Sociological concept of K. Marx

The years of the life of K. Marx - 1818-1883.

The significant works of K. Marx include "Capital", "Poverty of Philosophy", "Civil War in France", "On the Critique of Political Economy", etc. Together with F. Engels, K. Marx wrote such works. Like "German Ideology", "Manifesto Communist Party" and etc.

The ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels are fundamental. They had a great influence on the development of philosophical, sociological, socio-political thought throughout the world. Many Western conceptions of social dynamics arose in opposition to the ideas of Marx.

Sociology of Marx is a theory social development society. In interpreting the historical process, Marx for the first time applies principle of materialistic understanding of history(a philosophical principle that justifies the primacy of social being and the secondary nature of social consciousness). In other words, the defining moment in historical process is the production and reproduction of real life, that is, economic conditions, material relations that determine the totality of ideological, political, legal, and other relations associated with public consciousness.

Marx's position is defined as economic determinism(philosophical position according to which economic, material relations determine all other relations).

However, not all so simple. Recognizing the primacy of economic relations, Marx did not deny the influence of political, ideological, and other factors. In particular, he noted that in certain situations (crisis, war, etc.) the determining influence of political factors is possible.

Marx's fundamental concept is the theory socio-economic formation, which covers all sides public life in integrity and interaction. In this concept, Marx for the first time from the standpoint of a systematic approach considers society as an objective, self-developing reality. At the same time, contradictions and conflicts in material life act as a source of self-development.

Theory of socio-economic formation

The main concepts of the theory of socio-economic formation include the following:

1. socio-economic formation - a historically defined stage in the development of society, which is characterized by its own mode of production and (conditioned by it) a set of social, political, legal, ideological relations, norms and institutions;

2. production - the process by which people transform natural objects to meet their needs; by their own activity mediate, regulate and control the metabolism between themselves and nature. Allocate different kinds production (production of material goods, labor force, production relations, social structure, etc.) Among them, the main ones are two main types of production: the production of means of production and the production of the person himself;

3. reproduction– the process of self-recovery and self-renewal of social systems. There are also various types of reproduction, among which the main ones are the reproduction of the means of production and the reproduction human life;

4. mode of production- historically specific unity of productive forces and production relations that determine the social, political, spiritual processes of social life;

5. basis- the totality of production relations that make up the economic structure of society at a given stage of development;

6. superstructure- a set of political, legal, spiritual, philosophical, religious and other views and institutions corresponding to them;

7. productive forces - a system of subjective (labor) and material (means of production, tools, technologies) factors necessary for the transformation of natural substances into products needed by man;

8. industrial relations- relations that develop between people in the process of production.

Figure 1. shows the structure of the socio-economic formation

Rice. 1. The structure of the socio-economic formation

Marx identifies 5 formations, three of them are class formations. Each class formation corresponds to two main classes, which are antagonistic(antagonism - irreconcilable contradiction, conflict):

1. primitive communal system - there are no classes yet;

2. slave society - slaves and slave owners;

3. feudal society - peasants and feudal lords;

4. capitalism (bourgeois society) - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (working class);

5. communism - there will be no classes.

According to Marx, the historical process is characterized by:

systemic;

revolutionary;

· irreversibility;

unilinearity - from simple to complex;

progressiveness.

Introduction

Today, the concepts of the historical process (formational, civilizational, modernization theories) have found their limits of applicability. The degree of awareness of the limitations of these concepts is different: most of all, the shortcomings of the formational theory are realized, as for the civilizational doctrine and modernization theories, then there are more illusions regarding their possibilities of explaining the historical process.

The insufficiency of these concepts for the study of social changes does not mean their absolute falsity, the point is only that the categorical apparatus of each of the concepts, the range of social phenomena it describes is not complete enough, at least in relation to the description of what is contained in alternative theories.

It is necessary to rethink the content of descriptions of social changes, as well as the concepts of general and unique, on the basis of which generalizations and differentiations are made, schemes of the historical process are built.

Theories of the historical process reflect a one-sided understanding of historical changes; there is a reduction in the diversity of their forms to some kind. The formational concept sees only progress in the historical process, moreover, total, believing that progressive development covers all spheres of social life, including man.

