To use the preview of presentations, create a Google account (account) and sign in: https://accounts.google.com

Slides captions:

Grade 7 The birth of capitalism History teacher GBOU secondary school No. 629 of the city of Moscow Zubkina O.P.

PLAN 1. Progress in technology. 2. Changes in society. 3. Emergence of manufactories.

Answer questions 1 . What changes took place in military affairs in the 16th-17th centuries? 2. What were the consequences? 3. What was the difference between the army in the XVI-XVII centuries. from the medieval army? 4. The creation of what ships allowed sailors to overcome vast expanses of water? How did they differ from medieval courts? 5. Were there in the XVI-XVII centuries. invented any fundamentally new mechanisms and engines? How has technology progressed?

Group work Group 1 Peasants Group 2 The emerging bourgeoisie Group 3 Nobility Questions: What changes occurred in the position of this social group during the 16th-17th centuries? What caused these changes? What were the consequences? Were these changes appropriate?

Answer the question What are the prerequisites for the emergence of manufactories? How is a manufactory different from a craft workshop?

Prerequisites for the emergence of manufactories The growth of cities, the development of maritime trade, the growth of population in the colonies led to an expansion in demand for handicrafts. Trade in colonial goods, financial transactions and usury contributed to the accumulation of capital that could be invested in production. The ruin of the peasants led to the emergence of a free labor force.

Task What was the difference between a manufactory and a craft workshop?

Fill in the table Comparison line Craft workshop Manufactory Size of the enterprise Who worked at the enterprise Manual or machine labor Division of labor Labor productivity

Fill in the table Comparison line Handicraft workshop Manufactory Size of the enterprise Small enterprise Large enterprise Who worked at the enterprise Master, apprentices and apprentices Hired workers Manual or machine labor Manual Manual Division of labor The artisan himself performed all the main operations Operations are divided slowly by workers of different specialties Labor productivity Low Increased sharply

Types of Manufactories Centralized Dispersed What are the differences between centralized and scattered manufacturing? Which manufactories were more scattered or centralized?

Task Compare the feudal and capitalist structures? The result is presented in the form of a table. Feudalism Capitalism

Feudalism Capitalism The main value is the land The main value is industrial enterprises The feud belongs to the feudal lord as a conditional land holding, the king is the supreme owner of the land Enterprises are privately owned by the owner Two main classes - feudal lords and dependent peasants Two main classes - the bourgeoisie and hired workers The dependence of the peasants is personal and land The wage worker is personally free, his dependence is economic The peasant has a farm, tools, livestock The wage worker is deprived of tools of labor and private property Subsistence economy dominates Market economy

Task: highlight the positions with which you agree. In the XVI-XVII centuries. in Europe, technological progress was noticeable. The source of energy was flowing water, burning firewood, charcoal and coal, human labor and the power of domestic animals. In mining and metallurgy, a water wheel was used. European landscape of the XVI-XVII centuries. impossible to imagine without windmills. The knightly cavalry remained the main force of the army. In the XVI-XVII centuries. subsistence farming dominated in Europe. In the XVI-XVII centuries. in Europe, the personal dependence of the peasants was preserved. The lord rented out the land of his domain to rich peasants. In the XVI-XVII centuries. In Europe, handicraft production dominated. The workshops stubbornly opposed the development of manufactories. The medieval division of society into three estates has been preserved. The "price revolution" led to a decrease in the income of the nobility. In the XVI-XVII centuries. the nobility in Europe gave way to primacy in society to merchants and financiers.

The current population of the Earth exceeds 7 billion people, who knows - what is the maximum "capacity" of the planet? Why do we have a billion hungry people living next to us, despite the sufficiency of food? Yuri Tyulenev about socially significant forecasts.

Man, by virtue of his nature, believes in the future, and for this reason does not interrupt his family, but produces offspring that should live comfortably in this very future. However, this faith often seems to be rather mediative, since the vast majority of people, with all their faith in a happy future for themselves and their children, at the same time do everything that depends on them to ensure that this most “beautiful thing is far away.” ' never came.

However, let's not be too strict, but, taking into account the fact that the formation and further development of socio-economic processes are determined by objective economic factors, let's pay attention to the dynamic processes taking place with their participation. First of all, on such a strategic factor that determines the degree of development of society as the dynamics of the world's population. Below are data on the dynamics of the world's population in the period up to 2050.

At the beginning of 2014, at the 47th session of the UN Commission on Population and Development, the report of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated that the population of the Earth had reached 7.2 billion people. Is it a lot or a little and what's next? The growth of the world's population, which reached its peak in 1968, continued according to the hyperbolic law until the 1970s. Beginning in the 1960s, the relative rate of population growth began to decline more and more, and the global hyperbolic demographic growth was replaced by logistical growth.

Since 1989, the absolute rate of world population growth has also begun to decline. By 2100, the increase could drop to less than 5 million people per decade. According to the model of the French physician Jean-Noel Birabin, the limit of human growth will be 10-12 billion people.

Humanity is currently experiencing demographic transition, which means a sharp increase in the population growth rate, followed by an equally rapid decrease, after which the population stabilizes in size. This transition has already been made by the so-called developed countries and is now taking place in the developing countries.

Thus, the forecast for 2050 is about 9 billion people, for 2100 - 10 billion. According to the UN forecast (2014), by 2025 the world's population will reach 8.1 billion, and by 2050 - 9.6 billion people (there other figures), after which it stabilizes and will continue to have a downward trend.

However, until quite recently (just a few decades ago), unbridled population growth, extrapolated into the future, led to alarming forecasts and even apocalyptic scenarios for the global future of mankind. According to the then available calculations of some Western scientists, as we approached 2025, the population of the world should tend to infinity. This conclusion even forced us to consider 2025 as the time of Judgment Day.

Let's breathe, the worst scenarios were not destined to come true. In the foreseeable future, the capacity of the ground car will be from 9 to 12 billion people (according to various sources). At the same time, there should be no problems with the provision of food either, since food production is expected to double by 2050 while reducing damage to the environment. Sergey Kapitsa believed, for example, that the planet is able to provide food for 15 to 20 billion people, which, in fact, even allows you to make some reserve for a few "extra" billions.

