural basis still remains untransformed, and, therefore, the new essence, although it is the main, leading factor of development, does not yet dominate in the sense that it is not yet the end transformed the inherited process, the natural basis.

At the maturity stage, the social factor becomes not only leading, but also dominant.

So, at the first stage, the source of development is in nature, at the second stage, a social source of development arises, it immediately turns out to be leading. Thanks to the emergence of this fundamentally new factor and its manifestation, an interaction is formed between it and the natural factor. The interaction of social and natural factors predominates with the primacy of the social. At the third stage, the emerging social factor continues to be the leading, the main one. At the fourth stage, the social factor completely subjugates the natural factor, and only at this stage does it reign supreme, which means that only now self-movement, self-development of society, interaction between people as an end in itself, the development of human essence as an end in itself, reign supreme.

The stage of formation of the historical prerequisites of human society begins with the existence of the ape-like ancestors of man. At this stage, due to purely natural reasons (interaction of the body and the environment natural environment) prerequisites are created for the transition to the next stage, prerequisites that are of a natural nature.

The transition to the stage of the initial emergence of man occurs due to purely natural influences: it was precisely the change in the natural environment (thinning of forests, cooling, decreased opportunities for collecting food, etc.) that led to the fact that the ape-like ancestors of man began the transition from an arboreal to a terrestrial way of life and to the use of natural objects as means, tools for obtaining food, protection, etc. The transition to the use of natural objects as tools was, therefore, a continuation of purely natural development. But natural development included within its sphere of action a natural factor that concealed fundamentally new development potentials that were different from natural development. The transition to the use of tools and means of labor opened the way to the creation of objects that do not exist in nature in itself. As the use of natural objects as tools and means of labor became constant, the expedient change in the tools and means of labor themselves became constant, i.e., a transition took place to the gradual production of tools and means of labor.

When does the stage of the initial emergence of man as a social being end? In our opinion, when the production of labor products becomes constant and regular.

Production is first formed as the production of mining tools. The gatherer, hunter, and fisherman do not regularly produce the consumer goods they obtain.

Only with the advent of cattle breeding and agriculture did people move on to the regular, constant production of labor products that serve as objects to satisfy human physical needs. It was then that the production of tools became primarily not the production of tools for extraction, but the production of tools for actual production.

The emergence of man also meant a radical change in the attitude towards nature: from satisfying physical needs with the help of objects found in nature in ready-made form to the production of consumer goods, to the expedient change of some objects of nature with the help of other objects used as means of change.

A radical change in the interaction of a living being with nature is, as in any interaction, a radical change in both interacting parties. Monkey's change new type the development of a living being proceeded with the development of labor activity and basically ended with the formation of the components of labor: objects of labor, means of labor, expedient actions, products of labor. In turn, the formation of these components took shape when the extraction of ready-made natural objects became the main source of human subsistence and, when production became sustainable, of mining tools. In the production of mining tools, all of the listed components already exist. It was at this time that the biological type of modern man emerged.

Above we discussed the initial emergence of a productive relationship to nature. But the process of the initial emergence of this relationship was also the process of the initial emergence of production relations.

When the main source of subsistence is the extraction of consumer goods, then the use and distribution of the results of extraction, in general, do not differ from each other. What the collective produces is collectively consumed.

In our opinion, as long as ready-made objects of nature are used as tools, there is no social division at all between use and distribution, between consumption and production.

The social division between use and distribution, between consumption and production, is only just beginning. While we are dealing with a society of “extractors,” consumption, use, on the one hand, and the distribution of results and instruments of extraction, on the other hand, exist predominantly indivisibly. Production relations, as relatively independent, are only beginning to emerge, and, above all, in the production of mining tools.

The initial emergence of production relations as relatively independent relations can only be completed with the transition to the actual production of consumer goods and to the production of instruments of production.

The monkey herd turned into human society thanks to the action of natural factors. But not only them. From the very beginning of this transition, the leading, main factor of development was the use of tools, the emerging labor.

In our opinion, we cannot fully accept the point of view that during the period of predominantly appropriation finished products nature, economics and economic relations did not play a decisive role.

However, at the same time, talking about the decisive role of economics or kinship relations should be cum grano salis.

During the entire stage of the initial emergence of society, including at the stage of savagery and the lowest stage of barbarism, production relations and the economy initially arise. This means that relations of production are already beginning to separate from natural connections, although they still exist inseparably from them. This means that relations of production have not yet completely transformed natural connections. In this sense they do not yet dominate. But it is precisely the relations of production that during this period already serve as the leading factor of development and, in this sense, the decisive factor.

Production relations are just emerging; their content is largely determined by the weakness of the emerging productive forces, that is, they are determined negatively. Since production relations are not completely separated from natural relations, production relations merge with generic relations. Generic relations serve simultaneously as production relations.

Since production relations have separated from natural relations, they do not merge with generic relations, but exist as special, communal relations of production.

In primitive society, production relations are predominantly fused with the natural relationship of people to each other and to the conditions of production. “Property, therefore, initially means nothing more than man’s attitude towards his natural conditions of production as belonging to him, as his own, as prerequisites given along with his own existence - attitude towards them as natural preconditions of himself , forming, so to speak, only its elongated body. Man, strictly speaking, has no relationship to his conditions of production, but the fact is that he himself exists in two ways: both subjectively as himself, and objectively - in these natural inorganic conditions of his existence. The absence of a person’s relationship to his conditions of production precisely means that property here exists inseparably from a natural connection, a natural relationship2. And to that extent, man himself represents the subjective existence of natural conditions.

So, primitive communal property, to a large extent, existed in harmony with the natural relations of people to each other and to the conditions of production.
etc.................

