Agents of the liberal bourgeoisie This issue was almost completely finished when we received No. 9 of “The Future.” We called this newspaper the liberal drawing room. It turns out that agents of the Russian liberal bourgeoisie sometimes appear in this living room to try to lead

capitalists (French bourgeoisie, from burg) - the ruling capitalist class. society, class of owners mainly. funds of societies. production that exists through the exploitation of hired labor. Economy, the basis of the dominance of B. as a class, is capitalist. property that determines the appropriation of surplus value created by the unpaid labor of hired labor. B. exploits both small producers (through the sphere of circulation) and entire peoples of colonial and dependent countries. During its existence, B. has undergone a great evolution - from a generally progressive class to a reactionary class, retarding the progressive development of humanity and doomed to inevitable death in modern times. era - the era of the collapse of imperialism and the triumph of socialism and communism on a worldwide scale. B. in the era of pre-monopoly capitalism. The term "B.", "bourgeois", existed in Western countries. Europe already in the Middle Ages; however, as applied to this time, it meant only the inhabitants of the Middle Ages. city, i.e. was mainly identical to German the term B?rgertum, burghers. From the 16th century (and sporadically in certain regions - in Northern and Middle Italy, in the Netherlands - from the 14th-15th centuries), with the emergence of capitalist. relations in the most economically developed Western countries. Europe was undergoing a complex process of transforming part of the Middle Ages. the burghers first into “embryo capitalists”, and then, as the exploitation of wage labor expanded and the accumulation of capital intensified, into capitalists sans phrase (without reservations) (see K. Marx, Capital, vol. 1, 1955, p. 753). Along with the elite of the townspeople, the stratification of which led to the separation of rich merchants, moneylenders, and manufacturers (see Manufactory), the village elite, as well as certain feudal families, fell into the ranks of the emerging bourgeoisie. elements. The formation of V. was accompanied by the expropriation of the people. masses, and the robbery of colonies (see Primitive accumulation). The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the nascent B. took place with the help of colonial robbery and the slave trade, and pestilence. piracy and usury. B. initially developed in the depths of the feud. society and was still closely connected with the entire feud. system, with a feudal-absolutist state (see Absolutism), needing a centralized state, an apparatus of violence in the era of primitive accumulation, receiving support in the policy of protectionism and patronage pursued by absolutism. subsidies, bargaining wars, etc. “Financiers” are state tax farmers. taxes, large moneylenders, often acting as fief creditors. states, shareholders of privileged trading companies - all this elite B. constantly replenished the ranks of the feud. class, "became noble." It represented the most conservative part of B. The average trade and industry. V., suffering from the heavy tax pressure (she was part of the tax-paying third estate), from the dominance of privileged monopolies, gradually became in opposition to the feudal-absolutist system, which turned into an obstacle to the further development of capitalism. production B. as a rising class - the bearer of economics that were progressive for that era. building - led the people's movement for its class goals. the masses against feudalism and as a result of the bourgeois revolutions of the 16th-19th centuries. came to power in the most economically developed countries. In the early, manufacturing period of capitalism, the leading role was played by the country's especially highly developed trade. capital, since a characteristic feature of the manufacturing stage of capitalism was the dominance of bargaining. capital over industrial. So, the Dutch large trade. V., the first to achieve political domination, belonged in the 17th century. world trade. hegemony, however already in the 18th century. Dutch B. finds herself forced to cede its hegemony to B. England, the country that was the first to enter the stage of the industrial revolution. The pace of the formation of bourgeoisie and the degree of its influence in different countries were different: “While in England since the 17th century, and in France since the 18th century, a rich and influential bourgeoisie was formed, in Germany we can talk about the bourgeoisie only from the beginning of the 19th century” ( Engels F., see Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 48). The decisive stage in the formation of B. as a class was the industrial era. coup. The period from 1789 to 1871 was the time of “... the rise of the bourgeoisie, its complete victory” (V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 21, p. 126). During this period, when the bourgeois. society was still at an ascending stage of development, B. in general was a progressive class, but this progress was invariably achieved through the ruin of the people. masses of the metropolis and colonies. B. sought to eliminate the feud. property and the Middle Ages. the guild-corporate system (since they hindered the development of capitalist forms of exploitation); she defended freedom of enterprise, “free trade” (free trade in England), non-interference by the state in the economy. life, because it gave unlimited scope for capitalism. competition. B. contributed to the development of production. strength, improving the technology of their enterprises, expanding and socializing production, while its incentive was an insatiable thirst for profit, the desire to win competition. B. sought the creation of constitutions. building, bourgeois parliamentary institutions, expansion of political. right This was to a certain extent explained by the fact that after the first burgh. revolutions, only part of the B. was in power - the very top (usually trade and financial), who compromised with the feudal lord. forces. B. as a whole as a class and, above all, industrial B., economically strengthened as a result of industrial. coup, only sought political. domination. In this struggle, B. often put forward liberal slogans (see Liberalism), needing the support of the people. B. came to power, using in her interests fighting strength people. This was clearly manifested not only in the city. revolutions, but also at all stages of the struggle for power (for example, the English industrial revolution achieved the parliamentary reform of 1832, using the struggle of the working class; the bourgeois republican system in France was finally established in the 70s 19 in only as a result of the struggle of the masses, etc.). However, due to its class nature, B. could not maintain the duration. a time of illusion of “unity” of one’s interests with the interests of the people. The essence of B. as a class, the interests of which are opposed to the interests of the people and, first of all, the working class, became more and more evident as the working class became independent. political arena The June uprising of 1848 in France, which culminated in the execution of the workers of the Republican Republic, was the first civil. war between these classes. With victory bourgeois. counter-revolution, which drowned the Paris Commune of 1871 in blood, the ascending stage of the development of B. in Western countries. Europe ends, B. becomes counter-revolutionary. by force. In relation to the working class, B., who came to power, resorted to both the method of violence and the method of “liberalism”, reforms, individual concessions (see V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 16, p. 320), with the goal to preserve the influence of liberal bourgeoisie on the masses and to prevent the revolutionization of the proletariat. English was especially “skillful” in applying the second method. B. is the oldest and has been for a long time. time the strongest B. in the world. The political forces created by B. in the fight against feudalism served the same purposes. parties (see art. Political party). For