It can be said without exaggeration that the coming stabilization of the planet's population growth is an epochal event, which, in my opinion, will determine the development of mankind for the entire subsequent period. At the same time, for a comprehensive assessment of the significance of this event, let us consider the structure of the population and the long-term dynamics of world GDP.

The most resonant groups in the composition of the planet's population today are " golden billion”, that is, a group of people with a high level of consumption and security, living mainly on the American and European continents, and a group of undernourished population (about a billion people), which is concentrated mainly in Africa and Asia.

At the same time, global agriculture produces enough food to feed all the hungry. Everything rests on its irrational distribution. The reason that about a billion people are starving today is not because there is a shortage of food on the planet, but because the hungry cannot afford to buy expensive food. There is something to think about, especially in a situation where a billion hungry people living compactly are literally across the sea from the well-to-do and therefore good “golden billion”.

The dynamics of world GDP is presented in the following table

Ranking of the top 20 economies in the world, depending on the volume of GDP at purchasing power parity for the period up to 2050

: for 2011 – World Bank data; for 2030 and 2050 - PWC forecast.

The objectives of this study will be fully satisfied by the information on the dynamics of the GDP of the twenty leading economies of the world presented in the table. Comparison of the growth of the world's population and GDP growth shows that the latter is increasing at a much faster pace than the world's population. So at the turn of 2025-2030, the number will increase by about 10-20%, and GDP will almost double. By 2050, with an increase in the number of 30-40%, the increase in GDP will be almost four times. The development of the situation will lead to the fact that somewhere by 2030 the problem of hunger will be solved, however, it is clear that the golden billion will not become poorer from this, but, on the contrary, will almost double and at the same time will further increase the gap (the level of well-being) from now no longer starving billion.

The number of “non-starving billions” will also increase, because (except for natural reasons) with the growth of labor productivity, the number of “extra” people will increase, that is, people without whose participation the rest of the working population will be able to provide everything necessary for the entire population of the planet. However, the “superfluous” people cannot simply not be fed, and therefore in the future a non-market mechanism for the distribution of benefits will be required, some kind of equivalent to “labor”, which is the basis for its payment.

Therefore, the emergence of new "professions" is not over the horizon, for example, dolphin washers, specialists in moving sand in the Sahara, well, or much more useful ones, such as those studying singing, ancient culture, poetry, and so on. I note that the increase in the share of "unproductive" humanity is the same limiting factor for humanity as the future limitation of its quantitative growth. The point here is that the population is a kind of integrity, and, accordingly, it is impossible to simply mechanically replace one part of humanity with another, one that may be more necessary for its development.

The basis for the growth of the welfare of billions, both “golden” and no longer starving, will be an excessive increase in world GDP that does not meet the real needs of mankind. An increase that would unreasonably waste the planet's precious, non-renewable resources, reduce the halo of wildlife habitat. An increase that will essentially process the gifts of nature into toys of mankind, and ultimately into waste, which in the form of mountains of garbage, poisoned waters will be returned to nature.

When, finally, will the time come, which will fully launch the flywheel of inevitable already epoch-making changes? I think that this time, which can be designated as the beginning of a transition to a new phase in the development of society, will come after the 2050s. It is by this time that only the trends that are currently manifesting will cover the vast majority of the world and become relatively homogeneous throughout its entire territory.

As noted, it is after 2050 that the limitedness (signs of scarcity) of the two global resources that are available today in an unlimited amount at the disposal of mankind will clearly manifest itself on a planetary scale. The first is the growth of the planet's population that has reached its limit, which thus becomes a limited (final) resource. The second is the more and more marked limit of natural space, which can be considered in two ways, both in the form of a decreasing amount of minerals, water, air (imagine how many resources 12 billion inhabitants of the earth will consume every year), and in the form of compression necessary for a person. on the emotional level of natural space - a living forest, meadow grass, wild animals, the sound of a bumblebee flying, and so on.

These newly arisen circumstances suggest that after 2050-2070 there will come a moment when the existing socio-economic formation will begin to change (for simplicity, I will use Marx's definitions familiar to everyone). The era of free capitalist development of society against the backdrop of unlimited human and natural resources (which we have today) will end. Indirect signs of this, expressed in the form of an impending global crisis, the impossibility of solving financial and political problems within the framework of the modern world order, are evident. Humanity has grown (literally) out of its old panties. And what will happen there, behind developed capitalism (well, or imperialism, if someone likes it more)? The answer is obvious. There must be a stage development of society, which will be able to ensure the existence of mankind in the conditions of limited global resources.

Note. This or that socio-economic formation was such, first of all, because of the availability of resources at the disposal of mankind and the available ways of their most effective use. No one told people how to live, or what the current historical period is called. They simply lived as it was convenient for them, as the ratio of resources available at that time allowed them, the main of which is a person with all his knowledge and the gifts of nature.

Look at the model of the socio-economic world order - the hourglass.

Under the primitive communal system, mankind had very few opportunities (marked on the "sand scales"), which here means the ability of mankind to ensure its comfortable, safe existence, including because it was too weak in front of unlimited and powerful forces at that time nature (natural resources). There was a mechanism for distributing scarce resources, primitive communism. Then the possibilities of mankind were expanding, in contrast to the decreasing natural resources, which, accordingly, changed society. At present, a peak has been reached (the narrowest part of the hourglass) at which humanity has maximum opportunities and already very limited natural resources. Yes, limited, but still quite sufficient to ensure the capabilities of mankind. The time of the maximum, the golden age of mankind, is what it is today, this is the place at the top of the red pyramid, which is the bottom of the hourglass.

