Reasons: desire for independence of development from natural conditions (“zoological catastrophe”, population growth, production progress)

1) Separation of agriculture from gathering and cattle breeding from hunting. (8-6 thousand BC) Consequences: 1. transition to a sedentary lifestyle; 2.increase in labor productivity; 3.possibility of accumulation of reserves (wealth); 4.the origin of trade (in-kind exchange); 5. development of religion of art.

Beginning of land cultivation. There has been a transition from manual farming to arable farming. Various types of plants.

Cattle breeding - sheep, goats, cows, pigs.

2) Separation of crafts from agriculture: the second public division of labor (4 thousand BC)

Consequences: 1. individualization of labor; 2.development private property

Crafts – pottery, weaving, improvement of food technologies. Processing of new hard minerals.

The result of the first and second division of labor is the transition to a productive economy, deepening inequality.

Neolithic revolution": causes, essence and consequences.

N.r. is a revolutionary coup that occurred in late primitive society, associated with the transition from an appropriating to a producing economy and creating the prerequisites for the formation of a class society.

Reasons:1) The emergence of agriculture and animal husbandry

2)Increase in population due to climate change.

Consequences: The birth of exchange; Formation of market relations; Improvement productive forces; Individualization of work;

Private property; Pottery production; The beginning of the use of metal, first copper, then bronze and iron.

Changes in economic activities: regular receipt of an increase in product, changes in the nature of work, social structure and changes in the lifestyle and psyche of people.

Crisis of the primitive communal model economic development: causes, essence and consequences.

The invention and development of fundamentally new materials and technologies, increased property inequality, and the emergence of private property inevitably led to the emergence of classes and the state.

Improving the tools of labor, increasing their productivity, and creating a surplus product on this basis had profound socio-economic consequences. Among the factors contributing to the division, in addition to the Neolithic revolution, an important role was played by the intensification of agriculture, the development of specialized cattle breeding, the emergence of metallurgy, the formation of specialized crafts, and the development of trade. The growth of labor productivity, increased exchange, constant wars - all this led to the emergence of property stratification among the tribes. The emergence of private property, the spread of exchange and the emergence on this basis of property and social inequalities contributed to the formation of a new type of society, the emergence of the state.

Eastern" model of economic development.

The Asian mode of production was the basis of the first class socio-economic formation, which first emerged in the East at the end of the fourth millennium BC. and existed there until the end of the second millennium AD.

Characteristics of Asian production method:

v In the East, slaves were not the main productive force of society. They didn't produce material goods. Agriculture and crafts were carried out by people who were formally considered free.

v Land in the East was in state or state-community ownership.

v High degree centralization, rigid hierarchy, bureaucratization;

v A relationship of allegiance has developed between the government and the community members - the absence of the right to submit duties;

v The political system in the East had a special form of eastern despotism, that is, complete lack of rights for the inhabitants of the state in the face of power.

The Asian mode of production, unlike the slave-owning one, is based on the exploitation not of slaves, but of community members. The number of slaves is very small; they are not used in large-scale commodity production, but as servants.

Economically, these countries hardly developed. This is commonly called eastern stagnation. The main reason for stagnation was that the interests of the individual were subordinated to the public.

⚡ Division of labor ⚡ represents the separation of different types of labor activities. This process began with the natural division of labor by gender and age, which developed in the household. Outside this economy began to grow social division labor. The modern system includes the following types such a division of labor:

1. Individual specialization is the concentration of a person’s activity on some special occupation, mastery of a certain profession or specialty.
2. Division of labor in an enterprise (separation of different types of work and operations in the workforce).
3. Isolation of creative activity on the scale of an industry, type of production (for example, electric power, oil production, automotive industry, etc.).
4. Division of national production into large categories (industry, agriculture, etc.).
5. Territorial division of labor within the country (with specialization in the production of certain products in different economic regions).
6. International division of labor (specialization of production of individual countries on certain types of products that these countries exchange).

The continuous development of the division of labor is objectively determined by the progress of technology and the human factor of production, as well as the conditions for improving the complex cooperation of labor. These conditions appeared already during the transition from simple cooperation of the labor of artisans in a capitalist enterprise to manufacture - the unification of the labor of workers separately performing many small operations.

