Any set of individuals who are in interaction, united by common interests and providing assistance to each other is understood. External distinguishing features of a social group:
1) development;
2) a certain set of social norms governing interaction;
3) own role structure.

Among the variety of large social groups, it is necessary to distinguish classes. In any society, with the exception of the primitive, there are classes, although outwardly they are not always clearly expressed.

Classes are known large groups people who differ in place in a historically defined system of social production, in relation to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they dispose of. In addition, classes differ in that, due to the difference in place in a certain way of social economy, some can appropriate the labor of others.

The class-forming features were: the presence (absence) of ownership of the means of production; work for yourself and others; the share of the social product that goes to people assigned to one class or another, i.e. inequality. In accordance with this, in a capitalist society, the bourgeois class and the lumpen were distinguished, and the structure Soviet society they were reduced to workers, peasants and a stratum - the intelligentsia. Meanwhile, in Soviet society, as in any other,
along with the generally accepted and named communities of people, there were others, for example, the homeless and the poor.

The socio-psychological characteristics of the classes are as follows:
- social status, meaning position in the social hierarchy;
- a certain image, quality and style of life;
- scale of values, system of needs and interests;
- traditions, attitudes, pictures of the world, stereotypes, habits and social circle;
- social ethics, slang, jargon.

The class structure of society is not a static phenomenon. It depends on the type of state, economy and society.

The theory is now widely post-industrial society, which provides for the division of all social development into three stages: pre-industrial, industrial, post-industrial.

In to industrial society the leading role is played by the agricultural sector with the church and the army as the main institutions of society.

In an industrial society, industry occupies a central place. The transition from an industrial to a post-industrial society is determined by a number of factors: a turn from a commodity-producing economy to a service economy, which means the superiority of the service sector over the production sector; a change in the social structure of society (class division gives way to professional). Ownership as a criterion social stratification society is gradually losing its significance, the level of education becomes decisive. While recognizing the value of the concept of a post-industrial society, one cannot but see its utopian nature.

The issue of large social groups has various aspects:
a) political;
b) economic;
c) sociological;
d) socio-psychological.

Within the framework of the socio-psychological approach, large social groups characterized in terms of their status, functions, quality of life, corporatism, as well as lifestyle, culture, democracy, openness, mobility and, at the same time, inequality.

Traditionally, the leading features of large social groups were considered to be their needs and interests, which in this case are considered as group socio-psychological phenomena. As a rule, their coverage was made from ideological positions. At the same time, the interests of entrepreneurs were characterized as greedy, as the interests of the exploiters, and the workers as the driving force of the social process. Of course, the interests of large social groups cannot be explained in such a simplified way. In fact, there is no such antithesis. In any case, this is characteristic of the period of primitive accumulation of capital.

AT developed countries contradictions between classes are smoothed out, but nevertheless exist.

The degree of satisfaction of the needs of large social groups is expressed in the coefficient of their resilience. It is determined by taking into account indicators such as average duration life, the level of infant mortality, the prevalence of genetic deformities, the quality of products, the concentration of heavy industry enterprises per unit of territory, the percentage of budget expenditures on social and economic programs, etc. This coefficient determined on a six-point scale. To date, the "five" has not received any country in the world. As for Sweden and the Benelux countries, the resilience of the population of these countries is estimated at "four" points. This fact suggests that a social system built on a social democratic basis makes it possible to satisfy and harmonize the needs and interests of large social groups. Thus, the idea of ​​the convergence of capitalism and socialism is not just another utopia, but a reality. As for the concept of universal human values, it is achievable only if the issue of the vital (life) needs of specific social groups, i.e., the inequality of the latter, is resolved.

The interests of the classes are expressed by the parties, which are clearly created in a structured society. The reasons for the unification of people in the party are connected with the psychology of attraction to power. It is no coincidence that a party means any political group represented in elections through which it is able to put its candidates in power.

A multi-party system is the basis of a democratic society. Monopoly in both politics and economics is detrimental to social development. However, a multi-party system makes it much more difficult public life and without a certain culture, it turns into chaos, a source of danger to society due to confrontation and struggle for power.

The transition to the market led to a significant stratification of society. Classes appeared - "new Russians", entrepreneurs, etc. But this generally inevitable historical process has assumed a deformed character. Inequality has worsened. The difference between the financial position of entrepreneurs and the rest of the population has reached enormous proportions. At the same time, a middle class was not formed, which is a social buffer between the upper and lower classes of society. The process of stratification led not only to a rupture between classes in the area of ​​their financial situation but also to the criminalization of the business environment and the corruption of the authorities. At the same time, the main classes: the intelligentsia, employees of the state budgetary sphere, the working class, the peasants - found themselves in the position of lumpen. In fact, with a well-thought-out strategy and tactics for the transition to the market, the formation of the most significant class - the middle class - should have occurred.

Large social groups also include mass movements - human communities, as a rule, fragile and random, characterized by the following socio-psychological features:
a) lack of organization;
b) weak interaction between members;
c) anonymity.

Essentially, mass movements are a product of destratification in which even groups do not differ. People come together for various reasons, such as protecting the environment. There are civil rights movements, consumer rights movements, and so on. There are political, religious, and racial movements. Movements are sometimes referred to as "reformist" or "revolutionary".

Among them are distinguished:
1) national-cultural societies, the purpose of which is to study and popularize the traditions of the past and present, the revival, preservation and development of relevant cultures, crafts, crafts, social and ethnic identity;
2) professional societies (for example, the Anti AIDS Association), created, as a rule, with the aim of uniting the efforts of specialists in a certain field for the dissemination and development of a specific scientific direction. Adjoining such movements are associations of people who find themselves in a difficult situation for any reason and unite for mutual assistance;
3) cultural and educational communities, in particular "Peace through the family", etc.;
4) various funds that are created either on a professional basis or on the basis of a charitable organization;
5) communities of short-term, operational action, which include various support committees.

In a totalitarian society, the activities of any mass movements are controlled, sanctioned, and therefore meaningless, since they are of a voluntary-compulsory nature.

A different nature of the activities of mass movements in a democratic society. All social movements here arise in connection with the presence of dissatisfaction with something, for example, a delay in wages. In other words, social movements are formed in connection with the emergence of social conflicts.

For example, we can take the trade union and youth movement. For seventy years the trade unions were seen as the "school of communism". It cannot be said that they did not defend the interests of the working people, but were actually dependent on the party. Another thing is independent trade unions. The psychology of their members is different from other associations. To ensure the rights and interests of their members, they have a monetary fund and can declare strikes and strikes. For these purposes strike committees are elected.

A strike can take on a mass character and cover not only employees of any organization, but the whole country. In this case, one speaks of civil disobedience. The strike movement, as a rule, is distinguished by the unity of goals and demands, material psychological support, group identification, empathy and at the same time the presence of conflicting interests in relation to other social groups. Here the effect associated with “We” and “They” is maximally manifested.