As noted, the turning point is the years 2050-2070, after which social development will reverse. As the problems with resources increase, the society will follow the path already passed once in reverse order. Now, in fact - forward to the past. In the hourglass, this period is displayed as an inverted (green) pyramid, in which natural resources, unlike the red pyramid, are shown modulo, that is, as a limitation (insufficiency) of natural resources. Let me explain. If in the red pyramid the possibilities of mankind are fueled by natural resources, they grow, gradually reducing them, then in the inverted green pyramid the possibilities of a person are the less (that is, people live less well-to-do, comfortable and safe), the greater the shortage (limitation) of natural resources becomes.

Obviously, the unwillingness of humanity to reduce its capabilities against the background of an ever-expanding upward (that is, towards the future) funnel of limited (lack) resources will entail the existence for some time of a social system with feudal-slave-owning elements characteristic of their ancient prototypes from the red pyramids. However, in the end, the desire to survive with limited natural resources, high technological and educational levels will inevitably move humanity to the stage of formation of a new, currently unknown society. A society that can be organized on the basis of principles, analogous to the now known doctrines from socialism to stateless anarcho-communism.

It should be noted that these processes will take place (well, at least until the formation of a stateless society) within the national borders of states. Accordingly, the coming centuries will make countries with an abundance of natural resources, a good army and a nation rallied around a national (but not consumer) idea the world leaders. At the same time, it is clear that the development of the situation can be corrected due to any revolutionary political events, the greatest technological inventions that can expand the scope of human capabilities and thereby change the configuration of the green hourglass pyramid.

But, in any case, even this cannot change anything, just as it is impossible to predict today what specific forms, social doctrines, future changes may take. However, if the provisions of this article world order hypothesis proves to be justified, then social development will definitely have to go through the stages marked on the hourglass. Millennia will pass, it is possible that a highly developed classless society will gradually turn into a society of primitive communism (or into aliens), nature will refill its pantries, and then a new clock will stand on the top cover of the hourglass, under the light of the ever-living sun, and there, in the future , someone else will write about it again.

What distinguishes bourgeois society from earlier class societies - from ancient and medieval? Precisely the circumstance that now class domination is based not on "lawfully won rights" but on actual economic relations, that the system of hiring is not a legal relationship, but a purely economic one. In our entire legal system we will not find a legislative formulation of modern class domination. If there are any hints in this direction, it is, for example, the provision on farm laborers, the remnants of feudal relations.

How can wage-slavery be gradually abolished “legislatively” if it is not at all enshrined in laws? Bernstein, embarking on legislative reforms in order to destroy capitalism in this way, finds himself in the position of that Russian watchman, the hero of Uspensky's story, who was going to grab the old beggar by the scruff of the neck, but could not do it, because he did not even have a real scruff of the neck. .. That's the trouble.

Every society hitherto existing has rested on the opposition of the oppressor and the oppressed class (the "Communist Manifesto"), but in the previous phases of modern society this opposition was expressed in certain legal relations. and therefore could, to a certain extent, give nascent relations a place within the framework of the old ones. “The serf, without leaving the state of serfdom, rose to the rank of a member of the commune” (“Communist Manifesto”). How? By gradually abolishing in the suburbs all those various duties (corvée, poll tax, forced marriage, division of inheritance, etc., etc.) which, taken together, constituted serfdom.

In the same way, "under the yoke of feudal absolutism, the petty burgher has grown into a bourgeois" ("Communist Manifesto"). How? By partially formally abolishing or actually weakening the bonds of the guilds, by gradually transforming, to the most necessary extent, management, the system of finance and defense.

If the question is examined abstractly, and not historically, then, given the former class relations, one can at least conceive of a transition from feudal society to bourgeois society through the power of legislative reform. But what do we actually see? That, too, the legislative reforms served not to make the seizure of political power by the bourgeoisie superfluous, but, on the contrary, to prepare and carry it out. Both for the abolition of serfdom and for the destruction of feudalism, a real socio-political revolution was necessary.

But things are still quite different now. It is not the law that compels the proletarian to harness himself to the yoke of capital, but poverty, the lack of means of production. However, within the framework of bourgeois society, no law in the world is able to provide it with these funds, because it was not the law that took them away from it, but economic development.

Further, exploitation within the system of hiring is likewise not based on laws, since wage levels are determined not by law, but by the force of economic factors. And the very fact of exploitation is based not on the prescription of the law, but on the purely economic fact that labor power is a commodity which, by the way, has the pleasant property of producing value, and more value than it itself absorbs in the form of the worker's subsistence. In a word, all the basic relations of capitalist class domination cannot be transformed by legislative reforms on a bourgeois basis, because they are not at all created by bourgeois laws and are not clothed in the form of such laws.

Changes in the conditions of development and ideas about social status occur in favor of newly emerging classes at the expense of all others. In order to properly understand the social consequences of the current transition from capitalism to the information society, it may be useful to look at the circumstances of the previous shift from feudalism to capitalism and compare the mechanism of the redistribution of power then with what is happening now. We will find so many parallels at so many different levels that there will be no choice but to acknowledge that what is happening today is nothing less than a genuine paradigm shift of about the same magnitude.

Cartography can be used to illustrate the repetitive mechanisms of historical development, namely the mobilistic diagram (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Mobilistic force diagram

Inspired by the ideas of the 19th century philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Darwin, as well as their followers a century later, Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault, as a starting point for reasoning, we will assume that being is a continuous conflict of many multidirectional forces that, being in constant opposition, mutually influence and thus predetermine each other. At the same time, it is not so much the forces themselves that are important, but the tension that arises as a result of their interaction, and how their influence on other forces is maintained or eliminated, as well as eternal, like the Universe, their struggle. Interaction, confrontation and communication are the key concepts of this concept.

Within the framework of the mobilistic diagram, it is possible to supplement the two-dimensional model of the existential conflict of Nietzsche-Darwin with a third dimension, including the time axis in consideration, which will make it possible to identify the cause of the conflict at any time. We are talking about some "supposed" point that can be identified with the degree of error with which we realize that we ourselves, as observers, are in constant motion (because even as observers we represent the same force as all other forces in space and time). This is a power conflict. The closer interacting and/or opposing forces are to a specified point, the more power is at stake.