Naturally, the subsequent transition from manufacture based on manual labor to industrial production greatly increased the efficiency of the division of labor.

So, specialization of creative activity serves as the most important means of increasing labor productivity (increasing people's output). This is a consequence of the fact that:

• firstly, the specialization of workers increases skill and involves their acquisition of more advanced knowledge and skills
• secondly, it saves working time, since by concentrating efforts, a person stops moving from one activity to another
• thirdly, specialization gives impetus to the invention and use of machinery, which makes production mass and highly efficient

Training in secondary vocational and higher education is of great importance educational institutions specialists in various fields of scientific, technical and economic activity.

Modern state educational standards for higher professional education, adopted in our country in 2000, provide for students to study:

1. general humanitarian and socio-economic disciplines (national history, cultural studies, political science, philosophy, economics, etc.)
2. general mathematical and natural science disciplines
3. general professional disciplines
4. disciplines of specialization

Thus, all students receive broad professional training combined with narrow specialization, which increases the quality of training of professionals and their relevance for practical activities.

The consolidation of society into tribal associations was greatly facilitated by changing natural and climatic conditions. Nature also had its own evolutionary processes. The disappearance of large animals by the end of the Upper Paleolithic caused the dissolution of large tribal hunting groups into small family production groups, which were distinguished by a nomadic lifestyle, migrating along with herds of small animals. This circumstance, on the one hand, led to a weakening of clan ties, and on the other, to the unification within one community of people from different clans wandering in the neighborhood.

Fluctuations in climatic conditions, intensified by highly effective but predatory hunting of animals, led to such a decrease in their total biomass that their reproduction was threatened. People were forced to expand their nutritional diet to include plant foods. This was facilitated by increased population density, in which communities could no longer roam freely without entering into conflicts with each other. Many tribes began to engage primarily in agriculture.

In addition, people began to notice that in some regions it is much more profitable to breed and domesticate animals than to hunt them. Cattle breeding made it possible to have not only constant, abundant and sufficient reliable source food (since hunting was not always successful), but also provided additional benefits - milk, wool, etc.

Deforestation, which was widely practiced in the Neolithic, also gained global significance for the development of agriculture and cattle breeding, leading to soil erosion and the expansion of steppe areas capable of serving as pastures for animals and agricultural objects.

It happened first major social division of labor. People began to specialize in performing various types of socially useful activities. A revolutionary transition took place from an appropriative-consumer economy to a producing economy, which radically changed the entire system of social relations of primitive society.

The specialization of socially necessary labor was accompanied by the improvement of tools and their diversity. The craft has grown into an independent branch of production, making up the content the second major social division of labor.

Cattle breeding, agriculture and crafts required individuals to exchange the results of their labor. If earlier hunters and fruit gatherers exchanged raw materials and food only sporadically, from time to time, the Neolithic population was forced to exchange both food and craft products systematically. The exchange process represented an entire branch of socially useful activity; it was third major division of labor, which was engaged in by a very significant part of the population - merchants.

Primitive communal model of economic development: main stages of formation and features.

Signs:

Low level of development of productive forces and their slow improvement

Collective appropriation natural resources and production results

Equal distribution, social equality

Lack of private property, exploitation, classes and state

Low rates of development of society.

Stages:

Paleolithic (ancient Stone Age) – 3 million – 12 thousand years BC.

Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) – 12 – 8 thousand years BC.

Neolithic (New Stone Age) – 8 – 3 thousand years BC.

1st early Paleolithic (up to 100 thousand years BC). Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Neanderthals - gathering, fishing and driven hunting.

2-Middle Paleolithic (ended 40 thousand years ago). Cro-Magnon man along with Neanderthals. Articulate speech. Making fire. Stone technology.

3-Late Paleolithic (ended in the 12th millennium BC). Matriarchy. Social prohibitions. Simple appropriative economy - hunting, fishing and gathering. The level of stone technology has increased. Labor as simple cooperation without division. Everything is collectively owned. Labor distribution of production. Exchange between communities.

