In the 1920s, he devoted his works to the study of the laws of social development based on the use of the achievements of science and technology. XX century Russian scientist N.D. Kondratiev, and in the 30s. - Austrian economist J. Schumpeter. The latter is recognized as the founder of the theory of innovation, although his work is a logical continuation of earlier achievements in economic thought.

The economy develops according to its inherent laws, expressing objectively existing, necessary, stable links between economic phenomena. Laws are the objective principle that gives order to economic development and characterizes them as regulators of the economy. The laws inherent in social production do not remain unchanged. The replacement of one mode of production by another means the emergence of new laws governing the economy. For example, if the socialist economy was governed by the laws of the planned and proportional development of the national economy, distribution according to work, socialist accumulation, etc., then the market economy, based on the dominance of capital and the plurality of forms of ownership, is governed by the laws of value, profit, competition, demand and offers, etc.

Regularity, in our opinion, is a consequence of the operation of laws in relation to any logically justified sequence or regularity of something.

All the basic laws of the economy act on the patterns of the flow of innovative processes, this process, but its specificity determines the presence of patterns that are not inherent in other phenomena.

The innovation process can be characterized by the following system of patterns (Fig. 2):

Rice. 2. The system of regularities of the innovation process

For a long time, a stable economic illusion was widespread in our country that scientific and technological progress develops according to its own special laws, independent of the laws of economics. However, the formation of a market for the means of production and consumer goods makes us part with such views: when deciding on any innovation, the manager is forced to monitor the profitability of its implementation on the condition that additional income will subsequently exceed the costs of acquiring the innovation or its creation and production. Thus, the laws of scientific and technological progress, which determine the specifics of its course, operate within the framework of the general laws of the economy, and are not divorced from them. Moreover, the progress of science and technology is the result of the action of objective economic laws, the ignoring of which in the socialist economic system gave rise to the immunity of socio-economic systems to innovations.

In developed countries, technical innovations are created and introduced en masse because the joint action of objective economic laws creates a special environment in which scientific and technological progress is generated hourly. The opportunities associated with scientific and technical progress allow participants in the competitive struggle to bypass rivals in terms of production costs, increase the speed of adaptation to changing demand. In modern markets, oversaturated with goods and services, being late with innovation means dooming production to ruin. The sharper the competition, the less the producer has scientific ideas or technical solutions put aside in reserve, and the shorter the path "science - production - sales".

Theory of cyclical innovation fluctuations arose as an interpretation of the theory of large conjuncture cycles by N.D. Kondratiev, which describes long-term (covering several decades) cycles of upward (with acceleration) or downward (with attenuation) economic development. The process of the real dynamics of the economy, according to the scientist, is not straightforward, does not represent a straight ascending line; it is done unevenly, fluctuating. At the same time, along with the industrial cycle, which repeats every 7-11 years, the scientist singled out shorter cycles of the conjuncture, repeating in 3-3.5 years, and large cycles of the conjuncture, large waves in the dynamics of the economy.

Conducted by N.D. Kondratyev's processing of statistical data on changes over approximately 140 years of the main indicators of the development of England, France, Germany and America using the methods of mathematical statistics made it possible to calculate the duration of a large cycle of 48-55 years. The scientist considered large cycles as a violation or restoration of economic equilibrium for a long period, the main reason for which lies in the mechanism of accumulation, accumulation and dispersion of capital sufficient to create new basic productive forces. The essence of the big cycle was reduced to the following: the beginning of the economic upsurge coincides with the moment when the accumulation and accumulation of capital reach such a level of tension at which it becomes possible to profitably invest capital to create new basic productive forces and radically transform technology. The beginning increase in the pace of economic life, which is complicated by industrial-capitalist cycles of medium duration, causes an aggravation of the social struggle, the struggle for markets, and even external conflicts. In this process, the rate of capital accumulation slows down and the process of dispersion of free capital intensifies. The strengthening of these factors causes a change in the pace of economic development and its slowdown. Since the effect of these factors is stronger in industry, the turning point usually coincides with the onset of a long agricultural depression.

The slowdown in the pace of economic life causes an intensification of searches in the field of improving technology and, at the same time, the restoration of the process of capital accumulation at the expense of agriculture. The basis for the transition of the productive forces to a new stage of development is, above all, the improvement of technology. At the same time, N.D. Kondratiev concluded that the following empirical correctness exists: for about two decades before the beginning of the upward wave of a large cycle, there is a revival in the field of technical inventions. Before and at the very beginning of the upward wave, there is a widespread use of these inventions in the field of industrial practice and, as a result, industrial relations.

J. Schumpeter studied economic cycles of various durations in detail and combined three types of cycles in his model of multicyclic development: long Kondratiev cycles with an average duration of 57 years; average cycles investigated by Zhuglyar, with a duration of about 9.5 years; short cycles, studied by J. Kitchin, with an average duration of 3.2 years. Each of the cycles is associated with innovations: the first Kondratiev cycle (from the 1870s to 1842) - with new technologies in the textile industry that used the possibilities of coal and steam energy; the second (1842-1897) - with the development of railway transport and the mechanization of production; the third (1898-1949) - with electric energy and a car. Subsequently, scientists continued this description, linking the fourth zone (from the late 40s of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century) with advances in electronics, and the fifth, which has already begun, with biotechnology, advances in mathematics and physics, which underlie achievements of advanced computer technology. Thus, Schumpeter for the first time tried to connect all the types of cyclical oscillations discovered before him into a single interconnected process.

The study of the essence of the theory of cyclical social development makes it possible to identify the following patterns of cyclical innovation fluctuations: clusters (groups, bundles) of radical innovations provide a revolution in engineering and technology and entail the emergence of qualitatively new products, changes in the cost structure, production and consumption conditions. Cycles are understood not as a vicious circle of innovations of the same technical level, but as the progressive development of science and technology in a spiral. Emphasizing this feature of the cyclic nature of innovative fluctuations, some scientists formulate its dynamism and progressiveness as an independent regularity of scientific and technological progress.

In our opinion, a progressive character is an indispensable condition for cyclicality, otherwise social development turns into marking time. The content of the cycles of innovative fluctuations is the presence of revolutionary and evolutionary periods in the development of science and technology, the quantitative accumulation of improvements that periodically lead to qualitative changes, leaps in the materialization of human knowledge.

In the development of an innovation wave in time, researchers identify several typical periods (phases) that repeat in each cycle, differing significantly in the level of novelty of technology, the rate and weight of the effect that this generation of machines brings to manufacturers and consumers, the volume of production and the range of products. And although among scientists there is no unity in the definition and number of these phases (Fig. 3), they are approximately unanimous in their views on the shape of the innovation wave curve with slight differences in the content of the phases. The first phase, which should be called "birth", is characterized by radical innovations in engineering and technology based on discoveries and inventions in science and technology. In developed countries, at the very beginning of the cycle, these innovations are carried out by small young organizations, which, by virtue of their flexibility and adaptability, contribute to the diffusion of one or more large inventions into a cluster of innovations that leads to significant and constant economic progress.

