marx social ideological class

The class approach to the analysis of social phenomena assumes that nothing in society can be explained outside the context of class interests and relations.

Marx did not consider his doctrine of the socio-economic formation as a historical-philosophical theory about the universal path that peoples are fatally doomed to follow. Marx wrote that his theory is not “a universal master key that explains and predicts all processes. He said that in different historical settings, strikingly similar events can lead to completely different results.

Emphasizing the objectivity of the laws of history, Marx and Engels noted that these laws are realized not by themselves, but through the actions of people, specific subjects. public relations. driving force historical process, the creators of history are social communities, classes, their organizations, individual individuals, outstanding personalities. Therefore, the methods and results of action social laws depend not only on the objective conditions of the historical process, on the level of consciousness and organization of political subjects.

Representatives of pre-Marxist philosophy, both materialistic and idealistic, considered the spiritual principle to be specifically human in man. They brought down practical life to something hostile to heights human mind. Marx rejected this position, interpreting practical activity as one of the most important principles that determine the specifics of the human.

From the point of view of Marxism, practice is “material activity on which every other activity depends: mental, political, religious, etc.” In a word, practice in all its manifestations, including production activities and the transformation of people themselves, was comprehended as the basic, initial basis of the spiritual world, culture, etc. From this follows a conclusion of capital importance: any activity, even spiritual, cannot be carried out without regard to practice.

The spread of materialism to the area of ​​social life allowed Marxism to develop a specifically philosophical understanding of practice, which has an exceptionally broad worldview context. In other words, the practice of a social nature, manifested in the sphere of relations between people, was seen in a different dimension than before: as a phenomenon of the world order, as a dominant in the sphere of human activity.

The development of the Marxist doctrine is connected with the creation of a fundamentally new historical form of dialectics, fundamentally different from Hegel's - materialist dialectics. Hegelian idealistic dialectics is clothed in a mystical form, unconditionally recognizes development only in relation to the past, changes its principles when considering nature. The “rational grain” contained in it (first of all, the idea of ​​development through contradictions) was perceived by the founders of Marxism, its idealistic provisions were rethought by them from materialistic positions.

Solving this problem, Marx created the dialectical method, which he considered as the opposite of Hegel's. He emphasized: “My dialectical method is fundamentally not only different from Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he transforms even under the name of an idea into an independent subject, is the demiurge of the real, which constitutes only its external manifestation. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing but the material, transplanted into the human head and transformed in it.

In contrast to the Hegelian dialectic, which focuses on the self-movement of concepts, the founders of Marxism began to consider the objective processes of development in nature and society, reflected by developing thinking.

The concept of development occupies a central place in Marxist materialist dialectics.

From the point of view of the latter, development is a side, a moment of universal movement, which is an attribute, i.e. inalienable, universal property of the material world

The basic laws of dialectics discovered by Hegel (the unity and struggle of opposites, the mutual transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones and the negation of negation) began to be considered in Marxism, respectively, as the laws of nature, society and thinking.

However, it was by no means about introducing these laws, for example, into nature, but about discovering them there.

Engels wrote about this: “... for me it could not be about introducing dialectical laws into nature from the outside, but about finding them in it and deriving them from it.”

In a word, from the point of view of Marxism, materialist dialectics is distinguished by the fact that it is the result of the development of philosophy and natural science, the result of a generalization of the objective laws that operate in nature, in society and in thinking.

The materialist dialectic created by Marx and Engels acted as a new historical form of dialectics. The implementation within its framework of the synthesis of materialism and dialectics contributed to their mutual enrichment.

On the one hand, the idea of ​​development played a major role in deepening the understanding of the essence of matter and the material unity of the world.

Along with this, the development of the doctrine of development on a consistently materialistic basis allowed dialectics to rely on an exceptionally broad factual base and more fully reveal its heuristic (using productive creative thinking) possibilities as a method of scientific knowledge.

