Subject of TGP.

Subject of TGP– general patterns of the emergence, functioning and development of state and law, state law. and other social networks organically connected with them and accompanying them. phenomena and processes, as well as basic state laws. concepts and categories. Problems, communication. with item:

natural and random (Vengerov and Morozova distinguish; Protasov)

sociology and philosophy of state and law

theory of state and theory of law

TGP as a science and academic discipline (Babaev is “for”, Protasov – the academic discipline is studied on its own)

the subject of TGP includes state law. concepts and categories (Malko).

TGP studies such aspects as:

concept and essence of state

problems of state typology

state mechanism

legal understanding

forms (sources) of law

mechanism of rights. regulation

rules of law

theory of legal relations

implementation of legal norms

interpretation of the law

lawful behavior and crime

legal answer

right state and gr. society.

Comprehensive definition of the subject of TGP impossible, because it is constantly changing and developing.

The multiplicity of definitions is due to both objective factors (the complexity of the matter under study) and subjective ones.

It is important to highlight the object of study of TGP as a relatively self. element. Object of study TGP– objective reality as a factual existence. in specific country of state law superstructure incl. all state and right. institutions, rights norms, Potniya, law and order, lawmaking, law enforcement, etc. Neyur. The environment enters the object only when it directly relates to state law. matter.

However, there is a controversial point that the subject and object of study of TGP coincide.

TGP methodology.

TGP methodology– a set of techniques, principles and methods for studying the patterns of the emergence, functioning and development of state and law, state rights. and other social networks organically connected with them and accompanying them. phenomena and processes, as well as basic state laws. concepts and categories.

TGP method– a means, a way of knowing the state law under study. matter.

In legal literature there are 3 approaches to defining the TGP methodology:

1) the concept of TGP is its theoretical-conceptual apparatus

2) the methodology of TGP includes general (logical) and special methods of cognition, as well as theory. principles, concepts, categories

3) the concept of TGP consists of universal, general, special and particular techniques and methods of scientific knowledge.

Preferred 3 th an approach. Concepts and categories, although they play an important role in knowledge, act as the basis of methods, but in themselves are not methods of scientific knowledge. At the same time, within the framework of the 3rd approach there are some problems, connections. with the classification of methods of cognition of state laws. phenomena, identifying their groups and types:

general scientific(induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis, abstraction, comparison, systematic method). They are associated with the dialectical-materialistic approach, but the scope of their application is limited to solving only the definition. cognitive tasks.

special(mathematical, statistical, psychological, concrete sociological). Developed within the department. special sciences; allow us to consider state and law from the standpoint of non-state rights. disciplines, create more full view about them.

private scientific(comparative law, formal legal, method of interpretation of legal norms). They are developed by the TGP itself and other legal entities. sciences and are used only within the boundaries of these sciences.

universal method – dialectical-materialistic. Theoretically reflects the real historical path along which the very development of the state and law took place. The method involves not only identifying the features and defining the concepts of state and law, but also studying their connection with each other and with the environment. their political, economic, social and other environment. State and law are considered both statically and dynamically.

Principles of knowledge:

the principle of comprehensive research of state and law (in their relationship and interaction)

the principle of historicism (consideration of state and law from the perspective of the present, past and future)

principle of complexity (study of state and law not only from a legal perspective, but also from a philosophical, sociological, political economic, political science perspective)

the principle of an organic combination of theory and practice (study at the theoretical level + empirical experience).

TGP functions.

Functions of TGP as a science: (Alekseev S.S.)

1) ontological: TGP answers the questions of what state and law are, how and why they arose, what is their future fate (ontology - the doctrine of being).

2) epistemological: TGP develops scientific concepts, doctrines, rights. concepts, categories, techniques and methods that help the scientific knowledge of state and law (epistemology - theory of knowledge).

3) heuristic: TGP is not limited to the knowledge and explanation of state laws. phenomena, but reveals new patterns in their development (heuristics - the art of finding the truth).

4) methodological: TGP creates a system of concepts and categories, approx. in all other legal entities sciences and is of fundamental importance for jurisprudence in general.

5) political and managerial: TGP is designed to form the scientific foundations of both internal and external government. politics, ensure the scientific nature of government. management.

6) ideological: TGP brings into the system ideas about state and law, affects the legal consciousness of subjects of law and the regulation of society. life in general as the most important ideological factor. Ideology- a system of basic ideas, concepts, views, in accordance with which the worldview and life position of an individual, social. groups, society as a whole.

7) practical organizational: TGP serves as the scientific basis for the functioning of the state and law.

8) prognostic: TGP puts forward hypotheses about the future of the state and law based on the patterns of their development it studies.

Functions of TGP as an academic discipline:

cognitive (transfer of knowledge about the patterns of emergence, functioning and development of state and law)

educational (forms legal culture)

introductory (lays down the basic concepts of all jurisprudence)

generalizing (summarizing the entire complex of knowledge acquired in the process of comprehending legal science), etc.

Place and role of TGP in the legal system. Sci.

Depending on the subject of research and the field of scientific knowledge, all legal entities. Sciences and academic disciplines are divided into three main groups.

