What is a social revolution in social science. Social revolution concept. Revolutions and reforms. Essential signs of social revolutions

The dynamics of social development, according to Marx, is due to the constantly arising contradiction, the conflict between the developing productive forces, on the one hand, and production relations, on the other. In turn, production relations (basis) are constantly in conflict with the superstructure and various forms awareness of this basis in society. On the whole, the development of the productive forces, according to Marx, is an immutable law; they cannot but develop. For him, this development is identical with life itself: "... People, developing their productive forces, that is, living, develop certain relationships to each other, and ... the nature of these relationships inevitably changes along with the transformation and growth of these productive forces."

When unstable equilibrium between the two sides of the mode of production is violated and production relations are transformed from a means of development of productive forces into an obstacle for it, they undergo revolutionary transformation and change. At the same time, this process is expressed in various kinds of collisions and conflicts among other components of the social system: in the exacerbation of the class, political, ideological struggle, etc. As a result, there is a change in social formations on a global scale, that is, a social revolution. But even after the social revolution, elements of the former formations continue to be partially preserved as gradually dying remnants.

To understand Marx's approach to social development, it is useful to compare it with Kont's.

What unites them?

1. Both of them believe in the universal evolution of the human race. Both of them are historical evolutionists, since they believe that all societies develop according to the same laws and go through the same stages in their development. According to Comte, these are theological, metaphysical and positive stages; according to Marx - social formations replacing each other.
2. Both of them believe in progress, that is, they believe that social evolution "is development from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. According to Comte, progress is based on intellectual and moral improvement; according to Marx, the development of productive forces.
3. From the first two points it follows that both of them believe in the final perfect state, in the coming and already coming golden age. According to Comte, this is a positive state of humanity; according to Marx - communism.
4. From the previous point, in turn, the following follows: both of them are engaged in predictions, or rather, prophecies regarding the future state.
5. As they prophesy about the coming golden age, they cannot simply anticipate it, but feel called upon to contribute to it. Comte does this by preaching the Religion of Humanity; Marx - through political, organizational and revolutionary activities.

What are the differences between Kont's and Marx's approaches to social development?

1. For Comte, "normal" social development presupposes continuity, reliance on tradition, and the absence of sharp leaps and bounds. For Marx, on the contrary, "normal" social development is a constant break with the past, violent transformations and shifts. According to Comte, the fundamental structures of society are in principle unchanged; in essence, only the social shell changes; development occurs, as it were, according to the French proverb "The more changes, the more it remains itself." In Marx, on the contrary, society is constantly changing in its very foundation, and immutability characterizes only the outer, superstructure layer of the social system, which lags behind the deep, fundamental changes.

True, Marx recognizes the existence of stagnant historical eras and regions and gradual changes that do not lead to sharp shifts, changes social systems... He even recognizes the role of tradition in the life of society. But stagnation, gradualness, tradition - all this for him is either a kind of anomalies, or more or less long breaks in the steady process of change, or, finally, ideological camouflage, behind which, again, violent social shifts are hidden. Comte viewed tradition as a great beneficial force shaping society. Marx, however, assessed their role in a completely different way: "The traditions of all dead generations weigh like a nightmare over the minds of the living." In the work "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" he analyzes the ideological function of tradition, considering it as a kind of language through which revolutionary transformations are carried out. Thus, although Marx did not distinguish, like Comte, social dynamics as a special branch of social science, it was he who was the real creator of social dynamics, understood as the study of social changes, innovations, revolutionary transformations.

2. According to Comte, social progress is peaceful, consistent. True, he recognizes critical phases in social development, when revolutionary changes and clashes of various social forces occur, but for him this is still more of a pathology than a norm. For Marx, on the contrary, social contradictions, conflicts, confrontations of all kinds are the source of social development. These contradictions and conflicts, from his point of view, are, in principle, permanent, sometimes exacerbating, sometimes fading somewhat, but never stopping. They cover the entire social system and its elements; they are present both within these elements and between them. Being an adherent of dialectics, Marx not only states the contradictory and conflicting nature of social development, but also positively evaluates it. Just as Comte not only stated, but also praised consent, Marx not only explored, but also praised conflicts.
3. Marx's idea of the nature and ways of social evolution, progress was more complex and subtle than Comte's. This was due to the fact that Marx was much closer to Comte's facts of socio-historical reality. Being, in principle, a historical evolutionist and an adherent of the idea of progress, he nevertheless understood social development as a multi-line process and grasped the specifics of individual societies and cultural-historical areas. He noted the existence of long regressive and stagnant periods, as well as different rates of social evolution.

The problem of revolution is central to Marx's theory of social change. The social revolution in its interpretation is not just a transition from one, less progressive social formation to another, more progressive, not only deep quality transformation public relations but also a certain way of such a transformation; it is a fast, abrupt, conflicting and total shift in social relations. Marx considered this method of social change to be historically inevitable and desirable, since it allows accelerating social progress. This is precisely the meaning of his famous thesis: "Revolutions are the locomotives of history." Another, no less famous, is close in meaning to this thesis: "Violence is the midwife of any old society when it is pregnant with a new one."

In addition to the social one, Marx considered the economic, industrial and political revolution, bringing the social revolution closer to the first, then to the second, then to the third. But he connects especially closely the social revolution with the political one, that is, with the conquest of state power by the progressive class and the establishment of its revolutionary dictatorship in order to suppress other, reactionary classes.

