The main forms of resolving economic, political and social conflicts and crises are reforms and revolutions. The most common definition of revolution belongs to the American political scientist S. Huntington, who considered it a rapid, fundamental and violent change in the dominant values ​​and myths of society, its political institutions, social structure, leadership, government activities and politics. In contrast to revolutions, reforms are partial changes in certain spheres of society that do not affect its fundamental foundations.

Political revolutions are a phenomenon of modern times. For the first time, the phenomenon of the revolution carried out under the banner of freedom appeared in the 18th century; The classic example was the French Revolution. The political analysis of revolutions initially took place within the framework of an ideologized approach.

The conservative political ideology arose mainly as a reaction to the French Revolution. Describing its bloody events, one of the founders of conservatism, Edmund Burke, formulated the view of revolutionary processes inherent in this ideology: revolution is a social evil, it exposes the worst, basest sides of human nature. The conservatives saw the causes of the revolution primarily in the emergence and dissemination of false and harmful ideas.

Representatives of early liberalism assessed the revolution from a different standpoint. The liberal doctrine justified the revolution in the event that the government violates the terms of the social contract. Classical liberalism considered one of the fundamental human rights and the right to rebellion. A more cautious assessment of this phenomenon began to take shape in liberalism gradually, on the basis of the actual practice of revolutionary struggle (see Chapter III).

One of the first theoretical concepts of the revolution was created by K. Marx, he called the revolution "the locomotives of history" and "the holiday of the oppressed." From the point of view of Marxism, the root causes of revolutions are connected with the conflict within the mode of production - between the productive forces and production relations. At a certain stage of their development, the productive forces can no longer exist within the framework of the former production relations, primarily property relations. The conflict between the productive forces and production relations is resolved in the "epoch social revolution, by which the founder of Marxism understood a long period of transition from one socio-economic formation to another. The climax of this period is political revolution. K. Marx saw the causes of political revolutions in the conflict between social classes, which are the main driving force of social development in general. Class conflicts are especially aggravated precisely during periods of socio-economic crises caused by the lagging of production relations behind the productive forces. In the course of a political revolution, the more advanced social class overthrows the reactionary class and, using the mechanism of political power, implements the urgent changes in all spheres of social life.

Marxism saw in the revolution the highest form of social progress, the political revolution, as it were, drew a line under the process of transition from one such formation to another. The only exception was the highest type of socio-political revolution - the proletarian or socialist revolution. In the course of the socialist revolution, the most advanced class - the proletariat - first overthrows the power of the bourgeoisie, and then begins the transition to a new communist society. The dictatorship of the proletariat breaks down the resistance of the exploiting classes, and the elimination of private property becomes a precondition for the elimination of class differences in general. It was assumed that the socialist revolution would inevitably take on a worldwide character and begin in the most developed countries, since it required a high degree of maturity of capitalist society and a high degree of maturity of the material prerequisites for a new social order.

In reality, social development did not go at all as K. Marx imagined. The labor movement in the countries of Western Europe in most cases preferred social reform to social revolution. The ideas of revolutionary Marxism found support in such countries and regions that the founders of this trend themselves considered unsuitable for starting a communist experiment. The merit of adapting the doctrine of Marxism to the conditions of underdeveloped countries belongs to VI Lenin. The additions made by V. Lenin went beyond the scope of the actual Marxist paradigm. In particular, this applies to Lenin's concept of a revolutionary situation. V. I. Lenin believed that any political revolution needs certain conditions for its victory. First condition- the presence of a nationwide crisis, in which not only "the lower classes would not want to live in the old way", but also "the upper classes could not" manage by the old methods. Second condition V. Lenin characterized it as "an exacerbation above the usual needs and calamities of the masses." AND third- a significant increase in the social activity of these masses. Such a combination of conditions for the emergence of a revolutionary situation seemed justified not only to Marxists, but to some extent to researchers who were far from communist ideology.