B. those countries that entered the capitalist path relatively late. development (Germany, Austria, especially Russia (see below - section Bourgeoisie in Russia)) and in which B. made claims to the political. domination at a time when the proletariat had already begun to become independent. political strength, the desire to achieve dominance became especially characteristic. situation without a radical breakdown of the old, without democratization of society, not through an alliance (at least temporary) with the people, but through a compromise with the previous domination. class (however, this tendency manifested itself earlier - for example, in the English revolution of the 17th century and even in the French revolution on the part of large B.). Almost everywhere in European countries con. 19 - beginning 20th centuries power belonged to the bloc of large countries and the nobility (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Spain, etc.), and the position of dominance was occupied by the noble-landowner strata. Noting various political position of bourgeoisie in different countries, V.I. Lenin wrote in 1911: “In England and France, the bourgeoisie dominates with absolute power and almost (with a few exceptions) directly, while in Prussia the primacy belongs to the feudal lords, to the junkers, to monarchical militarism” ( Op. , vol. 17, p. 182). B. imperialist countries. The era of imperialism opens a new, final stage in the development of B. as a class. “The bourgeoisie from a rising advanced class has become,” Lenin noted, “a declining, decadent, internally dead, reactionary class” (ibid., vol. 21, p. 128). Concentration of production and centralization of capital lead to monopoly. The “individual capitalist” is being replaced by a “collective capitalist” - a joint-stock company. The transition from the individual to the joint-stock form of capitalism. enterprises in con. 19 - beginning 20th centuries opened for monopolistic B. the opportunity to dispose of colossal wealth, to dispose of other people's property of small shareholders as if it were their own. In modern conditions, it is enough to own 5-10% of shares in order to dominate the shares. companies. Large monopoly B. - a financial oligarchy, consisting of a handful of individuals, captures the vast majority of the nation. capitalist wealth countries In the USA, 1% of owners concentrate 59%, and in England - 56% of all capital. 8 largest finance. US groups controlled $218 billion in assets in 1956. The concentration and centralization of capital lead to the ruin of small, medium and some large capitalists. The result of this is a tendency to reduce the share of B. in the composition of both the amateur and the entire capitalist population. countries For example, in the USA, owners of enterprises and owners of firms (together with small businesses, managers and senior officials) in 1870 made up 30% of the employed population, in 1910 - 23%, in 1950 - 15.9%. In England, entrepreneurs in 1851 made up 8.1% of self-employed people. population, and in 1951 - 2.04%. In general, B. now constitutes a highly developed capitalist system. countries 1-3% are self-made. population. B. of the era of imperialism is characterized by a tendency towards decay and parasitism. B.'s organizational role in the production process is declining. The function of ownership of capital is increasingly separated from the entrepreneurial function, which is performed by managers; their upper stratum joins the ranks of large businesses. A layer of rentiers develops - owners of securities who live on the income received from them; growing parasitic consumption B. “The monopoly bourgeoisie is a useless growth on the social organism, superfluous to the production process” (CPSU Program, 1961, p. 29). Under monopoly The top is located non-monopolistic, middle V., the edges are governed by Ch. arr. in technically more backward industries. The uneven development of capitalism leads to changes in the financial position of individual countries. During the period of rising capitalism, the leading position was occupied by B. England - "workshop of the world". From the end 19 - beginning 20th centuries Aggressive imperialism began to take first place in Europe. B. Germany. However, by this time the rapidly growing monopoly had become the most powerful. B. USA, which is in modern times. era of the largest international. exploiter, ch. stronghold of international reactions. The uneven development of capitalism gives rise to a fierce struggle between imperialist. B. different countries' sales markets, areas of capital application, sources of raw materials. Dominance is monopolistic, B. is the only one. an obstacle to replacing obsolete ones, bourgeois. production, new relations, socialist. relationships. B. becomes especially reactionary during the period of the general crisis of capitalism. It is increasingly influenced not only by the internal contradictions of capitalism itself, but also by the general course of world history; the creation of a world system of socialism, the steady weakening of the position of imperialism in the economy. competition with socialism, the collapse of the colonial system, the growth of capitalist instability. systems of world economy. In these conditions, monopoly. B. is trying to maintain its shaky dominance by transitioning to state-monopoly capitalism. “State-monopoly capitalism combines the power of monopolies with the power of the state into a single mechanism in order to enrich the monopolies, suppress the labor movement and the national liberation struggle, save the capitalist system, and unleash wars of aggression” (ibid., pp. 26-27). Monopolistic B., completely capturing the main. material resources are not shared with anyone by the politician. power, establishing his dictatorship. She is trying to find a way out of the contradictions of imperialism in the militarization of the economy. She unleashed the 1st and 2nd world wars, and now threatens to plunge the world into a new war. catastrophe with the use of means of mass destruction and destruction. B. carries out aggressive external policies directed against socialist countries, as well as national liberation. movement, suppresses democracy. movement of the broad masses, strives to destroy the bourgeois-democratic. freedoms, supports and revives the reaction. institutions and regimes, resorts to establishing various forms of fascism; her ch. ideological and political the weapon is anti-communism. In an effort to maintain their power, finances. The oligarchy, along with methods of suppression, uses various methods of deception and corruption of the working class and its organizations. She uses bribery of the top of the trade unions, co-op. and other organizations, establishes a workers' bureaucracy, provides it with profitable jobs in industry, municipal bodies, and government. apparatus. Imperialistic B. also represents the economic meaning. and political strength. However, it is doomed by the entire course of progressive history. development. As a result of the formation of the world system of socialism and the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, the imperialist. B. has already irretrievably lost its dominance over most of the peoples of the world. In modern era, favorable conditions are created for a nationwide struggle against a large monopoly. B. Its oppression extends to all layers of the people. As a result, along with the exacerbation of the main. class bourgeois contradictions society - between labor and capital - in modern times. stage, the contradiction between a handful of monopolists and all layers of the people deepens. This creates new opportunities for class placement. forces in modern anti-monopoly, democratic. struggle: not only the working class and the peasantry, but also the small and middle mountains are interested in eliminating the omnipotence of the monopolies. B-, experiencing the oppression of monopolies. The struggle for general democracy. interests are weakened by the reaction. B., rallies the broad masses of the people around the working class, aims them at overthrowing the rule of monopolies. B., creates more favorable policies. conditions for the struggle for socialism. B. economically underdeveloped