(historical materialism), reflecting the patterns of historical development of society, ascending from simple primitive social forms of development to more progressive ones, a historically specific type of society. This concept also reflects social action categories and laws of dialectics, marking the natural and inevitable transition of humanity from the “kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom” - to communism. The category of socio-economic formation was developed by Marx in the first versions of Capital: “Toward criticism political economy." and in “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts 1857 - 1859.” It is presented in its most developed form in Capital.

The thinker believed that all societies, despite their specificity (which Marx never denied), go through the same steps or stages social development - socio-economic formations. Moreover, each socio-economic formation is a special social organism, different from other social organisms (formations). In total, he identifies five such formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist; which the early Marx reduces to three: public (without private property), private property and again public, but at a higher level social development. Marx believed that economic relations are decisive in social development, mode of production, according to which he named the formations. The thinker became the founder of the formational approach in social philosophy, who believed that there are general social patterns of development of various societies.

The socio-economic formation consists of the economic basis of society and the superstructure, interconnected and interacting with each other. The main thing in this interaction is the economic basis, the economic development of society.

The economic basis of society - the defining element of the socio-economic formation, which represents the interaction of the productive forces of society and production relations.

The productive forces of society - the forces with the help of which the production process is carried out, consisting of man as the main productive force and the means of production (buildings, raw materials, machines and mechanisms, production technologies, etc.).

Industrial relations - relations between people that arise in the production process, related to their place and role in the production process, the relationship of ownership of the means of production, and their relationship to the product of production. As a rule, the one who owns the means of production plays a decisive role in production; the rest are forced to sell their labor power. The specific unity of the productive forces of society and production relations forms mode of production, determining the economic basis of society and the entire socio-economic formation as a whole.

Rising above the economic base superstructure, which is a system of ideological public relations, expressed in the forms public consciousness, in the views, theories of illusions, feelings of various social groups and society as a whole. The most significant elements of the superstructure are law, politics, morality, art, religion, science, philosophy. The superstructure is determined by the basis, but it can have the opposite effect on the basis. The transition from one socio-economic formation to another is associated, first of all, with the development of the economic sphere, the dialectics of the interaction of productive forces and production relations.

In this interaction, productive forces are the dynamically developing content, and production relations are the form that allows productive forces to exist and develop. At a certain stage, the development of the productive forces comes into conflict with the old relations of production, and then the time comes for a social revolution, carried out as a result of the class struggle. With the replacement of old production relations by new ones, the mode of production and the economic basis of society change. With a change in the economic base, the superstructure also changes, therefore, there is a transition from one socio-economic formation to another.

Formational and civilizational concepts of social development.

In social philosophy there are many concepts of the development of society. However, the main ones are the formational and civilizational concepts of social development. The formational concept, developed by Marxism, believes that there are general patterns of development for all societies, regardless of their specifics. The central concept of this approach is the socio-economic formation.

Civilization concept of social development denies the general patterns of development of societies. The civilizational approach is most fully represented in the concept of A. Toynbee.

Civilization, according to Toynbee, is a stable community of people united by spiritual traditions, similar lifestyles, geographical and historical frameworks. History is a nonlinear process. This is the process of birth, life, and death of civilizations unrelated to each other. Toynbee divides all civilizations into main (Sumerian, Babylonian, Minoan, Hellenic - Greek, Chinese, Hindu, Islamic, Christian) and local (American, German, Russian, etc.). Major civilizations leave a bright mark on the history of mankind and indirectly influence (especially religiously) other civilizations. Local civilizations, as a rule, are confined within a national framework. Every civilization develops historically in accordance with the driving forces of history, the main ones being challenge and response.

Call - concept reflecting threats coming to civilization from outside (unfavorable geographical position, lagging behind other civilizations, aggression, wars, climate change, etc.) and requiring an adequate response, without which civilization may perish.

Answer - a concept that reflects the adequate response of a civilizational organism to a challenge, i.e. transformation, modernization of civilization for the purpose of survival and further development. The activities of talented, God-chosen, outstanding people, the creative minority, and the elite of society play a major role in the search and implementation of an adequate response. It leads an inert majority, which sometimes “extinguishes” the energy of the minority. Civilization, like any other living organism, goes through the following life cycles: birth, growth, breakdown, disintegration, followed by death and complete disappearance. As long as civilization is full of strength, as long as the creative minority is able to lead society and adequately respond to incoming challenges, it is developing. With the depletion of vitality, any challenge can lead to breakdown and death of civilization.

Closely related to the civilizational approach cultural approach, developed by N.Ya. Danilevsky and O. Spengler. The central concept of this approach is culture, interpreted as a certain internal meaning, a certain goal of the life of a particular society. Culture is a system-forming factor in the formation of sociocultural integrity, called the cultural-historical type by N. Ya. Danilevsky. Like a living organism, each society (cultural-historical type) goes through the following stages of development: birth and growth, flowering and fruiting, withering and death. Civilization is the highest stage of cultural development, a period of flowering and fruiting.

O. Spengler also identifies individual cultural organisms. This means that there is not and cannot be a single universal human culture. O. Spengler distinguishes between cultures that have completed their development cycle, cultures that have died before their time, and emerging cultures. Each cultural “organism,” according to Spengler, is predetermined for a certain period (about a millennium), depending on its internal life cycle. Dying, culture is reborn into a civilization (dead extension and “soulless intellect,” a sterile, ossified, mechanical formation), which marks the old age and illness of culture.