The Marxist theory of revolution has been very attractive for many decades both as a scientific methodology and as a specific program of socio-political action. Today, the Marxist theory of revolution has lost its appeal due to the actual failure of social experiments carried out under the influence of the ideas of K. Marx and V. Lenin in many countries of the world.

Other than that of K. Marx, the theoretical concept of the revolution, the explanation of the causes of its occurrence and the mechanisms of development was proposed by Alexis de Tocqueville. He saw the causes of revolutions not in the economic crisis caused by the lag of production relations behind the productive forces that had gone ahead. Tocqueville believed that revolutionary explosions may not necessarily occur as a result of a worsening situation in society: people get used to hardships and patiently endure them if they consider them inevitable. But as soon as there is hope for improvement, these hardships are already perceived as unbearable. That is, the cause of revolutionary events is not the degree of economic need and political oppression in itself, but their psychological perception. From the point of view of A. Tocqueville, this was on the eve of the French Revolution, when the masses of the French began to perceive their situation as unbearable, although objectively the situation in France during the reign of Louis XVIII was more favorable than in previous decades.

A. Tocqueville admitted that France was on the verge of serious changes in the economic sphere and political regime, but did not consider the revolution inevitable in those conditions. In reality, the revolution, so to speak, "done" the same work that was carried out without it, but at a huge cost to the whole society. The culmination of the revolution was the establishment of a dictatorship that surpassed in its cruelty all pre-revolutionary monarchical governments.

In the 2nd half of the XIX century. within the framework of positivist sociology, the revolution was seen as a deviation from the normal course of social development. O. Comte and G. Spencer contrasted the idea of ​​revolution with the idea of ​​evolution - gradual social changes carried out through political, economic and social reforms.

The socio-psychological concept of G. Lebon, which is based on his studies of the mass behavior of people in revolutionary periods, has become widely known. These periods are characterized by "crowd power", when the behavior of people covered by general excitement differs significantly from their behavior at the individual level or in small groups. G. Lebon found an example of such behavior in the actions of the Parisian people's lower classes during the Great French Revolution. Analyzing the socio-psychological mechanism of this phenomenon, the French scientist noted that people, captured by the collective excitement generated by the crowd, lose the critical abilities inherent in their everyday life. They become easily suggestible and succumb to any, including the absurd, appeals of crowd leaders and demagogues; there is a massive clouding of consciousness. Le Bon's ideas were conservative in nature, their critical edge was directed not only against revolutionary theory and practice, but also against the institutions of parliamentary democracy. But the experience of revolutions already in the 20th century showed that the observations and conclusions of the French sociologist and psychologist were close to the truth.

Great influence on political science and sociology of the XX century. rendered the elitist concept of V. Pareto. Pareto considered the elite a selected part of society, to which all its individual members must adapt. The elite, in his opinion, is characterized by a high degree of self-control and prudence, the ability to see the weak and most sensitive places in others and use them to their advantage. The masses, on the contrary, are characterized by an inability to cope with their emotions and prejudices. For the ruling elite, two basic qualities are especially necessary. First, the ability to convince by manipulating human emotions; secondly, the ability to apply force where it is required. The qualities of the first type are possessed by people whom Pareto called "foxes". They are dominated by basic instincts, called Pareto "the art of combinations", that is, the ability to maneuver, finding all sorts of ways out of emerging situations. The qualities of the second type are inherent in "lions", that is, people who are resolute, firm, even cruel, who do not stop at the use of violence. In different historical eras, ruling elites of various types are in demand.

Pareto's mechanism for changing elites is as follows. There is a constant circulation between the elite and the masses: the best representatives of the masses join the ranks of the elite, and that part of the elite that has lost the necessary qualities leaves its ranks. If the circulation process does not occur, the elite degenerates, the effectiveness of its management activity decreases, as a result of which the economic, social and political problems of society become aggravated. The opposition counter-elite is claiming a place in power structures. Using the dissatisfaction of the people with the policy of the existing government, the counter-elite attracts them to their side. In a situation of social crisis, it overthrows the ruling elite and comes to power. However, in the future, according to Pareto, everything inevitably repeats itself. The new ruling elite gradually becomes more and more closed, and then a revolutionary situation arises again with all the consequences described above.

