MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Moscow State Institute of Electronics and Mathematics (Technical University) Department of History and Political Science POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES OF THE XIX – XX CENTURIES. LIBERALISM. CONSERVATISM. SOCIALISM Guidelines for the study of the courses "Political Science", "Global Conflicts of Modern and Contemporary Times", "National History" Moscow 2004 2 Compiled by: Associate Professor, Ph.D. Larionova I.L. Political ideologies of the XIX - XX centuries. Liberalism. Conservatism. Socialism: Method. recommendations for the courses “Political Science”, “Global Conflicts of Modern and Contemporary Times”, “National History” / Mosk. state Institute of Electronics and Mathematics; Comp. Associate Professor, Ph.D. Larionova I.L. M., 2004. S. 27. Recommendations are given for the study of the topic "Political ideologies of the XIX - XX centuries." The recommendations can be used by students to prepare for seminars, tests and exams in the courses "Political Science", "Global Conflicts of Modern and Contemporary Times", "National History". ISBN 5-94506-071-2 http://fe.miem.edu.ru 3 Liberalism. Conservatism. Socialism. General characteristics Liberalism, conservatism and socialism are the "big" political worldviews of the 19th and 20th centuries. This means that any political doctrine of the designated period can be attributed to one of these ideologies - with a greater or lesser degree of validity. In any case, any political concept or party platform, any social and political movement can be comprehended through a certain combination of liberal, conservative and socialist ideas. The “big” ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries were formed in the process of gradual erosion of traditional political worldviews – realistic, utopian and theocratic, which were a form of existence and development of specific political concepts from the 2nd millennium BC. to the 18th century. This erosion and, accordingly, the formation of new worldviews took place during the 17-18 centuries, during the period of bourgeois revolutions - English, North American and Great French. Therefore, liberalism, conservatism and socialism, which took shape in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. in Western Europe, represent different ways of understanding social reality as it developed in Europe and North America as a result of revolutions and industrial revolution, and offer ways to improve bourgeois society or replace it with another socio-political system. Industrial and post-industrial societies, as stages in the development of modern Western civilization, owe many of their features to the conscious efforts of liberal, social democratic, conservative (indirectly communist) parties that transformed the world, striving to put their political platforms into practice. and programs. Thus, the concepts of liberalism, conservatism and socialism are ambiguous. As a worldview, each of them has a certain philosophical basis and represents a certain way of understanding the world as a whole, primarily society and ways of its development. In this sense, the worldview of the 19th-20th centuries. play a methodological role in the social sciences, acting as a tool for understanding political concepts and party platforms. As political ideologies, liberalism, conservatism and socialism paint a picture of the desired future and the main ways to achieve it. In other words, each ideology offers a certain model for the development of society, which seems optimal to its creators and supporters. It should be emphasized that political ideology is not a system of views in the strict sense of the word. This is a more or less interdependent set of concepts, principles and ideas, usually underlying the platforms of political parties. It follows that liberalism, conservatism and socialism are also a political program and political practice. So, the "big" http://fe.miem.edu.ru 4 political ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries are at the same time methodology, theory, program and practice. There is a certain correspondence between this or that ideology, on the one hand, and the interests of certain classes and social strata, on the other. However, this correspondence is neither rigid nor immutable. Conservatism usually expresses the aspirations of large proprietors, as well as broad sections of the population whose social stability has been threatened as a result of some past or impending changes. Socialism represents the interests of the most disadvantaged part of society or those who earn a living mainly by their work. Liberalism is the ideology of political centrism. As a rule, liberal views are held by wide sections of the bourgeoisie - middle and small. In today's post-industrial society, where class no longer determines a person's place in life, the wealthiest are often conservatives, while the less wealthy share the principles of socialism. At the same time, all modern political parties they usually claim to represent the interests of the people as a whole, proposing a constructive program for rapid economic development and general welfare. Liberalism, conservatism and socialism have come a long way of development. Consider their main types and types. Liberalism The concept of "liberalism" appeared in the early 19th century. Initially, the group of nationalist deputies in the Cortes, the Spanish parliament, was called liberals. Then this concept entered all European languages, but in a slightly different meaning. The essence of liberalism remains unchanged throughout the history of its existence. Liberalism is a statement of the value of the human personality, its rights and freedoms. From the ideology of the Enlightenment, liberalism borrowed the idea of natural human rights, therefore, among the inalienable rights of the individual, liberals included and still include the right to life, liberty, happiness and property, with the greatest attention being paid to private property and freedom, since it is believed that property ensures freedom, which in turn is a prerequisite for success in the life of an individual, the prosperity of society and the state. Freedom is inseparable from responsibility and ends where the freedom of another person begins. The “rules of the game” in society are fixed in laws adopted democratic state, which proclaims political freedoms (of conscience, speech, assembly, association, etc.). The economy is market based on private property and competition. Such economic system is the embodiment of the principle of freedom and a condition for the successful economic development of the country. http://fe.miem.edu.ru 5 Classical liberalism (late 18th – 70s-80s of the 19th century) was the first historical type of worldview containing the complex of ideas outlined above. It can be considered as a direct continuation political philosophy era of the Enlightenment. It is not for nothing that John Locke is called the “father of liberalism”, and the founders of classical liberalism, Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith, are considered the largest representatives of the late Enlightenment in England. Throughout the 19th century, liberal ideas were developed by John Stuart Mill (England), Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville (France), Wilhelm von Humboldt and Lorenz Stein (Germany). Classical liberalism differs from the ideology of the Enlightenment, first of all, by the lack of connection with revolutionary processes, as well as by its negative attitude towards revolutions in general and towards the Great French Revolution in particular. Liberals accept and justify the social reality that has developed in Europe after the French Revolution, and actively strive to improve it, believing in the boundless social progress and the power of human reason. Classical liberalism includes a number of principles and concepts. Its philosophical basis is the nominalistic postulate about the priority of the individual over the general. Accordingly, the principle of individualism is central: the interests of the individual are higher than the interests of society and the state. Therefore, the state cannot violate the rights and freedoms of a person, and the individual has the right to protect them against encroachments by other individuals, organizations, society