In the second phase (growth), radical innovations are replicated, improved, their production volumes increase, the scope of application expands, they are differentiated in relation to the requirements of different market segments, and are technologically standardized. Production costs are reduced, which makes it possible to reduce prices, and contributes to the expansion of the scope of effective application of innovation.

Then comes the third phase of the innovation wave (deceleration), when the technology of this generation is slowly developing and improving qualitatively. New models appear based on the already known and tested technological principle, the parametric ranges of machines, equipment, and instruments are expanding. Standardization gives rise to the phenomenon of pseudo-innovations, when consumer demand is aimed at something new, but in the market it meets only a modification of the old.

The economic and technical potential of this technical idea and the generation of machines that embodies it has basically been exhausted, it is being replaced by a new, more progressive and efficient system of machines. Further modernization of machines based on an outdated technical idea is associated with large costs that are not compensated by the additional effect on the consumer. There is an increase in the cost of new modifications of obsolete machines. The damage from the production and operation of obsolete equipment is growing. A feature of the cyclicality of innovative fluctuations is that new generations of machines begin to be mastered when the previous one has not yet completely exhausted itself. This ensures the continuity of scientific and technological progress. Schematically, this pattern can be depicted as follows (Fig. 4):

The whole cycle covers one direction in engineering and technology, based on radical innovation. As part of this direction, there is a change in generations of machines, the basic version of which, in turn, entails a large number of improvements. Thus, within the framework of one wave, one can observe a large number of smaller waves that obey the same laws of development and pass through the same phases.

To understand the phenomenon of society, it is necessary to find out the nature of the patterns that unite people into a single whole.

Comparing the evolution of societies, the various stages that human civilization goes through in its development, scientists have identified a number of patterns:

– law of acceleration of history. It says that each subsequent stage takes less time than the previous one. Thus, capitalism is shorter than feudalism, which, in turn, is shorter than slavery. The pre-industrial society is longer than the industrial one. The closer to the present, the stronger the spiral of historical time shrinks, society develops faster, more dynamically;

– law of compaction of historical time. It means that technical and cultural progress has been constantly accelerating as it approaches modern society;

– law of unevenness reflects the fact that peoples and nations develop at different speeds. Different societies go through historical stages at different times. Therefore, in the modern world there are societies that are at different stages of development. And even within the same society (for example, in America and Russia), industrially developed regions and areas still coexist, where the population has preserved the pre-industrial (traditional) way of life. When, without going through all the previous stages, they are involved in the modern flow of life, not only positive, but also negative consequences can consistently manifest themselves in their development;

– the law of the conscious nature of the life activity of social organisms.

- the law of unity of anthropo-, socio- and cultural genesis, who argues that the origin of man, society and its culture, both from the "phylogenetic" and "ontogenetic" points of view, should be considered as a single, integral process, both in space and in time;

– the law of the decisive role of human labor activity in the formation and development of social systems. History confirms that the forms of activity of people, and, above all, labor determine the essence, content, form and functioning of social relations, organizations and institutions;

- the law of increasing the role of the subjective factor expresses causal relationships between the level of political consciousness of people and the pace of social progress .

Features of the laws of development of society:

1) the presence of general patterns presupposes the peculiarity of the development of individual countries and peoples passing through similar stages of development;

2) the natural nature of history also means the progressive nature of its development, is associated with the idea of ​​progress;

3) the laws of the development of society are the laws exclusively of human activity, and not something external to it;

4) social patterns are knowable; their knowledge depends on the degree of maturity of social relations and opens up the possibility of their use in the practical activities of people;

5) the objective nature of the laws of social development lies in the fact that laws are not created and cannot be repealed by people, that they act regardless of whether they are desirable to people or not, whether people have known them or not. These are the objective connections of the very system of social relations, the objective logic of social development.

The presence of general laws of social development does not mean that the activity of an individual and society as a whole is completely determined by these laws. Neither man nor society can change these laws, but it is in their power to know these laws and use the knowledge gained either for the benefit or to the detriment of humanity.

Purpose of the lecture: based on the knowledge of students obtained in secondary school while studying the courses "History of Russia", "General History"; through the disclosure of the main trends and patterns of the formation of historical science; to form students' knowledge about formational, civilizational and cultural approaches to history, to bring them to the idea that Russian civilization has a number of features in historical development.

Lecture plan

1. The concept of "history".

2. The concept of "society". Basic laws of development of society.

3. Socio-ecological crises in the history of mankind.

4. Main approaches to history: formational, cultural, civilizational.

5. Place of Russia among other civilizations.

1. The concept of "history"

Let's remember once again what "History" is, what this science does. Who will try to formulate the answer?

Indeed, history studies facts, events, and processes. But what? After all, there are no textbooks about the history of your life yet, although each of you already has your own little “story”. This science deals only with such facts and processes that have influenced the formation of the current state of society. History tries to see and understand what made us what we are now (although maybe we wanted to be different).

History is a science that studies facts, events and processes on the basis of historical sources (for example: annals), in order to establish the patterns of the historical development of society.

Knowing the laws of the development of society, we can not only assume why our ancestors acted one way or another, but also model our future. After listening to the course "Patriotic History", you will know what we need to correct first of all in ourselves, so that there are changes in the whole society.

2. The concept of "society". Basic laws of the development of society

You and I have established that history is a science that observes the maturation and age-related changes in society. What is society as a whole?

Indeed, this is a combination of people, and all of us, and much more ... At present, science gives more than 200 definitions of the concept of "society". Among them are such as:

Society is a socio-cultural system consisting of two levels of organization of society - the level of cultural systems (the interconnection of ideas) and the level of social systems (the interconnection of people).

Society is a part of the world created by people who work together and consciously transform it.

Society is a set of all ways of interaction and forms of association of people, expressing their comprehensive dependence on each other.

Society is a set of historically established forms of human interaction.

Society is a variety of relations between people that arise without the participation of the state.

However, the most meaningful is the following definition, which is clear to both the humanities and the naturalists:

Society is a dynamic self-developing system that has separated from nature, but has not broken its connection with it.

The main features of this system are:

Self-organization.

Self-development.

Self-activity.

Self-sufficiency.

The last sign, philosophers call it a distinctive sign of humanity, as an integral system, from small social groups, which we are now.

Society is a living organism that has its own structure. The smallest elements of this system are you and me, large substructures: economic, political, social, spiritual spheres of society.

Systems such as human society are called open systems by physicists. they exchange matter, energy and information with the environment.

Society, as an open system, develops non-linearly, that is, it goes through a series of social and environmental crises (the so-called bifurcation points). Each crisis is a challenge to society, a situation of historical choice, which leads either to an increase in the structural organization of the system, or to its death.

We see that humanity, just like each of us, goes through black and white stripes, and strives to save life. As long as we are alive…, and therefore some accidents (and maybe not accidental brilliant discoveries) have pushed the system onto a new path of development until now, along which it went until a new bifurcation.

Some general laws of system development can be applied to society as well. When we talk about systems, we mean a whole that is made up of parts and is a unity. This unity, which is very important, is not limited to its constituent elements.