By open he meant a modern society open to the exchange of information, to the free movement of people, to the expansion of human freedoms and rights. By closed we meant fascist and socialist social systems, tightly closed to external influence. IN modern world This division is designated by other terms: democratic (open) society and totalitarian (closed).
Conclusion: 1. Society is a collection of people united by historically determined social forms joint life and activities. In order to present society in all the diversity of its phenomena and processes, and also to understand different approaches To study it, it is necessary to become familiar with a number of basic provisions and concepts with the help of which the structure of society can be explained, i.e. the nature of the relationships and interdependencies of its parties, as well as the mechanisms of its functioning and development.
2. There are many ways to classify societies. In sociology, it is customary to distinguish types of society according to certain characteristics. For example, Marx identified 5 types of society, which successively replaced each other and represented the following formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist (or socialist).
Tennis classifies societies into traditional (implying a peasant community) and industrial (industrial-urban society).
Durkheim's typology of societies is based on the regularity of the structural organization of society.
Popper, a German sociologist of the mid-20th century, distinguished 2 types of modern society: open and closed society.
3. The process of development of social systems is, first of all, the development of the dialectical system “society - nature”, the development of which is reflected in the progress of scientific and technical equipment of human society: in increasing the level of development of industrial potential, in the growth of labor productivity, in improving technologies for the production of vital goods , in increasing the standard of living of the individuals forming society, as well as in the constant increase from generation to generation in the level of education - increasing the volume of knowledge about nature - of these individuals, as a consequence, which periodically becomes the cause, of scientific and technological progress of society.

Chapter 2. The process of historical development of society

2.1. Merxist-Leninist approach to the development of society

The process of development can be considered from the point of view of the simultaneous givenness of its moments (logical aspect) and from the point of view of the implementation of development in time (historical aspect). In this part of the work we will focus on the characteristics of the development of society over time.
The discovery of the materialist understanding of history by K. Marx and F. Engels made it possible to understand history as a natural historical process, as a process that occurs with necessity, naturally and at the same time is carried out thanks to the activities of people who have freedom of choice, free will (at different stages of historical development, the nature and degree freedoms are different).
To understand the process of historical development, it is necessary to determine its change over time, and if the development is natural, then the change must be carried out in some necessary direction. This natural development does not exclude the activity of people as conscious, thinking beings; on the contrary, the historical development of society is a resultant, consisting of the activity of masses of people. However, the activity of people is carried out ultimately for the sake of maintaining the physical existence of their own species under certain objective, primarily natural conditions. And for this reason alone, the historical development of society, i.e., the historical interaction of people, cannot be carried out purely arbitrarily.
The history of society cannot be free from accidents, zigzags, breaks, etc. But still, if you take a sufficiently long period (the duration of such a period varies depending on specific conditions), you will discover a direction of development that makes its way through all the accidents , zigzags, breaks, etc.

Characterizing any historical development process means, first and foremost, considering its general direction, and therefore the beginning of the process, the stages it goes through, as well as the “mechanisms” of transition from one stage to another, the specificity, continuity and direction of the development process.
It is necessary to specifically emphasize that by affirming the presence of a direction of development, we note the main direction of development, abstracting from the fact that along with the main direction there may be other, dead-end directions of development, and that interaction can occur between them and the main direction.
Society is, as noted above, an “organic” whole, passing through a series of stages, steps, stages in its ascending, progressive development.
The really existing history of society is not a process of development of an “organic” whole in a “pure” form. However, in order to understand the complexity of the historical development of society, it is necessary to highlight in a “pure” form, first of all, the main direction of development of society and only then introduce complicating circumstances into the field of consideration.
Society, the social form of movement, is qualitatively different from the biological form of movement, but at the same time, society arises from nature and most closely from the biological form of movement.
Consequently, if society is an “organic” whole, then the history of society must be divided into stages, stages that every “organic” whole goes through in its development:
1. The formation of the historical prerequisites of society, the formation of the social in the depths of the biological, in general the natural. At this stage, the prerequisites for the emergence of society appear, but society itself does not yet exist.
2. The initial emergence of society.
3. Formation of society. The process of transformation of the inherited natural foundation by the emerging society is underway.
4. Maturity of society. The process of transforming the inherited natural foundation is complete. The natural basis in a significantly transformed form is included as a moment in the process of development of society.
At the stage of formation of the historical prerequisites of society, natural laws reign supreme. The source of development here should be sought in the development of nature. At the stage of the initial emergence of society, a fundamentally new source of development is formed and begins to operate.
At the maturity stage, the social factor becomes not only leading, but also dominant.
So, at the first stage, the source of development is in nature, at the second stage, a social source of development arises, it immediately turns out to be leading. Thanks to the emergence of this fundamentally new factor and its manifestation, an interaction is formed between it and the natural factor. The interaction of social and natural factors predominates with the primacy of the social. At the third stage, the emerging social factor continues to be the leading, the main one. At the fourth stage, the social factor completely subjugates the natural factor, and only at this stage does it reign supreme, which means that only now self-movement, self-development of society, interaction between people as an end in itself, the development of human essence as an end in itself, reign supreme.
The stage of formation of the historical prerequisites of human society begins with the existence of the ape-like ancestors of man. At this stage, due to the action of purely natural reasons (the interaction of the organism and the surrounding natural environment), prerequisites are created for the transition to the next stage, prerequisites that are of a natural nature.

Production is possible only in society. Therefore, in reality, man as a social being, a being of labor, begins with the primitive tribal community. It was not immediately that people began to produce everywhere in teams. Once upon a time, under the pressure of circumstances, the first and only clan community accidentally arose, a union of people related by blood into a large family, from which it all began. The rest of humanity remained in savagery, remained armed animals, using primitive tools individually, sporadically, by accident.