and the state. If we consider the principle of individualism from the point of view of its correspondence to the actual state of things, it should be stated that it is false. In no state can the interests of an individual be higher than public and state interests. The opposite situation would mean the death of the state. It is curious that for the first time one of the founders of classical liberalism I. Bentham drew attention to this. He wrote that "natural, inalienable and sacred rights never existed", since they are incompatible with the state; "...citizens, demanding them, would only ask for anarchy ...". However, the principle of individualism played into the highest degree progressive role in the development of Western civilization. And in our time, it still gives the individual the legal right to defend their interests in the face of the state. The principle of utilitarianism is a further development and specification of the principle of individualism. I. Bentham, who formulated it, believed that society is a fictitious body consisting of individuals. The common good is also a fiction. The real interest of society is nothing but the sum of the interests of its constituent individuals. Therefore, any actions of politicians and any institutions should be evaluated solely in terms of the extent to which they contribute http://fe.miem.edu.ru 6 to reduce suffering and increase the happiness of individuals. The construction of a model of an ideal society, according to I. Bentam, is not necessary and dangerous from the point of view of possible consequences. Nevertheless, based on the principles of individualism and utilitarianism, classical liberalism proposed a very specific model of society and the state as the optimal one. The core of this model is the concept of public self-regulation developed by A. Smith. According to A. Smith, in a market economy based on private property and competition, individual individuals pursue their selfish interests, and as a result of their collision and interaction, social harmony is formed, which implies the effective economic development of the country. The state should not interfere in socio-economic relations: it is more likely to disrupt harmony than to promote its establishment. The concept of the rule of law corresponds to the concept of public self-regulation in the sphere of politics. The goal of such a state is the formal equality of opportunities for citizens, the means is the adoption of relevant laws and ensuring their strict implementation by all, including government officials. At the same time, the material well-being of each individual is considered his personal matter, and not the sphere of concern of the state. Alleviation of the extremes of poverty is supposed to come from private philanthropy. The essence of the rule of law is briefly expressed by the formula: "the law is above all." The rule of law is a non-functional state, which is expressed in terms of “small state” or “minimum state”. Such a state ensures public order, that is, it fights crime and organizes the defense of the country from external enemies. In other words, this is a kind of "night watchman" who shows his authority only in extraordinary situations. In the course of normal daily life and economic activity, the “small state” is invisible. “Minimum state” does not mean a weak state. Rather, on the contrary, only a sufficiently strong system of power is capable of ensuring strict observance of the “rules of the game” in society. But most of the creators of classical liberalism did not consider a strong state a value, since the totality of their views was largely directed against the violent social regulation, corporate and state, characteristic of feudal society. The legal "small state" should be secular. Classical liberalism advocated the separation of church and state. The supporters of this ideology considered religion to be a personal matter of an individual. It can be said that any liberalism, including classical, is in general indifferent to religion, which is not regarded as either a positive or a negative value. The programs of the liberal parties usually included the following demands: separation of powers; approval of the principle of parliamentarism, that is, the transition to such forms of organization of the state, in which the government is formed by parliament; proclaiming and exercising democratic rights and freedoms; separation of church and state. From the end of the 18th century to the first two decades of the 20th century, the initiative of social reform in the countries of Western civilization belonged to the liberals. However, already at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the crisis of liberalism began. Let's consider its reasons. The theory of social self-regulation has never fully corresponded to reality. The first crisis of overproduction occurred in England in 1825, that is, immediately after the completion of the industrial revolution. Since then, crises of this type have periodically occurred in all developed capitalist countries and have become an integral part of industrial society. There was also no social harmony. The struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie began in the 1920s in England. Its first form was the Ludist movement against the mechanization of production. Beginning in the 1930s, the forms of class struggle became more rational and varied: economic and political strikes, the Chartist movement for the extension of the suffrage, armed uprisings in Leon and Silesia. The industrial society already in the first half of the 19th century proved to be deeply conflicted and economically unstable. The contradictions between objective reality and liberal theory became apparent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the capitalist mode of production passed into the monopoly stage. Free competition gave way to the dictates of monopolies, prices were determined not by the market, but by large firms that subjugated competitors, crises of overproduction became longer and more destructive, covering at the same time whole line countries. The struggle of the working class for a decent life became more and more organized and effective. Beginning in the 60s of the 19th century, this struggle was led by social democratic parties, which initially proclaimed as their goal the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the elimination of private ownership of the means of production. The need for state regulation of the economy and social conflicts became more and more obvious. Under these conditions, the initiative of social reformism began to gradually pass to social democracy, which managed to develop in the 90s of the 19th century a fundamentally new program for the improvement of bourgeois society, presupposing the rejection of dictatorship. the proletariat and the elimination of private property. Another reason for the crisis of the liberal ideology was, paradoxically, the success of the liberal parties in realizing their political demands. At the end of the 19th - the first decades of the 20th century, all the provisions of the political program of these parties were implemented and eventually accepted by all major political forces and parties. Therefore, it can be said that the undoubted merits of liberalism and liberal parties in establishing the basic principles and institutions of the modern democratic system contributed to the refusal of support for liberal parties on the part of society: the liberals had nothing to offer voters. Under these conditions, liberalism changed significantly and the second stage of its development began, associated with the emergence of social liberalism as a new historical type of liberal ideology. Social liberalism (late 19th - 70s of the 20th centuries) absorbed some social democratic ideas, and, as a result, part of the postulates of classical liberalism was abandoned. The creators of social liberalism were such political thinkers as J. Hobson, T. Green, L. Hobhouse (England), W. Repke, W. Eucken (Germany), B. Croce (Italy), L. Ward, J. Crowley , J. Dewey (USA). First of all, social liberalism included in the liberal doctrine the social democratic idea of state regulation of the economy (the economic concept of state regulation was developed by J. M. Keynes and is not socialist, although it was also used by the social monopolies, the