Marx undoubtedly distinguished between social and political revolution. But the latter imperceptibly acquired a self-sufficient meaning in his mind, turning from prerequisite and an element of social revolution into an end in itself. On the contrary, the social revolution as an objectively proceeding process began to be interpreted in his works as a condition and means for a political revolution based on the volitional aspirations of certain groups. When Marx writes simply about revolution, he means precisely the political revolution.

Social and political reforms are presented to Marx as an artificial brake in social development, the result of forced concessions and (or) deception on the part of the ruling classes, or the weakness and indecision of the oppressed classes. His ideal of social development in the "prehistory" of society, which is built on private property and the exploitation of man by man, is a "continuous revolution", a constant revolutionization of society for the early onset of "true" history, communism. In this golden age, according to one of Marx's prophecies, there will be no political revolutions. "Only in this order of things, when there will be no more classes and class antagonism, will social evolution cease to be political revolutions and. Until then, on the eve of every general reorganization of society, the last word of social science will always be: "Battle or death; bloody struggle or nothingness. Such is the inexorable staging" (Georges Sand) ".

Obviously, in the theory of social revolution, the temperament of a political fighter and a prophet especially strongly influenced Marx the scientist, and "the last word of social science" was closely intertwined with messianism and utopia. But Marx had another very important theory, in which the situation was exactly the same. This is his theory of classes and class struggle.

Existing in society. The revolution is one of the ways to modernize the established society, which is in a transitional stage.

At various historical periods, the geography of the revolutionary process expanded. Bourgeois revolutions in Europe spread in the following sequence: Holland - 1566-1609; England - 1640-1660 France - 1789-1794. In the 19th century, the number of revolutions increased and they spread over large areas.

A social revolution arises as a result of a severe crisis environment, due to which a similar situation is created. As a rule, a critical point occurs as a result of defeats in hostilities, unsuccessful political activities of the government, which causes discontent in wide layers of society.

England before the revolution experienced a severe financial crisis. The social situation was characterized by massive persecution of the Puritans, who opposed absolutism and fought for bourgeois reforms in order to create a new church, which was to become independent from the power of the monarchs. But the opposition camp was not united and cohesive. Among the Puritans, three movements emerged during the revolution: Presbyterian (big bourgeoisie); independents (middle and small nobility, middle strata of the bourgeoisie); levellers (the poorest peasantry and proletariat).

The Presbyterian movement put forward demands for the limitation of royal arbitrariness and the establishment. They took possession of the leading positions and held them in the period from 1640 to 1648, with the transition from the peaceful development of the revolution to civil war.

The Independents, led by Cromwell, fought for the recognition of the rights and freedoms of their subjects, for the abolition of the centralization of the church and the creation of local religious communities. The result of revolutionary actions was the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic (1649-1653).

Levellers put forward the ideas of popular sovereignty, equality, and the proclamation of a republic. They failed to seize power, but some points of their program were adopted by the new government.

Revolutions in Europe developed as follows: from republican rule to military dictatorship, and from it to the restoration of the monarchy. So, in England it happened in 1660, in France - in 1814-1815.

Thus, the social revolution in England led to the loss of power by the royal power, and in France, despite the preservation of its leading role, to the overthrow of absolutism.

In social philosophy, the concepts of revolution and evolution are considered as forms of development of societies. But they are also forms of formational and other social conflicts, and in this capacity are the internal sources of the development of societies and humanity. They represent the forms of ideological, economic, political struggle of various formational communities for changing the formation of society, i.e. systems of its main spheres.

Social evolution and revolution as social conflict

Social evolutions and revolutions as a social conflict between the old and new formations of societies and their civilizations include changes:

their subjects, i.e. associated with a conflict of interests of different social communities
social subjects of historical creativity, i.e. leading formational communities with a set of fundamental interests.

They differ precisely in the ways of development of social conflicts, the correlation in them of the stages of formation, deployment, resolution, in different forms of these stages and include:

1. Changing the world outlook and ideology of society, understanding instead of old ideals and goals - new ones. For example, in Soviet Russia the ideas of autocracy, Orthodoxy, and nationality were replaced by the ideas of Soviet power, communist ideology, and the Soviet people. At the same time, in the West, instead of a society (Marxian capitalism) of universal competition and profit, the idea of a "welfare society" arose. In social revolutions, this change occurs sharply, nihilistically in relation to the old (Peter I, Lenin, Yeltsin), and in social evolutions - slowly, with the preservation of continuity: the bourgeois-socialist ideology did not eliminate the forcibly old one, but simply stopped taking it into account.
2. Changes in the political sphere, redistribution of power between nations, classes, regions of the country in accordance with the changed positions of these subjects. The question of power, as Lenin pointed out during the October Revolution, is the main question. Only through obtaining (or diminishing) power is a particular subject (nation, class, region, etc.) able to express and realize its interests in society, to influence the economy, to the distribution of material wealth in its own interests. It should be borne in mind that society is developing, the economic situation of the subjects is constantly changing, which requires a constant change in the representation of their interests in the political system. This is done in countries that have chosen the socio-evolutionary path of development. In countries where the political system lags behind the development of the economic and ideological systems, this leads to a social revolution.
3. Changes in the economic sphere (forms of ownership of the means of production, property and management relations in managing the economy, etc.) in modern societies are carried out both by the owners of the means of production and by the state, which regulates relations between the owners, acting as a political intermediary. Therefore, the role of the state in the implementation of social evolution and revolution is so great.
4. Change in the leading class of society. For example, during the French Revolution of 1789, the bourgeoisie came to power, which overthrew the nobility, led by the king. During the October Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks came to power, overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie. In 1991, after overthrowing the power of the Bolsheviks, who expressed the interests of the Soviet workers, nomenklatura liberals came to power, expressing the interests of the new Russian bourgeoisie. Now the Russian security forces (military) have come to power, expressing the interests of the patriotic, sovereign and collectivist part of the Russian people, who want to restore patriotism, statehood, solidarity. We can re-enter the well-worn rut of the political formation.