Of course, youth movements differ from trade union activities. They, as a rule, are formed on the basis of interest in some genre of pop music, a sports team (we are talking about the so-called "fans"), etc.

public) (from lat. classis - group, category). The most complete and comprehensive definition of essence class division and K. antagonistic. "Classes are large groups of people who differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they dispose of. Classes are such groups of people from which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain way of social economy "(Lenin V. I., Soch., vol. 29, p. 388). The starting point of this definition of capitalism is the recognition of the dependence of the class division of society on historically determined methods of production (thus, for example, slaves and slave-owners are the capitalist society, proletarians and bourgeois are capitalist societies). With the change in the mode of production, the class division of society also changes. The main and always are such K., the existence of which follows from the dominant in this society production method. Non-basic K. are connected with the existence of more or less means. remnants of the previous or embryos of the subsequent production method, represented by special ways of x-va. Transitional and called such K., to-rye, being generated by one way of production, are preserved with another, which has replaced its method of production. At the same time, their place and role in society change: non-basic capitalism can become the main one (for example, the peasantry with the replacement of slave-owning society by feudal society; the working peasantry after the overthrow of capitalism), the main one can become non-basic (for example, the bourgeoisie in the transition period from capitalism to socialism), the oppressed K. - the dominant (for example, the proletariat in the same period). K. are not eternal, they arose on a definite basis. stage of development of society and with the same inevitability must disappear. For total destruction K. "... it is necessary not only to overthrow the exploiters, landowners and capitalists, not only to abolish their property, it is also necessary to abolish private ownership of the means of production, it is necessary to abolish both the difference between town and country, and the difference between physical people and people mental labor"(ibid.). K. persist in the first phase of communism - under socialism, since these differences have not yet been eliminated, but the essence of K. changes radically. This is no longer K. in the proper sense of the word, not such social groups. of which one can live by the labor of the other, private ownership of the means of production has been abolished, and, consequently, class antagonism has been eliminated, The main aspects of production relations correspond to the characteristics of capitalization: attitude to the means of production, role in the social organization of labor, methods of obtaining and size of that share of societies. the wealth they possess.The defining feature is the attitude to the means of production.The form of ownership of the means of production determines both the relationship between people in the process of production, and the form of distribution between them of the goods produced. products. Marxism-Leninism rejects attempts to put forward in the first place such characteristics of culture, considered in isolation from the whole, as their role in the organization of societies. production [so-called. organizational theory (A. Bogdanov)], or the methods of obtaining and the amount of their income (the so-called distribution theory of K., which was followed, for example, by K. Kautsky, Tugan-Baranovsky). Marx noted when characterizing the bourgeoisie: "A capitalist is not a capitalist because he manages industrial enterprise On the contrary, he becomes the leader of industry because he is a capitalist. The highest power in industry becomes an attribute of capital, just as in the feudal era supreme power in military affairs and in court was an attribute of landed property" ("Capital", vol. 1, 1955, p. 339). In the "Introduction" and in the last chapters of the 3rd vol. , and the mode of production determines the class structure of society. "The main sign of the difference between classes is their place in social production, and, consequently, their relationship to the means of production" (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 6, p. 235 Marxism-Leninism also opposes mixing the division of society into capitalism with the division of people according to profession. The confusion of these categories by certain bourgeois sociologists and revisionists expresses "...a practical tendency to erase the very concept of 'class', to eliminate the very idea of ​​class struggle" (ibid., vol. 5, p. 175). -Leninism considers K. not only as an economic, but also as a broader social category. Taking shape on the basis of economic relations, the class division of society also permeates the sphere of politics and ideology, is reflected in societies. consciousness, in the spiritual life of society. The differences between classes also cover the area of ​​everyday life, are reflected in their way of life, in their family relationships, in their psychology, morality, etc. The formation of capitalism is an objective process determined by the development of economics. relations. The conditions of life of each class determine its interests, their relationship to the interests of other classes. On the basis of the commonality of fundamental class interests and their opposition in the course of the class struggle to the interests of others, opposite to the class, the members of this class are consolidated. As Marxism-Leninism teaches, class " ... develops in struggle and development" (ibid., vol. 30, p. 477). In the process of constitution huge role The subjective factor also plays a role - K.'s awareness of his fundamental interests and the creation of his own class organizations. K., which objectively has already taken shape, but has not yet realized its fundamental interests, Marx called K. "in itself." Realizing his fundamental interests and organizing himself, he turns into a K. "for himself" (see Class "in itself" and class "for himself"). The unification of the most conscious is of decisive importance in this process. elements of K. in certain class organizations, among which the most important are political. parties. The Historical Development of the Concept of K. The idea that society is divided into K. appeared long before the emergence of Marxism, but the sociology that preceded historical materialism was unable to create a scientific theory of K.. In pre-capitalist formations, the class division of society was covered with religious-class or estate shells. This made it difficult to understand the class structure and its relationship with the economic. the structure of society. A big obstacle for science. The analysis of K. was the desire of the ideologists of the ruling K. to prove the naturalness, inviolability, and eternity of the existing order. People have long seen that society is divided into rich and poor, noble and humble, free and not free, but could not explain the reasons for this inequality. In the beginning, the tendency was to explain social gradations by the dictates of God or nature. In antique world slavery was seen as natural. phenomenon. The division of free citizens into various estates was also regarded in the same way. Plato saw the weakness of the modern. he states that in every city "no matter how small it may be, there are always two mutually hostile cities in it: one city of the poor, the other of the rich ..." ("State" IV 422 E - 423 A ; Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1863). However, he did not seek to abolish the estates, but to streamline the relationship between them. In the "ideal state" of Plato, there remains a division into 3 classes: philosophers, or rulers, guards (warriors), farmers and artisans; the division of labor between them is based, according to Plato, on the natural. basis. "... Each of us is born ... different in nature, and is appointed to perform a certain work" (ibid., II 370 B), some from birth are "able to lead", others to be "farmers and other artisans" (ibid. same, III 415 A). Aristotle also recognized the naturalness of slavery: "some people, by nature, are free, others are slaves, and it is useful and fair for these latter to be slaves" ("Politics" I 2, 1254 in 24 - 1255 a 19; Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1911). Criticizing the "ideal state" of Plato, Aristotle gave preference to the middle strata of slave owners. "In every state we meet three classes of citizens: the very wealthy, the extremely poor, and the third, standing in the middle between the two." People of the first category, according to Aristotle, mostly become insolent and big scoundrels; people of the second category - scoundrels and petty scoundrels. "Average prosperity is the best of all goods, it gives rise to moderation in people" (ibid., IV 9, 1295 a 23 - in 18). The emergence of democracy or oligarch. building, Aristotle explained the struggle between the common people and the wealthy class: "... whichever of them manages to defeat the enemy, he introduces not a common and equal state system for mutual interests," but pulls the state. order to his side (ibid., IV 9, 1296 a 16 - in 19). In the era of feudalism, the existing class-estate structure of society was declared a divine institution. Only in the era of breaking the feuds. system and the formation of capitalism, which simplified the class structure of society, the prerequisites arose for the development of the very concept of K. On the eve and during the French. bourgeois revolutions of the 18th century philosophers and publicists came out with a sharp condemnation of the feuds. building. J. Mellier attributed to K. the rich - feud. nobility, the clergy, bankers, tax-farmers, and others, and to another K. - the peasantry. “It’s as if two races of people live in the same society,” Mellier says: one does nothing, enjoys and commands, the other works, suffers and obeys (quoted from the book: Volgin V.P., French Utopian Communism, 1960, p. 28). Some thinkers (for example, G. Mably) are already looking for the foundations for the division into property. "... Property divides us into two classes - the rich and the poor" (Mabli G., Izbr. prod., M.