The theory of socio-economic formations of K. Marx

One of the important shortcomings of orthodox historical materialism was that it did not identify and theoretically develop the basic meanings of the word "society". And this word in the scientific language has at least five such meanings. The first meaning is a specific separate society, which is a relatively independent unit historical development. Society in this understanding, I will call a socio-historical (socio-historical) organism or, in short, a socior.

The second meaning is a spatially limited system of socio-historical organisms, or a sociological system. The third meaning is all the socio-historical organisms that have ever existed and still exist, taken together - human society as a whole. The fourth meaning is society in general, regardless of any specific forms of its real existence. The fifth meaning is a society of a certain type in general (a particular society or type of society), for example, a feudal society or an industrial society.

There are different classifications of socio-historical organisms (according to the form of government, the dominant confession, the socio-economic system, the dominant sphere of the economy, etc.). But the most general classification- the subdivision of sociohistorical organisms according to the method of their internal organization into two main types.

The first type is socio-historical organisms, which are unions of people organized according to the principle of personal membership, primarily kinship. Each such socior is inseparable from its personnel and is capable of moving from one territory to another without losing its identity. Such societies I will call demosocial organisms (demosociors). They are characteristic of the pre-class era of human history. Examples are primitive communities and multi-communal organisms called tribes and chiefdoms.

The boundaries of organisms of the second type are the boundaries of the territory they occupy. Such formations are organized according to the territorial principle and are inseparable from the areas of the earth's surface they occupy. As a result, the personnel of each such organism acts in relation to this organism as an independent special phenomenon - its population. I will call such societies geosocial organisms (geosociors). They are characteristic of a class society. They are usually referred to as states or countries.

Since there was no concept of a socio-historical organism in historical materialism, neither the concept of a regional system of socio-historical organisms, nor the concept of human society as a whole as the totality of all existing and existing sociors was developed in it. The latter concept, although present in an implicit form (implicitly), was not clearly delimited from the concept of society in general.

The absence of the concept of a socio-historical organism in the categorical apparatus of the Marxist theory of history inevitably interfered with the understanding of the category of socio-economic formation. It was impossible to truly understand the category of socio-economic formation without comparing it with the concept of a socio-historical organism. Defining the formation as a society or as a stage in the development of society, our specialists in historical materialism did not reveal in any way the meaning that they put into the word "society"; to another, which inevitably gave rise to incredible confusion.

Each specific socio-economic formation is a specific type of society, identified on the basis of the socio-economic structure. This means that a specific socio-economic formation is nothing other than that which is common to all socio-historical organisms that have a given socio-economic structure. The concept of a specific formation always fixes, on the one hand, the fundamental identity of all sociohistorical organisms based on the same system of production relations, and on the other hand, a significant difference between specific societies with different socio-economic structures. Thus, the ratio of a socio-historical organism belonging to one or another socio-economic formation and this formation itself is the ratio of the individual and the general.

The problem of the general and the individual is one of the most important problems of philosophy and disputes around it have been going on throughout the history of this area. human knowledge. Since the Middle Ages, two main directions in solving this issue have been called nominalism and realism. According to the views of the nominalists, in the objective world there is only the separate. The general either does not exist at all, or it exists only in consciousness, is a mental human construction.

There is a grain of truth in each of these two views, but both are wrong. For scientists, the existence of laws, patterns, essence, and necessity in the objective world is undeniable. And all this is common. The general thus exists not only in consciousness, but also in the objective world, but only in a different way than the individual exists. And this otherness of the being of the general does not at all consist in the fact that it forms a special world opposed to the separate world. There is no special world in common. The general does not exist by itself, not independently, but only in the individual and through the individual. On the other hand, the individual does not exist without the general.

Thus in the world there are two different types objective existence: one kind - independent existence, as the individual exists, and the second - existence only in the individual and through the individual, as the general exists.

Sometimes, however, it is said that the individual exists as such, while the general, while really existing, does not exist as such. In what follows, I will designate independent existence as self-existence, as self-existence, and existence in another and through another as other-existence, or as other-being.

Different formations are based on qualitatively different systems of socio-economic relations. This means that different formations develop in different ways, according to different laws. Therefore, from this point of view, the most important task of social science is to study the laws of functioning and development of each of the socio-economic formations, that is, to create a theory for each of them. In relation to capitalism, K. Marx tried to solve such a problem.