The "central" point of the diagram is not only a subject of conflict, but also a certain main value of society at the moment, a defining feature of the paradigm. We may call this value the "religion" of the age, or, more precisely, the axiom of the times. In other words, the main concept of this era about the structure of being, such a view of the world, which is universally accepted and therefore socially functional. The presence of such a hypothesis makes it possible to navigate the world and understand what is happening in it. Because the parties involved, especially the ruling classes, always expend enormous resources to make this hypothesis look like an "eternal truth", although it is only an assumption, which becomes very significant. When it turns out that the "eternal" truth is not such, it seems that the earth is slipping away from under our feet and we find ourselves in an airless space. The common phrase "I know little, but there is one thing I know for sure" is a good example of our perception of reality. We are ready to admit that our knowledge is limited, but we consider it necessary to know at least something for certain in order to navigate life.

Within the framework of the mobilistic diagram, power is a kind of mobile phenomenon without intrinsic value (a neutral concept). Power migrates, is captured and given away in all directions. Any identity arises only in relation to others. All definitions must be constantly re-examined as circumstances change. What it is? What is the real force? Is it possible to consider each of them separately, despite the fact that they constantly flow into one another? As outside observers, we see only a feverish struggle for power, control over others for the right to assert and own, all accompanied by questions "at what cost?" and "at whose expense?".

The relationship between the forces, their interaction is the crux of the matter. The master cannot exist independently of the slave, just as the slave cannot exist separately from the master. Each depends on the other. The obedience of the slave makes the master the master, and both are involved in an eternal struggle for recognition, which, according to G. W. F. Hegel, another great philosopher of the 19th century, is the engine of the entire historical process. According to Hegel, it was the desire to gain recognition from other people that served as the reason for the struggle for power in early social groups, which became the basis for the subsequent division of mankind into classes. This struggle continues to rage, keeping the society in a constant state of flux, while different groups of people believe that their recognition is not enough, and, accordingly, are sure that they deserve a higher social status.

The change in the spirit of the times occurs when what was considered unshakable is shifted and undergoes a qualitative redefinition. It would not be an exaggeration to compare such a shift to a social earthquake. All factors in the arena of struggle are undergoing a fundamental change because their source, the constant by which they exist, is suddenly set in motion. The consequences are that the actors in this drama are no longer sure that they know anything for sure. Everything is in motion. Some of the actors freeze in their former historical roles where the center was until recently. New actors enter the stage and immediately unleash a new battle around a new value - the point that the "eternal truth" of the new time has shifted. When the storm subsides, the former heroes are forced to find other, less impressive roles for themselves.

The sudden shift in the center of being is, of course, accompanied by the strongest resistance on the part of those whose positions are threatened. As soon as people, and even entire classes, suddenly realize that some constant, on the basis of which their lives have been built, and which until now has been the foundation of their identity, has set in motion, they usually react in the form of complete denial: This cannot be ! After a while, when the changes that have taken place can no longer be denied, the reaction of people is expressed either in avoidance of reality, or in aggressive opposition to change: This should not have happened! All this is aggravated by the fact that the former power structures, on which high hopes were still pinned, also have a vague idea of ​​what is happening. A clear example is the destructive struggle experienced by the Western world since the transition from feudalism to capitalism regarding the concept of God and his inevitable death. With every mental barrier destroyed by scientists in our worldview, with every boundary of understanding overcome by the efforts of His numerous, although gradually decreasing flock, God immediately moved one step further into the Unknown. Living at first beyond the vault of heaven, He was "moved" beyond the limits of the solar system, then beyond the limits of the stars, until finally he was erected above time and space in general. Despite all his efforts, he managed to survive. Axioms associated with obsolete paradigms often cling to life very stubbornly, especially among marginalized groups.

Many people simply don't realize that the idea of ​​God originated in a different paradigm than today, with a purpose specific to that time: to create advantages for one group of people at the expense of others. In feudal society, God, in mobilistic terms, was the supposed constant of being, whose existence was an immutable truth. Any attempt to slightly shake the surface of this constant was punishable by death. In the transition to capitalism, the solid structure that supported the concept of God collapsed. And when the main value began to shift from its place, all other foundations of existence, which previously seemed unshakable, followed it. The greatness of God became relative, and it became possible to question even his very existence. Christendom fell into an abyss of doubt about its legitimacy from which it never got out. What we today call ghosts and demons once had a real impact on people's lives. And this is not a matter of a theological dispute or the apparent weakness of the evidence for the existence of God, it is a matter of authority. The power of monarchies and the Church rested on the existence of something called God. God was supposed to be a constant and under no circumstances could be questioned. If doubts about this could arise, the entire power structure would be in jeopardy.

As a result of the stubborn denial of any shift in the central value of being and unwillingness to submit to the requirements of religion, atheism received the status of a new axiom and became an effective tool to counter the bourgeoisie in the seizure of power. This is illustrated by one of the most brilliant social experiments of the capitalist paradigm: the communist project. Communism became an inverted form of Christianity, the expression of an ancient dream of heaven on earth, quite typical of its time. The communist faith was a consequence of the idea of ​​social improvement through human rather than divine intervention. The instrument was to be a new type of state; the utopian goal of the project was a new man, exclusively rational. As a result, this dream caused serious damage to entire nations and continents and required from 85 to 100 million lives (for obvious reasons it is difficult to be more precise here), sacrificed in peacetime for the success of this good undertaking.

Until now, there are defenders of the communist project, because it is a matter of religious faith, the irrationality of which looks like a dead zone in the space of logical constructions. The strength of this faith was the most accurate reflection of its original opposing strength of organized religion, which in Russia, China and Latin America fought to the last for its power. It is quite possible that if the last Russian tsar suddenly publicly confessed his atheism, he could neutralize some of the charm of communism and thereby prevent the October Revolution. The demon of the supposed constant of being is so powerful that even its antidote (and therefore its equivalent in the next paradigm) inherits its truly magical influence on our train of thought.