–L., 1950, pp. 109–10). A deep understanding of the opposition between the rich and the poor permeates the works of J.P. Marat, who considered the revolution as a manifestation of the struggle of K. In the works of bourgeois. economists of the late 18th - early. 19th centuries (partly F. Quesnay and ch. arr. A. Smith and D. Ricardo) made an important step towards understanding the economic. anatomy K. Instead of the usual in the era of the French. bourgeois revolutions of dividing society into two capitals - rich and poor - they divide it into three capitals. In Quesnay, this division is not yet clear: he sees in society: 1) capital owners (landowners, clergy), who does not invest in the production of societies. product, but by virtue of ownership, appropriates all net income and performs management functions; 2) K. manufacturers, ch. arr. capitalist farmers; 3) K. barren or unproductive (merchants, industrialists, workers, artisans, etc. ). A. Smith gives a much clearer description of K. bourgeois. society: he distinguishes K. landowners, capitalists and workers. Societies. the product, according to Smith, falls into three parts and "... constitutes the income of three different classes of people: those who live on rent, those who live on wages, and those who live on profit from capital. These are the three main , basic and primary classes in every civilized society..." ("Research on the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", vol. 1, M.–L., 1935, pp. 220–21). Considering labor as a common source of income, Smith comes to understand the contradictory interests of capitalists and workers: "The workers want to get as much as possible, and the owners want to give as little as possible" (ibid., p. 62). However, Smith does not consistently pursue this view, since sometimes claims that income is the source of value. This inconsistency was eliminated by Ricardo, who regarded labor as a unity. source of value and established the opposite wages and profits. Ricardo believed that wages always rise at the expense of profit, and when it falls, profit always rises (see Soch., vol. 1, M., 1955, pp. 98–111). Justifying the contradictory interests of the main. K. capitalist. society, Ricardo openly defended the need for high profits as a condition for the rapid development of production. According to Ricardo, the interests of the landowners are in conflict with the interests of all other kingdoms and hinder the development of society. English economists have moved forward in understanding the class structure of the capitalist. society, however, they associated the class division of society only with distribution relations, and not production, and considered it not historically, but as natural and eternal. According to Marx, for Ricardo capitalist. the mode of production with its class opposites was "... natural form social production" ("Capital", vol. 1, 1955, p. 519). In contrast to the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, utopian socialists tried to prove the unreasonableness and historical doom of a society built on the exploitation of man by man. Already the early representatives of utopian socialism, and especially the ideologists of the revolutionary plebeians (for example, T. Müntzer in the 16th century, H. Babeuf in the 18th century), put forward demands for the abolition of private property and class distinctions. ) came close to understanding the historical process as a struggle between social capitalism. However, Saint-Simon did not single out worker capitalism from the general industrial capitalism, which included the bourgeoisie. and the establishment of harmony between them.Some utopian socialists tried to overcome this narrow-mindedness of views. Important role in the development of the theory of k. played Rus. revolutionary democrats and utopians. socialists, especially Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, from whose works, in the words of Lenin, "... breathes the spirit of the class struggle" (Soch., vol. 20, p. 224). Behind the opposing forces in the history of mankind, they saw various estates, K. with their conflicting material interests. “In terms of benefits, the entire European society,” Chernyshevsky wrote, “is divided into two halves: one lives on the labor of others, the other on its own; the first prospers, the second is in need ... This division of society, based on material interests, is also reflected in political activity"(Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 6, 1949, p. 337). However, Chernyshevsky could not yet give a strictly scientific definition of K. He, for example, spoke of the agricultural class and commoners, as one whole, did not single out working class K. from the general mass of the exploited and did not see its special historical role.Only the founders of Marxism, who acted as the ideologists of the most revolutionary K. - the proletariat, were able to create a truly scientific theory of K. Describing the difference between his theory of K. from all previous ones, Marx wrote: "As for me, I do not have the merit that I discovered the existence of classes in modern society, nor that I discovered their struggle among themselves. Bourgeois historians long before me outlined the historical development of this class struggle, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of classes. What I did new was to prove the following: 1) that the existence of classes is connected only with certain and historical phases of the development of production 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself constitutes only a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a society without classes "(Marx K. and Engels F., Selected Letters, 1953, p. 63). The emergence of K. K. arose during the period of decomposition primitive communal system which took place among various peoples in different time . A class society developed at the end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. in the valleys of the rivers Nile, Euphrates and Tigris, in the 3rd-2nd millennium BC. in India, China and other countries, in the 1st millennium BC. in Greece and then in Rome. The emergence of K. - long. process. Its most common premise was the development of manufactures. forces, which led to the emergence of a surplus product, division of labor, exchange and the emergence of private ownership of the means of production. The appearance of a surplus product created an economical. the possibility of the existence of some people at the expense of the labor of others. The rise of private property made this possibility a reality. When in communities as a result of development produces. forces, private ownership of the means of production was born, when the place of the former, collective production was taken by individual production, by the forces of the department. families, it became inevitable and economical. inequality between people. This created the prerequisites for the class stratification of society. The formation of culture, as Engels showed in Anti-Dühring, took place in two ways: 1) by singling out an exploiting elite within the community, which initially consisted of the tribal nobility; 2) by enslaving prisoners of war, and then impoverished fellow tribesmen who fell into debt bondage. These are two sides of a single process, which leads to the fact that on the ruins of the tribal system, as a rule, a society arises, divided into three groups: 1) slave owners, who first represented the ruling elite of the tribal nobility, and then a wider layer of wealthy people; 2) free community members - farmers, pastoralists, artisans, who usually fell into dependence on the former; 3) slaves. The founders of Marxism associated the formation of culture with the development of societies. division of labor. As Engels noted, "...the division into classes is based on the law of the division of labor" (Anti-Dühring, 1957, p. 265). The first major society. the division of labor is associated with the separation of cattle-breeding tribes from the total mass. tribes; it leads to the emergence of exchange between pastoralists and farmers, to the growth of societies. wealth and greater use of slave labor. The second major society. the division of labor is associated with the separation of handicrafts from agriculture; it contributes to the penetration of exchange into the community and the strengthening of the economic. inequality, the emergence along with the division into free and slave differences between the rich and the poor. Further development of societies. the division of labor leads to the separation of