Class Struggle

Social evolution and revolution take place in the form of ideological, economic, political struggle, but differ in the ratio and nature of these types of struggle.

Ideological the class struggle takes place at the level of worldview, ideology, political programs, in which the fundamental class interests are expressed. Each class, based on its economic, political, educational position, opens (formulates) its vision of society, its structure and development. This vision is developed by intellectuals who take the position of this class, i.e. considering everything that happens in the world from the point of view of this class. For example, from the point of view of the proletarian-Bolshevik intelligentsia (Lenin and others), the old society is worthy of destruction; as a result of the socialist revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, a new proletarian society is created in place of the old bourgeois society, which is the direct opposite of the first, etc. The bourgeois intelligentsia comes up with a different perspective of society, its formation and development. Thus, the bourgeois-socialist intelligentsia (Bernstein and others) developed a bourgeois-socialist perspective, which was realized in the countries of Western Europe. This perspective was the direct opposite of the proletarian-socialist perspective. Then, as a result of propaganda, “their own” ideology and criticism (as well as ridicule) of the opposite ideology are introduced into the consciousness of representatives of their formational community.

Economic the struggle of classes is a struggle to improve their economic position: a change in forms of ownership, a public organization labor, forms and amounts of income received, etc. On the part of the bourgeoisie, for example, it is expressed in improving the tools and organization of labor, increasing its efficiency, increasing investments, etc., which objectively complicates the work, wages, employment of workers, causing protest from them. As a result of negotiations, strikes, demonstrations, political elections and other forms, a certain consensus arises, the arbiter of which is now the state acts between employers and trade unions. As a result, the economy, social sphere and society as a whole develop.

Political the struggle of classes is a struggle for state power, for power over the state apparatus. This power allows the development of society (within certain limits) in the direction necessary for this class. For example, the Russian proletariat Under the leadership of the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, created a proletarian state, with the help of which it organized an unprecedented social system (Soviet), which collapsed at the end of the 20th century. In modern conditions, political struggle most often occurs during elections of government bodies, this is a struggle of different political parties who, within the framework of the law, are fighting for their political interests. For example, as a result of the class struggle in Russia, a new parliament was elected, in which there are three main factions of the left (the Communist Party of the Russian Federation), the centrists ("Unity" - "Bear"), and the right (SPS, OVR, "Yabloko").

An analysis of history shows that in political societies (USSR, China, etc.) social revolutions are a typical phenomenon, which is associated with the lag of the political basis behind the economic and worldview changes taking place in society. For political societies, social revolutions are a pattern, as evidenced, in particular, by the history of Russia. In economic societies (USA, Germany, etc.), social revolutions become random: there social evolution is a regularity, a relatively democratic transfer of power from one political party and the social community behind it to another.

Therefore, one of the most important advantages of economic societies, a democratic and legal state is temporary, but the disappearance of the social revolution as a form of development of society, and, consequently, the destruction, sacrifice and suffering caused by it. This is due to a significant change in the consciousness of the subjective factor, as well as an increase in the general level of education and intelligence of the people. Russia's transition from a political society to an economic one, and then to a mixed and industrial one, will allow our people to avoid social revolutions and upheavals in the future.

Social evolution and revolution as qualitative changes

In Soviet and Western social studies, social evolution and revolution were defined in different ways. In Soviet social science, evolution was understood as a slow, quantitative change in a phenomenon, and revolution was understood as its radical, qualitative change.

This definition makes it possible to justify the proletarian-socialist revolution in our country and other revolutions in the world, to remove the historical responsibility of political elites and classes for what they have done, to belittle the role of the subjective factor in history in favor of objective conditions and the automatism of the historical process.

In Western literature, these concepts are interpreted in a slightly different way. First of all, both evolution and revolution are viewed as qualitative changes that occur in leaps and bounds, i.e. with a break in continuity, but differing in the ways, pace, cost, strength of the implemented changes. In the further presentation, we will adhere to this point of view when assessing the development of people, communities, institutions, societies and humanity.

Social evolution uses peaceful (democratic) means, is slow, accompanied by relatively minor destruction of the old and sacrifices (social and human), its results are quite durable.

The social revolution uses violent methods of transformation, occurs relatively quickly, is accompanied by significant destruction (to the ground) of the former society, victims and suffering of people, its results are fragile and short-lived. But both social evolution and social revolution represent a qualitative change in the development of societies.

Choice of evolutionary or revolutionary path depends on the maturity of the subjective factor, its ability to timely assess the state of opposition of classes, ethnic groups, elite and bureaucracy and make appropriate decisions in time. This point of view is the opposite of the point of view of the Soviet historical materialists, set forth in many, including modern textbooks.

As an example, consider the proletarian-socialist revolution in Russia and the bourgeois-socialist evolution in Europe. The first took place in Russia from October 1917 to 1937 (the year of building the foundations of socialism) and was accompanied by the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the destruction of old Russia “to the ground”, colossal sacrifices, and the creation of a Soviet society with social equality and poverty. This society collapsed almost to its foundations during 1901-2000. to the surprise of her supporters and opponents.

Bourgeois socialist evolution in Western Europe took place throughout the first half of the 20th century, without military violence, in a democratic way. It led to the establishment of bourgeois and legal democracies, a sharp improvement in the quality of life of the people, and preserved the possibility of further transformation into a post-industrial society.