The well-known sociologist P. A. Sorokin, in his book “The Sociology of Revolution”, published in 1925 in the USA and which became world-famous, attempted an objective, non-ideologized scientific analysis of the phenomenon of revolution. Finding out the causes of revolutions, P. Sorokin based himself on the then dominant behavioral methodology in the socio-political sciences. He believed that human behavior is determined by innate, "basic" instincts. These are the digestive instinct, the instinct of freedom, the possessive instinct, the instinct of individual self-preservation, the instinct of collective self-preservation. The general suppression of basic instincts, or, as P. Sorokin wrote, the "repression" of a large number of them, inevitably leads to a revolutionary explosion. A necessary condition for an explosion is the fact that these "repressions" extend to a very large or even overwhelming part of the population. But besides the “crisis of the lower classes”, a “crisis of the upper classes” is also necessary for the revolution, describing which P. Sorokin followed the approaches and conclusions of V. Pareto. Just like the Italian sociologist, he saw one of the most important causes of revolutionary crises in the degeneration of the former ruling elite.

P. Sorokin singled out two main stages in the revolutionary process: the first is the transition from the normal period to the revolutionary one, and the second is the transition from the revolutionary period back to the normal one. The revolution generated by the "repression" of the basic basic instincts does not eliminate this "repression", but strengthens it even more. For example, famine is becoming even more widespread as a result of the disorganization of the entire economic life and trade exchange. In the conditions of chaos and anarchy, inevitably generated by the revolution, the danger to human life increases, i.e., the instinct of self-preservation is "repressed". The factors that pushed people to fight against the old regime contribute to the growth of their confrontation with the new revolutionary government, which, with its despotism, further intensifies this confrontation. The requirements of unlimited freedom, characteristic of the initial period of the revolution, are replaced at its next stage by the desire for order and stability.

The second stage of the revolution, according to P. Sorokin, is a return to the usual, time-tested forms of life. Without denying that revolutions lead to the implementation of already urgent changes, P. Sorokin considered them the worst way to improve the material and spiritual conditions of the people's life. Moreover, very often revolutions do not end at all in the way that their leaders promise and the people passionate about their goals hope. Therefore, P. Sorokin preferred gradual evolutionary development, believing that progressive processes are based on solidarity, cooperation and love, and not on hatred and uncompromising struggle accompanying all great revolutions.

Before the Second World War, the book of the American sociologist C. Brinton "Anatomy of a Revolution" became widely known. Based on the historical experience, primarily of France and Russia, K. Brinton singled out several stages through which every great revolution passes. It is preceded by the accumulation of social and economic contradictions, which contribute to the accumulation of discontent and anger among the majority of the population. Opposition sentiments are growing among intellectuals, and radical and revolutionary ideas are emerging and spreading. Attempts by the ruling class to implement reforms are belated, ineffective, and further intensify social unrest. In a crisis of power, the revolutionaries manage to win, the old regime collapses.

After the victory of the revolution, among its leaders and activists, there is a demarcation into a moderate and a radical wing. The moderates strive to keep the revolution within certain limits, while the radical masses want to satisfy all their aspirations, including the impossible ones. Relying on this opposition, the revolutionary extremists come to power, and the climax of the development of the revolutionary process comes. The highest stage of the revolution - the stage of "terror" - is characterized by attempts to completely and completely get rid of all the legacy of the old regime. K. Brinton considered the “Thermidor” stage to be the final stage of the revolution. "Thermidor" comes to a society agitated by the revolution, just as the ebb follows the tide. Thus, the revolution in many ways returns to the point from which it began.

Socio-political upheavals of the middle of the XX century. increased attention to the theoretical study of revolutionary processes in political science and sociology in the 50-70s. The most famous concepts of the revolution of this period belong to C. Johnson, J. Davis and T. Gurr, C. Tilly.