In the transition from capitalism to the information society, we can draw a number of parallels with the shifts that took place during the transition from feudalism to capitalism. An assumed constant of being under capitalism, its main characteristic was the humanistic, or human, project. It is interesting that humanism in its most pronounced form - the form of individualism - turned out, in the end, to be almost the only means of salvation that humanists and others like them hope for in a sea full of the remains of the most brilliant projects of the era, like communism, and sunken disgracefully one after another.

That is why the ideologists of capitalism in its decline era so confidently declare in their manifestos an unshakable faith in individuality. Under external pressure, capitalism is essentially returning to its roots and trying to find a home in its philosophical roots, for example, in the works of pre-industrial philosophers René Descartes and Francis Bacon. We are witnesses of desperate attempts to restart the project, even in a completely "disassembled" state, this time in the form of hyperindividualism. Its apologists imagine that if they don't shout about it at every corner, they will hardly be able to breathe life into the cooling corpse again. The name of this ideological monster of Frankenstein is libertarianism.

Like Protestantism at the dawn of the Enlightenment, when the obsession with obsolete "eternal values" was embodied as if in a supernova, we are now seeing supernovas in the transition from capitalism to the information society. Hyperegoism, hypercapitalism and hypernationalism are all supernovas of today. The humanistic project - the development of the individual in parallel with the development of the state and capital, together with all their numerous offspring - various academic, artistic, scientific and commercial projects - constitutes the axiom of capitalism. These values ​​were considered an eternal guarantee of stability, but now they are also in motion. The great battle has just begun, and the funeral of humanism, like the funeral of God in its time, can drag on for a long time, accompanied by painful convulsions. One has only to imagine the colossal amount of resources invested in this enterprise in order to understand the full depth of the unfolding social drama. It can't be! It shouldn't be! Nevertheless, the collapse is inevitable, since this project from the very beginning was inextricably linked with the paradigm of existence, which has practically become obsolete.

Of course, it is now difficult to point out the essence of the new "eternal value" and determine the forces that will fight for power. To conduct an analysis, being a participant in what is happening, is to deliberately doom yourself to speculation. As long as the assumed constant of being is in motion (and this process will probably be a long one), all calculations will contain an error that exceeds the value of any of the variables, as if a meteorologist today were trying to predict the weather for several years ahead. However, this does not mean that analysis under such conditions becomes meaningless. On the contrary, a careful study of the existing structure of the distribution of power is most useful just when a new class structure is being born. This is perhaps the only moment when an eyewitness can take an active part in the events taking place in connection with the change of "eternal values". Such an analysis has a chance to become an important part of the overall process, as well as one of the factors influencing it. Even before the newly approved constant of being takes a stable position, at least one force begins to form around it - a new dominant class. The question is how reliable are the arguments about this. Even if the constant of being is set in motion, does this mean that the emergence of a new dominant class is inevitable? Can we expect the former to be able to recognize the paradigm shift around which it was formed, and, as a result, to direct its actions in such a way as to occupy the space around the new constant? Thus, the former dominant class will remain that of the new paradigm, albeit in a new guise. But for a number of reasons this may not happen. Humans are generally very conservative creatures. The psychological term "cognitive dissonance" means that people tend to hold on to old beliefs, even if they contradict newly discovered facts. The thing is that our good old ideas about life make it possible to feel psychologically comfortable; we are in love with them. But this leads to a state of mental rigidity and clumsiness: we are willing to put in more effort to keep the status quo in our heads than to learn new things. Learning something new, we are forced to change our lives in one way or another, although sometimes quite a bit. For this reason, our ability to move around the historical map is practically minimal.

It follows from the analysis of the mobilistic diagram that the world around us as a whole is moving much faster than we ourselves. Our movement in these circumstances is forced, a reaction to the movement of social forces and information that changes the world around. The dissatisfaction of manifold desires - it would be more correct to say the idea of ​​such dissatisfaction, the desire for desire - makes us slaves of consumption. The intolerance and narrow-mindedness of this society forces us to migrate. Society, the system itself is in constant motion, and individuals and groups of people, against their will thrown into the whirlpool of social changes, are forced to give up their former comfortable positions in favor of these changes.

Since we are the only eyewitnesses of history, there is always a temptation to exaggerate human influence and consider ourselves capable of free will, being, so to speak, creators of history. But this is all nothing more than a luxurious illusion. Opportunities to act independently are severely limited. Actions that are more or less noticeable in history are more correctly interpreted as reactive, rather than active in nature. The fascination with the communist idea or other great utopias also lurked in the need to adapt to constant change. The attraction of utopias lies in their promise of rest and rest, in their strong and all-encompassing desire to stop, at least for a time, the movement imposed from outside. But to stop one's own movement is to do the same with regard to history, the process par excellence. The end of history would be nothing less than the end of all social processes, signifying our own demise.

History has proven this truth over and over again. Every attempt to realize a utopia - communism is the most striking example of this - and stop the movement of history, inevitably led to the death of such a utopian society. Death is, in fact, the only alternative to turbulence. The Buddha realized this 2500 years ago. We have to choose between nirvana, a state of permanent rest, and accepting that everything around us is in constant motion and change, which leads to the need to constantly adapt. And the fact that our room for maneuver is minimal, from a philosophical point of view, makes us hostages of the historical process. The Russian tsar could not actually profess atheism, because otherwise he would have been forced to doubt the legitimacy of his own status. He could not deny God, for all his power was based on the idea of ​​anointing with God. So everything happened the way it happened.

When the social system (paradigm) changes, everything is so dramatic that the former dominant class is unable to. Maintain control over the new "eternal values". At the same time, a new dominant class is developing at that point in the historical map where, due to a combination of circumstances, a specific group of people has ended up. The transition to a new paradigm is a long-term process, therefore, where the former one was previously focused, residual tension continues to be felt in the Teaching for a long time, significant, although decreasing. This encourages the former dominant class to cling to obsolete values. Even at the very end of the process there are still the last doubters: This cannot be! It shouldn't be! Of course, why change if you can avoid it for the time being!