4-Mesolithic (XII-VIII millennium BC). Individual hunt. Improvement of weapons, appearance of the bow. New techniques in fishing. Lightening the weight and reducing the volume of stone tools. The appropriative economy of low-level hunter-gatherers and fishermen. The principle of collectivization. Use of boats. Development of new lands. Several nearby clans began to unite into a tribe. Patriarchy.

5-Neolithic (VIII-IV millennium BC). The first social division of labor into agriculture and cattle breeding. Then the second social division of labor - the separation of crafts from Agriculture– individualization of labor, the emergence and development of private property. The first craft is pottery production. “Neolithic Revolution” - the emergence of new technology, forms of production and lifestyle, the development of new territories and their effective use. The origin of exchange – because surplus agricultural and handicraft industries appeared. Transition to a sedentary lifestyle.

6th Eneolithic (4-3 thousand BC). The appearance of metals - copper, gold, bronze. The system of irrigated and plow agriculture, increasing wealth inequality.

The first and second social division of labor: causes, essence and consequences.

First division of labor:

Prerequisites:

The emergence and spread of agriculture in fertile areas, then the domestication of animals, which often gave more income than agriculture. Some tribes even completely switched to cattle breeding.

Essence:

In the total mass of primitive tribes, two groups were distinguished: pastoral and agricultural.

Consequences:

1. transition to a sedentary lifestyle

2. increase in labor productivity

3. the possibility of accumulating reserves (wealth)

4. the origin of trade (in-kind exchange)

5. development of religion and art.

Second division of labor:

Causes:

The emergence of free time due to increased labor productivity (less time and energy was required to obtain food), the emergence and development of crafts.

Essence:

Separation of crafts from agriculture.

Consequences:

1. individualization of labor

2. development of private property

RESULT:

Transition to a producing economy:

Variety of products intended for exchange

Extensive exchange system

The need to introduce a universal equivalent.

2. The very beginning of the division of labor

“With the advent of the ready-made man, an additional new element arose - society,” noted K. Marx.

Since it was found that the means of exchange were present in public life before state entities, including to the great empires of antiquity, research is forced to delve into the economy of the primitive communal system in order to discover the origins of money not among the inhabitants of castles and temples, but in the communities of primitive shepherds, hunters and farmers.

Commodity exchange, like other methods of social regulation of economic life within primitive society, contributed to the intertwining of individual, group and local needs, and the formation of a single social interest. When we define a person as a social animal, behind this general statement there is a complex of very specific human properties expressed in behavior.

Ethnographer Pierre Clastré cites a fact demonstrating one of the options for a reproducible social connection. The South American Indians, the Guayaks, have a taboo on hunted game or animals: a hunter cannot eat what he has shot or caught. He must exchange his catch for other food with one of the members of the tribe.

The famous English sociologist and ethnographer B. Malinovsky mentions the custom of the inhabitants of the Trobriand Islands to give part of the harvest and hunting spoils to the “sister’s husband,” even when the sister is not really there.

Of course, when talking about product exchange in a primitive society, one should not assume that it was isolated into some independent sphere of activity. Here it is necessary to avoid transferring to antiquity modern ideas. The exchange of activities and products of labor at the local level, within the community and clan served as a model of interclan and intertribal exchange. Only if one adheres to the incorrect initial hypothesis of individual hunting and gathering can one develop thoughts about a hostile attitude towards strangers as the main psychological background of external contacts.

But isolated primitive communities are either fiction or the result of a confluence of unique circumstances. Human society could not have been formed either from lone hunters and gatherers, or from herds warring with each other.

The history of the division of labor has long been dominated by the “three-stage theory,” which was finally formalized in the book of the French archaeologist Gabriel de Mortillier, entitled “The Origin of Hunting, Cattle Breeding and Agriculture” and published in 1890. He summed up the views that had developed back in Ancient Greece, according to which in the history of mankind three forms of economic management successively replaced: hunting-gathering, pastoral and agricultural. The latter was considered the highest by the ancient Greeks, because they themselves were predominantly farmers.