Society is also a system, it is an organized collection of people. We are all part of it, so many of us are wondering how it develops. The laws of its development can be discovered by examining the sources of progress. In society, three spheres of reality interact with each other, "worlds" that are not reducible to each other. This is, firstly, the world of things and nature, which exists independently of the consciousness and will of man, that is, it is objective and subject to various physical laws. Secondly, this is a world in which objects and things have a social existence, since they are products of human activity, his labor. The third world represents human subjectivity, spiritual ideas and essences relatively independent of the objective world. They have the greatest degree of freedom.

Nature as a source of social development

The world of nature contains the first source of social development. The laws of social development in the past were often formulated based on it. It is the basis for the existence of society, which, interacting with it, improves. Do not forget that it was the laws of the development of nature that led to the emergence of man. The largest civilizations, which is characteristic, originated in the beds of large rivers, and the most successful development of the capitalist formation in the world was carried out in states with a temperate climate.

It should be noted that the current stage of interaction between society and nature is marked by the concept. Its main reason was the setting of people to conquer nature, as well as ignoring the boundaries of its resistance to anthropogenic influences. People turn a blind eye to the basic laws of development, forget about everything in pursuit of momentary gain and do not take into account the consequences. It is necessary to change the behavior and consciousness of billions of inhabitants of the Earth so that nature can continue to provide us with the necessary resources.

The role of technology in the development of society

The next source is technological determinants, that is, the role of technology, as well as the process of division of labor in the social structure. They also provide social development. Laws today are often formulated on the basis of the role of technology. This is not surprising - it is now being actively improved. However, according to T. Adorno, the question of the priority of technology and economics is the question of what appeared first: the egg or the chicken. The same can be attributed to the type and nature of human labor, which largely determines the system of social relations. All this became especially obvious today, when the contours were outlined. The main contradiction in this case arises between the humane goals of its existence pursued by man and the world of information technology that carries a potential threat. Many problems are caused by its active development.

Therefore, the laws of the development of society are beginning to be revised, the emphasis is on it. We will talk about it now.

Spiritual sphere as a source of social progress

Leaving aside the "primary" (initial) stage, as well as the "secondary forms" of the community that grew on its form, Marx believed that, in relation to the era of class society and civilization, the ancient, feudal, Asian and bourgeois (modern) modes of production can be called progressive eras of social economic formation. In the social science of the USSR, a simplified formula of the process of historical development was used, implying the transition of primitive society first to slave-owning, then to feudal, then to capitalist and, finally, to socialist.

The concept of "local civilizations"

The concept of "local civilizations", which was created by the efforts of A. D. Toynbee, O. Spengler and N. A. Danilevsky, enjoys the greatest recognition in the philosophical thought of the 19th-20th centuries. According to it, all peoples are divided into civilized and primitive, and the first - also into cultural and historical types. The phenomenon formulated as "Challenge-and-Response" is of particular interest here. It consists in the fact that calm development is suddenly replaced by a critical situation, which, in turn, prompts the growth of one or another culture. The authors of this concept made an attempt to overcome Eurocentrism in the understanding of civilization.

Systems approach

In the last quarter of the 20th century, an approach was developed according to which the world is a system in which the laws of the development of man and society operate. This is due to the fact that at this time the process was gaining strength. In the global conglomerate, one can single out the "periphery" and the "core", which form a "world-system" as a whole, which exists according to the laws of superformation. Information and everything related to it has become the main commodity of today's type of production. And this, in turn, changes the idea that the historical process is of a linear type.

Laws of economic development

These are constantly recurring, essential, stable links between economic phenomena and processes. For example, the law of demand expresses an inverse relationship that exists between a change in the price of a certain product and the demand that arises for it. Like other laws of the life of society, economic laws operate regardless of the desire and will of people. We can distinguish among them universal (general) and specific.

General - those that operate throughout the history of mankind. They functioned even in a primeval cave and continue to be relevant in a modern company, and will also operate in the future. Among them are the following laws of economic development:

Increasing needs;

Progressive development of the economy;

Increasing opportunity costs;

Growing division of labor.

The development of society inevitably leads to a gradual increase in needs. This means that over time, people have a growing idea of ​​a set of goods that they regard as "normal". On the other hand, the standard of each type of good that is consumed increases. Primitive people, for example, wanted to have, above all, a lot of food. Today, as a rule, a person no longer cares about not dying from its lack. He strives to ensure that his food is varied and tasty.

On the other hand, as purely material needs are satisfied, the role of social and spiritual ones increases. For example, in modern developed countries, when choosing a job, young people are more and more concerned not so much with earning more (which allows them to dress and eat exquisitely), but with the fact that work has a creative nature, gives the opportunity for self-realization.

People, seeking to meet new needs, improve production. They increase the range, quality and quantity of goods produced in the economy, as well as increase the efficiency of the use of various natural resources. These processes can be called economic progress. If the existence of progress in art or morality is disputed, it is indisputable in economic life. It can be achieved through the division of labor. If people specialize in the production of some specific goods, then overall productivity will increase markedly. However, in order for each person to have a complete set of benefits that he needs, it is necessary to organize a constant exchange between members of society.

Redistribution and decentralized exchange

K. Polanyi, an American economist, identified 2 methods of coordinating actions between participants in production. The first is redistribution, that is, exchange, centralized redistribution. The second is the market, that is, a decentralized exchange. In pre-capitalist societies, redistributive product exchange prevailed, that is, natural, carried out without the use of money.

At the same time, the state forcibly seized part of the products produced by its subjects from them for further redistribution. This method was characteristic not only for the societies of the Middle Ages and antiquity, but also for the economies of the socialist countries.

Even under the primitive system, market barter was born. In pre-capitalist societies, however, it was mostly a secondary element. Only in a capitalist society does the market become the main method of coordination. At the same time, the state actively encourages its development by creating various laws, for example, the Law on the Development of Entrepreneurship. Monetary relations are actively used. In this case, the exchange of goods is carried out horizontally, between producers who are equal in rights. Each of them has complete freedom of choice in the search for partners for transactions. The Small Business Development Act provides support to small firms that find it difficult to function in the face of growing competition.

S. Bobrov

Origin of life on earth

The origin of life on earth in the context of the topic under consideration is interesting not in the peculiarities of certain hypotheses, but from the standpoint of the most general laws of nature under which this process proceeded. The most popular scientific hypothesis of the origin of life is its origin in the original "broth" (ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, etc. compounds). And it is not so important (in the context of the topic) under the influence of hard ultraviolet (when there was no atmosphere) or volcanic eruptions, certain formations occurred (deoxyribonucleic acid - DNA, ribonucleic acid - RNA, etc.). It is important that the processes took place within the framework of the action of the most general laws of nature. The desire for balance, for a stable state is one of the main laws of development of the world around us. That is, from the countless formation of certain structures (systems), those that turned out to be stable in this particular environment were preserved. Unstable, in this particular environment, decayed, stable remained. The environment changed, conditions changed, stable formations, interacting, formed even more stable ones, already in a certain way changing environment, etc. It is possible that the diversity of the environment for the emergence of living cells determined such a diversity of living nature.