minds. labor from the physical, to the transformation of minds. labor into the monopoly of a small minority - the ruling K. who concentrated in their hands the management of production, the management of societies. affairs, etc., while the vast majority of society is doomed to bear the entire burden of heavy physical. labor. Thus, Marxism sees the reasons for the emergence of coercion not in deceit and violence, as do, for example, supporters of the theory of violence, although there is no doubt that violence played its own role in this process, and moreover, a considerable one. The emergence of K. is the result of a natural economic. development of society; violence only contributed to this process and consolidated the created economic. development of class differences. Political violence itself is a product of economics. development. The main types of class division of society. With all the differences in the class structure, antagonistic. societies, their common feature is the appropriation by the ruling K. of labor directly. manufacturers. “Wherever part of society has a monopoly on the means of production,” Marx pointed out, “the worker, free or not free, must add to the labor time necessary for the maintenance of himself, superfluous work time to produce the means of subsistence for the owner of the means of production, whether that owner be an Athenian ... (aristocrat), an Etruscan theocrat ... (Roman citizen), a Norman baron, an American slave owner, a Wallachian boyar, a modern landlord or a capitalist" ("Capital" 1, p. 240. In a class society, the main means of production always belong to the ruling class. ), it depends on specific historical conditions, on the characteristics of a given mode of production. Along with a change in the distribution of means of production, methods of exploitation also change. economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of the immediate producers, determines the relationship of domination and enslavement as it grows directly out of production itself, and, in turn, has a determinative retroactive effect on the latter. And on this is based the whole structure of economic society ... which grows out of the very relations of production, and at the same time its specific political structure"(ibid., vol. 3, 1955, p. 804). "Slavery is the first form of exploitation inherent in the ancient world; - writes Engels, - he is followed by: serfdom in the Middle Ages, wage labor in modern times. These are the three great forms of enslavement characteristic of the three great epochs of civilization..." (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 175). All these forms of exploitation were already encountered in antiquity. In the era of the decomposition of the primitive communal system, along with slavery, relations of wage labor also arose (for example, day laborers-feta in Homeric Greece) and the first embryos of serfs. relations (see F. Engels, ibid., vol. 24, 1931, pp. 605–06). However, these relations did not become dominant at that time. Slavery, serfdom, wage labor differ from each other not only in the degree of exploitation, but also in the different position of the immediate. manufacturer. Under slavery and serfdom, the producer is personally dependent. This is one of the reasons why the class division of society appears here in the form of a division into estates. The position of each class in society is legally fixed with the help of the state. authorities. In the slave in society, the slave represented the property of the slave owner, which in Ancient Greece and Rome did not differ from ownership of a thing, an instrument of production. Rome. writer Varro (1st century BC) in a treatise on s. x-ve divided the tools, by which the fields are cultivated, into three parts: "... talking tools, tools that make inarticulate sounds, and dumb tools; slaves belong to the speakers, oxen to those who make inarticulate sounds, carts to the dumb" (quoted from the book: "The ancient method of production in the sources", L., 1933, p. 20). The slave was not considered a man: in most cases, the law allowed the slave owner not only to sell, but also to kill him. The slave could not at least in principle, own property, had no family. In Greece, the slave did not even have a name, but only a nickname. The method of exploitation of the labor of slaves and the sources of their replenishment - war, sea robbery, etc. - necessitated non-economic coercion as feature slave owner building. With a relatively slow development produces. forces, with crude and primitive tools of production, in the absence of a slave's interest in the results of his labor, it was impossible to achieve regular production of a surplus product otherwise than by means of direct physical. coercion. This, in turn, is associated with extremely crude and cruel forms of exploitation. The length of life of a slave in itself did not matter to the slave owner, who sought to extract from the slave the greatest possible mass of labor in the most possible short term. Therefore, the mortality of slaves was very high. With this method of exploitation of slave labor, there was no regular reproduction of the labor force within the country; the need for slaves was covered by Ch. arr. through imports from outside. In general, it was considered more profitable to buy an adult slave than to raise the offspring of slaves on your own farm (see A. Wallon, History of Slavery in ancient world. Greece, vol. 1, M., 1936, p. 56). Exploitation acquired its most cruel character where commercial capital appeared on the scene, where production had the aim of exchange. Along with the main K. - slave owners and slaves - in ancient world There were also small peasants and artisans. Many of them were forced out by slave labor and ruined, forming, for example, in Rome a mass of lumpen proletariat. AT recent centuries the existence of slave owners. society in Rome, in its depths, new relations began to emerge, preparing the transition to serfdom. Large slave owners latifundia were crushed and processed by columns, which were considered slaves of the earth; they could be transferred to another owner only together with the land. With a change in the method of production of the slave owner. the form of exploitation was replaced by feudalism. At the feud. In the system of x-va, the feudal lord, the landowner, was considered the owner of the land, who endowed the peasant with a plot of land, and sometimes with other means of production, and forced him to work for himself. Describing the serf. system of x-va, Lenin pointed out that "firstly, serfdom is a subsistence economy ... Secondly, in serfdom the instrument of exploitation is the attachment of the worker to the land, the his land ... In order to receive income (i.e., a surplus product), a feudal landlord must have a peasant on his land who owns an allotment, inventory, livestock. A landless, horseless, ownerless peasant is an unsuitable object for feudal exploitation ... thirdly, the peasant endowed with land must be personally dependent on the landowner, for, having land, he will not go to the lordly work except under duress The economic system gives rise here to "non-economic coercion", serfdom, legal dependence, lack of full rights, etc." (Soch., v. 15, p. 66). Feud. the x-va system also assumed the personal dependence of the producer, which, depending on the specific conditions, took various forms: from the most cruel serfdom, which was not much different from slavery, to a relatively light quitrent obligation. But, unlike the ancient a slave, a serf, firstly, was not considered the full property of the feudal lord; the latter could sell, buy, but, according to the law, could not kill him; secondly, the serf had his own household, owned some property and used a plot of land; thirdly, the serf was a member of the villages. community and enjoyed its support. These features of the feud. The x-va system was also determined by its inherent mode of exploitation: the appropriation of a surplus product in the form of a feud. rent. Marx pointed to 3 main. feudal forms. rent: labor rent, product rent, and cash rent, which were usually combined with each other. At various periods in the history of the feud. system, any one form prevailed, replacing another in a certain way. historical succession: labor rent was followed by rent in products, and after the latter, money rent. Compared to feudal slavery. the system was a historically progressive phenomenon. Feud. the way of production suggested more high development produces. forces and created a certain interest of the producer in the results of his work. In addition, great opportunities arose for the class struggle of the oppressed masses. The place of the heterogeneous mass of slaves was taken by serfs, united in a community. Of great progressive importance was the emergence of cities, in which new societies grew. layers: artisans organized into workshops and corporations, merchants, etc. In cities late medieval a new exploitative stratum grew out of the guild foremen. Capitalist elements also emerged from the top of the peasantry. The capitalist way of production has replaced the feud. new, capitalist form of exploitation. The main constituencies of capitalist society are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (see Working class). The worker is considered legally free, but is in the economy. dependence on the capitalists. Being deprived of all the means of production and owning only his labor power, he is forced to sell it to the capitalists - the owners of the means of production. Capitalist the mode of exploitation is characterized by the appropriation by the capitalists of the surplus value created by the labor of hired proletarian workers. With the abolition of personal dependence directly. manufacturers and replacing it economically. dependence eliminates the need to divide society into classes. Therefore, unlike the slave owner. and feud. societies, K. capitalist. societies no longer act as estates. However, the vestiges of class division still have an impact on societies. the life of a number of capitalist countries. Capitalism does not exist in any country in a "pure" form. Next to the capitalist relationships everywhere exist more or less mean. remnants of relationships inherited from previous formations. Therefore, along with the main K. in the capitalist. countries, there are also non-core ones. Among them belong, for example, in a number of countries the landlords. During the transition from feudalism to capitalism in some countries, landlordism was eliminated. In other countries (Germany and others), the landowner economy was gradually transformed into a capitalist economy, and the landowner peasantry into a stratum of the agrarian bourgeoisie. Finally, in less developed countries, where the means were preserved. remnants of feudalism (Russia before October revolution and others), the landlords continued to exist as a special K. In present. time K. landowners represents means. strength in the backward, dependent countries, where imperialism supports them as its mainstay. Among the neosn. K. capitalist. society also includes the petty bourgeoisie, especially the peasantry, which in all countries, with the exception of England, is a mean. mass, and in some less developed countries even the majority of the population. Peasantry, artisans and other small-bourgeois. As capitalism develops, the strata are eroded, stratified, singling out a few from their midst. capitalist the top and the mass of poor proletarians and semi-proletarians. In developed capitalist countries, the peasantry is increasingly being exploited by the monopolies and banks, which enmesh it in networks of bondage. Not being the main K. capitalist. society, the peasantry, however, due to its role in the page - x. production, that means. size (even in capitalist Europe, about a third of the population) and ties with the working class can become great strength in the class struggle against capitalism. Main forces on which the course of the class struggle in the capitalist depends. countries, the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie (especially the peasantry), and the proletariat come out (see V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 30, p. 88). The class structure of the modern capitalist society a. Contrary to the claims of the reformists, class structure capitalist Societies over the past hundred years have not experienced such fundamental changes that could smooth out the opposition of classes. Marx's conclusion that the accumulation of wealth at one pole of society is accompanied by an increase in proletarianization at the other remains full strength. The proportion of the bourgeoisie in the capitalist population. countries has decreased over the past decades (for example, in the USA from 3% in 1870 to 1.6% in 1950; in England from 8.1% in 1851 to 2.04% in 1951), and at the same time its wealth and power. The monopoly stood out. the top of the bourgeoisie, which united in its hands both economic and political. power. Burzh. the state turned into a committee for managing the affairs of the monopolistic. bourgeoisie as a tool for its enrichment. A handful of billionaires and millionaires rises not only above society, but also above all other sections of the capitalist class. The dominance of monopolies intensifies the process of absorption of small and medium-sized farms by large ones. Thus, the interests of the monopolies are in conflict with the interests of not only the working people, but also small and even part of medium-sized entrepreneurs. In the conditions of modern capitalism, the process of ruining the peasantry, artisans, handicraftsmen, small shopkeepers, etc. is accelerating. The proportion of these old "middle strata" in the population is falling. So, for example, in the USA from 1910 to 1954 the share of the population of the so-called. "independent" decreased from 27.1% to 13.3%; in Zap. Germany number self. owners decreased from 33.8% in 1907 (data for the whole of Germany) to 24.5% in 1956. Along with the displacement of the "middle strata" from production " whole line"middle strata" are inevitably re-created by capitalism (an appendage of the factory, work at home, small workshops scattered throughout the country due to the requirements of a large one, such as the bicycle and automobile industries, etc.). These new small producers are also inevitably thrown back into the ranks of the proletariat "(Lenin V.I., Soch., vol. 15, pp. 24-25). Such processes occur not only in the sphere of production, but even more so in the sphere trade and services.As a result of the reduction in the number of independent small producers, specific gravity in the employed population. According to the International organization of labor, the proportion of people employed has increased: in Zap. Germany in 1882–1956 from 64.7% to 75.4% of self-employed. population, in France in 1851-1954 from 54.6% to 64.9%, in the USA in 1940-50 from 78.3% to 82.2%, in Australia in 1911-54 from 74.3% to 81, 3%. The number of employees and intelligentsia, especially engineering and technical, is growing in the composition of wage laborers. The increase in the proportion of these layers, which are often called new "middle layers", is regarded as bourgeois. sociologists, as well as right-wing socialists as an indicator of the "deproletarianization" of the population. In reality, the class composition of the employees and the intelligentsia is not homogeneous: only a part of them can be attributed to the "middle strata"; the top of the civil servants and intelligentsia (big officials, managers, etc.) merges with the bourgeoisie, while the majority merges in their position with the working class or directly adjoins it. In modern capitalist society, especially in the most developed countries, the overwhelming majority of employees have lost their former privileged position and have turned or are turning into a "white-collar proletariat." As far as engineering and technical intelligentsia, then in connection with the automation of production means. part of the engineers and technicians, by the nature of their work, approaches the bulk of the workers, losing at the same time the function of managing and supervising the workers. In developed capitalist countries, such as the United States, an increasing number of engineers and technicians find themselves as ordinary participants in production. processes employed at working machines. Thus, there is not a "deproletarianization" of the population, but, on the contrary, the proletarianization of those strata that previously occupied a more or less privileged position in society. Main the mass of the proletariat is still made up of physical workers. labor. But the socio-economic the boundaries of the proletariat in modern. capitalist society expanded and entered its ranks and means. layers of hired workers, busy minds. labor (see "Exchange of opinions. What changes are taking place in the structure of the working class?", in the journal: "Problems of peace and socialism", 1960, No 5, 9, 12; 1961, No 4, 5, 6, 9). The growth of the working class is taking place not only in the national, but also in the international. scale. K ser. 20th century in developed capitalist countries were concentrated more than half of the total number of workers and employees of all non-socialist. countries (over 160 million) and 3/4 ind. proletariat (about 85 million). In economically underdeveloped countries over the past decades, there have also been numerous. working class. In Asian countries, Lat. America and Africa, there are now St. 100 million workers and employees - St. 30% of the total number of people employed in the non-socialist. the world. In the conditions of modern capitalism continues to grow the proportion of prom. workers also the share and number of pages - x is reduced. the proletariat. There is a growing trend towards a worsening of the position of the worker K., which is expressed, in particular, in wages lagging behind the cost of labor power, in mass unemployment, and so on. The development of automation is ousting part of the workers from production, and in a number of production areas it is leading to the replacement of skilled workers with low-skilled workers who have undergone short-term training. The change in the ratio between skilled and trained workers, the convergence of the levels of their pay give rise in a number of capitalist. countries tend to narrow the layer of the labor aristocracy. This is facilitated by the decay colonial system imperialism, reducing sources, at the expense of to-ryh monopolistic. the bourgeoisie in the countries of imperialism bribes the top of the working class. However, this process proceeds inconsistently; in some countries (USA and others) the labor aristocracy retains its privileged position and even grows. State. monopolistic capitalism "... not only does not change the position of the main classes in the system of social production, but also deepens the gulf between labor and capital, between