Socio-economic formation- the central concept of the Marxist theory of society or historical materialism: “... a society at a certain stage of historical development, a society with a unique, distinctive character.” Through the concept of O.E.F. ideas about society as a specific system were recorded and at the same time the main periods of its historical development were identified.

It was believed that any social phenomenon can be correctly understood only in connection with a certain O.E.F., an element or product of which it is. The term “formation” itself was borrowed by Marx from geology.

Completed theory of O.E.F. not formulated by Marx, however, if we summarize his various statements, we can conclude that Marx distinguished three eras or formations world history according to the criterion of dominant production relations (forms of ownership): 1) primary formation (archaic pre-class societies); 2) secondary, or “economic” social formation, based on private property and commodity exchange and including Asian, ancient, feudal and capitalist modes of production; 3) communist formation.

Marx paid main attention to the “economic” formation, and within its framework, to the bourgeois system. At the same time, social relations were reduced to economic ones (“base”), and world history was viewed as a movement through social revolutions to a predetermined phase - communism.

The term O.E.F. introduced by Plekhanov and Lenin. Lenin, generally following the logic of Marx’s concept, significantly simplified and narrowed it, identifying O.E.F. with the mode of production and reducing it to a system of production relations. Canonization of the O.E.F. concept in the form of the so-called "five-member" was carried out by Stalin in " Short course history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)." Representatives of historical materialism believed that the concept of O.E.F. makes it possible to notice repetition in history and thereby give it a strictly scientific analysis. The change of formations forms the main line of progress; formations perish due to internal antagonisms, but with With the advent of communism, the law of change of formations ceases to operate.

As a result of the transformation of Marx's hypothesis into an infallible dogma, formational reductionism was established in Soviet social science, i.e. reduction of the entire diversity of the human world only to formational characteristics, which was expressed in the absolutization of the role of the common in history, the analysis of all social connections along the basis - superstructure line, ignoring the human beginning of history and the free choice of people. In its established form, the concept of O.E.F. together with the idea of ​​linear progress that gave birth to it, already belongs to the history of social thought.

However, overcoming formational dogma does not mean abandoning the formulation and solution of questions of social typology. Types of society and its nature, depending on the tasks being solved, can be distinguished according to various criteria, including socio-economic ones.

It is important to remember the high degree of abstraction of such theoretical constructs, their schematic nature, the inadmissibility of their ontologization, direct identification with reality, and also their use for constructing social forecasts and developing specific political tactics. If this is not taken into account, then the result, as experience shows, is social deformation and disaster.

Types of socio-economic formations:

1. Primitive communal system (primitive communism) . Level economic development extremely low, the tools used are primitive, so there is no possibility of producing a surplus product. There is no class division. The means of production are publicly owned. Labor is universal, property is only collective.

2. Asian production method (other names - political society, state-communal system). In the later stages of the existence of primitive society, the level of production made it possible to create a surplus product. Communities united into large entities with centralized management.

Of these, a class of people gradually emerged, exclusively occupied with management. This class gradually became isolated, accumulated privileges and material wealth in its hands, which led to the emergence of private property, property inequality and led to the transition to slavery. The administrative apparatus acquired an increasingly complex character, gradually transforming into a state.

The existence of the Asian mode of production as a separate formation is not generally accepted and has been a topic of discussion throughout the existence of historical mathematics; it is also not mentioned everywhere in the works of Marx and Engels.

3.Slavery . There is private ownership of the means of production. Direct labor is occupied by a separate class of slaves - people deprived of freedom, owned by slave owners and regarded as “talking tools.” Slaves work but do not own the means of production. Slave owners organize production and appropriate the results of slaves' labor.

4.Feudalism . In society, there are classes of feudal lords - land owners - and dependent peasants who are personally dependent on the feudal lords. Production (mainly agricultural) is carried out by the labor of dependent peasants exploited by feudal lords. Feudal society is characterized by a monarchical type of government and class social structure.

5. Capitalism . There is a universal right of private ownership of the means of production. There are classes of capitalists - owners of the means of production - and workers (proletarians) who do not own the means of production and work for the capitalists for hire. Capitalists organize production and appropriate the surplus produced by workers. A capitalist society can have various forms of government, but the most typical for it are various variations of democracy, when power belongs to elected representatives of society (parliament, president).

The main mechanism that motivates people to work is economic coercion - the worker does not have the opportunity to ensure his life in any other way than by receiving wages for the work he performs.

6. Communism . A theoretical (never existed in practice) structure of society that should replace capitalism. Under communism, all means of production are publicly owned, and private ownership of means of production is completely eliminated. Labor is universal, there is no class division. It is assumed that a person works consciously, striving to bring the greatest benefit to society and without the need for external incentives such as economic coercion.

At the same time, society provides any available benefits to every person. Thus, the principle “To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!” is implemented. Commodity-money relations are abolished. The ideology of communism encourages collectivism and presupposes the voluntary recognition by each member of society of the priority of public interests over personal ones. Power is exercised by society as a whole, on the basis of self-government.