One or another phase of development (formation) determines the existence of classes: the classes of slave owners and slaves, feudal lords and peasants, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Conflict relations are established between classes due to the existence of contradictions between them regarding the ownership of property. That is, the division of society into classes is based on the attitude to property, the means of production - this is the main class-forming feature. The classes differ according to the methods of obtaining income: for the capitalist, the method is profit, for the worker, wages. The desire of the capitalist to increase profits forces him to cut the wages of workers, i.e. underpay for their work. This is the essence of the antagonistic character of class contradictions.

Class contradictions can be resolved only with the liquidation of the bourgeois class as a class with the help of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the proletariat must become aware of its interests and become a class “for itself,” that is, a class capable of defending its interests. In order for the working class to realize this mission, a communist party is needed that will educate the working class and organize its activities.

Ways to resolve the conflict

The method of resolving the conflict is a social revolution (this is a quick qualitative sharp shift in changing the mode of production and replacing it with a new mode of production, a new type of society). The basis is the use of violence in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

« When class distinctions disappear in the course of development and all production is concentrated in the hands of an association of individuals, then public authority will lose its political character. Political power in the proper sense of the word, it is the organized violence of one class to suppress another. If the proletariat, in the struggle against the bourgeoisie, inevitably unites into a class, if by revolution it transforms itself into the ruling class and, as the ruling class, by force abolishes the old production relations, then together with these production relations it destroys the conditions for the existence of class opposition, destroys classes in general, and thereby itself and its own dominance as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms comes an association in which the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all.».

Related information:

1. I. The constitutional model of local self-government in Russia and its role in the formation of a democratic state and civil society
2. II. Requirements for the procedure for the provision of public services to assist citizens in finding a suitable job, and employers in the selection of necessary workers

The class approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of the ruling class, which imposes its own will on the rest of the population of the state. The class approach is characteristic of the Marxist understanding of the state, which interpreted the state as an instrument for the suppression of the proletariat.

2. General social approach (interests of the whole society)

The general social approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of all social strata. It is based on the ability of the state to act as an arbiter of social relations, to create the possibility of a compromise between different social classes and groups. The general social approach is characteristic of most modern democratic constitutional states.

In addition, there are secondary approaches to the interpretation of the essence of the state:

1. National approach (interests of the titular nation)

The national approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of only one nation. It is based on granting the advantages and privileges of the titular nation. The national approach was characteristic of many empires.

2. Racial approach (interests of one race)

The racial approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of only one race. Based on the granting of the advantages and privileges of the so-called superior race and gross disregard for the interests of other racial groups. The racial approach was characteristic of Nazi Germany.

3. Religious approach (interests of a particular religion)

The religious approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of the most religious strata of society within the framework of one religion. It is based on strict adherence to religious norms and dogmas. The religious approach is characteristic of modern Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The essence of a modern social, democratic, rule of law state is that it is an instrument for achieving social compromise and harmony in a socially heterogeneous society. Thus, depending on various scientific understandings (approaches) in the essence of the state, two approaches can be distinguished: 1. the ability to express generally significant interests of the majority (general social essence); 2. the ability to represent the interests of the economically dominant class, or individual social groups (class essence). In addition, speaking about the essence of the state, it should be noted that its internal content is also made up of the listed features that distinguish the state from non-state institutions and public organizations.

Typology of the state. Formational and civilizational approaches.

Typology is a theory about the types of certain phenomena. When we talk about the typology of states, this means that we are talking about the "division" of all states that exist in the past and present into groups, classes - types. The division of states into types is intended to help clarify whose interests were expressed and served by states united in a given type.

State type- a set of states that have similar common features, manifested in the unity of patterns and development trends, based on the same economic (production) relations, on the same combination of general social and narrow group (class) aspects of their essence, a similar level of cultural and spiritual development.

The type of state is characterized by:

The elite (class, social group) that is in power;

The system of production relations and forms of ownership on which this power is based;

The system of methods and ways that this power applies in protecting production relations and forms of ownership;

The real (and not declared) general social content of the state's policy, its true role in society;

The level of cultural and spiritual development of the population of the state in general and the individual in particular.

Approaches to the typology of states:

1) formational approach. This approach was developed within the framework of the Marxist-Leninist theory of state and law. According to him, the type of state is understood as a system of basic features characteristic of states of a certain socio-economic formation, which is manifested in the commonality of their economic base, class structure and social purpose;

2) civilizational approach.