requirement of unlimited freedom of competition was adopted by the monopolists and acquired the function of protecting the interests of the privileged strata of the population. Already at the end of the 19th century, the liberal governments of European countries, one after another, began to pass antitrust laws that prohibited the excessive concentration of property. World economic crisis In the late 1920s-mid-30s of the 20th century, the notion of the possibility of an efficient economy without regulatory state intervention was finally made a legacy of the past. The second idea, borrowed by social liberalism from social democracy, is the idea of social justice, understood as the right of everyone to a decent life. The broad social programs proposed by the Social Democrats, which imply the redistribution of profits from the rich to the poor through the system of state taxes, also became a concrete way to implement it. Social insurance for sickness, unemployment, old age, insurance medicine, free education, etc. - all these programs, gradually introduced and expanded in http://fe.miem.edu.ru 9 countries of Western civilization during the late 19 - 70s of the 20th century, existed and continue to exist due to the introduction of a progressive taxation scale. Such a system of taxation assumes that people with more income or capital pay a higher percentage of this income or capital than people with less means of livelihood. Social programs simultaneously contribute to the development of the economy, as they expand effective demand. Throughout the 20th century, liberal, and from the second half of it, social-democratic or coalition (including social democrats and liberals) governments steadily pursued a policy aimed at raising the standard of living and increasing the social protection of workers, which resulted in the creation of developed countries Western civilization of the so-called "welfare state", from two-thirds to three-quarters of the population of which are able to satisfy all their reasonable needs. The rejection of the concept of social self-regulation inevitably led to a revision of ideas about the role of the state in society. The ideas of a “minimum state,” a “night watchman” state, are a thing of the past. The concept of the rule of law has been transformed into the concept of a social state, which assumes that the state not only obeys existing laws and creates formally equal opportunities for all citizens, but also assumes social obligations: ensuring a decent standard of living for the population and its steady growth. The emergence of social liberalism did not mean overcoming the crisis of liberal ideology and liberal parties. Liberalism has only adapted to the new conditions. The popularity of liberal parties in Europe steadily declined throughout the 20th century, and after the Second World War the initiative for social reformation passed to the Social Democrats not only ideologically but also in fact: the social democratic program for improving bourgeois society began to be carried out by social democratic or coalition governments. In the US, the liberals have not lost their positions. There, the corresponding program was carried out by the democratic (liberal) party. The beginning of the implementation of this type of program is associated with the "new course" of President F. Roosevelt, who laid the foundations for the most constructive option for overcoming the crisis of the liberal social model. Since state regulation of the economy and social programs were carried out in the United States by a party of a liberal rather than a socialist type, the values of solidarity and social justice did not become as widespread in this country as in Europe, and partial nationalization of industry was never carried out, as a result of which in The United States, in contrast to the European countries, completely lacks the public sector of the economy. http://fe.miem.edu.ru 10 In the 70s of the 20th century, the model of society, assuming state regulation of a market economy based on private property, found itself in a state of crisis. Since the development of the basic principles of this model and its implementation were associated with the activities of social democrats and liberals, the ideology of social democracy and liberalism turned out to be responsible for the slowdown in economic growth, inflation and unemployment, and the initiative for social reform passed to the neoconservatives. who managed to propose a new social model. As a result, liberal ideology changed again, this time under the influence of neo-conservatism. Modern liberalism has emerged (from the late 1970s to the present day), represented by social liberalism, which adopted a number of neoconservative ideas, and neoliberalism, which can be defined as the resurrection of the basic principles of classical liberalism in the conditions of the late 20th century. The ideological basis of modern liberalism is the concept of social self-regulation developed by the founders of classical liberalism and adopted by neoconservatives. The leading direction of liberalism at present is modern social liberalism, the most famous representative of which is the German sociologist and political scientist R. Dahrendorf. Similar ideas are developed in their works by the German liberals F. Schiller and F. Naumann. This ideological and political construction occupies, by and large, a middle position between social democracy and neoconservatism. The commitment to such important postulates of social liberalism as state regulation of the economy and state programs of social assistance to the poorest segments of the population remains. Moreover, many representatives of this current of modern liberal thought believe that only state intervention in the economic and social sphere can smooth out social-class and ethnic conflicts and protect the society of the late 20th - early 21st century from revolutionary upheavals. However, realizing Negative consequences overgrown bureaucracy and excessive state regulation in the socio-economic sphere, modern social liberals are in favor of stimulating market mechanisms while reducing the regulatory role of the state, which is consistent with the principles of neoconservatism. However, advocating a well-known limitation of state intervention in non-political spheres public life, modern adherents of social liberalism invariably emphasize that the desire to solve economic problems without taking into account the social component, this is not social liberalism, but social Darwinism. Eco- http://fe.miem.edu.ru
#ideology #crisis #russia #people #society
Annotation. in its classical forms everywhere is in a deep crisis, which has a number of reasons of a philosophical, economic, political nature. They also include the formation of virtual reality that really exists in the form of audiovisual images perceived by the senses. Modern ideology acquires a fragmentary-frame character, which makes external manipulative influence on it more accessible.
The conceptual basis of the modern dominant is libertarianism- a kind of "gluing" of the ideas of legal universalism and market fundamentalism. The idea of statehood carries many significant value connotations for the Russian national self-consciousness, important condition formation of national identity. It seems quite obvious that ideology in its classical forms is everywhere in a deep crisis, which has its own flavor in different parts of the world. In general, this crisis, in our opinion, is generated by a number of reasons.
Back in the 19th century, shortly after Destuth de Tracy introduced the concept of ideology into scientific circulation, the classics of Marxism, strange as it may seem now, attributed it to perverted, false forms of consciousness, believing that, in contrast to it, their theory is indeed strictly scientific. In the 50-60s. among technocrats, managers and other sincerely convinced, as well as other interested parties, the concept of deideologization, which still influences the minds of not only ordinary people, has become widespread. In accordance with the positivist ideals of accurate, verifiable and instrumental knowledge, it was opposed to ideological restrictive attitudes and their corresponding mental programs of behavior, which, in particular, prevented the establishment of the principles of unlimited and serene consumption.