The only way that can lead to the creation of a theory of any formation is to identify that essential, common thing that is manifested in the development of all sociohistorical organisms of a given type. It is quite clear that it is impossible to reveal the general in phenomena without digressing from the differences between them. It is possible to reveal the internal objective necessity of any real process only by freeing it from the specific historical form in which it manifested itself, only by presenting this process in a "pure" form, in a logical form, i.e., in such a way that it can exist only in theoretical consciousness.

It is quite clear that a specific socio-economic formation in its pure form, that is, as a special socio-historical organism, can exist only in theory, but not in historical reality. In the latter, it exists in individual societies as their inner essence, their objective basis.

Each real concrete socio-economic formation is a type of society and thus that objective common thing that is inherent in all socio-historical organisms of a given type. Therefore, it may well be called a society, but by no means a real sociohistorical organism. It can act as a sociohistorical organism only in theory, but not in reality. Each specific socio-economic formation, being a certain type of society, is the same society of this type in general. The capitalist socio-economic formation is the capitalist type of society and, at the same time, capitalist society in general.

Each concrete formation has a certain relationship not only to sociohistorical organisms of a given type, but to society in general, that is, to that objective general that is inherent in all sociohistorical organisms, regardless of their type. In relation to sociohistorical organisms of this type, each specific formation acts as a general one. In relation to society in general, a concrete formation appears as the general of a lower level, i.e., as special, as a concrete variety of society in general, as a particular society.

The concept of a socio-economic formation in general, like the concept of society in general, reflects the general, but different from that which reflects the concept of society in general. The concept of society generally reflects what is common to all sociohistorical organisms, regardless of their type. The concept of a socio-economic formation in general reflects the common thing that is inherent in all specific socio-economic formations, regardless of their specific features, namely, that they are all types identified on the basis of socio-economic structure.

As a reaction to this kind of interpretation of socio-economic formations, a denial of their real existence arose. But it was due not only to the incredible confusion that existed in our literature on the question of formations. The matter was more complicated. As has already been pointed out, in theory socio-economic formations exist as ideal sociohistorical organisms. Not finding such formations in the historical reality, some of our historians, and after them some of the historians, came to the conclusion that formations do not really exist at all, that they are only logical, theoretical constructions.

They were unable to understand that socio-economic formations also exist in historical reality, but otherwise than in theory, not as ideal sociohistorical organisms of one type or another, but as an objective commonality in real sociohistorical organisms of one type or another. For them, existence was reduced only to self-existence. They, like all nominalists in general, did not take into account other beings, and socio-economic formations, as already indicated, have no self-existence. They do not self-exist, but exist differently.

In this regard, one cannot but say that the theory of formations can be accepted or rejected. But the socio-economic formations themselves cannot be ignored. Their existence, at least as certain types of society, is an undeniable fact.

• 1. The basis of the Marxist theory of socio-economic formations is a materialistic understanding of the history of the development of mankind as a whole, as a historically changing set of various forms of human activity in the production of their lives.
• 2. The unity of the productive forces and production relations constitutes the historically determined mode of production of the material life of society.
• 3. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and spiritual process of life in general.
• 4. Under the material productive forces in Marxism, we mean the instruments of production or means of production, technologies and people using them. The main productive force is a person, his physical and mental abilities, as well as his cultural and moral level.
• 5. The relations of production in Marxist theory denote the relations of individuals regarding both the reproduction of the human species in general and the actual production of means of production and consumer goods, their distribution, exchange and consumption.
• 6. The totality of production relations, as a way of producing the material life of society, constitutes the economic structure of society.
• 7. Under the socio-economic formation in Marxism is understood the historical period of the development of mankind, characterized by a certain mode of production.
• 8. According to Marxist theory, humanity as a whole is moving progressively from less developed socio-economic formations to more developed ones. Such is the dialectical logic that Marx extended to the history of human development.
• 9. In K. Marx's theory of socio-economic formations, each formation acts as a society of a certain type in general, and thus as a pure, ideal socio-historical organism of a given type. Primitive society in general, Asiatic society in general, pure ancient society, etc. figure in this theory. Accordingly, the change of social formations appears in it as the transformation of an ideal socio-historical organism of one type into a pure socio-historical organism of another, higher type: ancient society in general into feudal society in general, pure feudal society into pure capitalist society, capitalist society into communist society.
• 10. The entire history of the development of mankind in Marxism was presented as a dialectical, progressive movement of mankind from the primitive communist formation to the Asian and ancient (slave-owning) formations, and from them to the feudal, and then to the bourgeois (capitalist) socio-economic formation.