Collective work stimulated the development of tools, the transfer of experience and skills in their use. Probably, the clan community arose spontaneously in different parts of human society, as a temporary association of people for various purposes. It arose and fell apart. Among many peoples, even today one can observe temporary consanguineous associations for various reasons as a relic of the distant past (for example, building a house for newlyweds, protection from floods, fires, enemies, etc.). Finally, the clan communities became stronger. People realized collectivity as the best way of their life and survival. At the same time, the experience of the collective remained within it, without leaving the boundaries of the tribal community. When people's reproduction of themselves created a quantitatively large collective, the surrounding nature ceased to provide the community with consumer goods in sufficient quantities. Obtaining natural products began to require long and tedious trips. There were many difficulties associated with the increase in the number of members of the clan. The natural way out of the difficulty was the division of the clan and the transfer of its parts to new territories. New genera arise, related by blood. This kinship unites the clans into a tribe. Each clan, having learned the experience of its ancestors, is identical in lifestyle and production. This was noted by K. Marx in Capital. It is important to note that the development of clans and tribes comes from within. New clans arise not from among people living in savagery, but by separating some members from already existing clans. Apparently, the separation of genera from wildness is possible only at a certain stage in the development of humanity and nature, as a random process (mutation) of certain conditions and is not feasible later. Here, as in nature generally, the universal law of development is realized - development from within.

Throughout the entire historical era ( step Homo Sapiens ) human development was determined mainly by the development of instruments of production, i.e., the development of the production of material goods. As in the previous stage, during the period of our history there was a development of both biology and many other aspects of man, including spiritual development(science, art), but it was material production that determined the development of mankind, that is, the adaptation of man to nature through the use of tools, the satisfaction of man’s natural needs through production. This is a feature of the historical era of mankind, discovered by K. Marx. Tools of labor are, as it were, a continuation of the labor organs of man himself, and he developed them as his continuation, being at the center of them, at their genetic beginning. (The monkey also uses a stick as an extension of his hands). The development of tools turned out to be more flexible than the biology of man himself, and therefore man himself depended on the capabilities and development of tools. The task of man was not only to create tools, but also to make them his body, its most important part from the point of view of conquering nature, from the point of view of production. Figuratively speaking, from this time a person begins to turn into a cyborg. And he himself adapts to new tools of labor, to the accumulated experience of his ancestors, entering into certain production relations with other people. During the stage of development of Cro-Magnon man, having gone through two large socio-economic formations, man developed the tools of labor to large-scale machine production, achieving incredible labor productivity, energy availability and power, comparable to the forces of nature.

Most common law development of society and production, according to K. Marx, is the law of correspondence of production relations to the level and nature of the productive forces. In each given production process, a person always uses tools created before this production process, so he is forced to take them in a ready-made form, in the form in which they were created in previous production processes, often even by other people. This requires from him the ability to cognize them, adapt to these tools and, if necessary, change himself in order to be suitable for the use of these tools, to correspond to them. Therefore, first of all, the tools of labor determine the nature of the production relations into which people enter in the process of living productive labor, the production process, no matter how great the role of purposeful human activity. Depending on what level of tools are used, the same people can enter into production relations in different ways production. However, it is impossible to establish production relations on the basis of tools that do not correspond to these production relations. Therefore, the point of view that in order to establish the communist mode of production must first of all educate a person is idealistically untenable, since social existence determines social consciousness. Any education of consciousness is possible and necessary only on the basis of a truly existing production base. Having united with a person in the process of living labor, objects of labor and means of labor form the production process. However, this connection must be organic, not mechanical. And the education of consciousness here gives that a person, as the main force of labor, must be able to use the means of labor in such a way that when they act on objects of labor, a product is produced that is suitable for satisfying human needs (personal or social), and the product of labor must be obtained by the person consciously , purposefully, expected in advance. The level of consciousness with the same means of production may correspond to their level or lag behind it, which determines the contradiction of production relations. Consciousness is most closely connected with production relations and is educated by them. Outside of production relations, it is impossible to cultivate a consciousness corresponding to them; one can only create the prerequisites for such education. According to the definition of F. Engels, “... all the knowledge we acquire is necessarily limited and conditioned by the circumstances under which we acquire it.” (F. Engels, “The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science” p. 39).

However, the instruments of material production also have a limit to their development. This limit is automatic. Having reached the level of automata, automated systems, and tools, they exhaust the possibilities of development and can no longer determine human development. The production of material goods reaches a level where a person is able to satisfy all his material needs and there is no need to further develop this production. A person, based on automatic machines, can satisfy all material needs, spending minimal time on production. Development in this direction is slowing down sharply. The measure of development ends, another stage of human development passes.

By this time, as in the previous transition through the stage, a person develops interaction with nature on new basis. This basis is science and technology. The development of intelligence becomes the most important condition for further human development. The scientific and technological revolution is the revolutionary process that transfers a person to a new era of development, to a new society, to a new type of person. And although his biology changes little, this is still a new type of person, different from the previous one in the principle of interaction with nature, in the development of consciousness and brain. The human environment is fundamentally changing to the technosphere, information Technology, automation of all areas of production, which, along with changes in biology, fundamentally changes humans as a species. The technosphere requires specific protection of a person from electromagnetic radiation, or changes in his physiology.