The weakening of the role of classical forms was facilitated by the split and crisis of its theoretical base - modern philosophy, the reduction of its influence on the conceptual and logical principles of formation. Claiming to be the leading modern trend, the philosophy of postmodernism - attractive in its own way - denies philosophical consistency, the very possibility of reliability, objectivity, such concepts as "fairness" or "rightness" and recognizes the relativity of any values and the predominance of "non-rigorous thinking". Thus, postmodernism contributes to this weakening. At the same time, prominent representatives of postmodernism (J. Baudrillard, J. Deleuze, etc.) rightly draw attention to such an important phenomenon of modernity as the virtual reality. It is parallel to true reality, but unlike the latter, it is rather arbitrarily artificially formed and exists in reality in the form of audiovisual images perceived by the senses. Thus, it becomes possible to construct in the communication-information space a set different worlds(to some extent real-virtual). This is the most important objective reason for the crisis of classical ideologies and their fragmentation. This effect is enhanced by changes in the perception of this "information", its visualization and clip character. (Some representatives of the mass media believe that if a fragment from the film is more than one minute in the thematic program, then the viewer will die of boredom). Thus, ideology becomes less and less conscious part of the worldview and more and more acquires a fragmentary-frame character, which makes external manipulative influence on it more accessible.
But this, nevertheless, does not cancel the orienting, programming and mobilizing role. For modern Russia, which experienced deep socio-economic upheavals at the end of the ΧΧ and the beginning of the ΧXΙ century, the problems of ideological certainty acquire special significance, actualized by the ideological split of the Russian elites, as well as by the dramatic Ukrainian geopolitical crisis and the acute ideological and informational confrontation that accompanies it. In this confrontation, the Western media demonstrate absolutely incredible, with the actual respect for freedom of speech, unanimity, solidarity and excellent orchestration. Suffice it to recall how, despite official statements and Russian media reports, Western news agencies in August 2008 for several days in a row, showing footage of the shelling of Tskhinvali, unanimously claimed that Russian artillery systems were firing.
From the point of view of the thoroughness of the consideration, the problem of the ideological certainty of the ways of development of modern Russia, in our opinion, it is necessary to turn to the results of the period of reckless reform of Russian society, which turned out to be more than disappointing. Judgments about the reasons for such outcomes range from the opinion that their roots lie in the accumulation of long-standing problems of the Soviet era, which only appeared in full force in the process of liberalization, and, what could be worse, to Manichaean assumptions about selfish or (and) malicious intent of some internal or external forces. Any of these points of view contains, according to a preliminary assessment, in different proportions, of course, an object that deserves analytical consideration. But in in full such work is beyond the capacity of one author, especially since the subject itself has not yet emotionally cooled down for the most part and requires historical time for its maturation, although such work in various directions is already being actively carried out. However, regardless of the interweaving of the features of individual assessments of events that took place in Russia, the former republics of the USSR, and in other regions of the world, their conceptual basis is quite obvious.
This is libertarianism, a kind of “gluing together” of the ideas of legal universalism and market fundamentalism. Although they have different historical roots and a mismatched conceptual base, they completely complement each other and form a dual ideological structure. In the post-Soviet space, the ideas of market fundamentalism in their entirety at the state level were not officially proclaimed, but were implemented in their most radical form. With the exception of a short post-default period, despite the results of the elections to the State Duma, adherents of these ideas are invariably in power. Market fundamentalism (Washington Consensus) is conceptually based on the postulate of an all-encompassing rational perfection of market mechanisms of regulation and management. The natural component of this is assumptions in the spirit of Laplacian determinism, which assume the existence of perfect information, an economic agent (some abstract autonomous person) in the form of a “perfect calculator”, etc., and the hypothesis that these assumptions approximate with negligibly small deviations from reality.
The essence of this is expressed briefly by Ludwig von Mises:“The power over the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, can only be obtained with the help of the votes of the consumers, collected daily in the markets. … The wealth of successful businessmen is always the result of a plebiscite of consumers, and once deserved, this wealth can only be preserved if it is used in accordance with the requirements of consumers.” However, at the same time, he admits that the logic of the development of a market economy creates conditions for the constant concentration and centralization of capital and production, in which the strongest win, using their resources to add new plots and new resources to their living space. The regulatory role of consumers in a market economy is obvious, therefore there is a reason in this statement, which, however, like any general position, acquires specific forms and real meaning only in a certain context: in a certain socio-psychological atmosphere and the institutional environment corresponding to it.
The immediate consequence of the stated theses is the conclusion: social institutions and their evolution are nothing more than a response to the demands of the universal market. From it, as is known, the consequences inevitably follow about “excessive functions of the state”, as well as other cultural phenomena that are superfluous in the field of market relations or even hindering the free play of rational (by definition) market forces. In countries with well-established developed market systems and social institutions these fairly strong idealizations can be accepted (with very significant reservations), bearing in mind that many traditional mechanisms of social and, in particular, community, regional and state economic regulation are deeply rooted in mass consciousness and are often no longer perceived as such. But still, it must be borne in mind that it has long been known in natural sciences the rule that natural interconnections of phenomena are possible only under certain conditions that determine the type of their implementation. This simple fact is often overlooked when considering public processes. In Russia, the implementation of these theoretical schemes already at the first steps gave rise to a strange, but at the same time remarkable, conceptual opposition: freedom as opposed to justice. The content of these concepts is not in strict logical dependence.
However, it is clear that even formally understood lack of freedom, i.e. infringement of human rights is generally understood as injustice. In Russia, however, the opposition between freedom and justice has acquired real meaning. First, as a growing, in accordance with the principles of market fundamentalism, the removal of the state from the decision socio-economic tasks, from caring for the bulk of its citizens, who, regardless of their previous merits, talents and inclinations, were left to their own devices. Secondly, this opposition was expressed in a broader sense: in a general disregard for the norms of law (extremely chaotic during the Yeltsin presidency) and morality, including the morality of business conduct.