The emergence of living nature began with the synthesis of a living cell as a stable open (in the thermodynamic sense) organic system. And, as is known from thermodynamics, open systems, unlike closed ones, ensure their stability (at least in the process of development) not by increasing entropy (chaos), but, on the contrary, by ordering the system, which, in turn, is carried out for account of the energy exchange of the system with the external environment. That is, a living cell, as an open system, can exist and develop only at the expense of the external environment, i.e. satisfying their needs (the needs of their existence and development) at the expense of the external environment.

Subsequently, organisms began to form from living cells, which provided a certain relatively stable environment for living cells, within which these cells could exist and develop, and the organism as a whole performed the functions of adaptation to the environment. But once an organism emerged as a higher form of living nature, it itself changed under the influence of the external environment, including changes in its components from which it originally arose.

From this, at least two conclusions can be drawn as the basis for further reasoning.

1. Any more complex organisms are formed from the conditions of increasing stability in a changing environment. Any development is on the path of increasing sustainability.

2. A living organism (from a cell to a society), as a thermodynamic system, lives and develops only through the exchange of energy and matter with the external environment. That is, the condition for the development (increasing sustainability) of any living organism is the satisfaction of its needs at the expense of the external environment.

Human society as an open thermodynamic system, objectivity of origin and task.

Man, as a highly organized thermodynamic system, in striving for a more stable state, forms a thermodynamic system of an even higher level - a family, clan, tribe, society. This is a natural process of the unconscious development of the system. Similarly, many species, both insects and animals, increase their resistance to changes in the external environment. That is, the very association of individuals into a community is not only unconscious, but not even instinctive. The unconditional instinct arises later, in the process of repeated reproduction of the social individual. The community, as an organism (thermodynamic system) of a higher order, provides greater stability for the organisms that created it, the environment in which they are more resistant to external influences. Negative external influences in many ways begin to reflect the community as a whole, as an organism of a higher order. As a result, under changing external conditions, first of all, similar individuals that are not united in communities die. Over time, for the organisms that survive in the community, living in communities becomes an absolute instinct.

A community as an organism, as a thermodynamic system of a higher order, arises as a realization of the natural desire of its constituent individuals, as well as everything in living and non-living nature, to a more stable state. That is, the community arises, on the one hand, as a result of a general pattern - the desire of everything in nature to a stable state, and on the other, as the realization of the needs of the individuals of its constituents. Ultimately, any higher organism arises as a desire of the lower ones to ensure their stable state.

The higher organism always arises from the needs of the lower ones, realizing their requests for a stable state in a changing external environment. But developing, increasing its resistance to changes in the external environment, the superior organism also changes its internal environment, thus increasing the stability of some of its components (the majority, since it is the basis of the internal content of the organism itself, as a system) and lowering the stability of others, which in As a result, they either transform or die. That is, in the process of development, increasing its resistance to changes in the external environment, the body changes its content.

Man, as a thermodynamic system, strives for a more stable state at the unconscious level. And it, like any open thermodynamic system, can ensure its stable state only through the exchange of energy and matter with the environment, i.e. satisfying your needs. The natural, logical, unconscious aspiration of a person as a system to a more stable state, with a lack of opportunities, is expressed in his desire for a more complete satisfaction of his needs. That is, a person's desire for a more complete satisfaction of his needs is not a matter of his conscious choice, it is his objective need inherent in nature, the basic law of man as an open thermodynamic system, as a force not subject to him and steadily pushing him towards development, as an increase in his stability in relation to to the external environment. The conscious desire of a person to more fully satisfy his needs solves the question only of the methods of their satisfaction, and the need itself is inherent in nature and does not depend on the will of man. That is, consciousness is secondary and only expands the possibilities for a person to realize his needs.

But society, as an open thermodynamic system of a higher level, also strives to increase the degree of its stability. This happens both due to changes in the members of society themselves, as elements of its components, and due to its organizational structure and principles of functioning. This manifests itself in the form of increasing knowledge, skills, etc. members of society and in the form of changes in the organization of society. But society itself is a product of the realization of the interests of its members. That is, society is for its members, and not vice versa.

Correlation between the ideal and the real from the standpoint of epistemology.

Oddly enough, but many who consider themselves materialists often argue from the position of idealists, it seems, without even realizing it. This is sometimes manifested most clearly in discussions about the role of the Communist Party in the upbringing of the new man.

In the context of this discussion, it is important to determine how independent a person is in his judgments and how these judgments are formed in general. Are we all independent thinkers and are there objective laws within which our consciousness is formed? Therefore, it makes sense to determine what the very mechanism of thinking is and the relationship between the ideal and the real in this process.

This issue is well covered by E.V. Ilyenkov in "The Question of the Identity of Thinking and Being in Pre-Marxist Philosophy" http://caute.ru/ilyenkov/texts/idemb.html. Although pre-Marxist philosophy appears in the title, the Marxist position on this issue is also stated.

Here are some excerpts from the mentioned article.

Feuerbach sees this “immediate unity” (identity) of subject and object, thought and being, concept and object – in contemplation.

K Marx and F. Engels see this "immediate unity" (i.e. identity) of subject and object, thinking and being, concept and object - in practice, in subject-practical activity.

This weak point is the anthropological interpretation of the “identity of thinking and being”, the thinking and matter of the brain of an individual; the thesis according to which thinking is a material process that takes place in the cerebral cortex, i.e. anatomical and physiological reality.

Taken by itself, outside the context of philosophical theory, this thesis contains nothing erroneous. From a "medical point of view" it is absolutely fair: under the cranium of an individual, indeed, there is nothing but a set of neuro-physiological structures and processes. And as long as human thinking is considered from a medical point of view, this thesis cannot be denied without ceasing to be a materialist.

But as soon as this anthropological-medical interpretation of the "identity of thought and matter" is taken as a philosophical understanding and solution of the problem of "identity of thought and being", then materialism immediately ends.

And the cunning of this turn of thought lies in the fact that this point of view continues to appear "materialistic."

“Thinking is not “I”, not “Reason”. But it is also not the “brain” that thinks. A person thinks with the help of the brain, while in unity with nature and in contact with it. Removed from this unity, he no longer thinks. Here Feuerbach stops.

But it is also not man who thinks in direct unity with nature, K. Marx continues. And this is not enough. Only a person who is in unity with society, with the socio-historical collective that socially produces its material and spiritual life, thinks. This is the fundamental difference between Marx and Feuerbach.

Man, withdrawn from the interweaving of social relations, within and through which he makes his human contact with nature (i.e., is in human unity with her), thinks just as little as the “brain” withdrawn from the human body.

Between "man in general" (as contemplative and thinking) and nature itself, "nature in general", there is another important "mediating link" missed by Feuerbach. This mediating link through which nature is transformed into thought, and thought into the body of nature, is practice, labor, production.