social, “... large groups of people, differing in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in ways obtaining and the size of that share of social wealth, which they have. Classes are such groups of people, of which one can appropriate the labor of another, thanks to the difference in their place in a certain way of social economy ”(V. I. Le-nin, PSS, vol. 39, p. 15). Lenin's definition of K. is given in relation to antagonistich. society. Although K. still remain in the socialist. a society that has eliminated exploitation, but the relationship between them is fundamentally different, they are based on joint work and cooperation. Under socialism, society is no longer divided into such groups of people, of which one can, due to the place it occupies in the system of societies. x-va, to appropriate the work of another. In this sense, the fundamental foundations of the class division of society have already been eliminated. Nevertheless, to K. socialist. society, the most important features indicated in Lenin's definition are applicable. These are K., united socialist. x-va system, the same type of societies. ownership of the means of production, joint labor, but at the same time still differing within the indicated community in their attitude to the means of production, roles in society. organization of labor, forms of distribution of societies. income.
The most important provisions of scientific. theories of k. were formulated by K. Marx and F. Engels. In a letter to I. Weidemeyer dated March 5, 1852, Marx wrote: “What I did new was to prove the following: 1) that the existence of classes is connected only with certain historical phases in the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself constitutes only a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a society without classes” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., vol. 28, p. 427).
When analyzing the class structure of society, Marxism-Leninism distinguishes between basic and non-basic classes, and also takes into account the presence of various groups, layers inside K. and intermediate layers between K. Osn. K. are called such K., the existence of which directly follows from the dominant in a given society.-economic. formations of the production method. These are slaves and slave owners, peasants and feudal lords, landlords, proletarians and bourgeois. But along with the dominant mode of production in class formations, the remnants of the former methods of production may also be preserved or sprouts of new methods of production may arise in the form of special ways of production. The existence of non-basic, transitional capitals is connected with this. countries where they have been preserved. remnants of feudalism exist as minor landowners, who are increasingly merging with the bourgeoisie. In most capitalist there are many countries. layers of the petty bourgeoisie (small peasants, artisans), to-rye, as capitalism develops, differentiates. Within K. there are usually various layers, groups, the interests of which partially do not coincide. So, for example, in antich. society there was a struggle between slave owners. aristocracy and democracy, in which the contradictions of interests of various strata of slave owners were reflected. In the capitalist In society, there are also contradictions between the interests of various sections of the bourgeoisie (for example, the monopolistic and non-monopolistic bourgeoisie).
The development of capitalism leads to changes in the class structure of society, which, however, contrary to the assertions of the reformists, do not eliminate, but sharpen and deepen class antagonisms. The most important of these changes are connected, on the one hand, with the process of growth of the monolist. capitalism and its development into state-monopoly. capitalism, and on the other - with the development of scientific and technical. revolution. Over the last century in the developed katalistich. countries, the share of the bourgeoisie in the amateurs has decreased. population (if in the middle of the 19th century it exceeded 8% in Great Britain, then in the 60-70s of the 20th century it was only from 1-2 to 3-4% in highly developed capitalist countries). At the same time, the wealth of the bourgeoisie increased colossally. Inside it stood out monopolistic. top, united in their hands economical. and political power. The interests of the monopolies turned out to be in conflict with the interests not only of the working people, but also of small and even some of the medium-sized entrepreneurs. In the conditions of state-monopoly. capitalism accelerated the process of ousting and ruining small private owners (peasants, artisans, etc.) and reduced their proportion in the population. At the same time, the proportion of wage laborers increased. The share of employees in developed capitalist. countries by the 80s. 20th century ranged from 70 to 90% (and above) of self-employed. population. In the total mass of wage laborers important place both in terms of numbers and in terms of its role in production, it occupies modern. working class.
The development of capitalist production, and especially the deployment of scientific and technical. revolution, leads to creatures. changes in the structure of the working class. The ratio of the various contingents of the working class is changing; first of all, the number of the industrial class is increasing and the number of the agricultural class is decreasing.
Scientific and technical progress, the growth of education and culture led to the rapid growth of the intelligentsia and employees. The social composition of the intelligentsia is heterogeneous. Its top (for example, managers) grows together with the ruling class; part of the intelligentsia, occupied by the so-called. professions of "free labor", is close in its position to the middle strata of society. At the same time, everything means more. part of the intelligentsia and employees are losing their former position as a privileged stratum of society and are moving closer in their position to the working class.
Changes in the social structure of capitalism create the prerequisites for an ever closer alliance between the working class and broad sections of the working people in town and country. The convergence of the interests of the peasantry, the mountaineers, the middle strata and the intelligentsia with the interests of the working class contributes to the narrowing of the social base of the monopolies and opens up possibilities for creating a broad alliance of all antimonopoly. and anti-imperialist forces. The leading force in this union is the working class, which is increasingly becoming the center of attraction for all working strata of the population.
For millennia, the existence of K. was historically necessary. It was due, as F. Engels noted, relates. produces underdevelopment.
forces, when the development of society could be carried out only with the enslavement of the mass of working people; under this condition, a privileged minority could engage in state. affairs, science, lawsuit, etc. In connection with the huge growth in labor productivity achieved by large capitalist. Industrially, the material prerequisites for the destruction of culture arose. The existence of any kind of dominant exploitative culture not only became superfluous, but turned into a direct obstacle to the further development of society.
The destruction of the Communist Party is possible only through the conquest of the political capital by the proletariat. power and a radical transformation of the economic. building. To destroy the exploitative system, it is necessary to abolish private ownership of the means of production and replace all societies.
property. “To destroy classes means to put all citizens in the same relation to the means of production of the whole society, it means that all citizens have the same access to work on the social means of production, on public land, in public factories, and so on ”(Len and n V.I., PSS, vol. 24, p. 363). K. cannot be destroyed immediately, they continue to exist for a long time. time and after the overthrow of the power of the capitalists. In the transitional period from capitalism to socialism, the economic the system is multistructural, in most countries there are three classes: the working class, associated with Ch. arr. from the socialist way of x-va, the working peasantry, associated in its vast majority with the small-scale way of x-va (the main k.), and the capitalist. elements of the city and the countryside associated with the private capitalist. way of farming (minor, secondary K.). As a result of the victory of the socialist forms of production, all exploitative capitalism is eliminated, and the class structure of society changes radically. However, as experience shows, certain class differences between the working class and the peasantry persist even at the level of socialism. These differences are associated with the presence of two forms of socialist. property: state national and collective-farm-cooperative, the existence of which is determined, in turn, by the unequal degree of socialization of production, development produces. forces in the industry and with. x-ve. Beings not yet overcome. differences between city and countryside and physical labor are reflected in the social structure of society, which consists of the working class, the cooperative peasantry and the intelligentsia, between which relations of a strong alliance have developed.
The working class under developed socialism is the most numerous. K. society. Its share in the population of the USSR increased from 14.6% in 1913 to 33.7% in 1939 and 60.5% in 1981. Worker workers play a leading role in society.
Unlike the working class, the number of Kolkh. the peasantry is declining (from 47.2% in 1939 to 13.8% in 1981). Mechanization with. x-va, the growth of technical. The armament of labor changes the character of the peasant's labor, makes it more productive, and brings it closer to the labor of the worker.
Socialism accelerates the growth of the number of mental workers. labor. From 1926 to 1981 the number of workers employed predominately. wit. labor, increased in the USSR more than 12 times. The share of employees in the population of the USSR increased from 2.4% in 1913 to 16.5% in 1939 and 25.7% in 1981. The very nature of socialism causes the gradual convergence of all these groups and the blurring of differences between them. This process is deployed primarily as a result of economic. and the cultural upsurge of the village, the transformation of S.-x. labor in a variety of industrial. The growth of the socialization of labor in the collective farms, the development of economic. links between collective farms and state. enterprises lead to the rapprochement of collective farms. property with the public. At the same time, on the basis of the connection of scientific and technical. revolution with the advantages of socialism, there is a process of convergence of physical labor with mental labor. The experience of the development of socialism in the USSR allows us to assume that the formation of a classless structure of society will mainly and fundamentally take place in history, within the framework of mature socialism. The leading force in the process of erasing interclass differences is the modern. working class (see Materials of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU, 1981, pp. 52-54).
Successes in solving the historical the tasks of destroying the exploitative capitals have practically refuted the assertions of the bourgeoisie. ideologists about the "eternity" of private property, the "naturalness" of the division of society into dominant and subordinate. Burzh. K.'s theories are usually characterized by anti-historical. approach. So, for example, supporters of biological theories claim that the basis of the division of society into K. are different biological. the value of people, differences in origin, in racial affiliation. For the majority of bourgeois theories are characterized by the denial of the material foundations of the division of society into K. Bourges. sociological theories tend either to obscure the differences between the K., or, conversely, to declare them natural and unavoidable. Many bourgeois sociologists assert that the proletariat itself "disappeared", dissolved into the "middle class". However, in reality there is no "middle class"; there are numerous intermediate layers, which do not form a single class. Their existence does not at all lead to a leveling of the positions of the opposing quarries. Equally untenable are attempts to replace the division of society into opposing quarries by dividing it into many strata (“strata”) that differ in occupation, income, place of residence, and other characteristics. Marxism-Leninism, of course, does not deny the existence in society, along with classes, of other social strata and groups. However, their place and role can only be understood if one takes into account the place they occupy in the class structure of society and in the struggle between the class. Class oppositions cannot be obscured by professional, cultural, and other differences. These opposites disappear only as a result of a radical change in the relations of production, revolution. overthrow of the foundations of capitalism. society and the creation of a new, socialist. society.
Marx K. and Engels F., Communist Manifesto. parties, Works, vol. 4; M a p k with K., Introduction. (From economic manuscripts of 1857-1858), ibid., vol. 12; his, the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, ibid., vol. 8; his, Capital, vol. 1-3, ibid., vol. 23-25; his, The Theory of Surplus Value (IV vol. "Capital"), ibid., vol. 26 (parts 1-3); Engels F., Anti-Dühring, ibid., vol. 20; him, Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of the classic. German philosophy, ibid., vol. 21, ch. 4; eg, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, ibid.; his own, Society. K. - necessary and superfluous, ibid., v. 19; Lenin, V.I., What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?, PSS, vol. 1; f about the same, Economic. the content of populism and its criticism in Mr. Struve's book, ibid., vol. 1; his, Another Destruction of Socialism, ibid., vol. 25; his own, Karl Marx, ibid., vol. 26; his, State-in and revolution, ibid., vol. 33; his own, Great Initiative, ibid., vol. 39; his, Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, ibid.; his, Children's disease of "leftism" in communism, ibid., vol. 41; International meeting of the communist. and labor parties. Documents and materials, M., 1969; Materials of the XXV Congress of the CPSU, M., 1976; Materials of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU, ?., ?98?; Solntsev S.I., Society. K., P., 19232; Semyonov V.S., Capitalism and K.,?., 1969; Problems of changing the social structure of owls. society, M-, 1068; K., social strata and groups in the USSR,?., 1968; foreigners? ?., Modern capitalism: new phenomena and contradictions, M., 1972; Eyes? m and n G. E., Historical. materialism and the development of socialist. society, M., 19732, ch. 4; Scientific communism and its falsification by renegades, M., 19742; ? at t to e-vich MP, Trends in the development of the social structure of owls. society, M., 1975; Social structure of a developed socialist society in the USSR, M., 1976; M and k at l with to and y K. I., Class structure of society in the countries of socialism, M., 1976; Semenov V. S., Dialectic of the development of the social structure of owls. society, M., 1977; And m in? about with about in AA, From class differentiation to social homogeneity of society,? .. 19782; Formation of social homogeneity socialist. society, M., 1981; The social structure of the socialist. society. 1970-1977. Bible index, part 1-2, Tallinn, 1980; see also lit. to Art. Class struggle. G. E. Glezerman.