Social revolution and social evolution represent a qualitative transition of societies and humanity from one formation and civilization to another, caused by objective social contradictions that underlie social life. Therefore, these processes are objectively conditioned (and natural). But evolution does not bring social conflict to the stage of deployment (and violence) between opposite classes, while revolution does. And the blame for what happened in the latter case lies with the ruling classes, which allowed such a development of events, i.e. On a subjective factor. Thus, W. Churchill believed that the reason for the French Revolution of 1789 was the inability of the royal government to regulate relations between classes, i.e. wrong (and criminal) government.

The same can be said about the proletarian-socialist revolution, which occurred through the fault of the Russian tsar, the nobility and the bourgeoisie, who turned out to be unable to understand and express in political decisions the interests of the Russian peasantry and workers. Therefore, the blame for the destruction of Russia and the establishment of Soviet power lies not with the proletariat and the Bolsheviks, but with the nobility and bourgeoisie of Russia, headed by the tsar and the State Duma. And the revolution of 1991 in the USSR could have been avoided by carrying out social evolution in the direction of bourgeois socialism, continuing either the NEP or the economic reforms (undertaken by Kosygin in 1963). But the inability of the ruling party, the CPSU, for social evolution led to the collapse of the CPSU, the USSR, and the Soviet people. The blame for the coming to power in 1991 of the nomenklatura liberals headed by Yeltsin is not American imperialism, but the Soviet communists, who became stunned in Leninism-Stalinism, which, in particular, is expressed in their understanding of the social revolution.

War as a form of social conflict

War is just as destructive a form of social conflict as a social revolution. It is conducted between countries (societies) and states because of national ideas, territory, allies, means of communication, etc. For example, in the First world war Russia entered under the pressure of the church, the nobility, the bourgeoisie almost because of all the listed interests. And as a result, she received two revolutions, the death of all the old classes, the formation of the USSR, etc.

I would like to characterize the war in the words of the heroine of the famous novel by B. Pasternak "Doctor Zhivago" by Lara:

We got married before the war itself (1914 - CW), two years before it began. And only we healed with our minds, built a house, declared war. I am now sure that she was to blame for everything, all the subsequent misfortunes that have befallen our generation to this day. I remember my childhood well. I still found the time when the concepts of reason were in force. What the conscience suggested was considered natural and necessary. The death of a person by the hand of another was a rarity, an extraordinary, extraordinary phenomenon. Murders were believed to occur only in tragedies, detective novels, and newspaper incident diaries, but not in ordinary life.

And suddenly this leap from a serene life, innocent regularity into blood and screams, the general madness and savagery of everyday and hourly, legalized and praised murder ... Probably, it never goes in vain. You probably remember better than me how everything began to fall into ruin at once. The movement of trains, the supply of food to cities, the foundations of the household, the moral foundations of consciousness ...

Then a lie came to the Russian land. The main trouble, the root of future evil was the loss of faith in the price own opinion... They imagined that the time when they followed the suggestions of moral intuition had passed, that now we had to sing from a common voice and live by other people's, all imposed representations. The dominance of the phrase began to grow, first monarchist - then revolutionary.

In the further presentation of social revolution and evolution as formational conflicts, the main attention will be paid. It is the formation structure and its development that make it possible to consider various conflicts of interests and social subjects in their relationship within the framework of a social organism. Formation conflicts in their various forms are characteristic of Russia throughout the entire XX century.

REVOLUTION (SOCIAL)

social, a way of transition from a historically obsolete socio-economic formation to a more progressive, radical qualitative revolution in the entire socio-economic structure of society. The content of R. is classically disclosed by K. Marx in the Preface to "To the Critique of Political Economy": "At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or - which is only the legal expression of the latter - with property relations, within which they have developed so far. From the forms of development of productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then the era of social revolution begins. With a change in the economic basis, a revolution occurs more or less quickly in the entire enormous superstructure. When considering such revolutions, it is always necessary to distinguish between the material and By natural scientific precision, the stated revolution in the economic conditions of production from legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophical, in short - from ideological forms in which people are aware of this conflict and fight for its resolution "(K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2 ed., vol. 13 , from. 7).

The nature, scale, and concrete content of any rural formation are determined by the conditions of the socio-economic formation that it is called upon to eliminate, as well as by the specifics of the socio-economic system for which it clears the ground. As you progress to higher stages social development In the early stages of society's history (the transition from a primitive communal system to a slave-owning one, from a slave-owning to a feudal one), labor movement took place mostly spontaneously and was formed from a set of sporadic, in most cases, local mass movements and uprisings. In the course of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, R. acquires the features of a nationwide process, in which the conscious activity of political parties and organizations plays an increasing role. Bourgeois revolution). In the era of the transition from capitalism to socialism, a world revolutionary process is unfolding, in which the conscious political activity of the advanced class becomes a necessary condition for the development and victory of R. It finds its fullest expression in the socialist revolution, which liberates society from all forms of exploitation and oppression and lays the foundation for the formation of a communist socio-economic formation (see. Communism), where, according to K. Marx, "... social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions and" (ibid., vol. 4, p. 185).

The economic basis of R. is the deepening conflict between the growth of the productive forces of society and the outdated, conservative system of production relations, which manifests itself in the exacerbation of social antagonisms, in the intensification of the struggle between the ruling class, which is interested in preserving the existing system, and the oppressed classes. The revolutionary struggle of the oppressed classes (spontaneous or conscious) expresses the urgent need to free the productive forces from the shackles of the outdated system of production relations.