Naturally, when changing the paradigm, the old values ​​do not become obsolete in the blink of an eye. Even when, for example, the central value of society in the transition from feudalism to capitalism shifted from land ownership to capital ownership, this did not mean that land ownership immediately ceased to matter. But the nature of such possession has changed. Land has become a commodity. Now a new dominant class - the bourgeoisie - determined the essence of land ownership, giving it a monetary expression. The bourgeoisie bought up and rebuilt feudal estates for the purpose of private country recreation and entertainment, making it clear that it had become the master not only of the emerging proletariat, but also of the former dominant class - the aristocracy. The bourgeoisie now set the rules of the game.

Until now, feudal estates have never been the subject of purchase and sale. Their value was in heraldic symbols, or was determined by proximity to the residence of the king. In the new paradigm, these same estates were valued according to completely different principles - the principles of the open market. Each received a price tag. Their value began to be determined by a whole set of parameters, such as: the size and quality of forest and arable land, as well as the desire of buyers to associate themselves with the previous owners by acquiring their traditional symbols to emphasize the status of the purchase. It didn't take long for the good old feudal symbols of power to at some point turn into nothing more than cute and funny trinkets, the value of which was mostly nostalgic. The bourgeoisie received its full share from the attributes and remnants of the aristocracy: the monarchy, the court, hereditary titles and court etiquette. The paradigm shift has shaken off all metaphysical veil from them, and the bourgeoisie has demonstrated that everything now has its price, buying and selling ranks and titles, simply for money or through marriage. The aristocracy had no choice but to swallow the insult, relax and have fun - after all, it was necessary to earn money somehow!

The acute need for money on the part of the aristocracy and the bourgeois desire for luxury were very often combined in unprecedented unscrupulous commercial transactions - a constant theme of the literature of the 19th century. The most cynical, not to say mocking, chronicler of such transactions was Balzac, who himself added "de" to emphasize the aristocratic origin of his family name. The grandeur of the symbols has been preserved, but their function has changed, turning from a court dress for official ceremonies into a fashionable outfit. The same can be observed today, when the netocracy, the new hegemon of the information age, unceremoniously operates with the shrines of the bourgeoisie: personal integrity, electoral democracy, social responsibility, the legal system, the banking system, stock markets, etc.

The irony of history is that, obsessed with the idea of ​​mass production (the printing press predetermined this development of the industry and, therefore, became the most important invention of the capitalist revolution), the bourgeoisie undermined the market for aristocratic symbols by flooding the market with their cheap imitations. An artifact that was previously unrepeatable, unique, has now become just an original, of course, more valuable than its copies, but has lost the aura of its attractiveness, since anyone could have its exact duplicate. And their value as status symbols has inevitably fallen.

Since the bourgeoisie began to set the rules of the game and determine the order of numbers on the price tags, the aristocracy found itself on the sidelines of the capitalist economy. As long as she had something to trade, she continued to somehow drag out her existence in the bosom of nature, increasingly moving away from the cycle of events and the center of power. Their estates were now almost nothing compared to the banks; family titles and coats of arms gave way to the grandeur of financial empires and scientific titles; the court and jesters were replaced by parliament and political journalists. The scene is taken over by other actors. Many of the new roles differed little from the previous ones, but the dialogues were rewritten, and the course of the play itself was modernized.

The central values ​​of the old and new paradigms are so radically different that any aspirant to a leading role in this new drama will have to learn a completely different culture and a whole new set of principles. It is often easier for the former "lower" class to adapt to the cultural demands imposed by the dominant class of the new era than for the former ruling class. At the moment of scene change, it turns out that the former lower class essentially has nothing to lose and nothing to protect from changes, so they learn new tricks more easily and are not very opposed to their own transformation. Continuing to develop the thesis of a continuous historical process, we can say that those who are already in motion are more easily accelerated than those who are standing still. It takes time to realize that the old recipes for success do not work, and the process of realization is very difficult, because It cannot be! It shouldn't be! Today's examples show that recent immigrants often find it easier to adapt to the cosmopolitanism of the new era and its cultural diversity than their peers from the indigenous population of a homogeneous bourgeois society.

Representatives of the new dominant class made little effort to get close to the new supposed constant of being. They were just lucky to be "in the right place at the right time." As in nature, which is also in constant change, the evolution of society follows a rather controversial scenario: certain mutations have more advantages in given circumstances. It is not the one who is stronger who survives, the one who adapts better. And the concept of "better fitness" changes with changing environmental conditions. In accordance with the principle of intellectual sluggishness, a new dominant class is formed from individuals and groups who, simply by chance, found themselves close to the point where a new constant of being stopped and a new eternal truth arose.

Thus, the bourgeoisie became the new ruling class of capitalist society. And where would the new capitalist entrepreneurs come from, if not for the cities where they ended up? They also grew up under the influence of Protestantism, which has a strong work ethic. The bourgeoisie did not covet power and did not seize it - it fell into its hands. The bourgeoisie was given power! If we take a closer look at the new ruling class, we will once again see that those who were already on the road were in a better position than those who remained in place. The bourgeoisie was mainly formed from people from the peasantry - the lowest of the lower strata of the former power structure, and not from the heirs of aristocratic titles and estates.

In sociology, there is a concept of "meme", equivalent to genes in biology, which means an idea or an interconnected system of ideas, and a comparison of the origin and distribution of genes and memes shows similar trends. Just as Darwin's theory works in biology, there is memetic Darwinism in sociology. By studying genetic Darwinism, we can draw interesting parallels that demonstrate how memetic Darwinism works. The history of biology is an ongoing, brutal struggle for survival and reproduction in a variety of randomly emerging biological species in a constantly changing environment. Randomness determines which species survive at the expense of others; external circumstances "select" those who are better adapted to current conditions, all others are eliminated. Diverse species compete for limited resources in various combinations and against each other.