Criticism of the three-stage theory began already in 1892 in the work of the German geographer Eduard Hahn, “Forms of Land Economy,” who, however, did not propose another, more true theory. Since the theory of the three stages was adhered to by such authorities as A. Smith and J. J. Rousseau, E. Khan's correct remarks about this theory simply began to coexist with it, without undermining or refuting it.

What are these comments?

Agriculture is much older than cattle breeding, and in many places it developed independently from gathering. Academician N.I. Vavilov identified seven centers of origin of agriculture, believing that some of them should be considered primary. V. S. Titov proposes to consider three as primary: Western Asian, including Egypt and Mesopotamia, Indo-Chinese and Central American.

The domestication of animals occurred more among farmers than among hunters, since hunters did not have food supplies. Agriculture, which developed from gathering, gave impetus to the transition from an appropriating economy to a producing one, from an economy of immediate consumption to an economy in which there are stocks and distribution of consumption over time.

Interpretation of the statements of the classics of Marxism-Leninism in this regard requires that the researcher determine his position in advance: whether new data from history, ethnography and archeology convince him or not that the theory of the three stages is incorrect.

F. Engels wrote: “The shepherd tribes stood out from the rest of the barbarian masses - this was the first major social division of labor” (Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 21, p. 160). The importance of this thought was emphasized by V.I. Lenin (Pol. collected works, vol. 39, pp. 67–68). But high level research culture did not allow either F. Engels or V.I. Lenin to write that the shepherd tribes separated from the tribes of hunters, and thereby fetter their own conclusions by attachment to one of the potentially correct theories.

Elsewhere, F. Engels speaks of “the division of labor between pastoral peoples and the remaining tribes that do not have herds.” Nowhere does he call these tribes hunting tribes, despite the fact that Adam Smith himself stated this directly and unequivocally.

Currently, according to archaeological data, the history of the division of labor can be schematically described as follows. 10 thousand years ago, tribes emerged from among hunters and gatherers and began cultivating cereals. This contributed to a significant increase in food production and created conditions for population growth. The growing population stimulated the processes of settlement of new, less adapted territories. In parallel, there was a redistribution of power, in modern terms - a delegation of powers from the tribal level down to the level of the clan and patriarchal family.

The production economy appeared for the first time, presumably, in Western and Central Asia, between the Mediterranean Sea and Iranian Khorasan. The outflow of surplus population took place through Kurdistan and Turkmenistan, as well as through the Balkans.

During the Middle Bronze Age, people from the central agricultural zone settled between the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers and settled east to the Minusinsk Basin and west to the upper reaches of the Dnieper. During the resettlement, a gradual separation of the pastoral tribes from the “tribes without herds” occurred.

Thus, “the first major division of labor is the separation of clan groups with a producing economy from the environment of the appropriating economy (VIII-VI thousand years BC). The second major division labor should be considered the separation from the tribes with the producing economy of the pastoral lifestyle - the last third of the 3rd millennium BC."

At the time when the book “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and State” was written, nothing was known about the Neolithic Revolution. All the more surprising is the flexibility of Engels’ formulation, which allowed for its possibility.

“The first social division of labor made regular exchange possible. Firstly, agricultural-pastoral tribes produced means of subsistence that were qualitatively different from the gathering tribes, and, secondly, they could produce more of these means than they needed to maintain life. This surplus was still small, but its existence was already of great importance,” writes the Soviet historian I. N. Khlopin and adds: “Complete isolation was never real. The exchange was carried out both between neighboring tribes and in stages.”

Therefore, one cannot subscribe to this opinion: “With the advent of crafts as a branch of the economy, a rudimentary commodity production. Craftsmen stop wandering and settle in certain places."

It is generally accepted by modern historical science that the division of labor is in one way or another connected with the Neolithic revolution, which accelerated the development of productive forces. But the origins of the division of labor go back to very ancient times and concern, as one would expect in accordance with Marxist ideas, the specialization of tools.

In England, in the county of Norfolk, in the early Neolithic era there were mines where flint was mined. It is well established that mass production stone axes were carried out there until the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. The beginning of work in the mines dates back no less than the 5th millennium BC.