Classes and social strata, which, by their objective position in the system of production relations, are interested in overthrowing the existing system and are capable of participating in the struggle for the victory of a more progressive system, act as the driving forces of R. A revolution is never the fruit of a conspiracy of individuals or arbitrary actions isolated from of the minority masses. It can arise only as a result of objective changes that set in motion mass forces and create a revolutionary situation.

R. inevitably encounters an obstacle on its way in the form of the political power of the ruling class. Therefore, the first act of social R. is political R., that is, the conquest of state power by the revolutionary class. "... Every class striving for domination," wrote K. Marx and F. Engels, "even if its domination conditions, as is the case with the proletariat, the abolition of the entire old social form and domination in general, must first of all win for itself the political power ... "(ibid., vol. 3, p. 32). The question of political state power is the main question of every R. "The transfer of state power from the hands of one to the hands of another class," noted V.I.Lenin, "is the first, main, basic sign of a revolution, both in the strictly scientific and in practice. -the political meaning of this concept "( Complete collection cit., 5th ed., vol. 31, p. 133).

R., being historically necessary, acts at the same time as an open and most acute class struggle, which can take on the most diverse forms (armed uprising, political coup, civil war; peaceful forms of struggle). R. develops in opposition to counterrevolution. The objective needs of social progress ultimately predetermine R.'s victory.However, at each specific stage, the outcome of the confrontation is not unambiguous and depends on the real correlation of class forces, on the maturity of the subjective factor of R., on the ability and readiness of the revolutionary classes and political parties to solve the problems facing them. ... "... Revolutionary periods," emphasized V. I. Lenin, "are predominantly such periods of history when, in relatively short periods of time, the clash of struggling social forces decides whether the country should choose a direct or zigzag path of development for a relatively very long time. "(ibid., vol. 16, p. 8-9).

In those cases when the mass revolutionary forces are insufficiently organized and are not ready to deal with objectively urgent revolutionary tasks, rhetoric can acquire a top-level character [for example, the Turkish (1908) and Portuguese (1910) bourgeois romania]. In contrast to popular revolutions, in which the vast majority of the people participate actively and independently, the upper ruling is inconsistent, half-hearted, and usually ends with a class compromise.

The founders of Marxism-Leninism resolutely opposed doctrinaire views, according to which R. is an automatic result of the growth of productive forces and is realized only when objective development itself guarantees one hundred percent success without stubborn struggle, without losses, without the risk of temporary defeats. "... In the revolution, - wrote F. Engels, - as in the war, in the highest degree it is necessary at the decisive moment to put everything on the line, whatever the chances are ... Undoubtedly, in any struggle, the one who lifts the glove runs the risk of being defeated, but is this the basis for declaring himself broken from the very beginning and submitting to the yoke, not having drawn the sword- "(K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 8, pp. 80-81). The active and selfless activity of the mass forces of R. is a decisive factor in its successful development and victory.

The question of the role of R. in social development is the subject of an acute ideological struggle. Representatives of the bourgeois "sociology of revolution" argue that R. as a form of social development is ineffective and sterile, is associated with colossal "costs," and in all respects is inferior to evolutionary forms of development. Following the bourgeois ideologists, the role of R. in the historical process is denied or underestimated by the theorists of reformism and right-wing revisionism. On the other hand, representatives of petty-bourgeois leftist revolutionaryism deny the objective laws of the revolutionary process and believe that the revolutionary vanguard, the "active minority" in any conditions can carry out R.

Summarizing historical experience, Marxist-Leninist theory proves that R. are a powerful engine of social and political progress. K. Marx called revolutions "locomotives of history" (see ibid., Vol. 7, p. 86). Great historical role R. consists in the fact that they remove obstacles from the path of social progress. R. signifies a giant leap in social development, a transition to new, more progressive forms of social life. In revolutionary epochs, the pace of social development is unusually accelerated. According to V.I. Lenin, in such periods the limits of the possible expand a thousandfold. R. engages in active political activity the broadest masses of the people, which in ordinary times the ruling classes manage to remove them from politics. The content is enriched and the volume of social creativity increases. “Revolutions,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “are a holiday of the oppressed and exploited. Never have a mass of people been able to act as such an active creator of new social order as during a revolution. gradual progress "(Complete collection soch., 5th ed., vol. 11, p. 103).

The role of the working class of the proletariat, which was initiated by the Great October Socialist Revolution, is especially great in the history of mankind. It opened the era of the transition of human society from capitalism to socialism. See also the articles People's Democratic Revolution, National Liberation Revolution, as well as articles on individual revolutions and lit. with them.

Lit .: K. Marx and F. Engels, Communist Manifesto, Soch., 2nd ed., Vol. 4; K. Marx, Class struggle in France, ibid., v. 7; his, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, ibid., v. 8; F. Engels, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany, ibid; K. Marx, Preface [To the Critique of Political Economy], ibid .; vol. 13; Lenin V.I., Two tactics of social democracy in the democratic revolution, Polnoe sobor soch., 5th ed., Vol. 11; its the same. The collapse of the Second International, ibid., Vol. 26; his, State and Revolution, ibid., v. 33; its the same. Childhood disease of "leftism" in communism, ibid., V. 41; The program of the CPSU, M., 1974; Documents of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, 1969; Kovalev A. M., Social revolution, M., 1969; Seleznev M.A., Social revolution, M., 1971; Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution and modernity, M., 1972.

Yu. A. Krasin.

Big Soviet encyclopedia, TSB. 2012

Essence, types of concepts of social change

Changes — these are the differences between what the system represented in the past, and what became of her after a certain period of time.