Ch. Johnson's concept of revolution is based on the sociological ideas of structural-functional analysis. A necessary condition for the implementation of the revolution, Ch. Johnson considered the exit of society from a state of equilibrium. Social instability arises as a result of a breakdown in the links between the basic cultural values ​​of a society and its economic system. The emerging instability affects the mass consciousness, which becomes receptive to the ideas of social change and political leaders - supporters of these ideas. Although the old regime is gradually losing the legitimate support of the population, the revolution itself will not become inevitable if the ruling elite finds the strength to implement the urgent changes and thereby restore the balance between the main social institutions. Otherwise, the changes will be carried out by the political forces that came to power as a result of the revolution. In Ch. Johnson's concept, much attention is paid to the so-called accelerators (accelerators) of revolutions, to which he ranked wars, economic crises, natural disasters and other emergency and unforeseen events.

The concept of J. Davis and T. Gurr is essentially a modification and development of the views of A. de Tocqueville; it is known as the "relative deprivation" theory.

Relative deprivation refers to the gap between value expectations (material and other conditions of life recognized by people as fair for themselves) and value opportunities (the amount of life's benefits that people can actually receive).

D. Davis points out that in the history of mankind one can find quite a few periods when people lived in poverty or were subjected to extremely strong oppression, but did not openly protest against this. Constant poverty or deprivation does not make people revolutionary; only when people begin to wonder what they should have in fairness, and feel the difference between what is and what should be, then the syndrome of relative deprivation arises.

D. Davis and T. Gurr identify three main paths of historical development that lead to the emergence of such a syndrome and a revolutionary situation. The first way is as follows: as a result of the emergence and spread of new ideas, religious doctrines, value systems, there is an expectation of higher living standards that people perceive as fair, but the absence of real conditions for the implementation of such standards leads to mass discontent. Such a situation could trigger a "revolution of awakened hopes". The second way is in many respects directly opposite. Expectations remain the same, but there is a significant decrease in the ability to meet the basic needs of life as a result of an economic or financial crisis, or, if it is not primarily a matter of material factors, due to the inability of the state to provide an acceptable level of public safety, or due to the rise to power of an authoritarian , dictatorial regime. This situation is called by D. Davis "revolution of selected benefits". The third way is a combination of the first two. Hopes for improvement and opportunities for actual satisfaction of needs grow at the same time. This happens during a period of progressive economic growth: living standards begin to rise, and the level of expectations also rises. But if, against the backdrop of such prosperity, for some reason (wars, economic recession, natural disasters, etc.), the ability to satisfy the needs that have become habitual falls sharply, this leads to what is called the “revolution of the collapse of progress.” Expectations continue to grow out of inertia, and the gap between them and reality becomes even more unbearable.

C. Tilly focused on the mechanisms of mobilization of various groups of the population to achieve revolutionary goals. In From Mobilization to Revolution, he sees revolution as a special form of collective action that includes four main elements: organization, mobilization, common interests, and opportunity. Protest movements can only become the beginning of revolutionary collective action, C. Tilly believes, when they are formalized into revolutionary groups with strict discipline. In order for collective action to take place, such a group needs to mobilize resources (material, political, moral, etc.). Mobilization occurs on the basis of the common interests of those who are involved in collective action. Social movements as a means of mobilizing group resources arise when people are deprived of institutionalized means to express their interests, and also when the state power is unable to meet the demands of the population or when it increases its demands on it. The inability of the opposition groups to secure an active and effective representation in the former political system is due to their choice of violent means to achieve their goals.

The nature of the conflict between the ruling elite and the opposition determines the degree of transfer of power. If the conflict takes the form of a simple mutually exclusive alternative, then there is a complete transfer of power, without subsequent contacts between representatives of the departed political regime and the post-revolutionary government. If coalitions include various political forces, this facilitates the very process of transferring power, but in the end, the new revolutionary power will rely on a broad political base, including individual representatives of the former regime.