The collapse of ideological bonds, large-scale migration movements in the post-Soviet space, the third emigration (this time mainly of qualified and highly qualified work force) From Russia. The stoppage and closure of many enterprises and the mass change of professions stimulated the processes of marginalization of significant segments of the population. “Work ethic,” as O.N. Yanitsky, is lost in the mass of the population: well-being is brought by connections, acquaintances, good luck, and finally, coercion and violence, but not everyday hard work. Creation as a fundamental form of social action and. consequently, as a sociological category, it loses its meaning.
In the conditions of the transitional period, the state, as a permanent actor economic life, possessing the legitimate fullness of the powers of the predominant owner and the basic powers of authority, becomes in it, regardless of abstractions of any theory, the main actor, which is clearly manifested in the course of adjustments by the “regulator” of market externalities and market failures. This role of the state was fully demonstrated with more or less success by most states when overcoming (for how long?) the financial crisis that began in 2009. The role of the state in the implementation, organization and support of infrastructure projects and innovation processes is also generally recognized. So, in particular, Eric Reinert notes that the Malthusian trap (decreasing returns) is overcome by moving to new industries with increasing returns, that is, to an innovative industry and an increasingly complex division of labor. At the same time, the state does not just cooperate with business, but takes on the role of “commanding heights” and deliberately makes innovation profitable. “The phase of launching new sectors requires massiveness, strenuous effort and violation of the normal laws of the market. But this, he emphasizes, rules out the Washington Consensus.”
In this regard, one way or another, among others, the question arises of comparative characteristics different types of property and, in the end, of course, about its nature. The ambiguity of the status of state (public) property in Soviet era, allowing specific individuals the disposal and use of property (without the right to own), about, gave rise to moral and psychological justification for petty attacks on her. It seems that this attitude to property has left an important imprint on the nature of Russian transformations. The problem of recognizing property rights (especially large private property) is one of the key problems in modern Russia. And although this problem is politically correct hushed up, its unresolved has an extremely Negative influence to all major spheres of life in Russian society. As the first and second mayors of Moscow testify: “During Gaidar's forcible introduction of the market, a layer of owners arose, formed without a struggle in market competition, without public control. These entrepreneurs were alien to the main thing - entrepreneurial skills in production. But they were sophisticated in regard to bribing all participants in the division of state property: administrators, directors, policemen, prosecutors, judges, journalists, and so on. These entrepreneurs were alien to the very idea of social responsibility to the state, society and citizens. They could not take on the burden of the revival of Russia. Without public recognition and internal conviction of the owners themselves that this property belongs to them, its legal status, based on the abstract principles of right-wing universalism, remains unsteady. The object field of property rights also needs this recognition: whether water, the banks of water bodies, fish in the ocean, a historical monument, etc. are objects of property. In general, without going into details and without generally denying its instrumental usefulness, it should be noted that among the main weaknesses of legal universalism is the ambiguity of the origin and sources of fundamental human rights.
The legal and, to an even greater extent, the moral and psychological uncertainty of its status provokes the “stripping of assets”, i.e. stealing from oneself, and is one of the reasons for its permanent redistribution. The development of a sustainable social structure in modern Russia requires the solution of a two-pronged task: the formation, firstly, of an effective, and secondly, a recognized owner. This task is among, I think, the most painful, delicate and overripe tasks of the state, designed to bring this process out of the “undercover” and criminal spheres into the public law field. The civilized form of solving this and other difficult tasks implies a dialogue between the authorities and society. In practice, however, as Mikhail Khodorkovsky writes in his first article in the newspaper Vedomosti, “a liberal environment is not at all necessary for money… Civil society more often hinders business than helps. For an entrepreneur ... it is much easier to negotiate with a handful of moderately greedy officials than to coordinate their actions with an extensive and capable network of public institutions. and, let us add, with responsible domestic structures of political power. Inevitably limiting profits individual corporations and entrepreneurs, these networks and structures that historically and logically have as their mission not only economic tasks, but also the tasks of preventing social, environmental, moral, physical, etc. degradation.
The mission as a historical goal should be filled with ideological content, in contrast to the market - a technical mechanism that cannot be a goal in itself. Therefore, the solution of the tasks set by the missions, contrary to the principles of market fundamentalism, should not be aimed at making profit (the missions of different public institutions can and should differ, united by national meanings). Their solution rather requires the allocation of appropriate financial resources but at the same time they contribute to the creation of conditions conducive to economic and social progress in general. The effectiveness of the dialogue between the authorities and society in Russia, one of the main goals of which is to develop a consensus on national goals and acceptable means of achieving their ideological identity, is hindered by obvious circumstances. After the events of October 1993, the imbalance of the branches of power increased: the prevalence of closed structures of the executive bodies of state power (the presidential administration and the government) and the reduced position of representative authorities. The composition and policy of the government depend very little on the results of the elections. The non-public concentration of influential media in the hands of an extremely narrow group of persons close to the country's top officials or to foreign patrons makes it difficult for information interaction between the authorities and society. Thus, the vast majority of the informative and meaningful signals of the Russian scientific community are simply ignored by them. So far, the media have only formally implemented the “mechanism feedback". Although, in fairness, it should be noted that in recent years there has been noticeable, but clearly insufficient progress in this area. In Russia, the impact of the bulk of the population on power structures remains extremely insignificant and, to a very large, if not predominant, degree, virtual. Surprisingly, but not by chance, due to various reasons that have not yet been fully clarified, the process of the repeatedly proclaimed Russian modernization still reveals clear signs of the feudalization of economic life and social connections generally. Thus, in the economy, the dominant position is occupied by sectors that receive income of the rental type.