Historical-legal and theoretical-legal sciences		Industry legal entities sciences and academic disciplines	Special (applied) legal science, etc.
IOGP, IGPZS, IPPU	TGP, philosophy of law, sociology of law, comparative law, jurisprudence. conflictology	KP, Adm. P, GP, UP, etc.	Forensics, criminology, court. medicine, court psychiatry
TGP cannot do without specifics. historical material, without knowledge of basic histories. processes and events. The history of G&P cannot do without conclusions and generalizations made within the framework of the TGP (concerning forms of government, forms of government, government apparatus).	Philosophy of law is the process of studying and philosophically explaining rights. being. Comp. jurisprudence - studies law. systems different countries and peoples, see sometimes as part of the TGP due to the commonality of the conceptual apparatus. Legal conflict. – studies conflicts, troubles. and resolved within the framework of both national and international law.	In relation to kzh. Of these, TGP acts as a generalizing science, bringing into a logical system all the accumulated knowledge about G and P. => generalizing character (develops general categories and concepts, methods and principles of knowledge). Synthesized character of TGP (studies not the individual components of state-legal life, but all synthesized state-legal matter)	The connections are indirect, less intense.

General characteristics of the main theories of the origin of state and law.

In modern legal In the literature, there are many theories of the origin of G and P.

	Arose	Representatives	Characteristic	Own position
Theological	Dr. Greece and Rome => XII-XIII, Europe	Aquinas, Maritain, Mercier	G and P are a product of divine will, state. power is unshakable, therefore kzh. obliged to obey the sovereign in everything. Noun the inequality of people is determined by God, one cannot resist. The ruler is God's representative on earth, the church is the mediator.	Built on faith, => unspeakable; detracts from the attention of social and economic and other relations in the state; does not allow us to determine the exact form of the state, state. device
Patriarchal		Aristotle, Filmer, Mikhailovsky	People are collective creatures, striving for mutual communication, which leads to the creation of a family, the development and growth of which leads to the formation of a state. The power of the sovereign is a continuation of the power of the father (patriarch) in the family and is unlimited. character Only the fatherly care of the ruler can provide the necessary needs. living conditions for humans.	“+”: state structure. power did not arise immediately, but developed from its simplest forms. “-”: simplified process of state origin. In addition, the family arose in parallel with the state after the collapse of the primitive communal system.
Negotiable		Hugo Grotius, Rousseau, Radishchev	G arose as a product of conscious creativity, as a result of an agreement, a pledge. people, nah. before that in a primitive state. State - rac. an association of people transferring part of their freedom, their power to the state. As a result, the ruler and society have mutual rights, obligations and responsibilities.	“+”: the theory broke with religion. ideas about the origins of G, P, power. "-": exaggeration sub. factors of origin of G and P, underestimation of objective ones.
Natural law T.	V-IV BC (Ancient Rome, Greece), flourishing – XVII – XVIII	Socrates, Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Radishchev	Rights belong to a person from birth.
T. violence		Dühring, Gumplowicz, Kautsky	The reason for the occurrence of the state in the military-political. factors: violence, enslavement. To control the conquered territories, a coercive apparatus is needed, which the state becomes. A state is an organization of power of one “tribe” over another.	The role of internal development of society in the formation of the state and the role of social and economic. factors.
Organic	sec. half of the 19th century	Spencer, Worms, Preuss (influence of Darwin)	The state is a product of social evolution, which is only part of the evolution of biol. State similar to biol. body.	It is impossible to propagate all the laws inherent in biol. evolution, on social organisms.
Materialistic		Marx, Engels, Lenin	Soc.-econ. causes. Of primary importance for the development of the economy and the emergence of statehood were 3 major divisions of labor - the separation of agriculture from cattle breeding; craft; trade. Labor productivity is growing. A surplus product appears, which led to the emergence of private property. Society was divided into the haves and the have-nots, into the exploiters and the exploited. => The rich have power to protect their economies. interests, they create an apparatus for suppressing operational resistance. masses - state.	Underestimation of the rest. reasons for the emergence of the state, revaluation of social and economic. factors.
Psychological		Freud, Tarde, Petrazhitsky, Korkunov	The connection between the emergence of the state and the peculiarities of the human psyche, with the need of some people to rule, and others to obey, “imitate.” However, there are always people who disagree with the authorities. To control them, to protect power, a state is created (as well as to satisfy the need of others to be subordinate).	Psychological factors are not the decisive reasons for the emergence of a state.
Patrimonial			Explains the origin of the state from land ownership: power is the private property of the ruler, like the land. The people are in the form of tenants of the owner’s land.	When a state arises, it is not always a state. institutions are owned by the ruler. Underestimation of the rest. factors.
Irrigation (hydraulic) T.		Wittfogel	The emergence of the state is associated with the need to build irrigation facilities. structures in the east. agricultural societies. With the aim of effective management This system and people create a state.	Suitable only for the East, and not for all regions. Underestimation of other factors.

General: none of the T. denies that the state was created with the aim of improving the management of society.

General patterns of occurrence of G and P.

Many approaches.

1) can be associated with the theories of the origin of G and P.

2) a more generalized approach. The emergence of a state is a natural, objectively determined result of the natural development of primitive society. The state appears when the corresponding ones are created. econ. conditions when labor productivity increases so much that it becomes possible to support the state. apparatus. Immediate reasons for this m.b. different depending on real historical, social, geographical, natural, demographic and other conditions. So, for the majority of the east. In the state, the greatest importance was the need to improve the management and organization of large societies. works And for the emergence of the West. states (Athens, Rome), the processes of class formation and the need to suppress resistance to exploitation played a significant role. wt.

Law was formed simultaneously and in parallel with the state. Their occurrence is interconnected and interdependent. Kzh. a new step in the development of the state led to further development of rights. systems and vice versa: the more perfect the law became, the more it had a positive impact on the state and its institutions.

The concept, signs and essence of the state.