As a socio-economic formation, transitional from capitalism to communism, it is considered socialism, in which the means of production are socialized, but commodity-money relations, economic compulsion to work and a number of other features characteristic of a capitalist society are preserved. Under socialism, the principle is implemented: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”

Development of Karl Marx's views on historical formations

Marx himself, in his later works, considered three new “modes of production”: “Asiatic”, “ancient” and “Germanic”. However, this development of Marx’s views was later ignored in the USSR, where only one orthodox version of historical materialism was officially recognized, according to which “history knows five socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist.”

To this we must add that in the preface to one of his main early works on this topic: “Towards a critique of political economy,” Marx mentioned the “ancient” (as well as the “Asiatic”) mode of production, while in other works he (as well as Engels) wrote about the existence in antiquity of a “slave mode of production.”

The historian of antiquity M. Finley pointed to this fact as one of the evidence of the weak study by Marx and Engels of the issues of the functioning of ancient and other ancient societies. Another example: Marx himself discovered that the community appeared among the Germans only in the 1st century, and by the end of the 4th century it had completely disappeared from them, but despite this he continued to assert that the community had been preserved everywhere in Europe since primitive times.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATION - a stage of progressive development of human society, representing the totality of all social phenomena in their organic unity and interaction based on this method production of material goods; one of the main categories of historical materialism...

Soviet historical encyclopedia. In 16 volumes. - M.: Soviet encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 10. NAHIMSON - PERGAMUS. 1967.

Socio-economic formation (Lopukhov, 2013)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATION is one of fundamental categories Marxist sociology, which considers society at any stage of its development as an integrity arising on the basis of a certain mode of production. In the structure of each formation, an economic base and a superstructure were distinguished. Basis (or production relations) - a set of social relations that develop between people in the process of production, exchange, distribution and consumption of material goods (the main ones among them are relations of ownership of the means of production).

Social formations (NFE, 2010)

SOCIAL FORMATIONS - a category of Marxism, denoting the stages of historical development of society, establishing a certain logic of the historical process. The main characteristics of a social formation: mode of production, system of social relations, social structure etc. The development of countries and individual regions is richer than the definition of their belonging to any formation; formational characteristics in each case are specified and supplemented by the peculiarities of social structures - socio-political institutions, culture, law, religion, morality, customs, mores, etc.

Socio-economic formation (1988)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATION is a historically specific type of society, based on a specific mode of production, characterized by its economic basis, political, legal, ideological superstructure, and its forms of social consciousness. Each socio-economic formation represents a certain historical stage in the progressive development of mankind. There are socio-economic formations: primitive communal (see. ), slaveholding (see. ), feudal (see ), capitalist (see , Imperialism, General crisis of capitalism) and communist (see. , ). All socio-economic formations have specific laws of origin and development. So, each of them has its own basic economic law. There are also general laws that apply in all or many socio-economic formations. This includes the law of increasing labor productivity, the law of value (arises during the period of decomposition of the primitive communal system, disappears under conditions of complete communism). At a certain stage in the development of society, the continuously developing productive forces reach a level where the existing relations of production become their fetters...

Slave formation (Podoprigora)

SLAVE FORMATION - a social system based on slavery and slave ownership; the first antagonistic socio-economic formation in the history of mankind. Slavery is a phenomenon that existed in different historical conditions. In the slave-owning formation, slave labor plays the role of the dominant mode of production. Countries in whose history historians discover the presence of a slave-owning formation are: Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia; states Ancient India, Ancient China, Ancient Greece and Italy.

Socio-economic formation (Orlov)

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATION is a fundamental category in Marxism - a stage (period, era) in the development of human society. It is characterized by a combination of economic base, socio-political and ideological superstructure (forms of statehood, religion, culture, moral and ethical standards). A type of society that represents a special stage in its development. Marxism views the history of mankind as a successive change of primitive communal, slave systems, feudalism, capitalism and communism - highest form social progress.

Dialectics of social development Konstantinov Fedor Vasilievich

1. Socio-economic formation

(The category “socio-economic formation” is the cornerstone of the materialistic rise of history as a natural historical process of the development of society according to objective laws. Without understanding the deep content of this category, it is impossible to know the essence of human society and its development along the path of progress.

Developing historical materialism as a philosophical science and a general sociological theory, the founders of Marxism-Leninism showed that the starting point for the study of society must be taken not the individual individuals that make it up, but those social relations that develop between people in the process of their production activities, i.e. total industrial relations.

For the sake of producing the material goods necessary for life, people inevitably enter into production relations independent of their will, which in turn determine all other - socio-political, ideological, moral, etc. - relations, as well as the development of the person himself as an individual. V.I. Lenin noted that “a sociologist-materialist who makes the subject of his study certain social relations of people, thereby also studies real personalities, from the actions of which these relations are composed.”

Scientific materialist knowledge of society was developed in the struggle against bourgeois sociology. Bourgeois philosophers and subjectivist sociologists operated with the concepts of “man in general,” “society in general.” They proceeded not from a generalization of the real activities of people and their interactions, interrelations, not from social relations emerging on the basis of their practical activities, but from an abstract “model of society”, completed in accordance with the subjective view of the scientist and supposedly corresponding to human nature. Naturally, such an idealistic concept of society, divorced from the immediate life of people and their actual relationships, is opposite to its materialist interpretation.