The unproductive, rental type of income prevails not only in the extractive industries, but also among a significant part of the modern directorate, which prefers the leasing of privatized areas and production capacities to the establishment of production. The struggle for the possession of natural resources, unique objects (for example, oil pipelines), for access to budgetary financial flows does not contribute to the corporate cohesion of representatives of large and part of medium-sized Russian businesses. This struggle rather encourages them to seek either the patronage of state power or, more effectively, direct complicity in it. The not-unsuccessful desire for symbiosis with the authorities, both at the federal level and even more frankly in the regions, makes it possible to implement one of the most important principles Russian economy: "privatization of profits and nationalization of losses". In the complex “power - business - the rest”, first of all, between its two first elements, a system of relations of personal dependence, obligations and patronage (which existed in its infancy back in the Soviet period), in many respects reminiscent of the vassal form of organization of medieval society, has developed. With the existing oppression within the country competitive environment such a system of social ties is relevant to the conditions and types of management of the leading economic complexes. From the external, behavioral side, for persons included in this system, a sign of belonging to it is a high level of non-productive expenses, the exchange of expensive gifts, conspicuous consumption (mandatory, by the way, for the elite feudal society), which serves as fertile ground for jokes about the "new Russians".
A modern indicator of power (suzerainty) - along with traditional attributes such as armed escorts and retinue - of a Russian businessman is the possession or control of one or another federal, and in the provinces over regional, means mass media(media), which, as it were, take on, in general, the functions of the “party of interests” that are not characteristic of them and their ideological justification and support and a means of combating competitors. Fundamental changes in the type of information and communication interactions between people entail, as many have noted, significant changes in the organization. social life. Even where there are well-established structures of civil society, there is a formation, in the words of Guy Debord, of a “society of the spectacle”. Especially - in Russia, where the addition of a turmoil of hasty administrative-political And economic reforms, "devastation in the minds" and revolutions in the ways of communication, gives a cumulative effect.
Due to their properties, electronic media using complex audiovisual images are capable of creating a “hyperreality” that surpasses continual reality in its sensually perceived characteristics, and have a suggestive effect on the psyche of people. Thanks to this, as well as the speed of presentation and change of images, approaching the speed of their psychophysiological identification and memorization, the mass media overcome the barrier of consciously critical perception of the information provided. These properties make the media, far superior so far in terms of influence and setting their agenda. social media, the most effective tool for the destruction or, conversely, the formation of the ideological identity of the country. Necessary condition the formation of this identity is a critical rethinking of libertarian ideas. At the same time, taking into account the fact that the idea of statehood carries many significant value connotations for the Russian national identity, an important condition for the formation of national identity is the definite position of the leadership of the country, the country, taking into account national historical values and modern interests of the main national and social groups population of Russia.
Bibliography
Mises L. background. Socialism. Economic and sociological analysis. M.: Sayatsakhu, 1994.
Yanitsky O.N. Sociology of risk. - M.: From LVS. 2003.
Similar material:
- Calendar-thematic planning for the course "General history of foreign countries", 175.84kb.
- Master's program ds-03 General history (Oriental studies last quarter, 232.35kb.
- History of Russia XX - early XXI centuries. Grade 11. 68 hours - 34 blocks, 153.11kb.
- The program of the course for students of the correspondence department of the Faculty of History (specialties, 478.32kb.
- S. N. General history: History of the new time. 7th grade. Textbook, 105.12kb.
- Work program for the course "History of Russia X! X beginning of the XXI centuries." (Grade 11), 542.78kb.
- , 268.16kb.
- Thematic planning of history lessons in the 9th grade of the mou "Karagai school No. 2" for 2010, 105.71kb.
- DPP curriculum. F. 01. General history (The latest history of the countries of Asia Africa. , 191.87kb.
- Grade 11 "History of Russia in the XX beginning of the XXI centuries" , 168.47kb.
| 1 | The world at the beginning of the 20th century The formation of an industrial society. Scientific and technological progress in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. The problem of periodization of scientific and technological revolution. Cycles of economic development of Western countries in the late XIX - mid XX centuries. From monopoly capitalism to a mixed economy. | know: Imperialism, colony, metropolis, modernization, industrial society, second industrial revolution, expansion. To reveal the essence of the modernization process, to characterize the manifestations of modernization in various spheres of European society at the beginning of the 20th century; Compare the experience of modernization in Europe and the USA; compile a synchronous table based on the results of the comparison. Classify countries according to the echelons of capitalist development. Identify and justify your position |
| 2 | Changes in the social structure of industrial society. |
|
| 3-4 | World War I 1914-1918 The main stages in the development of the system of international relations in the late XIX - mid-XX centuries. World wars in the history of mankind. Socio-psychological, demographic, economic and political causes of the war. | Know/be able to: Define the concepts: territorial division of the world, imperialist war, trench warfare, pacifism, system collective security, Versailles-Washington system, League of Nations; Arrange the events of the First World War in chronological order. Productive and: Identify the main contradictions between world powers; To identify the causes of armed conflicts at the beginning of the 20th century; Based on analysis educational material identify the causes of the war, state the course of hostilities, determine the consequences of the First World War. Participate in the development of mini-projects on the topic |
| 5 | The crisis of classical ideologies at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. and search for new models community development. Social liberalism, social democracy, Christian democracy. Democratization of social and political life and development of the rule of law. Youth, anti-war, environmental, feminist movements. The problem of political terrorism. | Know/be able to: Outline the essence of socio-political trends: Marxism, revisionism, social democracy. Explain why the theory created by K. Marx became widespread in the 20th century; Distinguish between the concepts: "Marxism as a theory" and "Marxism as an ideology"; Explain the reasons for the revolutionary and reformist options for the formation of nation states. |
| 6 | Economic and political development of Western countries 1920-1930s. Evolution of ownership, labor relations and entrepreneurship | Know: definition of concepts: Keynesianism, New Deal politics; the crisis Be able to: state the essence of political concepts: liberalism, social democracy, conservatism. Based on the analysis of documents and additional material, compiling comparison table"Political Regimes of Industrial Countries in the First Decades of the 20th Century"; Explain the causes of the economic crisis of 1929-1933 and its consequences for Western countries, ways out of the crisis; Reveal the essence of the theory of D. Keynes, express a value judgment about the relevance of this theory for modern Russia |