countries (colonial, former colonial and dependent). None of these countries, before their transformation into colonies and semi-colonies, formed their own capitalist system. way of life, and therefore, did not develop as a class and its own B. However, in some of these states, for example in China, as well as in certain regions of India and the Ottoman Empire, the first centers of capitalism began to appear. production (see article Capitalism). On this economic On the basis here the first elements of B. were formed. As a rule, not only politically, but also economically, they remained subordinate to the feudal class and its state. In the pre-monopoly era. capitalism, colonial oppression prevented the formation of capitalism. relations and education of local B. on national. basis, but in plural. regions of Africa and Lat. America, preserving the worst techniques of feudal rule. and slave owner operation, made these processes completely impossible. In the 19th century as the countries of Asia, Africa and Latvia transform. America into agricultural and raw materials appendages of Western Europe. metropolises and the United States in some colonies and semi-colonies, operations of local merchants are unfolding. capital, which functioned in the sphere of intermediary (comprador) trade, turned to usury and the acquisition of land. property. On this basis, the so-called folding took place. comprador V., closely associated with foreign. capital and subordinated to it economically and politically. At the same time, comprador activities, contributing to the accumulation of money. capital in the hands of the local merchants, prepared certain prerequisites for the emergence of a national. prom. entrepreneurship. The method of colonial exploitation inherent in imperialism—the export of capital—meant, among other things, the “transplantation of capitalism” into the colonies. Therefore, in the period of transition to imperialism, and in the very era of imperialism, a capitalist system is formed in the colonies and semi-colonies. way of life, in the sphere of which in an environment of foreign domination. capital, entrepreneurial capital begins to form. From the very beginning, it had the characteristics of class limitations. However, as the company’s own business activities expanded, the interests of this national B. increasingly demanded the achievement of political independence from imperialism and economic. independence. Foreign monopolies were seized from the entrepreneurial national. B. most of the surplus value. To do this, they used the tax and customs apparatus and the created finance. capital economic system. Leverages - monopoly on equipment, many. types of raw materials and semi-finished products, bank credit, modern. means of transport and communication, technical. knowledge. These same methods, along with direct administration. regulation carried out by the colonial apparatus, or (in semi-colonies) reaction. regimes, were used by the colonialists to slow down the national. capitalist progress, especially in the manufacturing industry. Deep contradictions with imperialism were the basis of patriotism. aspirations of the national B. However, the exploitative nature of this class, its connections with foreign countries. capital and landownership determined the dual nature of the national. B., hesitation and inconsistency in the goals and methods of struggle, in politics. self-awareness and ideology. In con. 19 - beginning 20th centuries in China, India, Turkey and some other countries, a national ideology is being formed. B. and its first organizations and parties arise (the Tongmenhui organization in China, the National Congress in India, the Young Turks in Turkey, etc.). During the period of the “awakening of Asia” (the time of revolutions in Iran 1905-11, in Turkey 1908, in China 1911, revolutionary upsurge 1905-08 in India) national. B. acts as the head of the national liberation movement. movement, which suffered defeat at that stage. In conditions of rise, national liberation. movement that came under the influence of Oct. socialist revolution, B. in some dependent countries first came to power (in Turkey; earlier - in Mexico - as a result of the revolution of 1910-17) or achieved certain concessions from imperialism (for example, in Egypt). At the same time, the prerequisites are being created for the transformation of the proletariat not only into the advanced, but into the leading force of the national. liberation. In the new conditions, in the 20-30s, the largest ideologists and politicians. national leaders B. - Gandhi, M.K. Ataturk, then J. Nehru and others - developed the foundations of their views in the field of ideology and tactics of the struggle for independence. The prevailing situation in each country, the depth of the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and imperialism, on the one hand, and with the working classes, on the other, its composition, and the nature of its activities determined serious ideological issues. and tactful. differences between departments groups of national B. These differences also stemmed from the fact that in modern times the process of formation of national. B. was not completely completed in any of the colonial or semi-colonial countries, and in some countries it had not yet begun at all or was in the early stages. As for comprador B., in India, Turkey, Egypt, on the basis known development national industry and crisis phenomena in the village. x-ve in the 30s. there has been a reduction in comprador operations both in their absolute size and in specific gravity they undertake everything. activities B. In other countries in the context of continued commodification p. x-va and the insignificance of the national industry, the volume of comprador trade continued to increase. In Kuomintang China, as a result of the rapprochement between the top brass and foreigners. monopolies and local feudal-landowner reaction arose bureaucratic. the capital of the “four families” is one of the most reactive. types of compradorism. The advent of the era of national liberation. revolutions that unfolded under the conditions of the emergence and strengthening of the world system of socialism, the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism and the formation of young sovereign states marked a new stage in the history of the nation. B. National B., not associated with imperialism. circles, is objectively interested in the implementation of the main. anti-imperialist tasks anti-feudal revolution, its progressive role has not yet been exhausted (see also article National Liberation Revolution). In a number of states and national V., once in power, ch. sees the task in strengthening the sovereign bourgeoisie. state as a decisive weapon in strengthening the political. independence of the state and class domination within the country; it acts under the flag of nationalism; as an economical foundations for strengthening your state. power and expansion of its own positions in the country's economy, it puts forward economic. independence. However, if it tries to move towards this goal through compromise with foreigners. capital and feudal-landlord strata, it cannot achieve decisive success. National right wing B. (large local capitalists) exhibits monopolistic behavior. trends and is moving towards rapprochement with foreigners. capital. Imperialism is making considerable efforts to win this part of Brazil over to its side through economic policies. "help". In general, the participation of national B. in anti-imperialist. and antifeud. struggle to a large extent depends on the strength and durability of the alliance of the working class and the peasantry as the core of the national. front. In countries involved in aggressive groups, B. was either pushed out of power by the feudal monarchy. circles (Iran, Thailand), or went to serious restrictions on the sovereign rights of its states (Philippines). In these countries, there are especially strong sections of the B. who are trying to enrich themselves by collaborating with the imperialists. monopolies as their unequal partner. At the same time, in these countries, as in the colonies, there is a national. V., edge retains the ability to participate in the revolution. movement. The most