Historical materialism, when analyzing the category of socio-economic formation, operates with the scientific concept of society. It is used when analyzing the relationship between society and nature, when the need to maintain an ecological balance between them is considered. It is impossible to do without it when considering both human society as a whole and any specific historical type and stage of its development. Finally, this concept is organically woven into the definition of the subject of historical materialism as the science of the most general laws development of society and its driving forces. V.I. Lenin wrote that K. Marx discarded empty talk about society in general and began studying one specific, capitalist formation. However, this does not mean at all that K. Marx will reject the very concept of society. As V.I. Razin notes, he “only spoke out against empty discussions about society in general, which bourgeois sociologists did not go beyond.”

The concept of society cannot be discarded or opposed to the concept of “socio-economic formation”. This would contradict the most important principle of the approach to determining scientific concepts. This principle, as is known, is that the concept being defined must be subsumed under another, broader in scope, which is generic in relation to the one being defined. This is a logical rule for defining any concepts. It is quite applicable to the definition of the concepts of society and socio-economic formation. In this case, the generic concept is “society,” considered regardless of its specific form and historical stage of development. This was repeatedly noted by K. Marx. “What is society, whatever its form? - K. Marx asked and answered: “A product of human interaction.” Society “expresses the sum of those connections and relationships in which... individuals are related to each other.” Society is “man himself in his social relations.”

Being generic in relation to the concept of “socio-economic formation,” the concept of “society” reflects the qualitative certainty of the social form of the movement of matter, in contrast to other forms. The category “socio-economic formation” expresses the qualitative certainty of the types and historical stages of the development of society.

Since society is a system of social relations that make up a certain structural integrity, knowledge of it consists in the study of these relations. Criticizing the subjective method of N. Mikhailovsky and other Russian populists, V. I. Lenin wrote: “Where will you get the concept of society and progress in general, when you ... have not even been able to approach a serious factual study, an objective analysis of any social relationship?

As is known, K. Marx began his analysis of the concept and structure of a socio-economic formation with the study of social relations, primarily production relations. Having isolated from the entire totality of social relations the main, defining, i.e., material, production relations on which the development of other social relations depends, K. Marx found an objective criterion of repeatability in the development of society, which was denied by subjectivists. Analysis of “material social relations,” noted V.I. Lenin, “immediately made it possible to notice repeatability and correctness and generalize orders different countries into one basic concept social formation." Isolating what is common and repeats itself in the history of different countries and peoples has made it possible to identify qualitatively defined types of society and to present social development as a natural historical process of the natural progressive movement of society from lower to higher levels.

The category of socio-economic formation simultaneously reflects the concept of the type of society and the stage of its historical development. In the preface to the work “A Critique of Political Economy,” K. Marx singled out Asian, ancient, feudal and bourgeois modes of production as progressive eras of economic social formation. The bourgeois social formation “ends the prehistory of human society”; it is naturally replaced by the communist social economic formation, which opens true story humanity. In subsequent works, the founders of Marxism also singled out the primitive communal formation as the first in the history of mankind, which all peoples go through.

This typification of socio-economic formations, created by K. Marx in the 50s of the 19th century, also provided for the presence in history of a specific Asian mode of production and, therefore, an Asian formation that existed on its basis, which took place in the countries of the Ancient East. However, already in the early 80s of the 19th century, when K. Marx and F. Engels developed a definition of the primitive communal and slave-owning formation, they did not use the term “Asian mode of production”, abandoning this very concept. In the subsequent works of K. Marx and F. Engels we're talking about only about... five socio-economic ones. formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist.

The construction of a typology of socio-economic formations was based on the brilliant knowledge of K. Marx and F. Engels of historical, economic and other social sciences, because it is impossible to resolve the issue of the number of formations and the order of their occurrence without taking into account the achievements of history, economics, politics, law, archeology, etc. . P.

The formational stage that a particular country or region goes through is determined primarily by the prevailing production relations in them, which determine the nature of social, political and spiritual relations at a given stage of development and the corresponding social institutions. Therefore, V.I. Lenin defined a socio-economic formation as a set of production relations. But of course, he did not reduce the formation only to the totality of production relations, but pointed out the need for a comprehensive analysis of its structure and the interrelations of all aspects of the latter. Noting that the study of the capitalist formation in K. Marx’s “Capital” is based on the study of the production relations of capitalism, V. I. Lenin at the same time emphasized that this is only the skeleton of “Capital”. He wrote:

“The whole point, however, is that Marx was not satisfied with this skeleton... that - explaining structure and development of this social formation exclusively relations of production - he nevertheless everywhere and constantly traced the superstructures corresponding to these relations of production, clothed the skeleton with flesh and blood.” “Capital” showed “the reader the entire capitalist social formation as alive - with its everyday aspects, with the actual social manifestation of the class antagonism inherent in production relations, with the bourgeois political superstructure protecting the dominance of the capitalist class, with the bourgeois ideas of freedom, equality, etc., with bourgeois family relations."

A socio-economic formation is a qualitatively defined type of society at a given stage of its historical development, which represents a system of social relations and phenomena determined by the method of production and subject to both general and its own specific laws of functioning and development. The category of socio-economic formation, as the most general one in historical materialism, reflects all the diversity of aspects of social life at a certain stage of its historical development. The structure of each formation includes both general elements characteristic of all formations and unique elements characteristic of a particular formation. At the same time, the determining role in the development and interaction of all structural elements is played by the method of production, its inherent production relations, which determine the nature and type of all elements of the formation.