To determine the type of state, the formational approach takes into account:

1) compliance of the level of the state with a certain socio-economic formation. Socio-economic formation - a historical type of society, which is based on a certain mode of production;

2) a class whose instrument of power is the state;

3) the social purpose of the state.

The formational approach distinguishes the following types of states:

1) slaveholding;

2) feudal;

3) bourgeois;

4) socialist

The formational approach has the following advantages:

1) the productivity of the division of states on the basis of socio-economic factors;

2) the possibility of explaining the gradual development, the natural-historical nature of the formation of the state.

Flaws: 1) one-sidedness; 2) spiritual factors are not taken into account.

Positive features of the civilizational approach: 1) the allocation of spiritual, cultural factors; 2) a clearer typology of states.

Flaws: 1) low assessment of the socio-economic factor; 2) the predominance of the typology of society over the typology of the state.

difference civilizational approach from formational lies in the possibility of revealing the essence of any historical era through a person, through the totality of the dominant ideas of each individual in a given period about the nature of social life, about the values ​​and goals of his own activity. The civilizational approach makes it possible to see in the state not only an instrument of political domination of the exploiters over the exploited, but also the most important factor in the spiritual and cultural development of society.

In this way, in accordance with the civilizational approach:

1) the essence of the state is determined both by the correlation of social forces and by the accumulation and continuity of cultural and spiritual patterns of behavior;

2) the policy of the state is not so much a product of the play of social forces, but the result of the influence of the worldview of society, its morality, value orientation;

3) the diversity of national cultures determines the ways of development of states, their types.

Types of states according to the level of protection of human rights and freedoms:

legal: states with a regime of constitutional legality;

non-legal: either states with a regime of lawlessness, or states with a regime of revolutionary legality.

Types of states according to the method of acquiring power:

legitimate(the acquisition of power is recognized as legal by the population of the country and the international community);

illegitimate, but existing de facto (the acquisition of power was carried out illegally).

Head of the Department of Social economic systems and social policy high school Economics Natalya Tikhonova believes that the definition of the "middle class" should be based not on income or consumption as such, but on the availability of capital, economic or human, that allows this income to be received. Professor of the Higher School of Economics Ovsey Shkaratan notes that our middle class is heterogeneous and not all of its components play a positive role in terms of economic development.

The share of the middle class in the country will increase, and the average salary of its representatives will be 30 thousand dollars a year, she said at the end last week Minister of Economic Development Elvira Nabiullina. This course of events is laid down in the Concept-2020.

However, there is one big "but" in all this - the government, as the minister admitted, does not yet have a clear idea of ​​what the middle class is.

According to Ms. Nabiullina, the concept of ensuring Russia's economic leadership implies, among other things, a change in living standards, standards of behavior, including economic ones. "Even an attractive way of life, so that it would be comfortable to live in the country, so that everyone can realize themselves here - this also applies to Russia's leadership position," she said. And the middle class, which according to the plans of the government in 2020 will make up the majority of the population, should play in this decisive role. However, the head of the Ministry of Economic Development admitted that the authorities do not yet have a clear definition of the "middle class", but noted a number of parameters necessary for assessing "class belonging". According to her, this is, first of all, the level of income, the comfort and availability of social services (education and healthcare), the level of professional education.

Head of the Department of Socio-Economic Systems and Social Policy at the Higher School of Economics Natalya Tikhonova believes that the focus should not be on income or consumption as such, but on the availability of capital, economic or human, that allows one to receive this income. "When the first studies of this group began in mid-nineteenth century in the United States, it was about people who have not just income, but a professional status that provides this income. If a cleaner is paid $1,500 a month, then she will not automatically move into the middle class, but will simply become a highly paid cleaner," the expert told NI.

Marina Krasilnikova, head of the income and consumption research department at the Levada Center, also believes that the middle class prescribed by the authorities is not really such. “People who are classified as middle class in our country do not have the same value orientation and way of earning income as in the West. They don’t have such values ​​as, for example, freedom and equality of opportunity,” she told NO. The expert suggests, in particular, that those who receive money from the state should not be classified as middle class: civil servants, state employees, employees of state companies, since the middle class should be independent of the state in their sources of income.