The ambiguity in the perception of the state is due to different time periods and sub. factors, as well as the complexity and versatility of the state itself as a phenomenon.

State is a political-territorial sovereign organization of public power, which has a special apparatus of management and coercion, issues laws, collects taxes and expresses the will and interests of the ruling class, social. groups, the whole people.

Signs of the state:

1) this political-territorial org of power. Any state has a territory within which its sovereign power is exercised. Components of the territory: land, subsoil, internal. and ter. waters, airspace over land and water territories, continental shelf, ships and aircraft, spaceships and stations located on the high seas/air/space under the flag/sign of the state, as well as the territory of the state’s embassies in other countries .

2) this sovereign org of power. The sovereignty of a state means the supremacy and independence of the state. power from any other power both within the country and outside its borders, which consists of self-government. resolving domestic and foreign policy issues. Sovereignty is a quality and property of the whole, not parts, => sovereignty should belong to the state, and not to the parts that make it up (for example, the subjects of the federation).

3) this is an organization of public power, having special apparatus of control and coercion. Unlike the general the authorities of a pre-state society, where power directly came from the entire people and was used by them for self-government, public power is associated with the presence and functioning of an apparatus of control and coercion in the state. Control device consists of special bodies and persons, to prof. those involved in management in society; includes legislative bodies, Spanish. and court. authorities, state bodies with a special status (Central Bank of the Russian Federation). Coercive apparatus consists of special armed detachments of people using state coercive measures. influence on offenders and ensuring the safety of the state and society; includes the army, police, intelligence, counterintelligence and other bodies.

4) this is an organization of power, making laws. In a civilized society, the entire d/ya state d.b. based on law and laws. On the other hand, it is through laws issued by the competent authorities that the state gives its orders binding force for the population of the entire country.

5) this is an organization of power, collecting taxes. Collection is carried out specially. state authorities in strict accordance with the law in order to ensure the maintenance of the state apparatus, state. institutions to carry out various social services. programs.

6) this is an organization of power, expressing will and interests ruling class, social groups, the whole people. The state always expresses someone’s will, this is its essence, i.e. main property, sign.

The essence of the state- this is the main property of the state, which determines its content, social. purpose and operation. This is the main sign, because... soda depends on its content. direction of other signs.

In any state org. The question of watering is essential to society. power: who it belongs to and whose interests it expresses. The state always expresses someone's will. Taking this into account, various approaches to determining the essence of the state have been formed. Among them there are main and non-main ones.

Class and universal approaches are basic, because they are applicable to determine the essence of most states.

Basic approaches:	Non-mainstream approaches:
1) class: the state as a political organization. power expresses the will and interests of economic domination. class. Econ. Dominion is ensured by him and watered. domination.	1) religious: the state as a political organization. authorities primarily promote the implementation of the interests of the def. religion.
2) universal: the state as an org is political. power, ensuring a compromise of the interests of various classes and social. groups, expresses the will and interests of the entire people.	2) national: state as a political organization. authorities primarily promote the interests of the titular nation.
	3) racial: the state as an org is political. authorities primarily promote the interests of the “superior” race.

In a civilized state, the interests of those in power are expressed first and foremost, and the interests of the people are expressed to a large extent. In an uncivilized state, the interests of the people are relegated to the background. However, the state cannot not express the interests of the people at all, because it exists at the expense of the people - at the expense of taxpayers.

That. the essence of the state is dual. On the one hand, the state comes first expresses the will and interests of those in power, on the other hand, it is like a political organization. authorities interested in the stable functioning of society, ensuring a compromise of the interests of various classes and social groups. groups, in def. expresses the will of the entire people.

Concept, properties and forms of implementation of state. authorities

This is a type of social. authorities. It is necessary to determine the relationship with watering. power.

1) "state" power" is narrower than "polit. power", because the latter is carried out not only by the state, but also by other political units. systems of society: local self-government bodies, parties, politics. movements, etc. Resp. K-ii of the Russian Federation.

2) these are identical concepts.

State power- this is a public-political relationship of domination and subordination by m/s subjects, based on the state. coercion (A.V. Malko).

Properties:

1) applies to the whole society

2) is worn in public. character

3) relies on the state. compulsion

4) carried out by special persons (officials, politicians, etc.)

5) legitimacy– the quality of relationships between power and those under power, expressed in the latter’s voluntary recognition of the value of power and its right to govern. Legitimate power = lawful and fair.

6) legality– legal justification of power, its corresponding rights. standards

Forms of implementation (implementation) of the state. authorities. According to Art. 3 of the Code of the Russian Federation as a bearer of sovereignty and unity. The source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people. The people exercise their power immediately. or through government bodies. authorities and local self-government. Taking into account these provisions of the Code of the Russian Federation, 2 forms of state implementation are distinguished. authorities:

1) immediate implementation by the people of state authorities. Appears in 3 subforms:

referendum

participation of citizens in elections

meeting (gathering) gr.

2) implementation by the people of state. authorities including state and local self-government bodies. Expressed in 4 subforms:

legal form (creation, modification, cancellation of legal norms)

legal-executive form (organization for the implementation of legal regulations - executive bodies of the state and local self-government)

law enforcement form (protection of legal norms from violations and bringing the perpetrators to justice)

contractual form *controversial* (conclusion and implementation of contracts, agreements by municipal and local self-government bodies, general organizations, etc.

Typology of the state: a formational approach.

Typology of states

Until the 90s. XX century In domestic science, the typology of states was carried out mainly from the standpoint of a formational approach. The point is that the basis for the typification of states is the category socio-economic formation, based on def. production method, reflecting the relationship between the base and the superstructure.