In addition to the method of production, the most important structural elements of all socio-economic formations are the corresponding economic base and the superstructure rising above it. In historical materialism, the concepts of base and superstructure serve to distinguish between material (primary) and ideological (secondary) social relations. The basis is a set of production relations, the economic structure of society. This concept expresses the social function of production relations as the economic basis of society, developing between people regardless of their consciousness in the process of producing material goods.

The superstructure is formed on the basis of the economic basis, develops and changes under the influence of the transformations taking place in it, and is its reflection. The superstructure includes ideas, theories and views of society and the institutions, institutions and organizations that implement them, as well as ideological relations between people, social groups, classes. The peculiarity of ideological relations, in contrast to material ones, is that they pass through the consciousness of people, that is, they are built consciously, in accordance with the ideas, views, needs and interests that guide people.

The most general elements that characterize the structure of all formations should include, in our opinion, the way of life. As K. Marx and F. Engels showed, a way of life is “a certain way of activity of given individuals, a certain type of their life activity,” which develops under the influence of the method of production. Representing a set of types of life activities of people, social groups in labor, socio-political, family and household, etc. spheres, the way of life is formed on the basis of a given method of production, under the influence of production relations and in accordance with the value orientations and ideals prevailing in society . Reflecting human activity, the category of lifestyle reveals personality and social groups primarily as subjects of social relations.

Prevailing social relations are inseparable from the way of life. For example, the collectivist way of life in a socialist society is fundamentally opposite to the individualistic way of life under capitalism, which is determined by the opposition of the dominant forces in these societies social relations. However, it does not follow from this that lifestyle and social relations can be identified, as was sometimes allowed in the works of some sociologists. Such identification led to the loss of the specificity of the way of life as one of the elements of the social formation, to its identification with the formation, and replaced this most general concept of historical materialism, reducing its methodological significance for understanding the development of society. The 26th Congress of the CPSU, determining ways for the further development of the socialist way of life, noted the need to practically strengthen its material and spiritual foundations. This should be expressed primarily in the transformation and development of such spheres of life as labor, cultural and living conditions, medical care, trade, public education, Physical Culture, sports, etc., which contribute to the comprehensive development of the individual.

The method of production, the basis and superstructure, the way of life constitute the basic elements of the structure of all formations, but their content is specific to each of them. In any formation, these structural elements have a qualitative certainty, determined primarily by the type of production relations prevailing in society, the peculiarities of the emergence and development of these elements during the transition to a more progressive formation. Thus, in exploitative societies, the structural elements and the relationships they define have a contradictory, antagonistic character. These elements already originate in the depths of the previous formation, and the social revolution, which marks the transition to a more progressive formation, eliminating outdated production relations and the superstructure that expressed them (primarily the old state machine), gives scope for the development of new relations and phenomena characteristic of the established formation. Thus, the social revolution brings into line outdated production relations with the productive forces that have grown in the depths of the old system, which ensures the further development of production and social relations.

The socialist basis, superstructure and way of life cannot arise in the depths of the capitalist formation, since they are based only on socialist production relations, which in turn are formed only on the basis of socialist ownership of the means of production. As is known, socialist property is established only after the victory of the socialist revolution and the nationalization of bourgeois ownership of the means of production, as well as as a result of production cooperation between the economy of artisans and working peasants.

In addition to the noted elements, the structure of the formation also includes other social phenomena that influence its development. Among these phenomena, such as family and everyday life are inherent in all formations, and such historical communities of people as clan, tribe, nationality, nation, class are characteristic only of certain formations.

As stated, each formation is a complex set of qualitatively defined social relations, phenomena and processes. They are formed in various fields human activity and together make up the structure of the formation. What many of these phenomena have in common is that they cannot be completely attributed only to the base or only to the superstructure. Such are, for example, family, everyday life, class, nation, the system of which includes basic - material, economic - relations, as well as ideological relations of a superstructural nature. To determine their role in the system of social relations of a given formation, it is necessary to take into account the nature of the social needs that gave rise to these phenomena, to identify the nature of their connections with production relations, and to reveal their social functions. Only such a comprehensive analysis allows one to correctly determine the structure of the formation and the patterns of its development.

To reveal the concept of socio-economic formation as a stage in the natural historical development of society, the concept of “world-historical era” is important. This concept reflects a whole period in the development of society, when, on the basis of a social revolution, a transition is made from one formation to another, more progressive one. During the period of revolution, a qualitative transformation of the method of production, base and superstructure, as well as the way of life and other components of the structure of the formation occurs, the formation of a qualitatively new social organism is carried out, accompanied by the resolution of urgent contradictions in the development of the economic base and superstructure. “...The development of the contradictions of a known historical form of production is the only historical way of its decomposition and the formation of a new one,” noted K. Marx in Capital.

The unity and diversity of the historical development of mankind finds its expression in the dialectics of the formation and change of socio-economic formations. The general pattern of human history is that, in general, all peoples and countries go from lower to higher formations in the organization of social life, forming the main line of progressive development of society along the path of progress. However, this general pattern manifests itself specifically in the development of individual countries and peoples. This is explained by the uneven pace of development, arising not only from the uniqueness of economic development, but also “thanks to the infinitely varied empirical circumstances, natural conditions, racial relations, historical influences acting from outside, etc.”