favorable prospects for the participation of national B. in society the progress of their country opens up the path to the formation of a state of national democracy. State national democracy, reflecting the interests of broad sections of the people, is a form in which the unification of all can most successfully occur healthy strength nations, including patriotic part of the national B. The path of the national democracy opens up prospects for non-capitalist development. The historical fate of B. as a class in the transition period from capitalism to socialism. After the overthrow of the political domination of B. as a result of the socialist revolution, B. may still retain certain positions in the economy, ideology, such advantages as organizational experience, etc. At first, B. also relies on the remnants of private property and small-scale production . If the reaction B. provides weapons. resistance to the forces of socialism, it is suppressed by force by means of the proletarian dictatorship. To loyally-minded layers and representatives of B. they are applied depending on the specific conditions of the deployment of socialist. revolution in a given country, such measures as the purchase of private property for a certain compensation, high salaries for organizational and managerial activities in production, involvement in production. labor, re-education, etc. This is evidenced by the experience accumulated during the socialist period. revolutions in both Europe and Asia. In conditions of decisive superiority of the world socialist. system over the capitalist one, the overwhelming preponderance of the forces of the people in the country, such measures may be applicable to significant parts of the B. The victory of socialism marks the end of the liquidation of the B. as an exploiting class. B. in assessing political thinkers and economists. Around the evaluation of history. The role of B. has long been a sharp ideological struggle. Over the centuries, ideologists of B. have exaggerated the role of B., attributing to it all economics. the successes of capitalism, the achievements of modern times. culture, democracy and freedom. Ideologists of the "third estate" before the French. revolution of the late 18th century. contrasted the wasteful nobility with the thrifty B. Many French. educators admired her social and moral virtues. Bourgeois classics. political economy followed in the same footsteps. For A. Smith, the “economic man”, imbued with “personal interest” (i.e., the bourgeois), is the “normal” ideal type of person and the most useful member of society. The pinnacle of social progress, its bearer, was B. and for D. Ricardo. Burzh. historians usually followed B.'s apologists in economics. literature. O. Thierry at the beginning 19th century argued that from the 11th century. European B. stands at the head of social progress, waging a tireless struggle for the triumph of freedom. But if in the era when B. was a rising class, these ideas had their positivity. side, being sharpened against the reactionary fiefdoms. forces, later the situation changed. Representatives of vulgar political economy began a conscious apology for capitalism, doing their best to obscure the exploitative nature of B. Franz. economists J. B. Say (1767-1832), F. Bastiat (1801-50) tried to prove that the capitalist does not exploit the worker, but exchanges services with him on the basis of reciprocity (the so-called “service theory”). Falsifying history, bourgeois. economists (W. Sombart and others) seek to obscure the violent, bloody nature of the methods of primitive accumulation. Sombart's works are also characterized by another feature characteristic of the bourgeoisie. sociologists - replacing the analysis of class relations with the image of “psychological elements” characteristic of B. In modern times. bourgeois conditions sociologists and economists can no longer come out with a direct apology for the completely discredited B. Bourges. and reformist theories concerning the role and place of B. in modern times. society, are closely related to the theories of “transformation” of modern times. capitalism. The thesis is put forward about the “disappearance” of the B. as a class and its replacement by a new class of “managers”, about a “revolution in income”, which allegedly relegates the B. and raises the working people to the level of the middle strata, etc. Technocratic theory of T. Veblen , put forward by him in the book “Engineers and the Price System” (1921), contrasts the capitalist owners, striving only for profit, with engineers and technicians, supposedly striving only for maximum productivity. The theory of the “revolution of managers”, formulated by the reactionary. Amer. sociologist D. Burnham, argues that the bourgeois. society is undergoing a process of “social revolution”, during which the power of the B. is automatically replaced by the power of managers. Capitalists, according to this theory, are no longer the owners of the means of production; they appropriate an ever smaller part of the national economy. income, it is not “ownership relations” that are declared dominant in society, but “management relations”. This theory was developed by A. Burley, who proclaimed the slogan: “Capital exists, capitalism exists. The capitalist himself disappears.” “Capitalism without capitalists” - this is also the essence of the theory of “people’s capitalism”, in particular the theory of “democratization of capital” (especially widespread in the USA), which tries to present the distribution of shares among a large number of shareholders as a means of redistributing profits and gradually transforming all workers and employees into capitalists . This theory obscures capitalism. nature of the shares enterprises, which in reality represent a means of strengthening the dominance of monopolies. B., financial oligarchy. Thus, for the bourgeois. sociologists and economists are characterized by B.'s apologetics - explicit or hidden. A completely different approach to assessing history. the role of B. among the ideologists of the people. wt. Even the first utopians of the 16th-17th centuries. (T. More, T. Campanella), later - French. revolutionary democrats (J. Meslier, J. J. Rousseau), great utopian socialists (A. C. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, R. Owen) did a lot to expose false legends regarding the social virtues of B., condemning her predatory activities, the pursuit of cleanliness, the uncleanliness of the bourgeoisie. enrichment methods, etc. But only K. Marx and F. Engels with class. positions of the proletariat for the first time were able to give scientific. analysis of social nature and history. the role of B., to find out the genesis of B. and reveal its exploitative essence. Marx and Engels' assessment of history is imbued with deep historicism. B.'s role already in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (1847), in which a vivid criticism of the bourgeoisie was given. society and it is shown that B. is increasingly turning from a progressive class in the past into a reactionary one, historically it is shown. the inevitability of the death of capitalism. building and B. Analyzing the events of Europe. bourgeois revolutions of 1848-49, Maske and Engels revealed the treacherous position of the large liberal B. in the revolutions, and made a profound conclusion about the transformation of Europe. B. in counter-revolution. strength. The greatest significance for scientific. knowledge of the essence of B. has Marx’s “Capital”, in which Marx created a truly scientific. theory of surplus value, revealed the "secret" of capitalism. exploitation, proved that the source of income of the capitalist class is the surplus labor of workers. Marx exposed the bourgeois economists’ false legends about the labor origin of the first capitals, showing that “newborn capital exudes blood and dirt from all its pores from head to toe” (Capital, vol. 1, 1955, p. 764). V.I. Lenin, in his works on imperialism, primarily in “Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism,” first gave an analysis of imperialism. B., showing how common features characteristic of capitalism at this stage of capitalism, as well as the peculiarities of its development in individual