1) relatively stable social groups that have common interests and values ​​(for example, the peasantry, the working class, the bourgeoisie, the middle class, etc.). The concept of classes and class struggle became widespread in Europe in the 19th century. (Saint-Simon, O. Thierry, F. Guizot and others). K. Marx and F. Engels associated the existence of classes with certain modes of production, considered the struggle of classes driving force history and assigned to the proletariat the historical mission of forcibly overthrowing the bourgeoisie and creating a classless society (Marxism, socialism). Different criteria are put forward for dividing society into classes and social groups (age, economic, professional, system of rights and obligations, social status, etc.) (stratification, class, status). In modern society, in the process of social differentiation and integration associated with the division social labor, property relations and other factors, numerous layers and groups are formed, between which relations of cooperation, competition or conflict develop, which are increasingly regulated on the basis of democratic principles;

2) one of the main types of social stratification (elements of social structure) along with caste and estate. In theoretical sociology, three approaches to the analysis of classes can be distinguished: two of them originate in the works of K. Marx and M. Weber, who considered various economic factors as class-forming; There is an alternative approach presented by some modern research social stratification, in which class is not defined purely economically. K. Marx considered the class from the point of view of ownership of capital and means of production, dividing the population into property owners and the have-nots, into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. IN AND. Lenin defined classes as large groups of people differing from each other in their place in the system of social production and role in the social organization of labor, their attitude to the means of production and the possibility of appropriating the labor of another group, the method of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth. M. Weber divided the population into classes in accordance with economic differences in market position. One of the bases of market position is capital, while others are qualifications, education, and status (social respect). Weber distinguished four classes: (1) the class of owners; (2) a class of intellectuals, administrators and managers; (3) the traditional petty-bourgeois class of small proprietors and merchants; (4) working class. Sociologists who develop alternative approaches to class analysis believe that individuals in modern society can be classified on the basis of non-economic factors such as profession, religion, education, ethnicity.