General-econ. formation- This is a historical type of society based on the definition. production method

State type	Main classes	Whose interests does it represent?	Econ. basis of the state
slaveholding	Slave owners and slaves, clergy, communal peasants, artisans, merchants, freedmen, foreigners	Slaveholding	private property of slave owners between production and slaves
feudal	Feudal lords, (serf) peasants, artisans + church	Feudal lords (landowners)	Feudal ownership of land
bourgeois	Bourgeoisie (upper class), middle class and the lower (working) class (proletariat)	bourgeoisie	Private property
socialist Revolution, republic, unitary.	Proletariat, petty bourgeois	Dictatorship of the proletariat	General property

5 Formations:

primitive communal formation

slaveholding

feudal

bourgeois

communist (not socialist!, because under communism there is neither law nor the state as regulators of social relations).

4 Types of state:

slaveholding type of state

feudal

bourgeois

socialist.

“-” of this approach: a narrow interpretation of the class approach, ignoring the general social role of the state.

The dependence of the type of state, the class affiliation of power on the ECONOMY has been established.

combined into one class. groups of states that have a single character of power.

It became possible to identify the general and special in the organization, goal setting, functioning and development of states included in these types.

patterns of replacement of one type of state by another have been identified.

Typology of states: civilizational approach.

Typology of states- this is a classification of government by type depending on the definition. criteria.

Civilization– this is: 1) def. stage of human development society.

2) def. level of development of universal human culture.

3) a civilized state that uses good manners and ensures self-control.

4) A. Toynbee– a relatively stable state of society, which is marked by a commonality of religious, cultural, psychological and other characteristics.

Ambiguity of the term => plurality of bases for the standard classification of states.

1) geographical criterion:

eastern states

Western

mixed (intermediate)

2) geographical criterion No. 2:

northern

3) time criterion:

• medieval

  modern

4) in the direction of development:

peasant (agrarian, agricultural)

industrial

scientific and technical

5) by level of development:

pre-industrial

industrial

post-industrial

6) according to the scale criterion:

local (Sumerian, Aegean, Indus)

special (Chinese, Western European, Eastern European)

worldwide (encompasses all of humanity)

7) according to the place and role of the state in society:

primary (states are part of the basis, for example, the Egyptian state, Sumerian, Japanese)

secondary (for example, Western European, Eastern European, Latin American)

In Soviet law. In science, this approach was not widely used, but at present it is used by many people. scientists. The “-” of this approach is that it does not highlight the main thing that characterizes a state – political affiliation. authorities in each type of state. Both “+” and “-” of this approach are the plurality of classification bases.

State mechanism: concept, features, elements.

State mechanism- This is a state system. bodies and institutions through which the implementation of state functions is ensured.

Signs of the state mechanism:

1) this ordered set of state bodies and institutions, nah. in hierarchical subordination and consistency. Nar-ie system connections of m/y structures. government units mechanism inevitably entails destabilization of the state's household as a whole and, ultimately, its collapse.

2) MG ensures the implementation of state functions through the coordinated communication of all links and elements of the MG: the apparatus of control and coercion, institutions, enterprises.

3) the MG function is ensured math., finance., other media.

4) The MG is intended to guarantee ensure, protect individual rights and freedoms.

MG elements:

1) state apparatus - the main element of the MG, representative. is a system of state authorities, implemented. control and coercion in society. Includes control apparatus and coercion apparatus.

2) state institutions - org-ii, implementation. functions of the state in def. spheres: social, educational, scientific, healthcare, culture. Types of state institutions:

3) state enterprises - state org-ii, implementation household d/ya for the purpose of producing products, performing various works, making a profit.

4) state employees - persons holding government positions. government positions bodies, institutions and enterprises. Isolation of this MG element is a controversial issue in science.

Thing. and mat. appendages that are used in the implementation of state. functions in these 4 elements of the MG (Buildings, structures, equipment). They carry out an auxiliary function => it is incorrect to single them out as an element.

Armed groups of people. The selection of this element is also unfounded, because he is part of the coercive apparatus, part of the state. apparatus.

State apparatus: concept and structure.

State apparatus– 1) system of state authorities, implemented. control and coercion in society..

2) the system of state bodies, with the help of which the state is carried out. power, the main functions of the state are performed, the goals and objectives facing it at various stages of its development are achieved. This is the most important element of the MG.

Must be distinguished from watered systems of society(a complex of various state and non-state bodies and organizations taking part in the political life of the country) and MG(which includes not only the state apparatus, but also other 3 elements).

State structure apparatus– internal structure, the order of arrangement of its constituent links, their relationship.

An important part of the state. apparatus – state organ- an integral part of the MG, which, in accordance with the law of its own. structure, strictly defined. powers to manage specifics sphere of general life and organically interacting with other parts of the MG, which together form a single whole. + head of state.

Legislative bodies authorities	The highest representative bodies of the state. authorities - parliament Local authorities (executive state authorities at the local level)
Spanish bodies authorities	Implemented in Spanish and administrative d/ya. Scale: center. and local Central – Governments, cabinets/council of ministers, etc. Local: operate in ATE territories (municipalities, executive committees, etc.) By the nature and scope of the powers: bodies of general competence (all branches of state administration) and sectoral and special bodies. (functional) competencies.
Judicial authorities	Execution of justice.
Prosecutor's office	An important link in the software system, supervision over the accurate and uniform implementation of laws by state bodies, must. persons and citizens. Supervision of compliance with the law in the work of the bodies of inquiry and preliminary investigation. investigations, when considering cases in courts, in places of detention, during the execution of punishments and other coercive measures. har-ra.