countries. Valuation of a large monopoly B. as ch. the stronghold of world reaction at the present stage is given in the documents of the Meetings of Communist Representatives. and workers' parties (1957, 1960), in the CPSU Program (1961) and in the programs of other communist parties. These documents note that the interests of the large monopolists, led by the US imperialists, are in irreconcilable contradiction with the interests of the entire nation and the main forces are increasingly directed against them. a blow in the struggle for democracy and socialism. Basic methodological provisions regarding the dual nature of the B. of oppressed nations are contained in the works of V. I. Lenin. Lenin noted that in Asia, unlike Europe, there is still a democracy capable of representing sincere, militant, consistent democracy, of going with the people against reaction, and pointed to the possibility of a truly revolutionary-bourgeois. frees up movements. At the same time, Lenin warned about the danger of nationalism. ideology for the working masses of all nations. Therefore, Lenin advocated, on the one hand, for deciding to support the fight of this B. against the imperialist. B., and on the other - against nationalism, against the B. desire of the oppressed nation for privileges (see Works, vol. 18, p. 145, vol. 19, pp. 77-78, vol. 20, p. 383, vol. 31, pp. 217, 251). In the subsequent period - both in the 20-30s and after the 2nd World War - in a number of cases sectarian-dogmatic behavior took place. approach to national B., largely related to the assessments of her political. positions by I.V. Stalin (see Works, vol. 7, pp. 107-08, vol. 12, p. 252, etc., as well as “Speech at the 19th Party Congress,” 1952. This was reflected in historical works. Certain damage was also caused by revisionist concepts about the possibility of the maturation of elements of socialism in the conditions of the bourgeois state. The decisive blow to deviations from Leninism in the assessment of national B. was dealt as a result of overcoming the consequences of the cult of personality in the field of ideology. Party documents (see Statement of the Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties of 1960, CPSU Program of 1961) emphasize the dual nature of national bourgeoisie. A serious result of the study of national bourgeoisie by Marxists is the collection “The Modern Liberation Movement and the National Bourgeoisie” (1961), based which is based on the materials of the exchange of opinions conducted by the magazine "Problems of Peace and Socialism". See also Capitalism, Classes and class struggle. Lit.: Marx K. Engels F., Manifesto of the Communist Party, M., 1958; Marx K., Capital, vol. 1-3, M., 1955, his own, Wage labor and capital, Marx K. and Engels F. , Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 6; his, Bourgeoisie and counter-revolution, ibid, his, Class struggle in France from 1848 to 1850, ibid, vol. 7; Engels F., The situation of the working class in England, ibid., vol. 2, Lenin V.I., Concerning the so-called question of markets, Works, 4th ed., vol. 1; him, Development of capitalism in Russia, ibid., vol. 3; his, Under a False Flag, ibid., vol. 21; his, Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, ibid., vol. 22; his, State and Revolution, ibid., vol. 25 (see also reference volume to the 4th ed. Works of V.I. Lenin, part 1 - subject index), Program documents of the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism, Documents meetings of representatives of communist and workers' parties, M., 1961; Program of the CPSU, M., 1961; Khrushchev N. S., On the CPSU Program, M., 1961; The modern movement will be liberated by the national bourgeoisie. Collection of articles, ed. A. M. Rumyantseva, Prague, 1961; Discussion about economic and political positions of national bourgeoisie in the countries of the East, "SV", 1957, No. 1; Levkovsky A.I., Some features of the development of capitalism in India before 1947, M., 1956; Pavlov V.I., Formation of the Indian bourgeoisie, M., 1958; Nat - will free up traffic in Latvia. America in modern times stage, M., 1961; Semenov V., Problems of classes and class struggle in modern bourgeois sociology, M., 1959; Cheprakov V.O. classes of modern capitalist society, "Communist", 1959, No. 5; Frantsev Yu., Polit. the party of the bourgeoisie before the court of history, ibid., 1961, No. 17; Savelyev N., On the national bourgeoisie in the countries of Southeast Asia, "World Economy and International Relations", 1961, No. 4; Hu Si-kui, Peaceful transformation of capitalist industry and trade and the class struggle in China, M, 1957; Weber A. B., Class structure of society in the West. Germany, M., 1961; Perlo V., Empire of financial tycoons, trans. from English, M., 1958; Mills R., The Power Elite, trans. from English, M., 1959; Sombart W., Bourgeois, trans. from German, M., (1924); Aynard I., La bourgeoisie fran?aise, R, 1941; Moraz? Ch., La France bourgeoise XVIII-e - XX-e siècles, P, 1946; Pernoud R., Histoire de la bourgeoisie en France, vol. 1, R., 1960; Ziegenfuss W., Die b?rgerliche Welt, V., 1949; Burnham I., The managerial revolution.., N. Y., (1941); Schumpeter I. A., Imperialism and social classes, trans. from German, Oxf., 1951; Riehl W. H., Die b?rgerliche Gesellschaft, Stuttg.-T?b., 1851; Kahl I. A., The American class structure, N. Y., 1957; Berle A., Power without property, N. Y., 1959; Moraz? Ch., Les bourgeois conqu?rants XIX-e Si?cle (R. ), 1957. F. Ya. Polyansky, G. B. Ardaev, V. I. Pavlov. Moscow. B. in Russia. The prerequisites for the development of capitalism and the formation of V. appeared in the 17th century, when the All-Russian system was taking shape. market, cities and trading populations grew, and the first manufactories appeared. However, the organization of the city and the townsman society (see Posad people) still preserved the feud. character. 18th century - 1st half. 19th century - the time of registration of capitalist. way of life, when (from the 2nd quarter of the 19th century) manufacturing production developed into factory production, it happened directly. the formation of class B The merchant class not only grew in number, but gradually turned into a feudal lord. estates in Bolsheviks proper. At the same time, the composition of the merchant class was replenished by people from peasant backgrounds. The process of active involvement is the so-called. capitalist peasants in trade and industry. the activity took on wide dimensions from the 2nd floor. 18th century (see Peasant crafts). Individual landowners and state. the peasants conducted large trades. operations and became industrial owners. capitalist enterprises character. From their midst came famous capitalists: the Morozovs, Garelins, Guchkovs, Prokhorovs, Grachevs, Khludovs, etc. Based on the cross. entrepreneurship subsequently developed a number of industrial sectors. Some state and private owner. villages and settlements gradually turned into cities (Ivanovo, Balakhna, Vyazniki, Tikhvin, etc.). The dominance of serfdom in the country led to the fact that, along with the development of capitalist. Manufactures saw the widespread development of serf manufacture and noble entrepreneurship. Characteristic of the 18th century. there was a gentrification of the largest trades. and industrial figures (Goncharovs, Demidovs, Batashovs, Tverdyshevs, Yakovlevs, etc.). The growth of large-scale business and its fortunes was facilitated by government supplies and contracts, and especially tax-farming operations (mainly in the first half of the 19th century). The development of capitalism and the beginning of the industrial revolution (from the 30s to the 50s of the 19th century) led to the formation of not only trade, but also large-scale industrial. V., although up to the middle. 19th century Among the various groups of B., trade prevailed. The protracted rule of serfdom delayed the formation and development of Europe; created an ambiguous position for many capitalists, formally serfs on quitrent, and retained a large number. class barriers both between classes and within the V. class itself, which consisted of representatives of the merchants, philistines, peasants, and nobility. Total no. merchants of all three guilds in 1851 composition