Classes are “large groups of people, differing in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relation (for the most part fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in methods of obtaining and size the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are such groups of people, of which one can appropriate the labor of another, thanks to the difference in their place in a certain way of social economy.

The existence of classes is connected only with historically determined modes of production. Class differentiation is fundamental for society, among other differences between people, precisely because it arises in the sphere of production on the basis of the social division of labor and private ownership of the means of production. Classes arise at that stage of social production when the appearance of surplus product and the division of labor made the exploitation of labor power economically advantageous.

The most important provisions of the scientific theory of classes were formulated by K. Marx and F. Engels. In a letter to I. Weidemeier dated March 5, 1852, Marx wrote: “What I did new was to prove the following: 1) that the existence of classes is connected only with certain historical phases in the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself constitutes only a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a society without classes.

When analyzing the class structure of society, Marxism distinguishes between main and non-basic classes, and also takes into account the existence of various groups, layers within classes and intermediate layers between classes. The main classes are those classes whose existence follows directly from the mode of production prevailing in a given socio-economic formation. These are slaves and slave owners, peasants and feudal lords, landowners, proletarians and bourgeois. But along with the dominant mode of production in class formations, remnants of the former modes of production may also be preserved, or sprouts of new modes of production may arise in the form of special economic structures. The existence of non-basic, transitional classes is connected with this. In those capitalist countries where significant vestiges of feudalism have survived, there exist as non-basic classes the landowners, who are becoming more and more merged with the bourgeoisie. In most capitalist countries there are numerous strata of the petty bourgeoisie (small peasants, artisans), who differentiate as capitalism develops. Within the classes, there are usually various layers, groups whose interests partially do not coincide. For example, in ancient society there was a struggle between the slave-owning aristocracy and democracy, which reflected the conflicting interests of various strata of slave-owners. In a capitalist society, there are also contradictions between the interests of various sections of the bourgeoisie (for example, the monopoly and non-monopoly bourgeoisie).

The development of capitalism leads to changes in the class structure of society, which, however, contrary to the assertions of the reformists, do not eliminate, but sharpen and deepen class antagonisms. The most important of these changes are connected, on the one hand, with the growth of monopoly capitalism and its development into state-monopoly capitalism, and, on the other hand, with the development of the scientific and technological revolution. Over the last century in the developed capitalist countries the share of the bourgeoisie in the able-bodied population has decreased (if in the middle of the 19th century it exceeded 8% in Great Britain, then in the 1960s and 1970s it amounted to only 1-2 up to 3-4%). At the same time, the wealth of the bourgeoisie increased colossally. Within it, a monopoly elite stood out, uniting economic and political power in its hands. The interests of the monopolies turned out to be in conflict with the interests not only of the working people, but also of small and even some of the medium-sized entrepreneurs. Under the conditions of state-monopoly capitalism, the process of ousting and ruining small private owners (peasants, artisans, etc.) accelerated and their share in the population decreased. At the same time, the proportion of wage laborers increased. The share of employees in the developed capitalist countries by the 80s. 20th century amounted to 70 to 90% (or more) of the active population. In the total mass of wage laborers, the most important place, both in numbers and in their role in production, is occupied by the modern working class.

The development of capitalist production, and especially the development of the scientific and technological revolution, leads to significant changes in the structure of the working class. The ratio of the various contingents of the working class is changing; first of all, the number of the industrial class is increasing and the number of the agricultural class is decreasing.

Scientific and technological progress, the growth of education and culture led to the rapid growth of the intelligentsia and employees. The social composition of the intelligentsia is heterogeneous. Its top (for example, managers) grows together with the ruling class; the part of the intelligentsia engaged in the so-called professions of "free labor" is close in position to the petty bourgeoisie and belongs to the middle strata of society. At the same time, an increasingly significant part of the intelligentsia and employees is losing their former position as a privileged stratum of society and is moving closer in their position to the working class.

Changes in the social structure of capitalism create the prerequisites for an ever closer alliance between the working class and broad sections of the working people in town and country. The convergence of the interests of the peasantry, the urban middle strata and the intelligentsia with the interests of the working class contributes to the narrowing of the social base of the monopolies and opens up opportunities for creating a broad alliance of all anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist forces. The leading force in this alliance is the working class, which is increasingly becoming the center of attraction for all the working strata of the population.

For thousands of years the existence of classes has been historically necessary. It was due, as F. Engels noted, to the relative underdevelopment of the productive forces, when the development of society could be carried out only with the enslavement of the mass of workers; under this condition, a privileged minority could be engaged in state affairs, science, art, etc. In connection with the huge increase in labor productivity achieved by large-scale capitalist industry, material prerequisites arose for the destruction of classes. The existence of any ruling exploiting class has not only become superfluous, but has become a direct obstacle to the further development of society.

The destruction of classes is possible only through the conquest of political power by the proletariat and a radical transformation of the economic system. In order to abolish the exploitative system, it is necessary to abolish private ownership of the means of production and replace it with public ownership. “To abolish classes means to put all citizens in the same relation to the means of production of the whole society, it means that all citizens have the same access to work on the public means of production, on public land, in public factories, and so on.” Classes cannot be destroyed immediately, they continue to exist for some time after the overthrow of the power of the capitalists and the establishment of the power of the working class. During the transition period from capitalism to socialism, the economic system is multi-structural, in most countries there are three classes: working class, connected mainly with the socialist way of economy, the working peasantry, associated in its overwhelming majority with the small-scale economic structure (the main classes; in developed countries, the peasantry is practically absent), and the capitalist elements of the city and countryside, associated with the private capitalist economic structure (non-main, secondary class). As a result of the victory of the socialist forms of economy, all the exploiting classes are eliminated, and society becomes classless.

Bourgeois class theories are usually characterized by an ahistorical approach. For example, supporters of biological theories argue that the division of society into classes is based on the different biological value of people, differences in origin, in racial affiliation. Most bourgeois theories are characterized by the denial of the material foundations for the division of society into classes. bourgeois sociological theories tend either to obscure the differences between classes, or, conversely, to declare them natural and unavoidable. Many bourgeois sociologists assert that the proletariat itself has "disappeared", dissolved into the "middle class". However, in reality there is no "middle class"; there are numerous intermediate layers that do not form a single class. Their existence by no means leads to equalization of the position of opposing classes. Equally untenable are attempts to replace the division of society into opposite classes by dividing it into many layers ("strata"), differing from each other in occupation, income, place of residence and other characteristics. Marxism, of course, does not deny the existence in society, along with classes, of other social strata and groups. However, their place and role can only be understood by taking into account what place they occupy in the class structure of society and in the struggle between classes. Class antagonisms cannot be obscured by professional, cultural, and other differences. These opposites disappear only as a result of a radical change in the relations of production, a revolutionary overthrow of the foundations of capitalist society and the creation of a new, socialist society.