Principles of organization and d/ya state. apparatus:

the principle of optimal construction and functioning of the state. apparatus

the principle of its effectiveness

the principle of legality (the state apparatus performs its functions in strict accordance with the law)

principle of constitutionality

the principle of high professionalism and public ethics. employees.

Socio-economic formation- in Marxism - a stage of social evolution, characterized by a certain stage of development of the productive forces of society and the historical type of economic production relations corresponding to this stage, which depend on it and are determined by it. There are no formational stages of development of productive forces to which the types of production relations determined by them would not correspond.

Socio-economic formations in Marx

Karl Marx did not postulate that the issue of socio-economic formations was finally resolved and identified different formations in different works. In the preface to “A Critique of Political Economy” (1859), Marx called “progressive eras of economic social formation”, which were determined by social modes of production, among which were named:

• Asiatic;
• Antique;
• Feudal;
• Capitalist.

In his later works, Marx considered three “modes of production”: “Asian”, “ancient” and “Germanic”, but the “Germanic” mode of production was not included in the officially recognized five-member scheme of periodization of history.

Five-part scheme ("five-member")

Although Marx did not formulate a complete theory of socio-economic formations, a generalization of his statements became the basis for Soviet historians (V.V. Struve and others) to conclude that he identified five formations in accordance with the prevailing relations of production and forms of ownership:

• primitive communal;
• slaveholding;
• feudal;
• capitalist;
• communist.

This concept was formulated in the popular work of F. Engels “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” and after the canonization of J.V. Stalin’s work “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism” (1938) it began to reign supreme among Soviet historians.

Feudalism

In society, there is a class of feudal lords - land owners - and a class of peasants dependent on them, who are in personal dependence. Production, mainly agricultural, is carried out by the labor of dependent peasants exploited by feudal lords. Feudal society is characterized by a class social structure. The main mechanism that motivates people to work is serfdom, economic coercion.

Capitalism

Communism

The communist formation in its development goes through the phase of socialism and the phase of complete communism.

Socialism

In the five-member formational scheme, socialism was considered as the first phase of the highest - communist - social formation.

This communist society, which has just emerged from the womb of capitalism, which bears in every respect the imprint of the old society, is what Marx calls the “first” or lower phase of communist society.

Backward countries can move to socialism bypassing capitalism in the course of a non-capitalist path of development.

The development of socialism is divided into a transitional period, socialism, mainly built, developed socialism.

Marx and Engels did not assign socialism the place of a separate socio-economic formation. The terms “socialism” and “communism” themselves were synonymous and denoted a society following capitalism.

We are not dealing with a communist society that has developed on its own basis, but with one that has just emerged from capitalist society and which therefore in all respects, economic, moral and mental, still retains the birthmarks of the old society. from the depths of which it came.

Full communism

Complete communism is the “re-appropriation, reconquest” by man of his objective essence, opposing him in the form of capital, and “the beginning of the true history of mankind.”

...after the subordination of man to the division of labor that enslaves him disappears; when the opposition between mental and physical labor disappears along with it; when work will cease to be only a means of living, but will itself become the first need of life; when, along with the all-round development of individuals, the productive forces grow and all sources of social wealth flow in full flow, only then will it be possible to completely overcome the narrow horizon of bourgeois law, and society will be able to write on its banner: “To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Discussions about socio-economic formations in the USSR

Asian production method

The existence of the Asian mode of production as a separate formation was not generally recognized and was a topic of discussion throughout the existence of historical materialism in the USSR. It is also not mentioned everywhere in the works of Marx and Engels.

Among the early stages of class society, a number of scientists, based on some statements of Marx and Engels, highlight, in addition to the slave and feudal modes of production, a special Asian mode of production and the formation corresponding to it. However, the question of the existence of such a method of production has caused discussion in philosophical and historical literature and has not yet received a clear solution.

G. E. Glerman, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 30, p. 420

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 became isolated, accumulated privileges and material wealth in its hands, which led to the emergence of private property and property inequality. The transition to slavery became possible and productively more profitable. The administrative apparatus is becoming increasingly complex, gradually transforming into a state.

Four-term scheme

The Soviet Marxist historian V.P. Ilyushechkin in 1986 proposed, based on the logic of Marx, to distinguish not five, but four formations (he classified the feudal and slaveholding formations as one class-class formation, as such, where manual labor corresponded to the consumer-value type industrial relations). Ilyushechkin believed that within the framework of pre-capitalist political economy we can only talk about a single pre-capitalist formation, which was characterized by a pre-capitalist mode of production.

Theory at the present stage

According to historian N.N. Kradin, the theory of socio-economic formations has been in a state of crisis since the 1990s: “By the mid-1990s. we can talk about the scientific death of the five-member formation scheme. Even its main defenders in the last decades of the 20th century. admitted its inconsistency. V. N. Nikiforov in October 1990, shortly before his death, at a conference dedicated to the peculiarities of the historical development of the East, publicly admitted that the four-stage concepts of Yu. M. Kobishchanov or V. P. Ilyushechkin more adequately reflect the course of the historical process.”

For the first time, the concept of socio-economic formation was defined by K. Marx. It is based on a materialistic understanding of history. The development of human society is considered as an unchanging and natural process of changing formations. There are five of them in total. The basis of each of them is a certain one that arises in the production process and during the distribution of material goods, their exchange and consumption, forming an economic basis, which in turn determines the legal and political superstructure, the structure of society, everyday life, family, and so on.