| 7 | The historical nature of totalitarianism and authoritarianism of modern times. Fascism in Italy and Germany. Models of accelerated modernization in the XX century. Marginalization of society in the context of accelerated modernization. | Know/be able to: Define the terms: totalitarianism, fascism. Productive: - explain the reasons for the rise of the fascist movement in Italy and Germany in the 1920s-1930s; Explain the essence of the ideology of fascism; Compare the rise to power of Mussolini and Hitler; Determine how they differ. Explain why the totalitarian ideology has not found distribution in the most developed industrial countries; Conduct a sociological survey on the topic "The spread of fascist ideas in the modern world" |
| 8 | Political ideology of a totalitarian type. State-legal systems and socio-economic development of society in conditions of totalitarian and authoritarian dictatorships. |
|
| 9 | International relations 1920-1930 | Know/be able to: Name the causes of World War II. Productive: To reveal the causes of the Second World War, to determine whether they differed from the causes of the First World War; Characterize the diplomatic steps of the West in response to the aggressive actions of Germany, Japan, Italy, determine why they did not lead to the prevention of war |
| 10-12 | World War II 1939-1945 Socio-psychological, demographic, economic and political causes of the war. | Know/be able to: Arrange the events of World War II in chronological order. Characterize the situation on the eve of the war, highlight the goals of the warring parties; Analyze the periodization of the war according to the specified criteria; - characterize the relationship between the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition and the tripartite alliance; Explain different points of view on the contribution of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition to the victory over fascism. |
| 13 | Public consciousness and spiritual culture in the first half of the XX century. Formation of a non-classical scientific picture of the world . Technocracy and irrationalism in the public consciousness of the 20th century. Worldview foundations of realism and modernism . | Know/be able to: Name the main achievements of world culture in the first half of the 20th century. identify the most important changes in the spiritual life, culture of the countries of the world in the first half of the 20th century; Determine what problems reflected the development of philosophical, social thought. Participate in the development and presentation of the project on the topic |
| 14 | International relations in the second half of the 20th century . | Know/be able to: Define the terms "cold War, arms race, militarization Economy; Describe the main events of the "cold Wars" in chronological order Explain the conditions under which Determine the causes of international Crises of the period cold war»; Describe the events of the Cold War |
| 15 | Western countries in the second half of the 20th century . Features of modern socio-economic processes in the countries of the West and East. Systemic crisis of industrial society at the turn of the 60-70s. Periodization of NTR. | Know/be able to: Explain the relationship between economic Crises and models of social economic and political development. |
| 16 | Democratization of social and political life and development of the rule of law . | Know/be able to: Name new features of the political Development of European and American countries. - characterize the socio-political development of countries; in political development. -
express value judgments about the prospects for the development of European and American countries |
| 17 | Discussion about the post-industrial stage of social development. Information revolution and the formation of the information society. Property, labor and creativity in the information society. | Know/be able to: Define the concepts: economic crisis, scientific and technological revolution, "welfare society", information revolution. To identify the causes, essence, consequences of scientific and technological revolution. Describe the main directions of scientific and technological revolution. Explain the features of the process of globalization. |
| 18 | Eastern European countries in the second half of the 20th century. | Know/be able to: Name the new features of the political and Socio-economic development of countries Eastern Europe in the 40-90s. Characterize the socio-political Development of countries; Identify and analyze new traits in political development. Express value judgments about the prospects for the development of European and American countries |
| 19 | Asian, African and Latin America in the second half of the 20th century. "Newly industrialized countries" of Latin America and Southeast Asia: authoritarianism and democracy in political life, economic reforms. National liberation movements and regional features of the modernization process in Asia and Africa. | |
| 20-21 | Globalization of social development at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. Internationalization of the economy and the formation of a single information space . Integration and disintegration processes in the modern world. | Know/be able to: Define the concepts: globalization, global problems of our time. Describe the main problems of our time. Predict ways to solve global problems |
| 22-23 | Features of the spiritual life of modern society. Changes in the scientific picture of the world . Worldview foundations of postmodernism . The role of elite and mass culture in the information society. Religion and church in modern public life. ecumenism. Reasons for the resurgence of religious fundamentalism and nationalist extremism in early XXI in. | Know / be able to: define the concepts: ecumenism, religious fundamentalism and nationalist extremism; Determine the relationship and features of the history of Russia and the world; Present the results of the study of historical material in abstracts, abstracts, reviews; Participate in discussions on historical issues, Formulate your own position on the issues under discussion. |
Ideology is a system of values, attitudes and ideas that reflect people's attitude to politics, to the existing political system and political order, as well as the goals that politicians and society as a whole should strive for. The author of the term is the 19th-century French philosopher A. Destut de Tracy. So he called the doctrine of ideas that allow you to establish a solid foundation for political life.
Functions of ideology in the state: Orientation: Ideology includes basic ideas about society and the political system, about politics and power, helps a person navigate political life and carry out conscious political actions. Mobilization: Offering society a certain model (idea, program) of a more perfect state (system, regime), ideology thereby mobilizes members of society to bring them to life. Integrative: Ideology seeks to formulate national and nationwide values and goals, offers them to society, uniting people on their basis. Depreciation (mitigating): Explaining and justifying in the eyes of people the existing political system and political reality, ideology thereby contributes to the removal of social tension and the resolution of crisis situations when the state authorities do not have material or organizational opportunities to influence society and citizens.
Classical ideologies of the 19th century. Liberalism An ideological and political trend in which the ideas of freedom are in the first place (primarily the freedom of entrepreneurship, the individual, rights and property), human rights and freedoms are protected, and the state intervenes in the economy is prohibited. The right of the oppressed to overthrow tyranny and oppression is postulated. D. Locke; Jean-Jacques Rousseau; D. Diderot
Classical ideologies of the 19th century. Conservatism An ideological and political trend that postulates the protection of national and religious traditions, the old foundations of life and denies the possibility of revolutionary changes in society F. Chateaubriand; J. de Maistre
Causes of the crisis of classical ideologies of the XIX century. Conservatism Represents the interests of the reactionary strata of society (large landowners, aristocracy, nobility) Liberalism Represents the interests of the capitalist strata of society (bourgeois, capitalists, merchants, etc.) Working classes, proletariat - ?