The question arises: is the law of the determining development of tools of labor obtained by K. Marx outdated? Yes and no. Yes, because the tools of labor are in production material benefits cease to develop in a decisive way. A person’s task comes down to keeping them at the level of automata, just as he is forced to keep his biology at the highest level of its development (cosmonauts know this well, forced to train their body artificially so as not to lose their biology). And no, because the instruments of labor of material production are being replaced by the instruments of intellectual labor. As in the past society, new person, a person of highly developed automated production, becomes the genetic center of the mass of tools of intellectual production, which are a continuation of his senses, the brain. Memory and human thinking are expanding to an enormous extent, thanks to computers, automated control systems, etc. The limits of sensitivity of the sensory organs are expanding on an immeasurable scale with an infinite number of devices. The knowledge and abilities of people grow limitlessly, and a person is forced to restructure his activities in such a way that, being in the center of all this multitude of new instruments of production, he is able to use them as organically as he does with his own memory, thinking, and sensations. New areas of human intellectual activity (transhumanism, etc.), new sciences are emerging. The speed of people’s speech, reading speed, and the speed of assimilation and processing of information increases.

The reason for the transition of society to the decisive development of science and the tools of intellectual production lies in the fact that the possibilities of material production (the level of which must be constantly maintained and even increased) are quickly exhausted, thanks to the use of highly productive tools. First of all, reserves of raw materials and energy sources, which were previously relatively accessible, are being reduced. Something similar was observed during the transition from direct consumption of finished products of nature to material production. While nature gave sufficient quantity people's livelihood, production was only an occasional activity. The reduction in natural products and the growth in the number of mankind required him to increasingly replace natural products with products created through joint labor.

Modern energy, raw materials, economic, financial crises and difficulties are becoming not a random phenomenon, but a serious constant problem, without a solution to which material production is impossible. The solution to this problem forces people to go deep into the Earth, to the bottom of the ocean, and finally to other planets and cosmic bodies, to other worlds. All this is not only impossible without science, but makes it the main productive force of human production. Humanity is moving towards the exploration of space, towards the extraction and delivery to Earth of raw materials, energy resources, and even production products from other cosmic bodies using automatic machines, and is preparing settlements on other planets. This path will soon become, if not the only possible, then, in any case, the main one. And all this requires unprecedented and priority development of science. Space.com predicts that by 2061, millions of people will be in space and thousands will be living there. Permanent lunar bases will be founded and man will set foot on Mars. Human civilization has become a real disaster for planet Earth. Natural disasters, both planetary and universal, threaten people with the death of the entire earth’s biosphere, or at least with major cataclysms.

But intellectual work is also production. Its embryonic state, when Aristotle, walking through the garden and talking with his students, speculatively made guesses about the structure of society and nature, is already far behind. Today, even such a powerful tool of mental labor as a book is not able to provide a person with the completeness and speed of information transfer for further development. A huge number of expensive and highly productive tools for mental labor and intellectual production appeared. These include computers, accelerators, automatic space laboratories, instruments and systems for underwater research, the Internet, etc. It is the mastery of these tools that provides humanity with the only possibility of its existence today, its place in nature. This is a new stage of production, using tools that replace many of the functions of a person’s finer organs, making up for the imperfections of the brain, hearing, vision, etc., and even natural deficiency organs that do not exist at all. This fundamentally changes the further development of society.

After the next division of labor and the allocation of science and intelligence to the decisive productive force, the leading place in social development is taken by that part of society that is the bearer and driving force of intellectual labor. If the vanguard of late capitalist society is the class-conscious working class, main function which in the destruction of large private property and the bourgeoisie, then in the further development of society the working class is objectively limited by the narrowness of its specialty, the lack of cultural and educational level, and finally, the private property worldview, which, although it contains the prerequisites for collective social production, is in its infancy.

“Precisely because individuals pursue only their own special interest, which for them does not coincide with their general interest, and that the universal in general is an illusory form of community, this universal appears as “alien” to them, “independent” of them, that is, again -is there a special and unique “universal” interest, or are they themselves forced to move in conditions of this disunity, as happens in a democracy. On the other hand, practical struggle These special interests, which have always really opposed the general and illusory general interests, necessitate practical intervention and curbing of special interests through the illusory “universal” interest appearing in the form of the state.” (K. Marx, F. Engels. SS in 3 volumes, vol. 1, p. 25). The words inside the text are put in quotation marks by F. Engels in connection with his use of expressions from M. Stirner’s book “The One and His Property.”

In other words, your own shirt is closer to the body. The private-property psychology of the worker, as a special interest of the individual, separates him from the general interest, burdened by the narrow scope of his specialty. The opposite of the worker is the complete producer, who knows all of his production and therefore demands fundamental changes in the relations of production.

A prerequisite for a full producer is the social stratum of society, which can be considered as a further improvement of the working class, which, by its legal status in society, is the most educated part of the proletariat, which best meets the needs of developed automated production, the breadth of production horizons, the greatest ideological preparedness for the social conduct of production, sensitivity to such new (and in the future most important) labor incentives as a reduction in working hours, non-material forms of incentives (tourist trips, participation and attendance at major public events, etc.). This layer of society is the engineering and technical personnel of the production of a socialist society. But only mature socialist society when the dictatorship of the proletariat gradually dies away along with the state. The very posing of the question of the equality of the status of the worker and the engineer, of the worker as the final result of human development, is a brake on social progress. Why study, endure many hardships, bear responsibility for production matters, if this even leads to a worse financial situation?

The complexity of the current historical moment is that two leading processes are taking place in society at once (as we previously noted, two embryos of the future society are developing: socialist development, rapidly spreading throughout the world - the embryo of a large communist socio-economic formation, and the embryo of the first communist stage - the commune Therefore, the bearers of progress public life exist in two forms. One form - the working class - stands guard over social gains and socialist transformations. Another form is the engineering and technical staff of production and scientific workers - bearers of mature socialist and communist transformations (primarily in tools of labor).