(see), this was the name given to the inhabitants of cities, in contrast to the bulk of feudal society. Subsequently, when in the cities groups of rich merchants and craftsmen on the one hand, and on the other - groups of apprentices, small traders, etc., were clearly identified, the word bourgeoisie began to be understood as representatives of capital, as opposed to representatives of land ownership and labor. The bourgeoisie waged a centuries-long struggle with the feudal nobility for political and economic independence and for power. With the discovery of America and the importation of American gold and silver on a gigantic scale, the trade and wealth of the European bourgeoisie increased. At the same time geographical discoveries and technical inventions broaden her mental horizons and distinguish a new intelligentsia from her midst. A long, stubborn struggle of this bourgeois intelligentsia begins with the autocracy and the Catholic Church for freedom of thought and conscience, which reflects in the heads of this intelligentsia the freedom of trade and labor necessary for the bourgeoisie.

A series of bourgeois revolutions (in the 16th and 17th centuries in the Netherlands, in the 17th century in England, in the 18th century in France, in the 19th century in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) created favorable conditions for the development of the bourgeoisie and led it to power in the most advanced. countries of Europe. In the same time industrial revolution(see), the replacement of manual labor with machine labor puts the manufacturer at the head of the bourgeoisie instead of the merchant and gradually makes the industrial bourgeoisie the ruler of the world.