Changes are inherent in the entire living and inanimate world. They happen every minute: "everything flows, everything changes." A person is born, grows old, dies. His children follow the same path. Old societies disintegrate and new societies arise.

In sociology, under social change understand transformations occurring over time In the organisation., patterns of thinking, culture and social behavior.

Factors, cause social changes are manifold circumstances, such as changes in the habitat, dynamics of the size and social structure of the population, the level of tension and struggle for resources (especially in modern conditions), discoveries and inventions, acculturation (assimilation of elements of other cultures through interaction).

Jerk, driving forces social changes can be transformations both in the economic and in the political, social and spiritual spheres, but with different speed and the strength, the fundamental nature of the impact.

The topic of social change was one of the central themes in sociology in the 19th and 20th centuries. This was due to the natural interest of sociology in the problems of social development and social progress, the first attempts scientific explanation which belong to O. Comte and G. Spencer.

Sociological theories of social change are usually divided into two main branches - theories social evolution and theories of social revolution, which are considered mainly in the framework of the paradigm of social conflict.

Social evolution

Theories social evolution defined social change as transition from some developmental stages to more complex... A. Saint-Simon should be considered the predecessor of evolutionist theories. Widespread in the conservative tradition late XVIII — early XIX in. he supplemented the idea of the life of society as an equilibrium with the provision of an unswerving consistent promoting society to higher levels of development.

O. Comte linked the processes of development of society, human knowledge and culture. All societies pass three stages: primitive, intermediate and scientific that correspond to the forms of human knowledge (theological, metaphysical and positive). Evolution of society for him, this is an increase in the functional specialization of structures and an improvement in the adaptation of parts to society as an integral organism.

The most prominent representative of evolutionism G. Spencer presented evolution as an upward movement, a transition from simple to complex, not having a linear and unidirectional character.

Any evolution consists of two interrelated processes: differentiation of structures and their integration for more high level ... As a result, societies are divided into divergent and branching groups.

Modern structural functionalism, continuing the Spencer tradition, which rejected the continuity and one-linearity of evolution, supplemented it with the idea of greater functional fitness arising in the course of the differentiation of structures. Social change is seen as the result of the adaptation of the system to its environment. Only those structures that make the social system more adaptable to the environment push evolution forward. Therefore, although society is changing, it remains stable through useful new forms of social integration.

The given evolutionary concepts mainly explained the origin of social change by endogenous, i.e. internal reasons... The processes taking place in society were explained by analogy with biological organisms.

Another approach - exogenous - is represented by the theory of diffusion, the seepage of cultural patterns from one society to another. At the center of the analysis are the channels and mechanisms of penetration of external influences. These included conquest, trade, migration, colonization, imitation, etc. Any of the cultures inevitably experiences the influence of other cultures, including the cultures of the conquered peoples. This counter process of mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is called acculturation in sociology. So, Ralph Linton (1937) drew attention to the fact that the fabric, first made in Asia, watches, which appeared in Europe, etc., have become an integral and familiar part of the life of American society. In the same USA crucial role throughout history, immigrants from all over the world have played. You can even talk about an increase in last years influence on the previously practically unchanged English-speaking culture of American society of Hispanic and African American subcultures.

Social evolutionary changes, in addition to the fundamental, can occur in the subtypes of reforms, modernization, transformation, crises.

1.Reforms in social systems — transformation, change, reorganization of any aspects of public life or the entire social system... Reforms, as opposed to revolutions, suggest gradual changes certain social institutions, spheres of life or the system as a whole. They are carried out with the help of new legislative acts and are aimed at improving the existing system without qualitative changes.

Under reforms usually understand slow evolutionary changes that do not lead to massive violence, rapid change of political elites, rapid and radical changes in the social structure and value orientations.

2. Social modernization — progressive social change resulting in social system(subsystem) improves the parameters of its functioning... The process of transformation of a traditional society into an industrial one is usually called modernization. Social modernization has two varieties:

organic- development on own basis;
inorganic- a response to an external challenge in order to overcome backwardness (initiated by “ from above»).

3. Social transformation- transformations taking place in society as a result of certain social changes, both purposeful and chaotic. The period of historical changes that were established in the countries of Central Europe from the late 80s - early 90s, and then in the former republics of the collapsed USSR, is expressed precisely by this concept, which initially had a purely technical meaning.

Social transformation usually refers to the following changes:

Change of political and state systems, the rejection of the monopoly of one party, the creation of a parliamentary republic of the Western type, the general democratization of social relations.
Renewal of the economic foundations social system, a departure from the so-called central planned economy with its distributive functions, an orientation towards a market economy, in the interests of which:
- denationalization of property and a broad privatization program are being carried out;
- a new legal mechanism of economic and financial relations is being created, allowing for a multi-structured form of economic life and creating an infrastructure for the development of private property;
- free prices are introduced.

By now, practically in all countries have created a legal basis for the development of a market economy.

The period of active entry into the market was associated with a breakdown of the financial system, inflation, an increase in unemployment, a weakening of the general cultural background, a surge in crime, drug addiction, a fall in the level of health of the population, and an increase in mortality. In a number of new post-socialist states, military conflicts were unleashed, including civil wars, which brought massive loss of life, great destruction of a material nature. These events affected Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Russia and other republics and regions of the former Soviet Union... National unity has been lost. The tasks of restructuring the economy facing each new sovereign country, if tackled separately, without taking into account previous cooperative ties, will require a huge cost overrun of scarce capital investments and cause fierce competition between economic regions that once complemented each other. As compensation, society received a rejection of the socialist universality of labor, the elimination of the system of social dependency with a simultaneous proclamation of standard liberal-democratic freedoms.