Socio-historical practice has confirmed the correctness of these Marxist conclusions. And if there are disputes about the Asian and ancient (slave-owning) modes of production and their transition to feudalism in science, then the reality of the existence of the historical period of feudalism, and then its evolutionary-revolutionary development into capitalism, no one doubts.

11. Marxism revealed the economic reasons for the change in socio-economic formations. Their essence lies in the fact that, at a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or - which is only a legal expression of this - with the property relations within which they have so far developed. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations are transformed into their fetters. Then comes the era of social revolution. With a change in the economic basis, a revolution takes place more or less quickly in the entire vast superstructure.

This happens because the productive forces of society develop according to their own internal laws. In their movement they always outstrip the relations of production that develop within the relations of property.

The primitive communal formation is characterized by:

1. primitive forms of labor organization (rare use of mechanisms, mainly manual individual labor, occasionally collective labor (hunting, farming);

2. lack of private property - common ownership of the means and results of labor;

3. equality and personal freedom;

4. the absence of coercive public power isolated from society;

5. weak public organization - the absence of states, uniting into tribes on the basis of consanguinity, joint decision-making.

The "Asian mode of production" was widespread in the ancient societies of the East (Egypt, China, Mesopotamia), located in the valleys of large rivers. The Asian mode of production included:

1. irrigation farming as the basis of the economy;

2. lack of private ownership of the main means of production (land, irrigation facilities);

3. state ownership of land and means of production;

4. mass collective labor of free community members under the strict control of the state (bureaucracy);

5. the presence of a strong, centralized, despotic power.

The slave-owning socio-economic formation is fundamentally different from them:

1. private ownership of the means of production arose, including "living", "talking" - slaves;

2. social inequality and social (class) stratification;

3. state and public authority.

4. The feudal socio-economic formation was based on:

5. large landed property of a special class of landowners - feudal lords;

6. labor free, but dependent economically (rarely - politically) from the feudal lords of the peasants;

7. special production relations in free craft centers - cities.

Under the capitalist socio-economic formation:

1. industry begins to play the main role in the economy;

2. the means of production become more complex - mechanization, labor union;

3. industrial facilities production belongs to the bourgeois class;

4. The main volume of labor is performed by free wage workers, economically dependent on the bourgeoisie.

Communist (socialist) formation (society of the future), according to Marx. Engels, Lenin, will be different:

1. lack of private ownership of the means of production;

2. state (public) ownership of the means of production;

3. labor of workers, peasants, intelligentsia, free from exploitation by private owners;

4. fair and even distribution of the total produced product among all members of society;

5. high level of development of productive forces and high organization of labor.

All history is considered as a natural process of changing socio-economic formations. Each new formation matures in the depths of the previous one, denies it, and then is itself denied by an even newer formation. Each formation is a higher type of organization of society.

The classics of Marxism also explain the mechanism of transition from one formation to another:

The productive forces are constantly developing and improving, but the relations of production remain the same. A conflict arises, a contradiction between the new level of productive forces and the outdated production relations. Sooner or later, by violent or peaceful means, changes occur in the economic basis - relations of production, either gradually or by radical breaking and replacing them with new ones, take place in accordance with the new level of productive forces.

Materialistic approach in the study of civilizations

Within the framework of this approach, civilization appears as a higher level of development that goes beyond the limits of the "natural society" with its natural productive forces.

L. Morgan about the signs of a civilizational society: the development of productive forces, the functional division of labor, the expansion of the exchange system, the emergence of private ownership of land, the concentration of wealth, the split of society into classes, the formation of the state.

L. Morgan, F. Engels identified three major periods in the history of mankind: savagery, barbarism, civilization. Civilization is the achievement of some higher level than barbarism.

F. Engels about the three great eras of civilizations: the first great era- ancient, the second - feudalism, the third - capitalism. The formation of civilization in connection with the emergence of a division of labor, the separation of craft from agriculture, the formation of classes, the transition from a tribal system to a state based on social inequality. Two types of civilizations: antagonistic (the period of class societies) and non-antagonistic (the period of socialism and communism).