The emergence and development of formations is carried out according to special economic laws that operate until the transition to the next stage of development. One of them is the law of correspondence of production relations to the level and nature of the development of productive forces. Any formation goes through certain stages in its development. At the latter stage, a conflict occurs and the need arises to change the old method of production to a new one and, as a result, one formation, more progressive, replaces another.

So what is a socio-economic formation?

This is a historically established type of society, the development of which is based on a certain method of production. Any formation is a certain specific stage of human society.

What socio-economic formations are highlighted by supporters of this theory of the development of state and society?

Historically, the first formation is the primitive communal one. The type of production was determined by the established relations in the tribal community and the distribution of labor between its members.

As a result of development between peoples, a slave-owning socio-economic formation arises. The scope of communication is expanding. Such concepts as civilization and barbarism appear. This period was characterized by many wars, during which military booty and tribute were confiscated as a surplus product, and free labor appeared in the form of slaves.

The third stage of development is the emergence of a feudal formation. At this time, there were mass migrations of peasants to new lands, constant wars for subjects and land between feudal lords. The integrity of economic units had to be ensured by military force, and the role of the feudal lord was to maintain their integrity. War became one of the conditions of production.

Proponents identify the capitalist formation as the fourth stage of development of the state and society. This is the last stage, which is based on the exploitation of people. The means of production are developing, factories and factories are appearing. The role is increasing international market.

The last socio-economic formation is communist, which in its development passes through socialism and communism. At the same time, two types of socialism are distinguished - basically built and developed.

The theory of socio-economic formations arose in connection with the need to scientifically substantiate the steady movement of all countries of the world towards communism, the inevitability of the transition to this formation from capitalism.

Formational theory has a number of shortcomings. So, it only takes into account economic factor development of states, which is of great importance, but is not fully decisive. In addition, opponents of the theory point out that in none of the countries does a socio-economic formation exist in its pure form.

To the begining.

Dictionaries define socio-economic formation as a historically specific type of society based on a specific mode of production. The method of production is one of the central concepts in Marxist sociology, characterizing a certain level of development of the entire complex of social relations. Let us recall that K. Marx developed his basic idea of ​​the natural historical development of society on the basis of isolating from various spheres public life economic sphere and giving it special significance - as the main one and determining all others, and of all types of social relations, he paid primary attention to relations of production- those that people enter into regarding the production of material goods.

The logic here is quite simple and convincing: the main and determining thing in the life of any society is obtaining the means to live, without which no other relationships between people will simply be able to develop - neither spiritual, nor ethical, nor political, etc. - because without these funds will not be available to the people themselves. And in order to obtain the means of living (to produce them), people must unite, cooperate, enter into certain joint activities relationship, which are called production.

Let us recall once again the structure of Marx’s analytical scheme (see Fig. 2.3 in the second chapter). Productive forces, forming the core of the economic sphere - this is a general name for the connection of people with the totality of material resources at work: raw materials, tools, equipment, tools, buildings and structures used in the production of goods ( real elements or means of production); this totality of material elements forms the means of production. The main component of the productive forces are, of course, the people themselves ( personal element) with their knowledge, skills and abilities, which allow them, with the help of material elements from surrounding objects natural world produce items intended directly to satisfy human needs(your own or other people). Productive forces are the most flexible, mobile, continuously developing part of this unity. This is understandable: people’s knowledge and skills are constantly increasing, new discoveries and inventions are appearing, in turn improving tools. Production relations are more inert, inactive, slow in their change, but they form the shell, the nutrient medium in which the productive forces develop. The inextricable unity of productive forces and production relations is called production method, since it indicates the way in which the personal element of the productive forces is combined with the material, thereby forming a specific method of obtaining material wealth inherent in a given level of development of society.

On the foundation basis(industrial relations) grows superstructure. It represents, in essence, the totality of all other relations, “remaining minus production ones,” and containing many different institutions, such as the state, family, religion or various types of ideologies existing in society. The main specificity of the Marxist position comes from the assertion that the nature of the superstructure is determined by the nature of the base. Since the nature of the base (the deep nature of production relations) changes, the nature of the superstructure also changes. Because, for example, the political structure of a feudal society differs from the political structure of a capitalist state, because the economic life of these two societies is significantly different and requires different ways the influence of the state on the economy, different legal systems, ideological beliefs, etc.

A historically specific stage in the development of a given society, which is characterized by a specific production method and its corresponding superstructure is called socio-economic formation. A change in production methods (and a transition from one socio-economic formation to another) is caused by antagonism between outdated relations of production and productive forces, which become cramped in these old frameworks, and they tear it apart just as a grown chick breaks the shell (within which it developed).

The base-superstructure model has inspired a variety of schools of thought, ranging from 18th-century Romanticism to the analysis of family structure in modern times. modern society. The predominant form these teachings took was class-theoretical character. That is, the relations of production in the base were seen as relations between social classes (say, between workers and capitalists), and therefore the statement that the base determines the superstructure means that the character of the superstructure is largely determined by the economic interests of the dominant social class. This emphasis on classes seemed to “remove” the question of the impersonal action of economic laws.

The metaphor of base and superstructure and the socio-economic formation they define has proven to be a fruitful analytical tool. But it also gave rise to a huge number of discussions, both within Marxism and outside it. One of the issues is the definition of industrial relations.

Since their core is ownership of the means of production, they must inevitably include legal definitions, but this model defines them as superstructural. Because of this, the analytical separation of the basis and superstructure seems difficult.