The production of axes was clearly specialized, although researchers still do not understand everything about the division of labor at that time. In particular, primary processing The flint ax was carried out directly in the mine. This is evidenced by the accumulations of chips (waste) preserved there. Thus, it was no longer the raw material that was brought to the surface, but the semi-finished product.

Finished products from such mines have been discovered hundreds of kilometers away. “It is possible that in the early period they were exchanged with neighboring villages and each time ended up several kilometers further,” writes John Wood in the book “The Sun, the Moon and Ancient Stones.” This assumption is belied by the significant production volumes: “However, the mines at Grimes Graves produced a significant number of axes, and their production would quickly cease if there were no constant distribution routes. Either traders left there with ready-made axes, or communities in need of axes acquired the required number of them is right next to the mines."

Thus, specialization in the production of tools inevitably leads to the conclusion about the development of trade, exchange of goods and trade routes.

There is no doubt that whatever this medium of exchange was, it was unlikely to resemble modern money. The above shows how many variations - in terms of material, scope, form, rules of application - can be allowed while maintaining the functions of money. A common opinion says: “In ancient times there could only be embryos of signs of value.” From the content of the previous chapters it follows that these “embryos” contained the possibility of performing at least two functions of money: a measure of value and a medium of exchange. The performance of these functions by any product of labor leaves no room for the idea that the early stages of economic development were based on the wise (or foolish) decisions of tribal leaders. Together with man, society arose, and with society, economy. Further development proceeded according to objective economic laws, to which all members of society are equally subject, regardless of the functions they perform.

It would seem that what do we care now about the role of tribal leaders or elders in ancient times? Is this really relevant? It turns out yes. Modern monetarists believe that since ancient times, economic life owes the direction of its development to the decisions of “strong” people. Since this is so, why not determine the direction of development modern economy to the president, who is guided by private logical conclusions, and not by knowledge of the objective laws of social development. The irony of the development of bourgeois economic theory The point here is that the mouthpiece of monetarism, the Chicago Journal of Political Economy, regularly publishes works on the economics of primitive society. Often these articles express interesting thoughts directed against the original monetarist concept of the susceptibility of any economy to the decisions of an individual.

Here is an article by Richard Posner discussing F. Pryor's book The Origins of Economics. A variety of topics are offered for researchers of primitive economics: an econometric analysis of the wedding price among the Eskimos, determining the price of information in the absence of a market among primitive tribes, the amount of food stored for the winter or rainy season, and much more. But it’s not the list of proposed works that matters. Posner literally shouts: when applying econometric methods to the primitive economy, do not consider the redistribution of products by leaders as the main model, this is anti-economic. I can’t even believe that it is in this magazine that the main anti-economic ideas are promoted - neo-voluntarism, which presupposes arbitrary interference into the sphere money circulation. R. Posner identifies two anti-economic approaches to the primitive economy: substantivism and formalism. He calls the first formless (what comes out of statistics is good). The second approach is when the researcher trusts the accepted rules of economic behavior and studies them, and not actual economic life. Both approaches are characterized by the absence of “a preliminary formulation of the economic theory of primitive society. Both come down to checking whether the hypothesis put forward is confirmed by the available data.”

Well, why not attack the neo-petarianists? Published in a journal that constantly publishes more and more new works by neo-monetarists, theorists of “supply-side economics” and “rational expectations”, it testifies to the serious separation of bourgeois economic thought from research in the field of cultural history.

“We cannot assume,” writes Posner, referring to Pryor’s book, “that in primitive society all products were distributed by persons occupying a high position.” An economy that depends on the psychology of individuals cannot exist. In the opposing ideas there is something of a child’s opinion about the structure of social life: no matter how much the children quarrel over toys, the teacher will come and settle everything. But in real economic life there are no “educators”, and society is governed by objective laws of development, no less strict than the laws of physics and chemistry. And an essential element of social relations has always been the exchange of labor products using a wide variety of means of such exchange.