East and West as Various types civilizational development

The "traditional" society of the East (eastern traditional civilization), its main characteristics: the inseparability of property and administrative power, the subordination of society to the state, the absence of private property and the rights of citizens, the complete absorption of the individual by the collective, the economic and political domination of the state, the presence of despotic states. The influence of Western (technogenic) civilization.

Achievements and contradictions of Western civilization, its character traits Keywords: market economy, private property, rule of law, democratic social structure, priority of the individual and his interests, various forms class organization (trade unions, parties, etc.) - Comparative characteristics West and East, their main features, values.

Civilization and culture. Different approaches to understanding the phenomenon of culture, their connection. Main approaches: activity, axiological (value), semiotic, sociological, humanistic. Contrasting concepts "civilization" and "culture"(O. Spengler, X. Ortega y Gasset, D. Bell, N. A. Berdyaev and others).

The ambiguity of the definitions of culture, its relationship with the concept of "civilization":

• - civilization as a certain stage in the development of the culture of individual peoples and regions (L. Tonnoy, P. Sorokin);
• - civilization as a specific stage community development, which is characterized by the emergence of cities, writing, the formation of national-state formations (L. Morgan, F. Engels);
• - civilization as the value of all cultures (K. Jaspers);
• - civilization as the final moment in the development of culture, its "decline" and decline (O. Spengler);
• - civilization as a high level of human material activity: tools, technologies, economic and political relations and institutions;
• - culture as a manifestation of the spiritual essence of man (N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov), civilization as the highest manifestation of the spiritual essence of man;
• - culture is not civilization.

culture, according to P. S. Gurevich, it is a historically determined level of development of society, creative forces, human abilities, expressed in the types of organization and activities of people, as well as in the material and spiritual values ​​\u200b\u200bcreated by them. Culture as a set of material and cultural achievements of mankind in all spheres of public life; as a specific characteristic of human society, as something that distinguishes man from animals.

The most important component of culture is the value-normative system. Value - this property of a particular social object, phenomenon to satisfy the needs, desires, interests of a person, society; it is a personally colored attitude to the world, arising not only on the basis of knowledge and information, but also on one’s own life experience person; the significance of the objects of the surrounding world for a person: class, group, society, humanity as a whole.

Culture occupies a special place in the structure of civilizations. Culture is a way of individual and social life, expressed in a concentrated form, the degree of development of both a person and social relations, as well as one's own being.

Differences between culture and civilization according to S. A. Babushkin, are as follows:

• - in historical time, culture is a broader category than civilization;
• - culture is part of civilization;
• - types of culture do not always coincide with the types of civilizations;
• - they are smaller, more fractional than the types of civilizations.

The theory of socio-economic formations of K. Marx and F. Engels

Socio-economic formation - it is a society at a certain stage of historical development, using a certain mode of production.

The concept of linear development of the world-historical process.

World history is a set of histories of many socio-historical organisms, each of which must "go through" all socio-economic formations. Production relations are primary, the foundation of all other social relations. Many social systems are reduced to several basic types - socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist .

Three social formations (primary, secondary and tertiary) are designated by K. Marx as archaic (primitive), economic and communist. K. Marx includes the Asian, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois mode of production in the economic formation.

Formation - a certain stage in the historical progress of society, its natural and gradual approach to communism.

Structure and main elements of the formation.

Social relations are divided into material and ideological. Basis - the economic structure of society, the totality of production relations. material relations- production relations that arise between people in the process of production, exchange and distribution of material goods. The nature of production relations is determined not by the will and consciousness of people, but by the achieved level of development of the productive forces. The unity of production relations and productive forces forms a specific for each formation mode of production. Superstructure - a set of ideological (political, legal, etc.) relations, related views, theories, ideas, i.e. ideology and psychology of various social groups or society as a whole, as well as relevant organizations and institutions - the state, political parties, public organizations. The structure of the socio-economic formation includes social relations society, certain forms of life, family, lifestyle. The superstructure depends on the basis and affects the economic basis, and the relations of production affect the productive forces.

Separate elements of the structure of the socio-economic formation are interconnected and experience mutual influence. As socio-economic formations develop, they change, the transition from one formation to another through a social revolution, the resolution of antagonistic contradictions between the productive forces and production relations, between the base and the superstructure. Within the framework of the communist socio-economic formation, socialism develops into communism.