The bourgeoisie either takes power entirely into its own hands or shares it with the landowning nobles. Having achieved its goal and fearing the growing revolutionary nature of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie loses its former revolutionary spirit in all areas of life and thought and becomes more and more reactionary. It colonizes new countries, mercilessly robs local residents and, introducing “constitutions” and “democracies” at home, unceremoniously uses the slave labor of “savages” in the colonies. The 19th century is the most brilliant time in the development of the bourgeoisie, the flowering of bourgeois science, art, philosophy, and technology.

But this same century brings forward in full force the labor question that is fatal for the bourgeoisie. Already the very first bourgeois revolutions were accompanied by more or less organized uprisings of workers and peasants. In the 19th century workers begin to wage a continuous struggle, first to improve their economic situation, and then for power. B. ferociously suppresses the labor movement, drenching them in the blood of uprisings, for example. in June days (see June Uprising) or during liquidation Paris Commune in 1871, and from the end of the 19th century. is trying, through partial economic and political concessions, to reconcile the most cultured and developed sections of the workers with its rule and thereby defeat the forces of the proletariat.

From an economic point of view, the bourgeoisie is the class that owns the means of production and commands production. Distinguish commercial bourgeoisie, industrial bourgeoisie and financial bourgeoisie(see these words). But the source of all bourgeois profit, like all capital, is surplus value(see), the value of the product of unpaid labor of exploited workers, which the bourgeoisie of different categories shares among themselves. Therefore, although the interests of individual groups of the bourgeoisie clash with each other, and bourgeois states even wage bloody wars over the division of the world they exploit, but basically, as owners of the means of production, they are in solidarity with each other and support each other when the proletariat encroaches anywhere on property, this stronghold of bourgeois domination. That is why the bourgeoisie of the whole world unitedly attacked the October Revolution, trying for so long and persistently to strangle the Soviet Union.

According to its economic power and importance in the production process, production can be divided into three main groups: large, medium and small, although a sharp line between these groups is not always easy to establish. Big business currently throughout the capitalist world stands at the head of powerful economic associations - trusts, syndicates, concerns (see), etc. It owns the most important branches of production and sources of raw materials, counts its wealth in many millions and even billions and is the actual master of the economic and political life of the imperialist countries. The average business, forced out by large-scale competition, becomes increasingly dependent on it and often plays a simple role of agency. large monopoly capital, which finances and controls it.

Finally, the petty bourgeoisie are small owners - peasants, artisans, traders, who, although they exploit workers (farmers, apprentices, clerks), are at the same time forced to participate in production with personal labor. The petty bourgeoisie occupies an intermediate position between the capitalists and the proletariat. It suffers from the merciless competition of big capital, which throws more and more layers of the petty bourgeoisie onto the streets, into the ranks of the proletariat. Therefore, on the one hand, she hates capitalism and the big bourgeoisie, and on the other hand, she tenaciously, with fanatical tenacity, clings to her pitiful property. Some sections of this petty bourgeoisie (merchants, wealthy peasants, etc.) easily become an instrument of the big bourgeoisie in its struggle against the proletariat and fill the ranks of fascist organizations (see Fascism). Others, such as the small peasantry are slowly beginning to lean towards the side of the proletariat in its revolutionary struggle. The same movement is noticeable in a number of countries on the part of the middle peasantry.

Literature:

• Marx K. and Engels F., Communist Manifesto;
• Marx K., Class struggle in France in 1848-1850; Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

Historical sketch of the development of the Russian bourgeoisie in the following. works:

• Pokrovsky M.N., Russian history from ancient times, vol. I-IV;
• his, Russian history in a condensed outline;
• his Essay on Russian History. culture, parts 1 and 2.
• A brilliant characterization of the bourgeoisie in Op. V.I. Lenin: vol. VI, YII, part 1, VIII, XI, part 1, XII, parts 1 and 2.

B. Gorev.

Within the bourgeoisie, the existing main social strata and groups are distinguished by the most significant features of the bourgeoisie as a whole. It's about on the characteristics of parts of the bourgeoisie from the point of view, firstly, of ownership of capital, the means of social production, and secondly, the volume of employed, exploited wage labor.

K. Marx, F. Engels and V. I. Lenin approached class analysis precisely from these methodological positions, as a result of which they identified three main layers within the bourgeoisie: small capitalists, medium capitalists (middle bourgeoisie) and large capitalists (big bourgeoisie) . At the highest stage of development of capitalism, there is a layer of super-large (or, as K. Marx said, magnates of capital) - monopoly, state-monopoly bourgeoisie. Last layer is also a systemic element of the capitalist class, but, unlike the first three, it is an element not at all stages of the development of capitalism, but only at its highest stage of development - imperialism.

Like all social groups capitalist society, the bourgeois class acts and functions in conditions of the socio-economic division of city and countryside, and therefore all the main layers of the bourgeoisie act in the form of layers of small, medium, large and monopoly capitalists of city and countryside.