The diversity of historical development is inherent both in individual countries and peoples, and in formations. It manifests itself in the existence of varieties of individual formations (for example, serfdom is a type of feudalism); in the uniqueness of the transition from one formation to another (for example, the transition from capitalism to socialism presupposes a whole transition period, during which a socialist society is created);

in the ability of individual countries and peoples to bypass certain formations (for example, in Russia there was no slave-owning formation, and Mongolia and some developing countries bypassed the era of capitalism).

The experience of history shows that in transitional historical eras, a new socio-economic formation is first established in individual countries or groups of countries. Thus, after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the world split into two systems, and the formation of the communist formation in Russia began. Following our country, a number of countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa embarked on the path of transition from capitalism to socialism. V. I. Lenin’s prediction that “the destruction of capitalism and its traces, the introduction of the foundations of the communist order is the content of the now begun new era world history." The main content of the modern era is the transition from capitalism to socialism and communism on a worldwide scale. The countries of the socialist community are today the leading force and determine the main direction of the social progress of all mankind. In the vanguard of the socialist countries is Soviet Union, who, having built a developed socialist society, entered a “necessary, natural and historically long period in the formation of the communist formation.” The stage of a developed socialist society is the pinnacle of social progress in our time.

Communism is a classless society of complete social equality and social homogeneity, ensuring a harmonious combination of public and personal interests and comprehensive development personality as the highest goal of this society. Its implementation will be in the interests of all humanity. The communist formation is the last form of structure of the human race, but not because the development of history stops there. At its core, its development excludes socio-political revolution. Under communism, contradictions between the productive forces and production relations will remain, but they will be resolved by society without leading to the need for a social revolution, the overthrow of the old system and its replacement with a new one. By promptly revealing and resolving emerging contradictions, communism as a formation will develop endlessly.

From the book History of Ancient Philosophy in a summary presentation. author Losev Alexey Fedorovich

I. PRE-PHILOSOPHICAL, THAT IS SOCIO-HISTORICAL, BASIS §1. COMMUNITY-TRIBAL FORMATION 1. The main method of communal-tribal thinking. The communal clan formation arises on the basis of kinship relations, which underlie all production and the distribution of labor between

From the book Archeology of Knowledge by Foucault Michel

§2. SLAVE OWNING FORMATION 1. Principle. The communal-clan formation, in connection with its growing mythological abstraction, reached the point of representing living beings that were no longer just physical things and were not just matter, but became something almost immaterial.

From the book Applied Philosophy author Gerasimov Georgy Mikhailovich

From book Social philosophy author Krapivensky Solomon Eliazarovich

3. FORMATION OF OBJECTS The time has come to organize the open directions and determine whether we can add any content to these barely outlined concepts that we call “rules of formation.” Let us turn, first of all, to “object formations”. To

From the book Results of Millennial Development, book. I-II author Losev Alexey Fedorovich

4. FORMATION OF MODALITIES OF STATEMENTS Quantitative descriptions, biographical narration, establishment, interpretation, derivation of signs, reasoning by analogy, experimental verification - and many other forms of statements - we can find all this in

From book 4. Dialectics of social development. author

Communist socio-economic formation The NEP period in the USSR ended with the official nationalization of almost all means of production in the country. This property became state property and was sometimes declared as public property. However,

From the book Dialectics of Social Development author Konstantinov Fedor Vasilievich

Does “pure formation” exist? Of course, there are no absolutely “pure” formations. Doesn't happen because unity general concept and a specific phenomenon is always contradictory. This is how things are in natural science. “Are the concepts dominant in natural science

From the book Answers: About ethics, art, politics and economics by Rand Ayn

Chapter II. COMMUNITY-TRAIN FORMATION

From the book Reading Marx... (Collection of works) author Nechkina Militsa Vasilievna

§2. Communal-tribal formation 1. Traditional prejudices Anyone who begins to familiarize himself with the history of ancient philosophy without prejudice is surprised by one circumstance that soon becomes familiar, but in essence requires decisive eradication.

From the book Nudity and Alienation. Philosophical essay on human nature author Ivin Alexander Arkhipovich

Chapter III. SLAVE FORMATION

From the author's book

4. Socially demonstrative type a) This is perhaps the purest and most expressive type of classical kalokagathia. It is associated with the outwardly ostentatious, expressive or, if you like, representative side of public life. This includes, first of all, all

From the author's book

From the author's book

1. Socio-economic formation (The category “socio-economic formation” is the cornerstone of the materialistic rise of history as a natural historical process of the development of society according to objective laws. Without understanding the deep

From the author's book

Social and political activities What needs to be done in the political sphere to achieve your goals? I don't work for anyone political party and I don’t promote any of them. This makes no sense. But since there are many of you Republicans and people interested in

From the author's book

III. Socio-economic formation of capitalism The question of socio-economic formation is the most important question for a historian. This is the basis, the deepest basis of everything truly scientific, i.e. Marxist, historical research. IN AND. Lenin in his work about

From the author's book

Current socio-economic situation One of the trends in the new and modern history– modernization, the transition from a traditional society to a modernized society. This trend has become noticeable in Western Europe already in the 17th century, later it

Introduction

Today, the concepts of the historical process (formational, civilizational, modernization theories) have discovered their limits of applicability. The degree of awareness of the limitations of these concepts varies: most of all, the shortcomings of formation theory are realized; as for the civilizational doctrine and theories of modernization, there are more illusions regarding their ability to explain the historical process.