From the book Banking Law author Rozhdestvenskaya Tatyana Eduardovna

3. Reorganization credit institutions in the form of separation For state registration credit institutions created as a result of division are submitted to the territorial institutions of the Bank of Russia at their intended location: – documents for

From the book Balancing: tutorial author Zabbarova Olga Alekseevna

3.5. Drawing up a separation balance sheet during the reorganization of an enterprise in the forms of separation and separation. Division is a form of reorganization in which entity ceases its activities, and all its rights and obligations are transferred to the newly created organizations in

From book World economy. Cheat sheets author Smirnov Pavel Yurievich

6. System of international division of labor and cooperation In the process of competition between countries, a system of international division of labor has developed, which finds expression in the sustainable production of certain goods and services in individual countries over

From the book Human Action. Treatise on Economic Theory author Mises Ludwig von

5. Consequences of the division of labor The division of labor is the result of man's conscious reaction to the multiplicity of natural conditions. On the other hand, it itself is a factor causing differentiation. The division of labor assigns different

From the book Economic Theory. author Makhovikova Galina Afanasyevna

17.2. Labor market: functions and mechanism of action. Labor supply and demand curves The labor market is a system economic mechanisms, norms and institutions that ensure the reproduction of labor and the use of labor. As in any market, the labor market is formed

author Bobkova Oksana

1.1. Guarantees of the employee’s right to labor protection. Prohibition of forced labor In accordance with Art. 37 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, every citizen has the right to work in conditions that meet safety and hygiene requirements. Previously, this right was specified in Article 8 of the Federal

From the book Occupational Health and Safety. Ensuring employee rights author Bobkova Oksana

3.1. Labor safety committees. Labor Safety Cabinet Currently, labor protection committees are created at almost every enterprise (Article 218 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The Occupational Safety and Health Committee is an integral part of the organization’s occupational safety management system, as well as one of the forms

From the book Political Economy author Ostrovityanov Konstantin Vasilievich

The emergence of the social division of labor and exchange With the transition to cattle breeding and agriculture, a social division of labor arose, that is, such a division of labor in which first different communities, and then individual members of communities began to engage in heterogeneous

by Marx Karl

I. THE SIZE OF THE WORKING DAY AND THE INTENSITY OF WORK ARE CONSTANT (GIVEN), THE PRODUCTIVE POWER OF LABOR CHANGES Under this assumption, the value of labor power and surplus value are determined by three laws. Firstly: A working day of a given value is always expressed in one and

From the book Capital. Volume one by Marx Karl

II. THE WORKING DAY AND THE PRODUCTIVE FORCE OF LABOR ARE CONSTANT, THE INTENSITY OF LABOR CHANGES. The growing intensity of labor implies an increased expenditure of labor during the same period of time. A more intense working day therefore translates into more

From the book Economic Statistics. Crib author Yakovleva Angelina Vitalievna

Question 26. Labor productivity statistics. Labor statistics indicators The most important aspect of studying the use of labor resources is the analysis of labor productivity in the production of goods and services. The level of labor productivity is expressed

From the book Employer Mistakes, difficult questions application of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation author Salnikova Lyudmila Viktorovna

4. Possibility of dividing vacation into parts. Payment

From the book Sociology of Labor author Gorshkov Alexander

10. Factors influencing the behavior of economic agents in the labor market: wages, prices, profits and working conditions B market economy wage is formed under the influence of the labor market. The object of purchase and sale in such markets is labor. Payment per person

author Armstrong Michael

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT It is sometimes believed that performance evaluation is the same as performance management. But there are important differences between these concepts. The assessment of labor indicators can be defined as

From the book The Practice of Human Resource Management author Armstrong Michael

OWNERSHIP DIVISION PLAN BETWEEN ALL EMPLOYEES The ownership sharing plan among all employees must be approved by the Internal Revenue Service. According to this scheme, employees receive the opportunity (related to tax benefits)

From the book Development of Leaders. How to understand your management style and communicate effectively with people of other styles author Adizes Yitzhak Calderon

The squeakiest wheel is not always the most important, and individual problems can easily wait. The manufacturer is aimed at combating crises, so the squeaky wheel attracts its attention first of all. Until the problem turns into a crisis, he does not show concern for it