The transition from the defining material production to the defining intellectual one occurs not at the whim of people, but based on the most stringent requirements of objective reality. Therefore, man is still not the king of nature, but depends entirely on it, only at a new, higher level, more dangerous and cruel, since here errors in activity can often lead not only to the death of the individual, but also to the destruction of the entire civilization, the entire Earth, the entire solar system. But the existence of the Earth, associated with the influence of Space (asteroid danger, etc.), may depend on man’s ability to protect it. Nature makes more demands on people the more powerful they become. The contradiction is growing. Having known a part of nature and becoming the ruler of this part of it, a person finds himself in a new area, more powerful and demanding, and he is not able to change anything about it. He is forced to move on.

Intelligent manufacturing is based on highest degree automated complexes covering the entire production process (automatic plant with flexible self-adjusting waste-free technology), requiring and allowing the manufacturer, divided by private-owned production, to put his parts back together, to transform from a partial worker with a partial machine into an integral manufacturer, capable of using its production to the fullest. Only this level of production makes it possible to produce so much product that it is quite enough to satisfy the material needs of all producers participating in joint labor. Only this level of production allows the time spent by one producer to produce a product to be reduced so much that sufficient time is freed up to harmoniously engage in other activities, which is a prerequisite for communist production relations. Finally, only this level of production objectively requires comprehensively developed people.

Machine-based production does little to stimulate the growth of a worker into an engineer. This growth covers only individual workers. At the same time, democratization and self-government of enterprises require significant and broad knowledge, without which it is impossible to solve not only strategic, but also current issues of modern production. Self-government based on machine technology has little attraction for workers, remaining in terms of education level truly accessible only to the engineering and technical staff of the enterprise. It's a different matter in a commune.

People whose consciousness has absorbed the best achievements of humanity, who have received the comprehensive development of their abilities and creative passions from early childhood, can no longer stop the internal needs for knowledge, which becomes their main personal and social interest. The intellectual flowering of human individuality is the purpose of life for these people. The knowledge a person acquires stimulates his expansion of this knowledge. The more a person knows, the more he wants to expand what he knows. Expression of developed individual natural features everyone and makes everyone truly free people in the multifaceted harmonious development of their personality. To the extent that material production is necessary to ensure the life of people, intellectual production requires its foundation - the level of education of people corresponding to the level and nature of the material and technical base of production. Consequently, the development of personality, before it becomes free development, must go through the path of necessary education. And precisely because “the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all” (K. Marx and F. Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party. Selected works in 3 volumes, vol. 1, 1979, p. 127) , society cannot allow any of its members to ignore intellectual production, considering it as obligatory as labor in material production. The freedom to choose a specific personal interest by everyone in general intellectual activity provides harmonious development and the most effective manifestation of his abilities as he grows up.

“The kingdom of freedom actually begins only there,” says K. Marx, “where work dictated by need and external expediency ceases. Consequently, by the nature of things, it lies on the other side of the sphere of material production proper...

Freedom in this area can only lie in the fact that associated producers rationally regulate their metabolism with nature, putting it under their general control... But it remains the realm of necessity. On the other side of it begins the development of human powers, which is an end in itself, the true kingdom of freedom, which, however, can only blossom on this kingdom of necessity, as on its basis. Shortening the working day is the main condition.” (K. Marx, Capital, vol. 3, book 2, pp. 892 – 893).

Intellectual activity is stimulated not so much by an abstract desire to understand the world, but by the search for improving one’s production through related technologies and equipment, through the common internal tasks of the community, improving cultural, scientific and educational spheres, social relations, through the participation of the team in the national division of labor.

The philosophy of history sets itself the task of comprehending the process of development of society from a historical perspective. Where are we from? Where are we going? What to expect from the present and future? What is the meaning of the story? History is often defined as the past of humanity. But is every past history? Very often you can hear statements that only those phenomena of social life in the past that had a direct impact on the destinies of people (wars, revolutions, lawmaking, diplomacy, etc.) can be considered historical. Another position is that even the most ordinary objects and phenomena have historical significance if they characterize the life of people of the past in its entirety. History covers all the phenomena of the past, but at the same time, history is not the past in itself. This is a holistic process of development and change of interconnected states of the past in the life of a people, a country, and individual civilizations. History is “the continuous life of people in time” - the past and the present are separated by a conventional line: the present becomes the past every second. Thus, history is the real social life of people, their Team work, which manifests itself in many specific interconnected events that occurred at a certain time in a certain place.

Is there a meaning to history and, if so, what is it? One of the most ancient ideas about the meaning of human history is the concept of “liberation of the soul.” It developed in classical Indian philosophy, in the teachings of Plato and the Neoplatonists and some other philosophical movements. According to this concept, the meaning of human life on earth and human history in general lies in gaining earthly experience, spiritual enlightenment and overcoming attachment to the material world. Earthly world- this is not real life, but only preparation for a genuine spiritual life in higher worlds. The religious concept of providentialism is based on the idea that divine providence (God) controls human history, pursuing goals unknown to man. Nevertheless, it is assumed that there is a higher, perfect state of society, towards which the historical process moves under the influence of God. Idealistic conceptions of the meaning of history view it as the realization of the highest principles of non-human origin. A typical example is the theory of G.V. Hegel, which shows the development of the Absolute Spirit. Human history is one of the stages of this world process. Its goal is self-knowledge and liberation of the Absolute Spirit, which occurs through man and human society. The Marxist concept of the meaning of history was developed by the followers of the German philosopher K. Marx. The meaning of history, in their opinion, lies in the development of man and his essential forces.

If we assume that there is a certain meaning in history, then we thereby recognize a certain direction of the historical process. One of the main problems of the philosophy of history is the problem of studying the general pattern of the historical process. There are three main theoretical models of this process, developed by various thinkers from antiquity to the present day.