Nature never rests, and therefore the criteria for which mutations are the most successful for survival are constantly changing. Human intervention in nature also changes the conditions of the struggle, creating more favorable conditions for some species, while preventing others. A famous example is butterflies, which darkened considerably during the 19th century in the industrial regions of England. As a result of environmental pollution, darker butterflies hid better from predators, since they had to land on dark surfaces. The birch bark also darkened, so the darker moths bred more successfully, with the result that, after several generations, the appearance of the whole biological species changed significantly.

A similar level of coincidence is characteristic of memetic Darwinism in sociology. In the dense jungle of complex and often conflicting information that surrounds us, memes that survive and thrive in a particular environment end up getting stronger and stronger, while memes that can't find a footing are gradually weakened and weeded out. But the difference between strength and weakness in this case is not always visible in advance, at least if you do not consider only the memes themselves, without taking into account information technology and its development. The job of futurologists is essentially to draw a "map" of the ecological system in which memes are fighting, and using that as a basis, predict the chances of different memes to survive.

The values ​​and cultural baggage of each individual or group of people consists of a certain number of memes. To find out which of them will be strong or weak, from the point of view of Darwinism, in the context of a paradigm shift, is possible only in retrospect. Just as individual genes do not influence the changes in nature during the genetic revolution, so memes do not have the ability to influence the social forces driven by a paradigm shift. Bearers of memes and genes in both cases can only hope for luck. As for the main theoretical provisions, there are practically no differences between genetic and social Darwinism.

To understand the processes of memetics, it is worth using the cartographic method again, people and memes will be presented as variable social forces. Let's imagine being in the form of a three-dimensional space, where the present is a plane with two axes. Axes: The virtual and physical space in which people and memes are located. The third dimension is time, which we will neglect for the time being. Mentally stopping time, we get a two-dimensional diagram that allows us to explore the current internal relations of a particular society (Fig. 2.2). We fix one of the two variables, people or memes, which will make it possible to study the nature of the relationship between them.

Figure 2.2. Mobility Identity Diagram

We fix the position of the memes by evenly distributing them in the diagram field. By examining the nature of the concentration of people, we find that members of a particular society, as a rule, are attracted by a limited number of memes, forming clusters of various sizes around them. The social identity of these people is based on their commitment to certain clusters. Members of the same cluster are "us", members of other clusters are "others".

It is important to remember that the actors represented in the model are not able to freely choose their attitude towards certain clusters. Their position on the diagram in relation to physical and virtual spaces reflects the actual position, not their ambitions or aspirations.

At any fixed point in time, the largest cluster on the diagram is formed around the meme, which is the core of the paradigm, what was previously called the putative constant of being. Under feudalism, such a cluster is the royal court, and the institution of the monarchy is its meme. Another strong feudal cluster - the church - is formed around the meme of religion. Under capitalism, trade is the most powerful cluster, with banks and stock markets as memes. Another influential cluster of capitalism is represented by the apparatus of state power, which is formed around the meme of electoral democracy, as well as the academic sphere around the meme of science. In the information society, the most important meme will be what can be thought of as a node in a fishing net, a kind of portal of power (like an Internet portal), a link in an all-encompassing network. Around this link, the most important cluster of the information paradigm, the Netocratic network, will be formed.

By adding the third dimension (time), we get a hologram. The first thing that will happen is the rapid turnover of memes: their mass appearance and the same mass disappearance. At the same time, memes surrounded by the largest number of people are more likely to survive. People in this case vote with their feet. So, of all the religious memes that fought for survival in Ancient Rome, only two survived: Christianity and Judaism. All others fell victim to oblivion, which in the historical sense can be called creative destruction.

However, the fact that some memes are attractive today does not mean that they can be preserved in their original form for centuries. On the contrary, they are constantly forced to modify, so that we are talking about the constant sprouting of new memes from old ones. Most memes die and disappear, making room for new ones. At the same time, those memes that survive are forced to constantly adapt and recreate themselves in order to survive. The closer a meme is to any important cluster, or the more closely the meme fits the needs and desires of the cluster, the better is its (meme's) chance of surviving this endless struggle. To take just one example: Bill Gates, the richest man on Earth, was born in Seattle, a city that is physically, virtually and historically located close enough to the fast-growing industrial areas of California. If Bill Gates had been a peasant woman in Madagascar in the 16th century, no one would have ever heard of the Microsoft meme, which in turn would significantly change the historical plane in which we are today.

From time to time, history shows examples of people being too slow and conservative to reap the benefits of a paradigm shift quickly and to a large extent. Just knowing that the constant of being has set in motion, and that this motion will affect other important memes and clusters, is not enough to make a throw in the right direction. The fact that a Madagascan peasant knows about Silicon Valley does not give rise to hope that he is able to establish an Internet company on his island. On the individual level, one has to admit that coincidence, chance, fate, if you like, is the decisive factor.

At a time when capitalism was making a breakthrough, the aristocracy was busying their estates away from banks and city markets. The aristocrats were fed on an aversion to trade and finance. The old ruling class was fully occupied with defending their family rights to titles and land, even though the value of heraldic symbols in society was rapidly declining. But the nobles were still passionate about polishing their regalia and writing legends about the great, long-gone past. As a result, they missed their chance to board the ship. With the development of pietism (piety, piety), European Christians were encouraged to engage in commercial and lending activities, which had previously been the prerogative of the Jewish proto-bourgeoisie. And the aristocracy did not take advantage of its chance (and hardly had it) in the struggle for power in a capitalist society, unlike the bourgeoisie, which turned out to be at the right time in the right place (mutations with roots in the peasant class), fine, from the point of view of memetic Darwinism, fit to become the ruling class under capitalism.

A significant and very curious phenomenon of any paradigm shift is the conclusion of a secret pact, an unholy alliance, between the old and new masters. Once the de facto transfer of power is undeniable, the de jure transfer proceeds peacefully and quietly - to the great benefit of both parties. Such a secret pact is concluded in order to protect both the common and differing interests of the parties to the treaty. It happens that its conclusion is accompanied by long and tedious pseudo-conflicts on reasons that no longer mean anything, but only with the intention to hide from prying eyes the very existence and purpose of such an agreement.