Practical adaptation to the requirements of the global market presupposes new forms of foreign economic activity, restructuring economy, i.e. destruction its established proportions and cooperative connections(in particular, conversion, i.e., a radical weakening of the arms production sector).

This also includes the problem ecological security, which really takes on the character of one of the main factors in the development of national production.

Changes in the field of spiritual values and priorities

This sphere of transformation touches upon the problems of social and spiritual adaptation to the new conditions of the existence of a large number of people, their consciousness, changes in value criteria... Moreover, the change in mentality is directly related to the process of socialization in the new conditions. Modern development shows that the transformation of political and economic systems can be carried out in a relatively short time, while consciousness and socialization that have been a priority for a long time, cannot undergo rapid change... They continue to influence and can, in the process of adapting to new requirements, cause a crisis of a person and a system.

In the public consciousness of the population of the transformation countries, generally accepted criteria for property stratification have not yet been developed. The deepening gap between the rich and the poor, the progressive impoverishment of a significant part of the working-age population give rise to a well-known reaction: an increase in crime, depression and other negative psychological consequences that reduce the attractiveness of the new social order. But the course of history is relentless. Objective necessity always turns out to be higher than the subjective factor. Thus, transformation turns out to be a specific development mechanism designed to provide not only guarantees against the restoration of the old system, the return of the old ideology, but also the restoration of a powerful state that could significantly influence geopolitical processes in their economic, trade, financial, military, scientific and technical and other measurements, which are Russian specifics.

In sociology social change exists significant amount concepts, theories and directions. Consider the most researched: evolutionary, neo-evolutionary and cyclical theory.

Evolutionism proceeds from the fact that society is developing along an ascending line- from lower forms to higher ones. This movement is permanent and irreversible. All societies, all cultures go from a less developed state to a more developed one according to a single predetermined pattern. Representatives of classical evolutionism are such scientists as C. Darwin, O. Comte, G. Spencer, E. Durkheim. For example, Spencer believed that the essence of evolutionary change and progress lies in the complication of society, in the strengthening of its differentiation, in the withering away of unadapted individuals, social institutions, cultures, survival and prosperity of the adapted.

Classical evolutionism views change as strictly linear, ascending and developing according to a single scenario. This theory has been repeatedly criticized by its opponents.

The following arguments were put forward as arguments:

many historical events are limited and random;
the growth of the diversity of human populations (tribes, cultures, civilizations) does not give grounds to speak of a single evolutionary process;
the growing conflict potential of social systems does not correspond to evolutionary views on changes;
the cases of retreats, failures and deaths of states, ethnic groups, civilizations existing in the history of mankind do not give grounds to speak of a single evolutionary scenario.

Evolutionary postulate(statement) about inevitable development sequence is questioned by historical fact that in the course of development some stages can be missed, and the passage of others is accelerated. For example, most European countries in the course of their development have passed such a stage as slavery.

Some non-Western societies cannot be judged on a single scale of development and maturity. They are qualitatively excellent from the western ones.

Evolution cannot be equated with progress, since many societies as a result of social changes find themselves in a state of crisis and / or degrade. For example, Russia as a result of which began in the early 90s. XX century. liberal reforms in their main indicators (socio-economic, technological, moral and ethical, etc.) was thrown back in its development for many decades.

Classical evolutionism essentially eliminates the human factor in social change, instilling in people the inevitability of upward development.

Neo-evolutionism... In the 50s. XX century. after a period of criticism and disgrace, sociological evolutionism again became the focus of sociologists' attention. Scientists such as G. Lensky, J. Stewart, T. Parsons and others, distancing themselves from classical evolutionism, proposed their theoretical approaches to evolutionary changes.

The main provisions of neo-evolutionism

If classical evolutionism proceeds from the fact that all societies go through the same path of development from lower forms to higher ones, then representatives neo-evolutionism come to the conclusion that every culture, every society, along with general trends, have its logic of evolutionary development. The focus is not on the sequence of necessary stages, but on the causal mechanism of change.

When analyzing change neo-evolutionists try to avoid evaluations and analogies with progress... Basic views are formed in the form of hypotheses and assumptions rather than direct statements.

Evolutionary processes do not flow evenly in an ascending straight line, but spasmodically and are multi-line. At each new stage of social development, one of the lines that played even a secondary role at the previous stage may become the leading one.

Cyclical change theories. Cyclicity various natural, biological and social phenomena was already known in ancient times... For example, ancient Greek philosophers and others developed the doctrine of the cyclical nature of political regimes of power.

In the Middle Ages, the Arab scholar and poet Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) compared cycles of civilization with the life cycles of living organisms: growth - maturity - old age.

During the Enlightenment, the Italian court historian Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) developed a theory of the cyclical development of history. He believed that a typical historical cycle goes through three stages: anarchy and savagery; order and civilization; decline of civilization and return to new barbarism. Moreover, each new cycle is qualitatively different from the previous one,
that is, the movement is in an upward spiral.

The Russian philosopher and sociologist K. Ya. Danilevsky (1822-1885) in his book "Russia and Europe" presented human history, divided into separate historical and cultural types or civilizations. Every civilization is like biological organism goes through the stages of birth, maturation, decrepitude and death. In his opinion, no civilization is better or more perfect; each has its own values and thereby enriches the common human culture; each has its own internal logic of development and goes through its own stages.