“In direct contemplation, which is the starting point of Feuerbach’s materialism (and all previous materialism), the objective features of “nature in itself” are intertwined with those features and forms that are imposed on nature by the transforming activity of man. Moreover, all purely objective characteristics (forms and laws) of natural material are given to contemplation through the image that natural material acquired in the course and as a result of the subjective activity of social man.

Error, therefore, begins only where a limitedly correct course of action is given a universal meaning, where the relative is mistaken for the absolute.

Therefore, the narrower was the sphere of the natural whole with which man dealt, the greater the measure of error, the less the measure of truth.

“There is a real bridge between a thing (object) and representation (concept, theory, etc.), a real transition – the sensory-objective activity of a socio-historical person. It is through this transition that the thing turns into a representation, and the representation into a thing. At the same time, what is most important, an idea arises only in the process of a person's action with a thing created by a person for a person, i.e. on the basis of an object created by labor or at least only involved in this labor as a means, object or material. On the basis of things created by man, the ability to form ideas about things that have not yet been mediated by labor arises - about natural things. But by no means the other way around."

“If I transform “my” idea of ​​a thing, i.e. verbally or visually fixed image of a thing, into a real thing, into action with this thing outside of me, and through this thing into the form of an external thing, i.e. into an objectively fixed result of an action, then I eventually have two “things” in front of me (outside myself) that are quite comparable to each other in real space.

But of these two things, one is simply a thing, and the other is a thing created according to the plan of presentation, or a reified (through action) representation. Comparing these two things, I compare them with each other as two "external" objects - a representation and a thing - by which I check the correctness (correctness) of the representation.

It is the same with the truth of a concept (theory). If, relying on a concept, I create outside of myself a thing corresponding to it, then this means that my concept is true, i.e. corresponds to the essence of the thing, coincides, agrees with it.

“Identification (i.e. identity as an act, as an action, as a process, and not as a dead state) of thought and reality, which takes place in practice and through practice, is the essence, the essence of the Marxist-Leninist theory of reflection.”

“Practice as an act of “identifying the object with the concept and the concept with the object” is therefore the criterion of truth, the reality of thinking, the objectivity of the concept. ... practice also proves the identity of logic with dialectics, i.e. the identity of the forms and laws of our thinking with the forms and laws of the development of nature and society. Logical regularities are nothing else than the universal forms and regularities of the development of objective reality, realized and turned into active forms and principles of our subjective activity.

The only difference between “logical” laws and the objective universal laws of the development of the universe through contradictions is, as F. Engels beautifully formulated, that “the human head can apply them consciously, while in nature it is still mostly in human history - they make their way unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, among an endless series of seeming accidents.

The fact that in the “head” the universal dialectical regularities are carried out deliberately, with consciousness, purposefully – and in nothing else – is the only difference between the “logical” regularities and the regularities of the external world.

That is why "logic" is nothing but "dialectic" consciously applied in science and in life. It's absolutely the same. This is Lenin's position, according to which "dialectics, logic and the theory of knowledge of Marxism" are one and the same science, and not three different, albeit "connected" sciences.

It is true that thinking and being are not the same thing. But this is not the whole truth, but only half of it. The other half of the truth consists in the opposite statement: thinking and being are one and the same.

And any of these two halves of the genuine concrete truth, taken without the other, is really nonsense, absurdity, a typical delusion of the metaphysical way of thinking.

The materialistic solution to the problem of the identity of the opposites of thinking and reality is that reality is regarded as the leading, determining side within this identity. Hegelian dialectics ascribes this role to thinking.

In this - and not in the fact that Hegel recognizes the very identity of opposites, while Marx rejects it - lies the real, and not the imaginary, opposition of materialism and mysticism. This identity of thought and reality is recognized as the identity of opposites by both Hegel and Marx. Only one interprets it idealistically, while the other interprets it materialistically. That's the point.

One conclusion follows from everything considered. The principle of “the identity of thinking and being” (or, in other words, in the affirmative answer to the question whether such an identity exists) consists primarily in the recognition of the fact of transformation, the transition of reality into thought, the real into the ideal, the object into the concept and vice versa. And this is precisely the fact that philosophy as a science has always specially investigated and is investigating. The laws of this "identification" of thinking with reality are the laws of logic, the laws of dialectical logic. Therefore, we can say that the principle of the dialectical identity of thinking and being is a kind of password for the right to enter scientific philosophy, within the limits of its subject. Anyone who does not accept this principle will either be engaged in pure “ontology”, or pure “logic”, or both alternately, but will never find a real entrance into dialectics as logic and theory of knowledge, into Marxist-Leninist philosophy.”

I would like to draw special attention to two points. The first is that thinking is the process of transforming the real into the ideal and vice versa, mediated by the practical activity of a person. And secondly, that a person cannot think outside of society without absorbing a certain part of the knowledge, skills and ideas accumulated by society over the entire period of its existence.

A person, in principle, can think only with what has already been given to him, what he has already perceived from the real world and turned into the ideal (consciousness) in his head. Combining already data, using already given laws and regularities, a person forms new ideas and concepts, discovers new laws and regularities. Dialectics of thinking: thesis - antithesis - synthesis. Thesis and antithesis are formed on the basis of existing knowledge, synthesis - new knowledge. At the next stage, synthesis becomes a thesis, and the very continuation of thinking is possible only with the advent of antithesis.

Based on this, it can be argued that in the part in which people have common knowledge and ideas, they think at least similarly. Differences begin where people have different inner (ideal) worlds, formed on the basis of different knowledge and ideas. This may be due both to the social position, the environment that formed the individual, and to professional activities. That is, a person thinks in conjunction with society, with the achieved level of its development, and cannot be free from it in his thought process. But a person does not think in combination with society in general, at least not only, but also in combination, in particular, with that part of society that formed a certain part of his ideas, which can be both true and false. This is what we need to understand, who and where have formed false ideas, considering the laws of the development of society, starting from the birth of living organisms on the basis of the most general laws of nature, with which everyone agrees, and ending with human society. Since false initial ideas also lead to false actions (the embodiment of the ideal into the real), which are fundamentally incapable of transforming the real world in the desired direction.

Fundamentals of the development of human society, laws of development, Marx's formational theory.

Since being determines consciousness, consciousness cannot in principle be ahead of being. Of course, not in the sense that consciousness cannot construct a new being, but in the sense that consciousness can do this only on the basis of being already given into sensation. That is, turning the accumulated real experience into the ideal (consciousness), a person (society), operating on this ideal, creates a new ideal and, in the process of labor, transforms, in accordance with it, the real world, creating a new being. And so on. That is, although consciousness develops ahead of schedule, in principle it cannot break away from the already achieved existence.

Despite the ability of a person to think, society itself, as an element of living nature, has been developing spontaneously for a long time, and in general, practically to this day, on the basis of the most general laws of its development. From the standpoint of thermodynamics, society, as a system, objectively strives to increase its stability in relation to the external environment. But this is the most general law of nature, which does not reveal the very mechanism for increasing this stability, and in order to consciously manage the development of society, this mechanism must be understood.