The insufficiency of these concepts for the study of social changes does not mean that they are absolutely false; the point is only that the categorical apparatus of each of the concepts and the range of social phenomena it describes are not complete enough, at least in relation to the description of what is contained in alternative theories.

It is necessary to rethink the content of descriptions of social changes, as well as the concepts of general and unique, on the basis of which generalizations and differentiations are made, and diagrams of the historical process are constructed.

Theories of the historical process reflect a one-sided understanding of historical changes; there is a reduction of the diversity of their forms to some kind. The formational concept sees only progress in the historical process, and total progress, believing that progressive development covers all spheres of social life, including humans.

Theory of socio-economic formations by K. Marx

One of the important shortcomings of orthodox historical materialism was that it did not identify and theoretically develop the basic meanings of the word "society". And this word in scientific language has at least five such meanings. The first meaning is a specific separate society, which is a relatively independent unit of historical development. In this understanding, I will call society a socio-historical (sociohistorical) organism or, in short, a socior.

The second meaning is a spatially limited system of socio-historical organisms, or a sociological system. The third meaning is all socio-historical organisms that have ever existed and currently exist together - human society as a whole. The fourth meaning is society in general, regardless of any specific forms of its real existence. The fifth meaning is a society in general of a certain type (a special society or type of society), for example, a feudal society or an industrial society.

There are different classifications of socio-historical organisms (according to form of government, dominant religion, socio-economic system, dominant sector of the economy, etc.). But the most general classification- division of sociohistorical organisms according to the way they internal organization into two main types.

The first type is socio-historical organisms, which are unions of people that are organized according to the principle of personal membership, primarily kinship. Each such socior is inseparable from its personnel and is capable of moving from one territory to another without losing its identity. I will call such societies demosocial organisms (demosociors). They are characteristic of the pre-class era of human history. Examples include primitive communities and multi-communal organisms called tribes and chiefdoms.

The boundaries of organisms of the second type are the boundaries of the territory they occupy. Such formations are organized according to the territorial principle and are inseparable from the areas of the earth’s surface they occupy. As a result personnel each such organism acts in relation to this organism as an independent special phenomenon - its population. I will call this kind of society geosocial organisms (geosociors). They are characteristic of a class society. They are usually called states or countries.

Since historical materialism did not have the concept of a socio-historical organism, it developed neither the concept of a regional system of sociohistorical organisms, nor the concept of human society as a whole as the totality of all existing and existing sociors. The last concept, although present in an implicit form (implicit), was not clearly distinguished from the concept of society in general.

The absence of the concept of a sociohistorical organism in the categorical apparatus of the Marxist theory of history inevitably interfered with the understanding of the category of socio-economic formation. It was impossible to truly understand the category of socio-economic formation without comparing it with the concept of a sociohistorical organism. Defining a formation as a society or as a stage of development of society, our specialists in historical materialism did not in any way reveal the meaning that they put into the word “society”; worse, they endlessly, without completely realizing it, moved from one meaning of this word to another, which inevitably gave rise to incredible confusion.

Each specific socio-economic formation represents a certain type of society, identified on the basis of socio-economic structure. This means that a specific socio-economic formation is nothing more than something common that is inherent in all socio-historical organisms that have a given socio-economic structure. The concept of a specific formation always captures, on the one hand, the fundamental identity of all sociohistorical organisms based on the same system of production relations, and on the other hand, the significant difference between specific societies with different socio-economic structures. Thus, the relationship between a sociohistorical organism belonging to one or another socio-economic formation and this formation itself is a relationship between the individual and the general.

The problem of the general and the particular is one of the most important problems philosophy and debates around it have been ongoing throughout the history of this area of ​​​​human knowledge. Since the Middle Ages, two main directions in solving this issue have been called nominalism and realism. According to the views of nominalists, in the objective world only the separate exists. There is either no general thing at all, or it exists only in consciousness, is a mental human construction.

There is a grain of truth in each of these two points of view, but both are wrong. For scientists, the existence of laws, patterns, essence, and necessity in the objective world is undeniable. And all this is common. The general thus exists not only in consciousness, but also in the objective world, but only differently than the individual exists. And this otherness of the general being does not at all consist in the fact that it forms a special world opposed to the world of the individual. There is no special world in common. The general does not exist in itself, not independently, but only in the particular and through the particular. On the other hand, the individual does not exist without the general.

Thus, there are two in the world different types objective existence: one type is independent existence, as the separate exists, and the second is existence only in the separate and through the separate, as the general exists.

Sometimes, however, they say that the individual exists as such, but the general, while actually existing, does not exist as such. In the future, I will designate independent existence as self-existence, as self-existence, and existence in another and through another as other-existence, or as other-existence.

Different formations are based on qualitatively different systems of socio-economic relations. This means that different formations develop differently, according to different laws. Therefore, from this point of view, the most important task of social science is to study the laws of functioning and development of each of the socio-economic formations, i.e., to create a theory for each of them. In relation to capitalism, K. Marx tried to solve this problem.