• Cm.: Gurevich A. Ya. The theory of formation and the reality of history // Questions of Philosophy. 1991. No. 10; Zakharov A. Once again about the theory of formations // Social sciences and modernity. 1992. No. 2.

In the history of sociology, there are several attempts to determine the structure of society, that is, the social formation. Many proceeded from the analogy of society with a biological organism. In society, they tried to identify system-organs with the corresponding functions, as well as to determine the main relationships of society with environment(natural and social). Structural evolutionists consider the development of society to be determined 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 these was undertaken by G. Spencer, the founder of the theory of classical social evolution. His society consisted of three systems-organs: economic, transport and management (I have already spoken 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 natural environment and other societies. Spencer identified two historical type societies - military and industrial.

The next attempt was made by K. Marx, who proposed the concept of . She represents concrete a society at a certain stage of historical development, which includes (1) an economic basis (productive forces and relations of production) 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. Marx and his followers call the primitive communal, ancient (slave-owning), feudal, capitalist, and communist formations consistently progressive (its first phase is “proletarian socialism”). Marxist theory - revolutionary, main reason She sees the progressive movement of societies in the class struggle between 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 disadvantages. First of all, in the structure of the socio-economic formation there is no demo-social 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, spiritual spheres are deprived of an independent role, they serve as a simple superstructure over the economic basis of society.

Julian Steward, as mentioned above, departed from Spencer's classical evolutionism based on the differentiation of labor. He laid the foundation for the evolution of human societies comparative analysis different societies as peculiar cultures.

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

When compared with, defines society as an ideal concept, and not a specific society; introduces the societal community into the structure of society; refuses to base-superstructure relations between the economy, 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), as well as 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 of people, order, balance with the external environment.

Parsons' theory is also subject to criticism. First, the concepts of system of action 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 the social system was created to establish social order, balance with the external environment. But society seeks to break the balance with the external environment in order to meet its growing needs. Thirdly, the societal, fiduciary (reproduction of the model) and political subsystems are, in fact, elements of the economic (adaptive, practical) subsystem. This limits the independence of other subsystems, especially the political one (which is typical for European societies). Fourth, there is no demosocial subsystem, which is the starting point for society and encourages it to break the balance with the environment.

Marx and Parsons are structural functionalists who view society as a system of social (public) relations. If for Marx the economic factor acts as an ordering (integrating) social relationship, 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 the 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, Parsons on this issue. public formation characterized by the following features. First, it should be considered an ideal concept (rather than a specific society, as in Marx), fixing in itself the most essential properties real societies. At the same time, this concept is not as abstract as Parsons' "social system". Secondly, the demo-social, economic, political and spiritual subsystems of society play original, basic and auxiliary role, turning society into a social organism. Thirdly, the social formation is a metaphorical "public house" of the people living in it: the initial system is the "foundation", the basis is the "walls", and the auxiliary system is the "roof".

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

Basic the system performs the following functions: 1) acts as the main means of satisfying 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 satisfying which the social system is organized; 3) the social community, institutions, organizations of this subsystem occupy leading positions in society, manage other areas of society with the help of its characteristic means, integrating them into the social system. In singling out the basic system, I proceed from the fact that some 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 (purposeful, 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 is cultural orientation system, giving meaning, purposefulness, spirituality existence and development of the initial 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, 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. In T. Parsons, the spiritual system is called cultural and is located out of society as a social system, defining it through the reproduction of patterns of social action: the creation, preservation, transmission and renewal of needs, interests, motives, cultural principles, patterns of behavior. Marx has this system in the superstructure socio-economic formation and does not play an independent role in society - an economic formation.

Every social system is characterized social stratification in accordance with the original, basic and auxiliary systems. The strata are separated by their roles, statuses (consumer, professional, economic, etc.) and united by needs, values, norms, and 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 is always formed confidence, without which the social order and social mobility (upward and downward) are impossible. It forms social capital social structure. “In addition to the means of production, the 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 these shared values, confidence, which<...>has a great and quite 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: fulfillment of obligations (duty), truthfulness in relationships, cooperation with others, etc. Speaking of social capital, we are still abstracting from it social content, which is substantially 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 for it an external environment. The external environment is included in the structure of society in the broad sense of the word - as natural and social organism. 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 is there a social formation? According to Marx, it arises primarily to satisfy material the needs of people, so the economy occupies a basic place in it. For Parsons, the basis of society is the societal community of people, so 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 in order 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 the history of mankind.