A person can ensure his stability, like any open thermodynamic one, only by exchanging energy and matter with the external environment, i.e. meeting their needs for that resilience. And the more fully these needs are satisfied, the higher the level of resistance to environmental conditions is provided. This is an objective law of nature, embedded in man as a thermodynamic system. Man cannot exist otherwise, and it is this real being, the objective law of nature, that underlies the development of his consciousness. The desire for a more complete satisfaction of one's needs is not a conscious choice of a person, but the law of nature, the natural conditions of his existence. This is what was, is and will be the main driving force behind the development of man (as long as he remains a man) in particular and society as a whole.

It is the striving for a more complete satisfaction of one's needs that pushes a person to develop the productive forces of society. The productive forces, developing, require at each stage of their development certain social relations, quantitative changes in which cannot accumulate indefinitely within the framework of specific property relations (mode of production, o.e. formations). At a certain stage, the limit of possibilities for changing production relations within the framework of these property relations is reached, which entails a slowdown in the development of the productive forces of society. At this moment, there is a qualitative leap, changes in property relations, which creates an opportunity for the further development of production relations to meet the requirements of the achieved level of development of the productive forces.

To summarize, then:

1. The development of society is based on the natural desire of a person to more fully satisfy his needs.

2. The desire for a more complete satisfaction of their needs encourages a person to develop the productive forces of society.

3. The productive forces of society, while developing, require a constant change in production relations in accordance with the achieved level of their development.

4. Changes in production relations cannot be endless within a particular mode of production (legally fixed property relations). There comes a time when further changes in production relations, in order to ensure the further development of the productive forces, require a change in the mode of production.

These are the laws of the development of society, which act inexorably and do not depend on the will of man. And there is no difference in which specific mode of production all this is poured out. Whether it is the classical formation system of Marx or with deviations in the form of the Asian mode of production, or the peculiarities of the formation of feudalism in Europe, the essence is always the same - a new mode of production arises when and only when the old one becomes unable to provide further changes in production relations to the requirements of the development of productive forces. And it doesn’t matter what the new mode of production will be specifically, only one requirement is important for it - the ability to ensure the further development of production relations to the requirements of the development of the productive forces of society, as a condition for further increasing the stability of society as a system that ensures sustainable human development.

class society. Bases of domination of a class and forms of its realization.

Class society arose when, as a result of the development of the productive forces of society, a person became able to produce significantly more than what is necessary for his own reproduction. That is, when he was already able to produce significantly more than was necessary to maintain his life and the life of his family - to keep him as a labor force in an unchanged state over time. If we use valuations (costs of socially useful labor), then this is when a person has become able to produce a value significantly greater than the value of his labor power.

This surplus product, produced in excess of what was necessary for the simple reproduction of labor power, began to be withdrawn by the stronger members of society from the weaker ones. Thus, one part of society began to ensure a more complete satisfaction of its needs at the expense of the other. But these are only external manifestations, which in themselves do not reveal the patterns of development, why such a system ensured the further development of society, a further increase in its resistance to changes in the external environment.

While a person could produce only such a quantity of products that could only ensure his simple reproduction, or slightly exceeding this limit, when even such survival was ensured largely due to their collective activity, those societies should have developed most actively, or even simply survived, in which individual members of society did not ensure a more complete satisfaction of their needs at the expense of other members of society. If such attempts were made, then those who were deprived of the product necessary for their survival simply died, thereby weakening the society as a whole, which could lead to the death of the society itself. That is, natural selection, natural regularity, left and made it possible to develop only those societies in which there was no exploitation of some members of society by others.

When the surplus product created by an individual member of society became tangible in order to withdraw it without leading to the death of this member of society, then the situation changed dramatically. The concentration of the surplus product of many people in individual hands made it possible for a broader specialization, the opportunity to ensure the development of science, culture, engineering and technology at the expense of these funds. Now, such a system has proven to be more viable. And not because someone was simply stronger and was able to regularly take away the surplus from others, but because such a system made it possible to more effectively develop the productive forces of society, increase its stability. And the greater the concentration of resources, the more opportunities a society has for its development, the greater its ability to survive in comparison with other societies, including in the competitive struggle.

But the unorganized withdrawal of the surplus product by one member of society from others not only did not allow for a large concentration of the surplus product, but also did not ensure such a concentration on a permanent basis. For example, with the death of the subject that provided it, the whole system could fall apart. As a result, not individual exploiters, but their associations turned out to be more stable. And the larger these associations, the objectively they should be more stable and able to absorb smaller ones. Gradually, the forcible withdrawal of the surplus product turned into a system of organized violence with an extensive hierarchical structure - the state. That is, the formation of the state is an objectively natural process, independent of the will and desire of people. And it was formed as a natural result of the development of society as a system that preserves the most stable forms in the process of its development. At the same time, the state arose and exists precisely as an instrument of violence of the ruling class over the oppressed class.

Since the emergence of the ruling class in society, the development of society began to be determined by the desire for a more complete satisfaction of their needs by this particular class. The oppressed classes have become, in fact, an instrument for better satisfying the needs of the ruling class. That is, a special system arose or, if we take it within the framework of the whole society, a subsystem - the ruling class, which created another system subordinate to it, designed to ensure its dominance in society - the state. But if the state is a system subordinate to a class, then there must be a mechanism for using this system in the interests of the class.

The origin of the exploitation of some members of society by others could not be based on anything other than brute physical force, there were simply no other tools. But with the growing concentration in one hand of a significant part of the surplus product in society, the exploiters have the opportunity to maintain special people with these funds and for these purposes. To control the actions of a large number of such people, certain rules (laws) of their functioning are created, which are transformed over time into state legislation. That is, the domination of a class (as a class) was initially based on the economic capabilities of its members, it was the concentration in their hands of the labor of a significant number of people, a significant part of the surplus product of society (and the class as a whole - the main part of the surplus product) that made it possible for the members of the ruling class to collectively maintain the state ensuring their dominance in society.

The mechanism of such control by the class of the state and its management may be different, but the basis is always the same, the state always implements the will of those in whose hands (private or coalition) the main part of the surplus product is concentrated, which also corresponds to the possession of the main part of the economic power of society, the main part of property to the means of production. In the ancient and Middle Ages, this was realized through both intrastate wars and the physical liquidation of monarchs, and in individual societies, through the election of leaders. In societies with a developed democratic system, this is carried out, as a rule, without bloodshed, but this does not change the essence. Democracy is simply a way of identifying the will of the people who own most of the economic power of society and legitimizing this will as instructions for its implementation by the state. With the help of democracy, that part of society, in whose hands the greater part of the economic power of society is located, imposes its will on specific issues on the remaining part of the ruling class, and through it both the state and the rest of society. Each member of the ruling class has the opportunity to direct part of the product of the labor of other people concentrated in his hands to support or counteract certain areas of the state system. That is, each member of the ruling class, regardless of what specific socio-economic formation we are talking about, directly participates in the formation of the will of the class in proportion to their economic capabilities, this right is not bestowed on anyone. This determines the dominance in society of a class, and not of kings, kings, pharaohs, governments, parliaments or parties. Power cannot be exercised indirectly at all, power is a property of a subject that can be acquired, possessed, lost, but it is impossible to transfer to someone without losing it.

Reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR from the standpoint of the objective laws of the development of society.

If we proceed from the objective laws of the development of society discussed in previous topics, then Russia at the beginning of the last century was still completely unprepared for the transition to the next socio-economic formation. And not only as a country that has independently exhausted all the possibilities of development within the framework of bourgeois property relations, but also as the weakest link in the world capitalist system. As is now quite obvious, the most developed countries of the world capitalist system at that time had even greater opportunities for development within the framework of bourgeois property relations. But the October Revolution of 1917 took place precisely as socialist, if we understand socialism as the first phase of the communist formation, the period of transition from capitalism to communism. In July 1918, the Constitution of the RSFSR was adopted, precisely as the Constitution of a socialist state. But this is where everything socialistic (as the first phase of communism) ends. The Constitution of the RFSR of 1918 is never implemented in life, because it quickly became clear that the implementation of such a constitution in Russia at that time was a direct path to restoring the dominance of the bourgeoisie in society, with all the ensuing consequences, not only for the revolutionaries, but for all Russian workers .

In the previous topics, it was argued that the dictatorship of a class is always carried out at the will of that part of the class that controls most of the economic potential of society. And also the fact that the future ruling class must mature, become capable of exercising its dominance in the system of new property relations. And this can only happen when the productive forces of society have developed to such an extent that they require changes in production relations that are incompatible with existing property relations. Only then will the demands of the future ruling class, as a class, become visible and understandable both to the new relations of production and to the new relation of property.

At the beginning of the last century, there was nothing of this not only in Russia, but nowhere else in the world. Russia of that time still largely retained semi-feudal relations, at least in the system of public administration. In a situation where the country not only did not have a developed dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democracy, not only that it had not yet exhausted itself, in a country in which it had not even been formed yet, there could be no question of any dictatorship of the proletariat. And this, judging by the debates at the third congress of the Comintern, was well understood by many leaders of the communist movement of that time. And the replacement of the dictatorship of the class by the dictatorship of the party (the dictatorship of the clan devoted to the interests of the working masses) was at that time the only way to form the state and the corresponding political system in the country in the interests of the vast majority of the country's population. The reassessment of society's readiness for the transition to a new socio-economic formation cost a lot to the German Communist Party, which was quite strong at that time. Their main ideologist in his pamphlet (voiced at the third congress of the Comintern), recognizing that the Russian communists have no other way but to replace the dictatorship of the class with the dictatorship of the party, wrote that if the communists of the capitalist developed countries go the same way, then this will not be a mistake, it will be a betrayal of the revolution.

Consciously or instinctively, but the Russian Bolsheviks chose the only possible way at that time to radically change the structure of society in the interests of the vast majority of its members. But the German communists, trying to immediately establish in society the dictatorship of a new class, which at that time was not yet ready for this, which still existed simply as an oppressed class and fighting for its rights, but not as a mature new ruling class, a class that felt the need it was precisely in the new property relations that those who were really capable of organizing production in these property relations were defeated.

Under socialism, as the first stage of the communist formation, as a transitional period from capitalism to communism, as a period of qualitative changes in social relations, in any case, bourgeois law remains, which must die out as the productive forces and production relations develop, gradually creating conditions for the transition from state management of society to its self-government (withering away of the state). But this bourgeois right under socialism already operates in the new system of power, in the system of power ensuring in society the dictatorship of the working masses, the overwhelming majority of the population, the dictatorship not just of the proletariat, but of such a proletariat that has already matured in order to organize itself, to take power into its own hands. and organize production on the basis of new property relations. But, as substantiated in previous topics, the dictatorship of a class is carried out on the basis of revealing in a democratic way the will of the majority of representatives of this class. Not the will of any structures representing the interests of the class, but the will of the majority of the representatives of the class themselves. True, there is a moment that requires separate accounting. If in all previous formations the will of the class was the will of those who control the majority of the country's economy on the basis of owning private property for the means of production, and it is through owning it that they own the state as an instrument of violence and maintaining their dominance, then in a state where the dictatorship is exercised the vast majority of workers, the situation is somewhat different. In such a state, the will of the ruling class is revealed without relying on ownership of the means of production. On the contrary, the state, which is in their hands and organized in such a way as to carry out the will of the majority of the members of the class, is at the same time the administrator of all the property of this class.

But since the class was not yet ready to organize production on its own, those who could actually do it were engaged in this - the party, or rather its leadership. That is, a closed association of people, which itself established internal laws (Charter) and goals and ways to achieve them (Program), selected members for itself based on the established requirements, got into its hands the state as an instrument of violence, and through it and ownership of the means of production. That is, in fact, a new specific ruling stratum of society has formed, a ruling class that collectively owns ownership of the means of production. Something similar to the Asian mode of production was formed, only at a modern level. And the problem, it seems, was not that it was impossible to give power into the hands of the party, at that time there was, perhaps, no other way out acceptable to the majority of working people. The problem is that all the theoretical developments that existed at that time provided for the transition from capitalism, in its classical form, to socialism, as the first phase of communism. In reality, they got such an organization of society, the transition from which to socialism was never worked out.

Any community of people united by common interests sooner or later realizes them and begins to defend them. This also happened to the party. It must be kept in mind that the mass consciousness is not the sum of the consciousnesses of the individual members of this mass. The masses, having realized their common interests, are already becoming an independent system with their own specific consciousness. People can honestly work in a system that is fighting for its stability, without realizing its perversity. But in any case, all this can only continue until the productive forces of society develop to such an extent that they require production relations incompatible with existing property relations.

The state cannot be the owner of the means of production, it is only an instrument in the hands of the ruling class (a clan with the characteristics of a class). State property is the collective property of the ruling class. In whose hands the state, in those hands and state property.

From this we can conclude that the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of the overwhelming majority of the working masses, has not yet existed anywhere in the world. And while the dictatorship of the party could provide scope for the development of production relations under the requirements of the productive forces, they developed rapidly. But as soon as the productive forces developed so much that they began to demand changes in production relations incompatible with the existing property relations, the development of the productive forces came to a halt, a crisis, a change in property relations. In which direction the pendulum swung at the same time, why and for how long, this is a separate issue, but the basis of the crisis of the former socialist system lies precisely in this.

Conclusions, forecasts.

The purpose of all of the above is simple - to walk (from a materialistic position) from the origin of life on earth to modern human society, as a product of the development of nature, and to assess how much this development was conditioned by the objective laws of nature, and how much the development of modern human society continues to be conditioned by these laws. That is, the ultimate goal is to understand whether a reasonable person is so omnipotent that he can plan the development of society based on his own interests (including moral ones) without looking back at any objective laws of the development of society (if they do not exist). Or our mind, our consciousness, is also a product of the development of nature, depends on being and is formed by the objective laws of the development of society, and we can plan the further development of society only taking into account these laws.