An important point of debate around the basis and superstructure model was the point of view that the basis determines superstructure A number of critics argue that this model entails economic determinism. However, it should be borne in mind that K. Marx and F. Engels themselves never adhered to such a doctrine. Firstly, they understood that the elements of the superstructure could be relatively autonomous from the base and have their own laws of development. Secondly, they argued that the superstructure interacts with the base and quite actively influences it.

So, the historical period of development of a particular society, during which a given mode of production dominates, and called a socio-economic formation. The introduction of this concept into the sociological analysis of the periodization of societies has a number of advantages. (1) It allows one to distinguish one period of development of society from another according to fairly clear criteria. (2) With its help, you can find common essential features in the life activities of different societies (countries and peoples) that are at the same stage of development even in different historical periods, and, on the contrary, find explanations for the differences in the development of two societies coexisting in the same period, but with different levels of development due to differences in production methods. (3) The formational approach allows us to approach society as a single social organism, i.e. consider all social phenomena (based on the mode of production) in organic unity and interaction. (4) It makes it possible to reduce the aspirations and actions of individuals to the actions of large masses of people.

Based on the formational approach, all human history is divided into five socio-economic formations. However, before moving on to their direct consideration, a few more comments should be made regarding the system-forming features that determine the parameters of each of the formations.

The first of these relates to labor structure, as Marx defines it in his Capital. According to the labor theory of value, the purpose of any economic system is the creation of use values, that is, useful things. However, in many economies (especially capitalist ones) people produce things not directly for their own use, but for exchange for other goods. All goods are produced through labor, and ultimately labor time, spent on their production determines the cost of exchange.

An employee's working time can be divided into two periods. During the first he produces goods whose value is equal to the cost of his existence, this necessary work. “The second period of labor - the one during which the worker works beyond the limits of necessary labor - although it costs him labor, the expenditure of labor power, it does not create any value for the worker. It forms surplus value.” Let's assume the working day is ten hours. During part of it - say, eight hours - the worker will produce goods whose value is equal to the cost of his existence (subsistence). During the remaining two hours the worker will create surplus value, which is appropriated owner of the means of production. This owner may be the worker himself, but the more developed the society, the less likely this is; in most socio-economic formations known to us, the means of production are owned not by the one who directly works with the help of them, but by someone else - a slave owner, a feudal lord, a capitalist. It should be noted that it is surplus value that is the basis, firstly, of private property, and secondly, of market relations.

Thus, we can identify the system-forming features of socio-economic formations that interest us. The first one is relationship between necessary and surplus labor, the most typical for this formation. This ratio depends decisively on the level of development of the productive forces, and above all on technological factors. The lower the level of development of productive forces, the more specific gravity the required labor in the total volume of any product produced; and vice versa - as productive forces improve, the share of surplus product steadily increases. The second system-forming feature is nature of ownership of the means of production dominant in a given society. Now, based on these criteria, we will try to briefly review all five formations.

Primitive communal system(or primitive societies). Here the production method is characterized by an extremely low level of development of the productive forces. All labor is necessary; surplus labor equal to zero. Roughly speaking, this means that everything that is produced is consumed without reserve, without forming any surpluses, and therefore without making it possible to either make savings or carry out exchange transactions. Therefore, the primitive communal formation is characterized by practically elementary production relations based on social (more precisely community) ownership of the means of production - private property it simply cannot arise here due to the almost complete absence of a surplus product: everything that is produced (more precisely, mined) is consumed without a trace, and any attempt to take away or appropriate something obtained by the hands of others will simply lead to the death of the one from whom it is taken away. For the same reasons, it is missing here commodity production (nothing to put up for exchange). It is clear that such a base corresponds to an extremely underdeveloped superstructure; People simply cannot appear who could afford to professionally engage in management, science, religious rites, etc.

A rather important point is the fate of captives who are captured during clashes between warring tribes: they are either simply killed, turned into food, or accepted into the tribe. Forcing them to work forcibly does not make any sense: they will use everything they produce without reserve.

Slavery. Only the development of productive forces to such a level that causes the appearance of a surplus product, even in an insignificant volume, radically changes the fate of the above-mentioned captives. Now it is profitable to turn them into slaves, since the entire surplus of products produced by their labor comes at the undivided disposal of the owner. And the more slaves the owner has, the greater the amount of material wealth concentrated in his hands. In addition, the emergence of the same surplus product creates the material prerequisites for the emergence of the state, as well as, for a certain part of the population, professional pursuits in religious activities, science and art. That is, a superstructure as such arises.

Therefore, slavery as a social institution is defined as a form of property that gives one person the right to own another person. Thus, the main object of property here are people, acting not only as a person, but also as real element of the productive forces. In other words, like any other means of production, a slave is a thing with which its owner is free to do whatever he wants - buy, sell, exchange, donate, throw away as unnecessary, etc. Slave labor existed under various social conditions- from the Ancient World to the colonies of the West Indies and the plantations of the southern states of North America. Surplus labor here is no longer equal to zero: the slave produces products in a volume slightly exceeding the cost of his own food. At the same time, from the point of view of production efficiency, when using slave labor, there is always a problem whole line problems. (1) The barracks slave system is not always able to reproduce itself, and slaves must be obtained either by purchase in the slave markets or by conquest; Therefore, slave systems often tended to have severe shortages labor resources. (2) Slaves require significant "forceful" supervision due to the threat of their revolts. (3) It is difficult to force slaves to perform labor tasks that require qualifications without additional incentives. The presence of these problems suggests that slavery cannot provide an adequate basis for continued economic growth. As for the superstructure, it characteristic feature is the almost complete exclusion of slaves from all forms of political, ideological and many other forms of spiritual life, since the slave is considered as one of the varieties of draft animals or a “talking instrument”.