Depending on the sphere of application of capital, the social division of labor, the bourgeoisie is divided into the financial bourgeoisie, engaged in production (industry, construction, transport, communications, agriculture, etc.) and the commercial bourgeoisie, capitalists in the field of real estate, services and services (cinema, radio , television, print, system of hotels, restaurants, etc.). All of them operate in the city and countryside, concentrated mainly in the city.

In modern developed capitalist countries it shows small urban capitalists- these are usually the owners of small industrial or commercial enterprises, enterprises in the service sector, living mainly through the exploitation of the labor of hired workers (approximately 4 to 50 people), and often working in these enterprises themselves or together with members of their families.

Middle bourgeoisie covers owners of enterprises with large amounts of capital, means of production and greater exploitation of wage labor (approximately 50 to 500 workers).

Big bourgeoisie- these are the owners of huge enterprises in which many hundreds and thousands of workers are exploited. A small layer of monopoly and state-monopoly bourgeoisie controls key positions in the economy of capitalist countries.

In capitalist countries that differ in economic development and power, the various layers of the bourgeoisie are not the same, therefore the given figures of hired workers used as criteria for dividing the bourgeoisie into small, medium and large are approximate. For a more accurate description, it is also necessary to take into account the size of assets, volume of products, market share, etc.

The layers of the bourgeoisie in agriculture are more numerous. First of all, agriculture itself, in which small, medium, large and monopoly capitalists operate, appears in two forms: village or farm type.

In almost all countries that transitioned to capitalism from feudalism, a rustic type agriculture, when the rural population is grouped into settlements such as villages. This is a comparatively backward form of agriculture under capitalism. In some capitalist countries, farm-type agriculture is emerging, which is superior to the rural type inherited from feudalism. In some countries (the USA) farming arose on a soil free from feudalism, in others (for example, Sweden) it replaces the village type of farming as a result of the high development of capitalism. V.I. Lenin noted that from “a class of farmers is being developed from a prosperous peasantry...”.

In agriculture rustic type small capitalists are usually represented by the main part of the rural bourgeoisie (or rural, peasant bourgeoisie, wealthy, large peasantry), which is formed from the peasantry in the process of development of capitalism. Economic peasants and kulaks constitute the “cadres of the emerging rural bourgeoisie.” Small and partly medium capitalists within the rural bourgeoisie possess such an amount of land, instruments of production and hired labor that they do not yet allow them to physically participate in production work. The main feature of these representatives of the rural bourgeoisie is their personal physical work on their farm.

“The large peasantry... are capitalist entrepreneurs in agriculture, managing as a general rule with several hired workers, connected with the “peasantry” only by a low cultural level, everyday life, personal physical work on their farm. This is the largest of the bourgeois layers...”.

Despite their own labor, such rural bourgeois (like all capitalists in the countryside) live primarily through the exploitation of other people's labor.

The majority of medium-sized capitalists and large capitalist entrepreneurs in rural-type agriculture, unlike small capitalists, do not engage in constant physical labor in agriculture. This is due to the fact that they have much more land, instruments of production and hired labor than the small-capitalist part of the rural bourgeoisie. Medium and large capitalists in agriculture are formed from wealthy representatives of the small-capitalist rural bourgeoisie, former feudal lords, and in other ways.

A modification of the rural bourgeoisie, and therefore a non-systemic, non-obligatory element in the composition of the bourgeoisie in the countryside is kulaks- one of the lowest and worst forms of small and partly medium capitalism in village-type agriculture. It arises among the rural bourgeoisie where there are the deepest vestiges of feudalism. Being a form of the rural bourgeoisie, the kulaks do not embrace it entirely, although they often make up the overwhelming majority of the rural bourgeoisie. Even in Russia, which set an example of the strongest development of the kulaks, it did not completely embrace the entire rural bourgeoisie. Therefore, V.I. Lenin does not replace one with the other, he speaks about them separately, as about the kulaks and the rural bourgeoisie.

Consequently, the concepts of the kulaks and the rural bourgeoisie are not equivalent. Main difference kulaks from the rural bourgeoisie in that the strength of the kulaks is based on the robbery of other producers- small and medium-sized peasants in their own villages and hamlets. “The few wealthy peasants, being among the mass of “low-power” peasants leading a half-starved existence on their insignificant plots, inevitably turn into exploiters of the worst kind, enslaving the poor by distributing money on credit, winter hiring, etc., etc.”. The constant robbery of the local population turns the kulaks into the most hated predators and exploiters in the village.

The strength of the rural bourgeoisie is based, wrote V.I. Lenin, on the independent organization of production, “also robbed, but not of independent producers, but of workers”.

In agriculture farm type small capitalists are mainly large farmers (just as in the countryside small capitalists are large, wealthy peasants). They live not through their own labor, but through the exploitation of hired labor. Small and medium-sized farmers, living off their own labor, occupy an intermediate position between capitalist farmers and agricultural workers, representing the petty bourgeoisie. The largest farmers, who own even more land, instruments of production, and hired labor, represent the middle layer of capitalists in farm-type agriculture, and the owners of groups of farms represent the layer of large capitalists. Key positions in capitalist agriculture are occupied by agricultural corporations and monopolies.

The internal composition of the bourgeoisie with its main modifications is shown in the table:

The gradation of the working class into main social strata and groups is determined on the basis of the fundamental characteristics of the proletariat: firstly, that they are modern wage workers, and secondly, that they sell their labor, because they are deprived own funds production, thirdly, what they directly produce surplus value, capital. The degree to which these essential features manifest themselves in different layers and groups of the working class serves as a criterion for distinguishing them from each other. The proletariat is divided according to its composition "to more and less developed layers".