The most important function of this secret alliance is to maintain the monopoly on public space during the paradigm shift. It is in the interests of both sides to create the maximum possible confusion, the maximum turmoil, so that the transfer of power occurs as quietly as possible, without any participation of the enslaved classes or internal opposition. A classic example is the marriages of the 19th century between the sons of aristocrats with their hereditary titles and the daughters of the bourgeois, with hereditary capitals. The artificially created conflict was intended to disguise the existence of the conspiracy itself. Paradoxically, the less conspiracy, the better!

The urgent question of European and Asian monarchies "to be or not to be" was covered in approximately the same way. The aristocracy was allowed to keep, albeit in a reduced form, the royal families and even the now state-subsidized opera houses in exchange for help in implementing and promoting various projects of the capitalist state machine. The aristocracy was glad and content to be content with the role of "disarmed oppressor". She was allowed to patronize museums and other such institutions, in which history itself was now lightly retouched so that the new social structure could look as natural as possible. When all the family heirlooms were sold, and the aristocracy could no longer be self-financing, and the daughters of the bourgeois began to increasingly prefer the titled poverty of the aristocrats of the suitors of their circle, the nobles were left on their estates with the condition that they be open to public viewing on weekends as museums. They turned into state-subsidized museums - picturesque surroundings for Sunday walks of a bourgeois family. The aristocratic past was presented as a charming but tragic theatrical backdrop against which capitalist society appeared in all its perfect structure.

Having skillfully curbed both the aristocracy and the church, the bourgeois could now set about rewriting history in order to present the matter as if they themselves and the state they created had existed forever. The social constructions of the new paradigm were presented as eternal and natural truths. The individual became God, science a sermon, nationality a paradise, and capital a sacred instrument of power. Such were the means of protecting the monopoly of the bourgeoisie on power, history, language, and thought itself. Eternal truths could not, should not, and did not need any rechecking. Behind all this symbolism, the important role of that very conspiracy regarding the construction of the power structures of the new paradigm remains hidden from the eyes. As a result, finding itself in close proximity to the new constant of being, the new ruling class was able to make the most of its advantages. There was an accumulation of colossal wealth generated by new "eternal truths", and all with the blessing of the former owners. The new ruling class achieved this by creating a monopoly on public space and then using it to deny the very existence of a new underclass, and subsequently to refuse to recognize that class for any possible rights to participate in decision-making.

In previous centuries, as soon as it became clear that the right to land could be protected by laws and the nobility's monopoly of power (the fundamental basis of feudalism), the aristocracy immediately gained control over all lands. Not a single, even the most remote piece of land, remained uncovered, because otherwise it could become a pretext for peasants to claim land. In roughly the same spirit, the bourgeoisie, with the full approval of the aristocracy, throughout the first decades of the industrial age, was engaged in unrestrained robbery of their countries and their colonies in search of raw materials and labor, forcing people to work in factories like slaves, bringing huge profits. There is no reason to believe that the new ruling class of the information society, the netocracy, will behave differently than its predecessors. The bourgeoisie, gradually relegated to the background, will become a willing assistant in this next series of historical drama, this time under the leadership of the netocracy, which, like the bourgeoisie before, will begin to deny the very existence of any lower class of the new paradigm.

Just as the aristocracy contributed to the creation of the most important legal prerequisites for the expansion of capitalism - state protection of private property, so the increasingly marginal bourgeoisie will use its control over the parliamentary system and the police to legitimize and protect the most important components in the construction of netocratic power: patents and copyrights. The fundamental conditions for the success of a netocracy are, ironically, a direct gift from the former owners of the world. The moral of the new age is built around the passing of this baton. Just as the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie legislated the inviolability of private property in their time, so now the bourgeoisie and the netocracy are uniting their efforts to proclaim copyright as a means of saving civilization. At the same time, a huge number of "scientific discoveries" are made solely for the purpose of proving their beneficial effect on humanity as a whole. Within the framework of such a strategy, it becomes obvious that any form of power that is not protected by copyright will, by definition, be considered immoral, and from the point of view of the legal monopoly of the bourgeoisie, will also be interpreted as illegal.

But, sooner or later, the secret conspiracy of the old and new ruling classes will be subjected to a mobilistic analysis, according to which any force can only be defined in opposition to its opposite force. Therefore, one cannot speak of the existence of a dominant class without assuming a new "lower" class. The ruling class, of course, uses all available means to establish total control over the "eternal truth" of being. But since this constant of being exists only when it is also recognized by the new class that opposes the ruling one, then a conflict is possible regarding the value of this constant. The ruling class wants to own the constant and control it. And the "enslaved" class is formed from those whose activity (in the form of production or consumption) or whose random position on the historical map just gives the supposed constant of being, this "eternal truth", its meaning. When the "lower" class is fully self-aware, organized and makes demands on the existing order, the monopoly of the dominant class on public space will come to an end. The master/slave relationship will become tense and unstable. A new conflict will arise, filled with endless tests of mutual strength, in which a truce is only a prelude to a new outbreak of activity. From this conflict, this interclass struggle for power, society and history ultimately derive the energy of their movement.

When the aristocracy passed the baton of real power into the hands of the bourgeoisie, it formally looked like a long transition from absolute monarchy to a parliamentary system of direct elections. At the same time, there never occurs a direct historical meeting of the "lower" classes of the two paradigms, the old and the new. Partly because a new dominant class is being formed from the former subjugated class, partly because they have no points of contact, since they do not come into conflict with each other in any way! Everything points to the similarity of these phenomena in the transition from capitalism to the information society. This new underclass, while practically invisible, will remain an unrecognized force for a long time to come, even to itself. In a society that is simply overloaded with information, there is an eloquent lack of information on this subject. But it is rather a matter of ideology control.

Bard Alexander, Zoderqvist Jan
Netocracy. New ruling elite and life after capitalism.