Feudalism. American researchers J. Prower and S.N. Eisenstadt lists five characteristics common to the most developed feudal societies: (1) lord-vassal relationships; (2) a personalized form of government, which is effective at the local rather than the national level, and which has a relatively low level of division of functions; (3) land tenure based on the grant of feudal estates ( fiefs) in exchange for service, primarily military; (4) the existence of private armies; (5) certain rights of landowners in relation to serfs. Such features characterize the economic and political system, which was most often decentralized (or weakly centralized) and depended on a hierarchical system of personal connections within the nobility, despite the formal principle of a single line of authoritarianism going back to the king. This ensured collective defense and maintenance of order. The economic basis was a local organization of production, with the dependent peasantry providing the surplus product that the landowners needed to fulfill their political functions.

Since the main object of property in the feudal socio-economic formation is land, the class struggle between landowners and peasants focused primarily on the size of production units assigned to tenants, rental conditions, as well as on control over the main means of production, such as pastures, drainage systems , mills. Therefore, modern Marxist approaches argue that because the tenant peasant has a certain degree of control over production (for example, the possession of customary rights), "non-economic measures" are required to ensure the control of landowners over the peasantry. These measures represent basic forms of political and economic domination. It should be noted that, unlike capitalism, where workers are deprived of any control over the means of production, feudalism allows serfs to fairly effectively own some of these means, in return ensuring the appropriation of surplus labor in the form of rent.

Capitalism. This type economic organization in its pure form can be very briefly defined by the presence of the following features: (1) private ownership and control of the economic instrument of production, i.e. capital; (2) driving economic activity to generate profit; (3) the market structure that regulates this activity; (4) appropriation of profits by capital owners (subject to state taxation); (5) ensuring the labor process by workers who act as free agents of production. Historically, capitalism developed and grew to a dominant position in economic life simultaneously with the development industrialization. However, some of its features can be found in the commercial sector of the pre-industrial European economy - perhaps throughout the medieval period. We will not dwell here in detail on the characteristics of this socio-economic formation, since in modern sociology the view of capitalist society as identical industrial. Therefore, we will postpone a more detailed consideration of it (as well as the question of the legality of such an identification) until one of the subsequent paragraphs.

The most important characteristic of the capitalist mode of production: the development of productive forces reaches such a quantitative and qualitative level that makes it possible to increase the share of surplus labor to sizes exceeding the share of necessary labor (here it is expressed in the form wages). According to some data, in a modern high-tech company, the average employee works for himself (that is, produces a product worth his salary) for fifteen minutes out of an eight-hour working day. This indicates an approach to a situation where the entire product becomes surplus, turning the share of necessary labor into zero. Thus, the logic of the labor theory of value brings the trend of general historical development close to the idea of ​​communism.

Communism. Being more a doctrine than a practice, this concept refers to societies in which there are no (1) private property, (2) social classes, (3) forced (“enslaving people”) division of labor, (4) commodity-money relationship. K. Marx argued that communist societies would gradually form after the revolutionary overthrow of capitalist societies. He also noted that these three characteristics, in a certain (albeit very primitive) form, are also characteristic of primitive tribal societies - a condition that he considered as primitive communism. As for “genuine” communism, its logical construction is derived by Marx and his followers as a direct extrapolation from the trends of the previous progressive development of socio-economic formations. It is no coincidence that the beginning of the creation of this system is considered as the end of the prehistory of human society and the beginning of its true history. There are serious doubts that these ideas have been put into practice in modern societies. Most former "communist" countries maintained some degree of private property, a widely enforced division of labor, and a class system based on bureaucratic privilege. The actual development of societies that called themselves communist gave rise to discussions among the theorists of communism, some of whom were of the opinion that some share of private property and a certain level of division of labor seemed inevitable under communism.

What is the progressive essence of this historical process of consistent change of socio-economic formations? As the classics of Marxism noted, such a criterion of progress is consistent increasing the degree of freedom of living labor when moving from one formation to another. In fact, if we pay attention to the main object of private property, we will see that in slavery it is people, under feudalism it is land, under capitalism it is capital (appearing in the most diverse forms). A serf peasant is actually freer than any slave. A worker is generally a legally free person, and without such freedom the development of capitalism is generally impossible. The second manifestation of progressiveness in the transition from one formation to another is, as we have seen, consistent (and significant) increase in the share of surplus labor in the total volume of labor.

Despite the presence of a number of shortcomings of the formational approach (many of which stem, rather, from fanatical dogmatization, the absolutization of some provisions of Marxism by its most orthodox and ideological supporters), it can turn out to be quite fruitful in analyzing the periodization of the historical development of human society, in which we have yet to Once again make sure throughout the further presentation.

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 of world history according to the criterion of dominant production relations (forms of property): 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 structure” was implemented by Stalin in the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”. Representatives of historical materialism believed that the concept of O.E.F. allows us to notice repetition in history and thereby give it a strictly scientific analysis. The change of formations forms the main line of progress; formations die due to internal antagonisms, but 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: “On the Critique of Political Economy,” Marx mentioned the “ancient” (as well as “Asiatic”) mode of production, while in other works he (as well as Engels) wrote about the existence in antiquity of a “slave-owning 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.