Professor of the Higher School of Economics Ovsey Shkaratan notes that our middle class is heterogeneous and not all of its components play a positive role in terms of economic development. "For example, we have a comprador bourgeoisie that lives on income from the sale of domestic raw materials to Western consumers. Along with this, we also have a comprador middle class that does not produce either material or spiritual values, but is exclusively engaged in servicing the upper class," - said "NI" specialist.

The government believes that the middle class will grow through innovative development: it should itself create jobs for a highly skilled workforce. However, Ovsey Shkaratan believes that so far the Concept 2020 has much more stated goals than justifications for their implementation. “We can talk about an increase when we have 5-7 years of development in this direction. Now, structurally, we are an economy of the working class, not the middle class. a large number skilled workers are not required, and the growth in the number of people employed in innovative economy not yet. With this nature of development in our country, there will be no growth of the middle class," the expert believes.

According to experts, for a real increase in the middle class, it is necessary not only to restructure the economy, but also to change the mentality of potential candidates for this social category. For example, the same education, until recently, was considered more of a socio-cultural norm, and not an investment in future income. An indicator of the status of a person is still the presence of certain property, and not human capital. As a result, many people prefer to invest in a product rather than their own. Professional Development or education of children. This is called the consumption of capital and does not contribute to the formation of a full-fledged middle class.

The necessity and essence of the class approach

Since the collapse of the primitive communal system and the emergence of private property, human society divided into classes. But to say this would be to simply reproduce the real state that everyone would agree on. The division into classes is antagonistic. As the German classical philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach said: “In palaces, people think differently than in huts.”

In a class-antagonistic society, there are many points of view on the main issues of human life, reflecting the interests of social groups, classes participating in the process of social production, distribution and redistribution of material and spiritual wealth. These points of view are objectively the class interests of the main social groups in an exploiting society: the working people and the exploiters, the oppressed and the oppressed. Therefore, these interests are polar, diametrically opposed, pouring out, in the final analysis, into the class struggle. And it was not for nothing that the authors of the famous "Manifesto of the Communist Party" began this work with the words:

“The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, landowner and serf, master and journeyman, in short, oppressor and oppressed, were in eternal antagonism to each other, waged a continuous, now hidden, now open struggle, which always ended in a revolutionary reorganization of the entire social edifice or in the death of the struggling classes. ".

This is correct with one significant amendment later introduced by the authors themselves - the history of not the entire society, but the history of an exploitative, class-antagonistic society.

So, a clear fact of the existence of classes, and hence their interests, which are diametrically opposed. History shows us a mass of examples when the ruling classes of a given epoch made precisely their own ideas, expressing fundamental class interests, the dominant ideas of this historical epoch. The exploited masses, as soon as they began to realize their position and express their protest, opposed them with their ideas. History reasoned their disputes in class battles. But the victory of one class over another, which was at the same time the victory of the ideas of this class, by no means meant that the truth was behind this class, that it was they that objectively reflected the state of society. Their ideology was at the same time a product of a given historical epoch, and therefore carried with it the prejudices of the latter. So, Aristotle was a great scientist, but he could not connect the cost with labor costs, because he was the ideologist of the slave-owning class. Spartacus rebelled against slavery, but only in order to turn slave owners into slaves. But then which of these classes and their ideologists were right, who reflected the true state of things and thus represented science in this age-old dispute? Of course, we could, following Sharikov, say that both were wrong, and therefore neither of them represented science. But when Sharikov expressed his well-known critical attitude to the content of the correspondence of the classics and their disputes, it must be remembered that he had not only dog's heart but also a dog's mind. “The truth, as always in such cases, is one. She cannot be like the two-faced Janus, looking equally in both directions. If such a thing were possible, then, I think, science would cease to exist,” Prof. G. M. Grigoryan (“Political Economy: Principles of Renewal and Development”).

In order not to become like Sharikov and be able to correctly express reality, social science developed a class approach to the analysis of society and economic relations. The purpose of this work is precisely to clarify the essence of the class approach and the problem of applying it in the past and now.