The cyclical model of the historical process represents world history like an eternal cycle of certain cycles that constantly replace each other. They reflect the stages of cultural rise, stagnation and decline in society. A typical example is the ancient Indian mythological and religious-philosophical doctrine of the four yugas (cycles) of social development: Satyayuga - a period of spiritual prosperity and material well-being, the Golden Age of human history; tretayuga – silver Age, the beginning of the growth of vice and evil; dvaparayuga - Copper Age, evil spreads throughout the world; Kaliyuga – Black or Iron Age– the triumph of vice, violence, lack of spirituality in society. Diseases, hunger, and unrest turn human life into an unbearable existence. Thus ends the period of one Mahayuga ( big cycle). When the suffering of people reaches the limit, an avatar (the earthly incarnation of God) appears - a spiritual teacher and enlightens the minds of people with a new spiritual truth. Another mahayuga begins. A similar or similar idea of ​​the cyclical nature of history is also contained in the teachings of Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Vico, Danilevsky, Spengler, Toynbee, Gumilyov.

Depending on how society is understood, there may be different concepts of historical development. When looking at society as a sum of individuals, the desire to extend to it those tendencies that are characteristic of individual changes is obvious. Within the framework of this understanding of society, the concept of the cycle of history put forward by the Italian thinker Giambatista Vico (1668 - 1744) can be considered a unique attempt to overcome, within the framework of this understanding of society, the idea of ​​the omnipotence of voluntarism and arbitrariness of individuals. The essence of the concept is that history moves in a circle - the cycle of historical processes resembles the water cycle in nature. The stages of circular motion are similar to the stages of individual development - childhood, maturity, decrepitude. In accordance with them, he called three stages (epochs) of all nations: divine, heroic and human. The change of eras is carried out due to the struggle between “fathers of families” and “household members”. The completion of a cycle of three stages means the disappearance of nations from the stage of history.

The outstanding German philosopher Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) argued that there is no single history of mankind, but there is a whole series of cultures closed in themselves. Each of them arises, develops, ages and dies. And there is no continuity between them. Each culture is an organism that has its own lifespan, approximately a thousand years. Each culture has its own soul, which determines the attitude to the world, to the past, to death, to man’s place in the Universe. Each culture flourishes on the soil of a strictly limited area, to which it is attached like a plant, and dies after it has realized all its capabilities in the form of languages, peoples, religions, arts, states, sciences. If culture is an organism, an organic natural state, then civilization is the fate of culture, its inevitable end. So, Ancient Greece is culture, and Ancient Rome- this is civilization. The ancient Romans were barbarians compared to the Greeks, Spengler believed. Soulless, alien to philosophy and art, valuing only material success, they stood between the Hellenes and a complete collapse, the end of ancient culture. European society in the twentieth century, as Spengler believed, was experiencing a cultural decline, turning into a civilization with all the signs of such: urbanization, the spirit of money and consumerism, world wars, as well as a drop in the birth rate as a subconscious manifestation of fatigue, mental breakdown and unconscious fear of the future.

The English philosopher and historian Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) largely developed the concept of the cyclical development of history by O. Spengler. Each civilization goes through, according to A. Toynbee, five stages: birth, growth, breakdown, collapse and death. The main engine of the rapid growth of any civilization is an active creative minority. It is this minority that breathes in social system new life, since in every civilization, even during periods of its most vigorous growth, huge masses of people never emerge from a state of stagnation and hibernation. The problem is how an active minority can raise the rest of the masses, wake them up. This, as a rule, is accomplished through the mechanism of “mimesis” - imitation. In primitive society, mimesis is focused on the older generation, on the images of ancestors, and in modern, growing societies, the creative personality, the leader who pave the way becomes the standard. new way. Alexander the Great, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Charlemagne, Peter I, Napoleon, etc. were leaders who sparked powerful social movements. Their energy infected the masses and gave impetus to grandiose transformations in the history of a particular country. The collapse begins, according to Toynbee, with the decay of the creative minority, which becomes unable to generate new ideas. Calls remain unanswered. A typical example is the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee: elderly leaders, who in the late 70s were over 70 years old, did not want to notice significant changes in the world, did not respond to the Challenge of the West, which was rapidly developing new technologies, electronics, and stubbornly continued to produce tanks and nuclear submarines boats. In the end, this led first to the economic and then political collapse of the USSR.

Often a call that goes unanswered is repeated again and again. The inability of a particular society, due to the loss of creative principles, to respond to the challenge deprives this society of viability and leads to death. Our modern civilization, one might say, all of modern humanity is now facing a challenge: nature is dying, the forces of aggression and violence are growing. Toynbee believed that there was still hope that humanity would be able to find a worthy answer to this challenge.

Russian-American sociologist P.A. Sorokin (1889-1968), in his multi-volume study “Sociocultural Dynamics,” identifies three cultures (sociocultural systems) that successively replace each other in human history – ideational, idealistic and sensual. Ideational culture is focused on timeless, eternal values, main value in is God. The Church - directly or indirectly - is in power, strict discipline reigns throughout society, art is of a religious nature, all subjects in painting and literature are taken from religious myths. Ideational cultures existed in Brahman India and Greece in the 8th-6th centuries. BC, in Europe in the 9th-12th centuries. Sensual culture is focused on material sensual interests, on satisfying material needs. Power, as a rule, belongs to the people, democracy prevails. Wars, political and financial crises, poverty, unemployment, decline in morals - all these are signs of a sensual culture. Elements of this culture originated in the 16th century, but became dominant in Europe with late XIX century. An idealistic culture is a synthesis of the first and second cultures; it takes the best of them and is optimal for the development and progress of people. An idealistic culture existed in Greece in the 5th-4th centuries. BC, in Western Europe in the XIII-XIV and in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Today, P. Sorokin believed, a most severe crisis has arrived, the fundamental forms of Western culture and society of the last four centuries are collapsing, and the previously dominant sensual culture is being destroyed. This crisis is marked by an extraordinary explosion of wars, revolutions, anarchy and bloodshed; social, moral, economic and intellectual chaos; poverty and suffering of millions. According to P. Sorokin, the destruction of the sensual form of Western society and culture will be followed by a new integration, a new culture will emerge, most likely an ideological one, and the role of religion in the life of society will again increase.