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

The main subsystems of the social system are closely are interconnected. First of all, the boundary between any pair of systems of society is a kind of "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 an initial system in relation to the auxiliary one. And the latter is not only back controls the basis, but also provides additional influence on the original subsystem. And, finally, demo-social, economic, political, spiritual subsystems of society, different in type, in their interaction form many intricate combinations of the social system.

On the one hand, the original system of social formation is living people who during their life consume material, social, spiritual benefits for their reproduction and development. The remaining systems of the social order objectively serve to some extent the reproduction and development of the demosocial system. On the other hand, the social system exerts a socializing influence on the demo-social sphere, shaping 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. So, 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 is an interconnection of the initial, basic and auxiliary systems, the result of which is the reproduction, protection, development of the population in the process of transforming the external environment and adapting to it by creating artificial nature. This system provides the means (artificial nature) to meet the needs of people and reproduce their body, integrates many people, ensures the realization of people's abilities in various fields, 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 a country, region, city, village, etc., representing its different levels. In this sense, the family, school, enterprise, etc., are not societies, but social institutions that are part of societies. Society (for example, Russia, the USA, etc.) includes (1) the leading (modern) social system; (2) remnants of former social formations; (3) geographical system. The 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. The social formation characterizes the institutional relations between people. Private life - this is that part of public life that is not covered by the social system, is a manifestation of the individual freedom of people in consumption, economics, politics, and spirituality. The 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 completely, 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 the private life of people, it looked like a prison fortress. Nevertheless, within its framework, people went to kindergartens, went to school, loved and were happy.

The social formation is formed unconsciously, without a common will, as a result of a combination of many circumstances, wills, plans. But in this process, there is a certain logic that can be distinguished. The types of social system change from historical epoch to epoch, from country to country, and are in competitive relations with each other. The basis of a particular social system not originally included. It arises as a result unique set of circumstances including subjective ones (for example, the presence of an outstanding leader). Basic system determines the interests-goals of the initial and auxiliary systems.

Primitive communal formation is syncretic. It closely intertwines the beginnings of the economic, political and spiritual spheres. It can be argued that initial the sphere of this order is the geographical system. basic is a demosocial system, the process of reproduction of people 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 the economic, managerial and mythological systems that support the basic and initial systems act. economic system based on individual means of production and simple cooperation. The management system is represented by tribal self-government and armed men. The spiritual system is represented by taboos, rituals, mythology, pagan religion, priests, as well as the rudiments of art.

As a result of the social division of labor, primitive clans were divided into agricultural (sedentary) and pastoral (nomadic) families. Between them there was an exchange of products and wars. The agricultural communities engaged in agriculture and exchange were less mobile and warlike than the pastoral ones. With an increase in the number of people, villages, clans, the development of the exchange of products and wars, primitive communal society over the course of millennia gradually transformed into a political, economic, theocratic society. The emergence of these types of societies occurs in different peoples in miscellaneous historical time due to the combination of many objective and subjective circumstances.

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

Then there is a public - economic(European) formation, the basis of which is the market economy in its antique-commodity, and then capitalist form. In such formations, the base becomes individual(private) need for material goods, a secure life, power, it corresponds to economic classes. The basis of them is purposeful rational activity. Economic societies arose in relatively favorable natural and social conditions - ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the countries of Western Europe.

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

AT mixed(convergent) formations, the basis is formed by several social systems. Individual social needs in their organic unity become basic. This was the European feudal society in the pre-industrial era, and the social democratic - in the industrial. They are based on both goal-oriented and value-rational types of social actions in their organic unity. 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 are take the lead 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 the main ideology.

For example, after the February (1917) revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks seized state power, made their dictatorship the base, 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.

Public formations are going through the stages of (1) formation; (2) heyday; (3) decline and (4) transformation into another type or death. The development of societies has a wave character, 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 mankind, from simple to complex.

The development of societies is characterized by the decline of the former and the emergence of new social formations, along with the former. The advanced social formations occupy a dominant position, while the backward social formations occupy a subordinate position. Over time, a hierarchy of social formations arises. 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 elimination of the peasant formation in Russia during collectivization weakened the country.

Thus, the development of mankind 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 the social democratic.