In 1918, the book of the German scientist O. Spengler (1880-1936) "The Decline of Europe" was published, where he develops the ideas of his predecessors about the cyclical nature historical changes and identifies eight higher cultures in world history: Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, Greco-Roman, Arab, Mexican (Maya) and Western. Every culture experiences cycles of childhood, adolescence, maturity and old age. Having realized the full amount of possibilities and fulfilling its purpose, culture dies. The emergence and development of a particular culture cannot be explained from the point of view of causality - the development of culture occurs according to its inherent internal necessity.

Spengler's predictions regarding the future of Western culture were very gloomy. He believed that western culture has passed the stage of its heyday and entered the stage of decomposition.

Life cycle theory civilizations found its development in the writings of the English historian A. Toynbee (1889-1975), who believed that world history represents the emergence, development and decline relatively closed discrete (intermittent) civilizations... Civilizations arise and develop as a response to the challenge of the surrounding natural and social environment (unfavorable natural conditions, attack by foreigners, persecution of previous civilizations). As soon as the answer is found, a new challenge and a new answer follows.

The analysis of the above points of view allows us to draw some general conclusions from the theory of cyclical changes in general:

cyclical processes there are closed when each complete cycle returns the system to its original (identical to the original) position; there are spiral when the repetition of certain stages occurs at a qualitatively different level - higher or lower);
any social system in its development is experiencing a number of consecutive stages: origin, development(maturity), decline, destruction;
phase system development, as a rule, have varying intensity and duration(accelerated processes of changes in one phase can be replaced by prolonged stagnation (conservation);
no civilization (culture) is better or more perfect;
social change- it's not only the result of the natural process of development of social systems, but alsothe result of active transformative human activity.

Social revolution

The second type of social change is revolutionary.

The revolution represents fast, fundamental, socio-economic and political changes, carried out, as a rule, violently. The revolution is a coup from below. It sweeps away the ruling elite, which has proven its inability to govern society, and creates a new political and social structure, new political, economic and social relations... As a result of the revolution basic transformations take place in the social-class structure of society, in the values and behavior of people.

The revolution involves into active political activity large masses the people... Activity, enthusiasm, optimism, hope for a brighter future mobilize people for feats of arms, free labor and social creativity. During the period of the revolution, mass activity reaches its climax, and social changes - at an unprecedented pace and depth. K. Marx called revolution« locomotives of history».

According to Karl Marx, a revolution is a qualitative leap, the result of the resolution of fundamental contradictions in the basis of the socio-economic formation between backward production relations and productive forces that are outgrowing their framework. The class conflict is the direct expression of these contradictions. In a capitalist society, this is an irreparable antagonistic conflict between the exploiters and the exploited. To fulfill its historical mission, the advanced class (for the capitalist formation, according to Marx, the proletariat, the working class) must realize its oppressed position, develop class consciousness and unite in the struggle against capitalism. Assistance in obtaining necessary knowledge The proletariat is assisted by the most far-sighted progressive representatives of the moribund class. The proletariat must be ready to solve the problem of conquering power by force. According to Marxist logic, socialist revolutions should have taken place in the most developed countries, since they are more ripe for this.

Follower and disciple of K. Marx E. Bernstein at the end
XIX century, relying on statistical data on the development of capitalism in industrialized countries, doubted the inevitability of a revolution in the near future and suggested that the transition to socialism could be relatively peaceful and would take a relatively long historical period. VI Lenin modernized the theory of the socialist revolution, insisting that it should take place in the weakest link of the capitalist system and serve as a "fuse" for the world revolution.

History of the XX century. showed that both Bernstein and Lenin were right in their own way. Socialist revolutions in economically developed countries did not happen, they were in problem regions of Asia and Latin America. Sociologists, in particular the French scientist Alain Touraine, believe that the main reason for the absence of revolutions in developed countries is the institutionalization of the main conflict - the conflict between labor and capital. They have legislative regulators of interaction between employers and employees, and the state acts as a social arbiter. In addition, the proletariat of the early capitalist society, which K. Marx studied, was absolutely powerless, and had nothing to lose except its chains. Now the situation has changed: in the leading industrial states, democratic procedures in the political sphere operate and are strictly observed, and most of the proletariat is the middle class, which has something to lose. Modern followers of Marxism also emphasize the role of the powerful ideological apparatus of the capitalist states in restraining possible revolutionary actions.

The non-Marxist theories of social revolutions primarily include sociology of revolution P. A. Sorokin... In his opinion, the revolution there is a painful process that turns into a total social disorganization ... But even painful processes have their own logic - a revolution is not a random event. P. Sorokin calls its three main conditions:

an increase in suppressed basic instincts - the basic needs of the population and the impossibility of meeting them;
the repression suffered by the disaffected must affect large sections of the population;
the forces of order do not have the means to suppress destructive encroachments.

Revolution have three phases: short-term phase joy and expectation; destructive when the old order is eradicated, often together with their carriers; constructive, in the process of which the most persistent pre-revolutionary values and institutions are largely reanimated. The general conclusion of P. Sorokin is as follows: damage inflicted on society by revolutions, always turns out to be big than probable benefit.

The topic of social revolutions is also touched upon by other non-Marxist theories: the theory of elite circulation by Vilfredo Pareto, the theory of relative deprivation and the theory of modernization. According to the first theory, a revolutionary situation is created by the degradation of elites that have been in power for too long and do not provide normal circulation - a replacement for a new elite. Ted Garr's theory of relative deprivation, which explains the emergence of social movements, links the emergence of social tension in society with the gap between the level of people's needs and the possibilities of achieving what they want. Modernization theory views revolution as a crisis arising in the process of political and cultural modernization of society. It arises when modernization is carried out unevenly in different spheres of society.

Children and Education - Information Portal