The only way that can lead to the creation of a theory of any formation is to identify that essential, common thing that is manifested in the development of all sociohistorical organisms of a given type. It is quite clear that it is impossible to reveal what is common in phenomena without being distracted from the differences between them. It is possible to identify the internal objective necessity of any real process only by freeing it from the concrete historical form in which it manifested itself, only by presenting this process in a “pure” form, in a logical form, i.e., the way it can exist only in theoretical consciousness.

It is quite clear that a specific socio-economic formation in pure form, i.e., as a special sociohistorical organism, can exist only in theory, but not in historical reality. In the latter, it exists in individual societies as their internal essence, their objective basis.

Each real concrete socio-economic formation is a type of society and thereby an objective common feature that is inherent in all sociohistorical organisms of a given type. Therefore, it may well be called a society, but in no case a real sociohistorical organism. It can act as a sociohistorical organism only in theory, but not in reality. Each specific socio-economic formation, being a certain type of society, is the same society of this type in general. The capitalist socio-economic formation is a capitalist type of society and at the same time a capitalist society in general.

Each specific formation is in a certain relationship not only to sociohistorical organisms of a given type, but to society in general, that is, that objective commonality that is inherent in all sociohistorical organisms, regardless of their type. In relation to sociohistorical organisms of a given type, each specific formation acts as a general one. In relation to society in general, a specific formation acts as a less general high level, that is, as special, as a specific type of society in general, as a special society.

The concept of a socio-economic formation in general, like the concept of society in general, reflects the general, but different from that which reflects the concept of society in general. The concept of society generally reflects what is common to all sociohistorical organisms, regardless of their type. The concept of a socio-economic formation generally reflects that general thing that is inherent in all specific socio-economic formations, regardless of their specific features, namely, that they are all types distinguished on the basis of socio-economic structure.

As a reaction to this kind of interpretation of socio-economic formations, a denial of their real existence arose. But it was not only due to the incredible confusion that existed in our literature on the issue of formations. The situation was more complicated. As already indicated, in theory, socio-economic formations exist as ideal sociohistorical organisms. Not finding such formations in the historical reality, some of our historians, and after them some historians of history, came to the conclusion that formations in reality do not exist at all, that they are only logical, theoretical constructions.

They were unable to understand that socio-economic formations exist in historical reality, but differently than in theory, not as ideal sociohistorical organisms of one type or another, but as an objective commonality in real sociohistorical organisms of one type or another. For them, being was reduced only to self-existence. They, like all nominalists in general, did not take into account other beings, and socio-economic formations, as already indicated, do not have their own existence. They do not self-exist, but exist in other ways.

In this regard, one cannot help but say that the theory of formations can be accepted or rejected. But the socio-economic formations themselves cannot be ignored. Their existence, at least as certain types of society, is an undoubted fact.

• 1. The basis of the Marxist theory of socio-economic formations is a materialist understanding of the history of the development of mankind as a whole, as a historically changing totality various forms activities of people to produce their lives.
• 2. The unity of productive forces and production relations constitutes a historically determined method of production of the material life of society.
• 3. The method of production of material life determines the social, political and spiritual process of life in general.
• 4. By material productive forces in Marxism we mean instruments of production or means of production, technologies and people using them. The main productive force is man, his physical and mental abilities, as well as his cultural and moral level.
• 5. Production relations in Marxist theory denote the relationships of individuals regarding reproduction human species in general, and the actual production of means of production and consumer goods, their distribution, exchange and consumption.
• 6. The totality of production relations, as a method of producing the material life of society, constitutes the economic structure of society.
• 7. In Marxism, a socio-economic formation is understood as a historical period in the development of mankind, characterized by a certain method of production.
• 8. According to Marxist theory, humanity as a whole is moving progressively from less developed socio-economic formations to more developed ones. This is the dialectical logic that Marx extended to the history of human development.
• 9. In the theory of socio-economic formations of K. Marx, each formation acts as a society in general of a certain type and thereby as a pure, ideal socio-historical organism of a given type. This theory includes primitive society in general, Asian society in general, pure ancient society, etc. Accordingly, the change social formations appears in it as the transformation of an ideal socio-historical organism of one type into a pure socio-historical organism of another, higher type: ancient society in general into feudal society in general, pure feudal society into pure capitalist, capitalist into communist.
• 10. The entire history of human development in Marxism was presented as a dialectical, progressive movement of humanity from the primitive communist formation to the Asian and ancient (slaveholding) formations, and from them to the feudal, and then to the bourgeois (capitalist) socio-economic formation.

Socio-historical practice has confirmed the correctness of these Marxist conclusions. And if there are disputes in science regarding the Asian and ancient (slave-owning) methods of production and their transition to feudalism, then no one doubts the reality of the existence of the historical period of feudalism, and then its evolutionary-revolutionary development into capitalism.

11. Marxism revealed the economic reasons for the change in socio-economic formations. Their essence lies in the fact that at a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with existing production relations, or - which is only a legal expression of this - with property relations within which they have hitherto developed. From forms of development of productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then comes the era of social revolution. With a change in the economic basis, a revolution occurs more or less quickly in the entire enormous superstructure.

This happens because the productive forces of society develop according to their own internal laws. In their movement, they are always ahead of the production relations that develop within property relations.