Consistently, from topic to topic, an approach was proposed to comprehend the process of development of nature from the origin of life to human society. This approach does not represent anything new, in general it is a Marxist position, only it is presented in a somewhat peculiar way, taking into account the modern knowledge of the majority of members of society.

All this allows us to conclude that in the analysis of the nearest historical events and forecasts for the future, it makes sense to rely on the following postulates.

1. Human society is a product of the development of nature. And since it can exist (function) only as a kind of integral system that ensures its stable state and development only by its certain internal organization, and the exchange of matter and energy with the external environment, then in its essence, from the standpoint of the most general laws of nature, it is open thermodynamic system and, accordingly, obeys all the laws of functioning of such systems.

2. The development of society, increasing its resistance to environmental influences, like any thermodynamic system, is ensured by an increase and complication of its internal organization, which is ensured by the development of the productive forces of society.

3. The development of the productive forces of society, which is its initial motive for development, is based on the natural need, both for a person and society as a whole, as for any developing thermodynamic system, to ensure its stable state and development through the exchange of matter and energy with the external environment , i.e. the desire, both of a person and society as a whole, to better satisfy their needs.

4. The development of the productive forces of society is determined by the desire for a more complete satisfaction of their needs not by all members of society, but only by members of the ruling class. The increase in the satisfaction of the needs of the rest of the members of society is carried out only to the extent necessary for the maximum possible increase in the satisfaction of the needs of the members of the ruling class.

5. The continuity of the development of the productive forces of society also requires the continuity of the development of production relations (relations in the production process and everything connected with it in one way or another). A slowdown or halt in the development of production relations leads to a slowdown or halt in the development of the productive forces of society (crisis).

6. Specific (existing) property relations, determined by the dominance of certain classes in society, impose certain restrictions on the possibilities for the development of the productive forces of society within their framework. Further development of the productive forces is possible only if these limits are removed, i.e. with a corresponding change in ownership relations.

7. The dominance of certain classes in society (socio-economic formations, legally expressed in existing property relations) is naturally determined not by their struggle, but by the level of development of the productive forces. The change of the ruling classes (socio-economic formations) occurs when and only when all the possibilities for the development of production relations have been exhausted, and as a consequence of the productive forces, within the framework of existing property relations.

8. The struggle of classes for their own interests is the natural struggle of large social groups for a more complete satisfaction of their needs, which proceeds constantly with an increase or decrease, depending on the circumstances. But it leads to a change in socio-economic formations only when the improvement of the situation of the oppressed class is no longer possible within the framework of these property relations due to the general inhibition of the development of the productive forces of society.

9. With the state structure of society, the ruling class exercises its dictatorship in society through the state, as an instrument of violence in its hands, created and maintained by it on the basis of its economic opportunities, provided by their ownership of the means of production. That is, the ruling class always exercises its dictatorship directly, not transferring its power to anyone, but only using the state as an instrument of its domination.

10. Democracy in a class society is only a way of revealing the will of the ruling class as a controlling influence on the state, ensuring its implementation, no matter what kind of nationwide disguise.

Based on this, some practical conclusions can be drawn.

1. In order to correctly determine the goals in the struggle of workers for their rights, it is necessary to determine whether society is ready or not ready for the transition to a new socio-economic formation. Since, if society, in terms of the level of development of productive forces and production relations, is not yet ready for the transition to a new socio-economic formation, then the maximum that can be striven for is the creation within the framework of this socio-economic formation of a political regime that ensures the maximum possible satisfaction of the interests of workers. That is, to the dominance in society of a certain organized force that ensures these interests, approximately to what it was in the USSR, to power in the interests of the working people, but not to the power of the working people themselves.

If the society is already ready for the transition to a new socio-economic formation, then such a goal cannot solve its problems, since, in essence, preserving the previous property relations, it will be impossible to ensure the development of production relations in accordance with the requirements of the development of productive forces. And this, in turn, will not give the opportunity for further development of the productive forces of society themselves, i.e. for which all these changes are required. In this case, a real change in the class ruling in society is required, i.e. not power in the interests of the working masses, but the power of the working people themselves, which will really change property relations and open up scope for the further development of production relations to meet the demands of the productive forces.

2. Socialism, as a transitional period from capitalism to communism, is not just a transitional period from one socio-economic formation to another, it is a transition from the state (class) system of social management to its self-government. That is, this is the end of a whole era of the state (class) structure of society spanning millennia. During this period, the withering away (self-destruction) of the last ruling class takes place. This changes the very paradigm of organizing the functioning of society. If previously all classes exercised their dominance by creating and maintaining the state as an instrument of domination, relying on their economic capabilities, which, in turn, were conditioned by their ownership of the means of production, then under socialism the working people directly, relying on their organization and mass character, own state, and only through it, as an instrument of domination and control, do they own ownership of the means of production. That is, there is a transition from ownership of the state through ownership of the means of production to ownership of the means of production through ownership of the state. Therefore, the broadest democracy, the identification and implementation of precisely the will of the working masses, and not of any governing structures, is an indispensable condition for the existence of socialism, as a transitional period from capitalism to communism (the direct power of the class, the power of the working masses, and not the power of any whatever structures are in their interest). Otherwise, through the state and ownership of the means of production, the real power in society will be in the hands of the governing structure (party, clan, junta, etc.), but not in the hands of the working masses. What actually happened in the USSR.

3. Based on the foregoing, the participants in the struggle for the development of society in the communist direction must unequivocally determine the degree of readiness for the transition of society to a new socio-economic formation. Determine whether society (the world community) has exhausted its entire resource for the development of productive forces within the framework of the capitalist socio-economic formation. If worked out, then show where and how the development of production relations, necessary for the further development of the productive forces, are fettered by existing property relations. And this is a key moment in determining the immediate goals of the struggle.

If a conclusion is made about the unpreparedness of society for the transition to a new socio-economic formation, then the immediate goal should be the coming to power of a certain political force (party) capable of establishing a political regime in society in the interests of the broad working masses.

If the society is ready for the transition to a new socio-economic formation, then the struggle for the party to come to power is not only meaningless, but also a deliberately impossible task, directing the efforts of the politically active population towards the struggle for obviously unattainable goals. In this case, the activities of the communists should be focused on the creation of directly broad organizations of workers, capable of transforming in their development into a new system of power, the dictatorship of the working people, the modern proletariat, with the formation of a socialist state as the first initial phase of a new (communist) socio-economic formation. And this is a normal, natural path of development of society, a path that society will pass with the active help of the communists (at a faster pace) or without them (with the direct self-organization of the masses).

And if society is not yet ready for the transition to a new socio-economic formation, then bringing the communist party to power and organizing a political regime on the basis of its dominance in society in the interests of the vast majority of the country's population is a conscious overcoming of the action of the objective law of the development of society in order to create the most favorable conditions for its development and for the maximum possible satisfaction of the needs of the majority of its members at a given level of development of the productive forces. But this must be done consciously, with long-term planning for the development of society, taking into account the operation of the objective laws of its development. Otherwise, society, under the influence of these objective laws, will inevitably return to the natural path of development, which is exactly what happened to the countries of socialism.