The linear model of history assumes that society develops in a straight line. Obviously, the direction here can be either progressive or regressive. Classic example similar views – the medieval understanding of history (Augustine and others). Human history was drawn into a vector (the creation of the world, the first coming of Christ, the expected second coming and the “end of the world”). The Christian concept has no clear relationship with progress or regression. It all seems to be on a different plane. And here linear model The history of the French philosopher Marie Condorcet contains a clear idea of ​​social progress, the criterion of which is the development of the human mind (knowledge, sciences, education and enlightenment). Reason is the engine of social progress. European positivist philosophers O. Comte and G. Spencer were also supporters of the linear-progressive model of history.

The spiral model of history is characteristic of adherents of dialectical philosophy in its various varieties (G.V. Hegel, K. Marx). This model synthesizes both linear and cyclic. It indicates the existence of certain historical cycles, but, at the same time, does not imply a complete return to the past - each new round the spiral does not repeat the previous one. Spiral development can be either progressive or regressive.

The theory of socio-economic formations of K. Marx is characterized by the unity of the principles of repetition and progression of human history. Marx used the term “formation” to mean specific type society, for which he took the method of production as the basis. Five formations were identified - primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist. All of them represent certain turns of the spiral of history. The transition from one to the other occurs through a social revolution, the cause of which is the dialectical contradictions between productive forces and production relations. For K. Marx, like for Hegel, the ultimate goal of humanity is the triumph of reason and freedom on earth. And to this ultimate goal gradually all nations will come. The same fact is that they are spread out across all formations and do not move in a single formation (even now in human history there is everything - from primitive people in the jungle to an almost communist society in North Korea), then this is caused by local characteristics and unequal conditions at the start.

Non-Marxist concepts of historical development developed in the 20th century tended to accept the idea of ​​historical progress. They usually did not deny that the dominant social development is material factors, but they saw them not in the method of production, but most often in technology (or technology). On this foundation grew the theory of the five stages of economic growth of the American researcher Walt Whitman Rostow (born in 1916), the theory of industrial society of the French scientist Raymond Aron (1905 - 1983), numerous theories of convergence, the theory of post-industrial society of the American scientist and politician Daniel Bell (born in 1919), etc.

At the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries, two alternative concepts of historical development dominated among social philosophers, proceeding from the knowability of the laws of history - formational and civilizational.

The idea of ​​civilizations as the dominant of the historical process was put forward by the Russian historian and thinker N. Ya. Danilevsky (1822 - 1885) in his work “Russia and Europe”. The scientist denied the general patterns of development of society, but proceeded from the fact that this development is carried out, as it were, in parallel by several socio-historical organisms, emerging on the basis of a common culture. Civilizations are not only local, but also closed in nature. Moreover, their coexistence may be accompanied by mutual hostility. In the West, the concept of N.Ya. Danilevsky was received very coldly. However, in the middle of the 20th century, virtually the same ideas were repeated in the theory of A. Toynbee, which became widespread. In the last decade of the 20th century, after the beginning of the restoration of capitalism in the former USSR and the states of Eastern and Central Europe, the ideas of confrontation and conflicts of civilizations became fashionable in the Western world, which was greatly facilitated by the work of Samuel Huntington “The Clash of Civilizations”. In Russia, the civilizational concept also received a second wind. Moreover, it has become the theoretical and ideological basis for the now fashionable search for a special Russian path and Russian idea.

One of the most important problems philosophy of history – the problem of the driving forces of the historical process. We are talking about historical determinism, that is, a certain conditionality of history. Most philosophers believed that such conditionality exists - there are certain factors and forces influencing the history of society. However, the understanding of these forces and factors was completely different. For example, in Indian Vedic philosophy vital role in history was assigned to incarnations of God (avatars). In medieval Christian philosophy the main driving force history - God. Many European philosophers argued that the course of history depends on religious, philosophical, scientific or political ideas (“ideas rule the world”). Some thinkers pointed to the importance of natural factors for the historical development of society (Montesquieu, I. Mechnikov). The German philosopher Hegel saw the main force of history in the development of the Absolute Spirit, which through human history achieves its goals - freedom and self-knowledge. Marx, on the contrary, emphasized the importance of material factors. Western scientists of the twentieth century believed that the history of mankind directly depends on the development of science and technology. However, despite such a variety of views on historical determinism, the multifactorial concept of historical determinism is strengthened in modern philosophy. Her main idea is that the development of history is influenced by many factors, both spiritual and material. Moreover, the intensity of the influence of a certain factor on the history of a particular nation in a particular era can be completely different.

Always great importance there was also an outstanding personality in history. The thoughts and deeds of such people as Plato, Buddha, Confucius, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Christ, Muhammad, Tamerlane, Sergius of Radonezh, Newton, Peter I, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Einstein influenced the lives of millions of people not only century, but also subsequent centuries. We see that among these people there are spiritual reformers and philosophers, scientists and politicians, generals and conquerors. Their historical role could be either progressive or regressive, but it is impossible to deny that they changed the course of history in one direction or another. The role of the individual increases significantly at the revolutionary stages of the development of society and is leveled out by the activities of the masses in evolutionary stages historical process. Revolutionary periods are characterized by a broad movement of the popular masses. Outstanding personalities play a special role in this process. These are those who more fully, most effectively and efficiently implement the interests (and technologies) of large social groups who most fully brings to life the opportunity that is actually ripe for this.