Ideologies of the 20th century Socialism Social Democracy Neoliberalism Teaching based on ideas social equality and characterized by a negative attitude towards private property Teaching based on the ideas of social justice and the redistribution of incomes of citizens Teaching based on the ideas of liberalism of the XIX century. Government intervention in the economy
Ideologies of the 20th century Socialism A doctrine based on the ideas of social equality and characterized by a negative attitude towards private property. Originated in the middle of the 18th century. developed in the 19th century. in Europe as a reaction to the intensification of capitalist exploitation. A. Saint-Simon; C. Fourier; R. Owen; K. Marx; F. Engels
Ideologies of the 20th century Neoliberalism A doctrine based on the ideas of liberalism of the 19th century. State intervention in the economy is introduced. Occurs in the 30s. as a reaction to the global crisis of the first half of the 20th century. J. M. Keynes In Russia in the 1990s E. Gaidar conducted economic policy radical neoliberalism, the so-called. "Shock therapy"
Ideologies of the 20th century Social Democracy A doctrine based on the ideas of social justice and the redistribution of citizens' incomes. Recognizing private property in the economy, it attaches great importance to other forms of ownership (nationalized, municipal, cooperative) The principle of "social partnership" and "class cooperation" is proclaimed.
The crisis of communist ideology Differentiation of social and political thought.
It is an indisputable fact that the collapse of the communist ideology in the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe was, naturally, primarily due to Gorbachev's perestroika. Socialism, as a kind of creature deprived of its habitual habitat, could not stand a breath of "alien" air - the introduction of even individual elements of democracy. However, it must be taken into account that the course towards perestroika was announced in 1985 by the Soviet leadership “not from a good life” and, of course, not for the sake of the subsequent establishment of capitalism.
A quarter of a century earlier, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, it seemed that the communist idea, seriously discredited by Stalinism, had gained a second wind thanks to the Khrushchev “thaw”. And the victory in the Great Patriotic War, and the development of virgin lands, and the first space flights, and the “national liberation struggle” (with generous Soviet assistance) in the third world countries - all this was skillfully used by Soviet propaganda. The low standard of living was taken for granted by most of the population, barely recovered from the hardships of the war and post-war period and brought up in the spirit of “proletarian” asceticism. Local manifestations of public discontent, for example, in Novocherkassk (1962), not to mention the Hungarian (1956) and Czechoslovak (1968) events, were suppressed quite in a Stalinist way - cruelly and bloody - and information about them turned out to be the most strictly classified.
The "Iron Curtain" (an ideological barrier plus the "physical" closeness of borders) cut off the "countries of the socialist community" from the varied experience of the advanced Western states. Accordingly, the "camp of peace and socialism" lagged behind them in many respects, primarily those that directly determine the standard of living. On the other hand, the development of communication technologies, the gradual increase in the number of all kinds of business and personal contacts with representatives of the capitalist countries contributed to the fact that the commodity-information flow from the outside corroded the notorious “curtain” more and more, disavowing the dogmas of Soviet propaganda about the “decaying West” and “undeniable advantages socialism." In the mass consciousness of citizens of the USSR and its satellites, especially among the youth, a secret cult is established, the idealization and fetishization of everything related to the West and the USA, whether it be literature, goods or political ideas. The ban on free access to information from developed capitalist countries (“jamming” of radio broadcasts, control over the import of printed publications, audio and video products, etc.) rather stimulated this process, according to the “forbidden fruit effect”, rather than hindered it.
The main "gravedigger" of the communist idea was the very social stratum that at one time played the main role in its approval - the intelligentsia.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the desire for rapid socio-political change led the most radical part of it to the idea that in order to build a kind of just society, violence is possible and even necessary. He who sows the wind will reap the storm: the most organized part of the radical intelligentsia - the Bolshevik elite - having come to power, will start beating up all dissident brethren in the “stratum”. Things will come to the now well-known expression of Lenin: "The intelligentsia is not the brain of the nation, but shit." As a result, thousands of educated Russian people, even those who had previously sympathized with Bolshevism, began to spiritually and physically oppose it, and those of them who survived and ended up in exile founded anti-Soviet organizations and the corresponding press. An era has begun, according to Soviet terminology, of “renegades” who explain the truth about the Moscow regime to “naive” Western democracies and work to the best of their ability to corrupt it from the outside.
The exposure, albeit half-hearted, under the flag of “restoring socialist legality”, the cult of personality, undertaken by N.S. Khrushchev, somewhat improved the situation and even led to the formation of a galaxy of so-called. the sixties - intellectuals who believe in the "revival of Leninism", by which they understood a certain bright ideal, desecrated during the time of Stalin. However, the tragicomic attitude of the new leader of the USSR towards the intelligentsia and frank miscalculations in the economy and foreign policy (which are worth at least the “corn epic” and the sound of the notorious boot at a UN meeting) did not recruit the authorities of educated supporters.
Thus, the intelligentsia gradually became disillusioned with the Soviet regime: from the generation of the “sixties”, brought up by the Khrushchev “thaw”, which saw an alternative to Stalinism in some kind of “genuine Leninism”, to the radical intellectuals of the seventies and eighties with their “kitchen” free-thinking. so-called. dissidents were already openly anti-Soviet activities. Samizdat appeared, reflecting this latent, shadowy spiritual life, the work of thought independent of the official ideology. The concept of “intelligent person” included opposition to state power as an integral part.
So, in the socialist countries, a situation has developed when Marxism-Leninism has almost completely lost its influence on the masses, and the vast majority of the intellectual and political elite either were in secret opposition to it, or, in any case, did not think in strict accordance with the communist doctrine and did not ready to defend her. This meant a deep crisis of the communist idea. All its signs were already evident by the beginning of the 70s. The events that took place after 1985 can be considered its natural resolution.