Questions for self-study

1. What is history? What events can be called historical?

2. How do the objective and the subjective, the spontaneous and the conscious, relate in history?

3. What are fatalism and voluntarism?

4. Why is it widely believed that civilizational and formational concepts are alternative? Is another interpretation possible?

5. What is progress in history?

6. Why do they most often talk about the role of outstanding personalities in history and do not pay attention to the role of each individual in it?

7. How has the philosophical understanding of human social life and its history evolved?

8. What is the main value for pre-industrial, industrial, and what for post-industrial society?

9. What is the fundamental difference between the Marxist theory of socio-economic formations and the theory of sociocultural systems by P. Sorokin?

10. What is common in the theories of historical development proposed by N.Ya. Danilevsky, A. Toynbee, L.N. Gumilev? What approach to human history do they reflect?

There are a number of eternal questions that have long troubled minds. Who are we? Where did they come from? Where we are going? These are just some of the problems facing broad disciplines such as philosophy.

In this article we will try to understand what humanity is doing on Earth. Let's get acquainted with the opinions of researchers. Some of them view history as a systematic development, others - as a cyclical closed process.

Philosophy of history

This discipline takes as its basis the question of our role on the planet. Is there any meaning at all to all the events that happen? We are trying to document them and then link them into a single system.

However, who really is actor? Does a person create a process, or do events control people? Philosophy of history tries to solve these and many other problems.

During the research process, concepts of historical development were identified. We will discuss them in more detail below.

It is interesting that the term “philosophy of history” first appears in the works of Voltaire, but the German scientist Herder began to develop it.

The history of the world has always interested humanity. Also in ancient period people appeared trying to record and comprehend the events taking place. An example would be the multi-volume work of Herodotus. However, then many things were still explained by “divine” help.

So, let's delve deeper into the features of human development. Moreover, there are only a couple of viable versions as such.

Two points of view

The first type of teachings refers to unitary-stage teachings. What is meant by these words? Proponents of this approach see the process as unified, linear and constantly progressing. That is, both individuals and the entire human society as a whole, which unites them, are distinguished.

Thus, according to this view, we all go through the same stages of development. And Arabs, and Chinese, and Europeans, and Bushmen. Only at the moment we are at different stages. But in the end everyone will come to the same state of developed society. This means that you either need to wait until the others move up the ladder of their evolution, or help them with this.

The tribe must be protected from encroachments on territory and values. Therefore, a warrior class was formed.

The largest faction were ordinary artisans, farmers, cattle breeders - the lower strata of the population.

However, during this period people also used slave labor. Such disenfranchised farm laborers included everyone who was included in their number for various reasons. It was possible to fall into debt slavery, for example. That is, not to give the money, but to work it off. Captives from other tribes were also sold to serve the rich.

Slaves were the main labor force this period. Look at the pyramids in Egypt or the Great Wall of China - these monuments were erected precisely by the hands of slaves.

The era of feudalism

But humanity developed, and the triumph of science was replaced by the growth of military expansion. A layer of rulers and warriors of stronger tribes, fueled by priests, began to impose their worldview on neighboring peoples, at the same time seizing their lands and imposing tribute.

It became profitable to take ownership not of powerless slaves who could rebel, but of several villages with peasants. They worked in the fields to feed their families, and the local ruler provided them with protection. For this they gave him a part harvested and raised livestock.

Concepts of historical development briefly describe this period as a transition of society from manual production to mechanized production. The era of feudalism basically coincides with the Middle Ages and

During these centuries, people mastered both external space - discovering new lands, and internal space - exploring the properties of things and human capabilities. The discovery of America, India, the Great Silk Road and other events characterize the development of mankind at this stage.

The feudal lord who owned the land had governors who interacted with the peasants. This freed up his time and could spend it for his own pleasure, hunting or military robberies.

But progress did not stand still. Scientific thought moved forward, as did social relations.

Industrial society

The new stage of the concept of historical development is characterized by greater human freedom compared to the previous ones. Thoughts begin to arise about the equality of all people, about the right of everyone to a decent life, and not vegetation and hopeless work.

In addition, the first mechanisms appeared that made production easier and faster. Now what a craftsman used to take a week to do could be created in a couple of hours, without involving a specialist or paying him money.

The first factories and plants appeared in place of the guild workshops. Of course, they cannot be compared with modern ones, but for that period they were simply excellent.
Modern concepts of historical development correlate the liberation of humanity from forced labor with his psychological and intellectual growth. It is not for nothing that entire schools of philosophers, natural science researchers and other scientists arise at this time, whose ideas are still valued today.

Who hasn't heard of Kant, Freud or Nietzsche? After the Great French Revolution, humanity began to talk not only about the equality of people, but also about the role of everyone in the history of the world. It turns out that all previous achievements were obtained through human efforts, and not with the help of various deities.

Post-industrial stage

Today we live in a period of greatest achievements, if we look at historical steps development of society. Man learned to clone cells, set foot on the surface of the Moon, and explored almost every corner of the Earth.

Our time provides an inexhaustible fountain of opportunities, and it is not for nothing that the second name of the period is information. Now so many appear in a day new information, which was not the case in a year before. We can no longer keep up with this flow.

Also, if you look at production, almost everyone makes mechanisms. Humanity is more occupied in the service and entertainment sectors.

Thus, based on the linear concept of historical development, people proceed from understanding environment to get to know your inner world. It is believed that the next stage will be based on the creation of a society that was previously described only in utopias.

So, we have examined modern concepts of historical development. We also understood more deeply. Now you know the main hypotheses about the evolution of society from the primitive communal system to the present day.