The overwhelming majority of the theoretical concepts of the revolution see it as a completely possible way to resolve the conflicts that have accumulated in public life, but still do not consider this way to be optimal.

google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad); function LoadAd1()( if(document.getElementById("goog2"))( document.getElementById("goog2").innerHTML=document.getElementById("goog2_loader").innerHTML; document.getElementById("goog2_loader").innerHTML= ""; ) ) function LoadAd2()( if(document.getElementById("goog3"))( document.getElementById("goog3").innerHTML=document.getElementById("goog3_loader").innerHTML; document.getElementById("goog3_loader ").innerHTML=""; ) ) setTimeout("LoadAd1()",800); setTimeout("LoadAd2()",1500);

Description There are many theories devoted to revolutions, which is not surprising, given the important role they have played in world history over the past two hundred years. Some theories were created at the very beginning of the development of social sciences, the most important of them was the theory of Marx. Marx lived long before the revolutions inspired by his ideas took place. It should be noted that his theory concerned not only the analysis of the conditions leading to revolutionary transformations, but also indicated ways to promote these transformations. Whatever their value in their own right, Marx's ideas had a tremendous impact on the changes that took place in the twentieth century.

Other theories, which also had a major impact, appeared much later and tried to explain both the "original" revolutions (such as the American and French) and subsequent ones. Some researchers have gone further, trying to study revolutionary activity in combination with other forms of resistance and protest. We will consider four theories devoted to the study of revolutions: Marx's approach, Chalmers Johnson's theory of political violence, James Davis's concept of revolution associated with the growth of economic expectations, and finally the interpretation of collective protest proposed by Charles Tilly, a representative of historical sociology.

Marx's theory

Dot Marx's view of revolution is based on his interpretation of human history as a whole. According to his teaching, the development of society is accompanied by periodic class conflicts, which, escalating, lead to revolutionary changes. The class struggle is generated by insoluble contradictions inherent in any society. The source of the contradictions lies in the economic changes in the productive forces. In any relatively stable society, there is a balance between the economic structure, social relations and political system. As the forces of production change, the contradictions grow, which leads to an open clash of classes and, in the end, to a revolution.

Marx applies this model both to the preceding feudal era and to how he foresees the future development of industrial capitalism. The traditional societies of feudal Europe were based on peasant labor. Serf producers were ruled by the landed aristocracy class and small landowners.

As a result of the economic changes that took place in these societies, cities arose in which trade and industry developed. The new economic system that arose in feudal society itself became a threat to its foundations. Unlike the traditional serf-master system, the new economic order encouraged entrepreneurs to produce goods for sale on the free market. Finally, the contradictions between the old feudal and new capitalist economies became so acute that they took the form of irreconcilable conflicts between the emerging capitalist class and the landowning feudal lords. Revolutions resulted from this process, the most important of which was the French Revolution of 1789. Marx argues that as a result of such revolutions and revolutionary changes that took place in European countries, the capitalist class managed to come to power.

However, as Marx points out, the advent of capitalism gives rise to new contradictions that will eventually lead to the next series of revolutions inspired by the ideals of socialism and communism. Industrial capitalism is an economic order based on the pursuit of personal profit and competition between firms for the right to sell their goods. Such a system creates a gap between a wealthy minority that controls industrial resources and a dispossessed majority of wage workers. Workers and capitalists are entering into an ever-increasing conflict. Ultimately, labor movements and political parties representing the interests of the working masses challenge the power of the capitalists and overthrow the existing political system. If the position of the dominant class is especially strong, then, as Marx argues, violence must be used to bring about the necessary changes. Under other circumstances, the process of transfer of power may be accomplished peacefully, by parliamentary action, and a revolution (in the sense of the definition given above) will not be needed.

Marx expected that in some Western countries revolutions might take place during his lifetime. Later, when it became clear that this would not happen, he turned his attention to other regions. It is curious that Russia, in particular, attracted his attention. He wrote that Russia is an economically backward society that is trying to introduce modern forms of trade and production borrowed from the West. Marx believed that these attempts could lead to more serious contradictions than in European countries, since the introduction of new types of production and technologies in a backward society contributes to the formation of an extremely explosive mixture of old and new. In correspondence with Russian radicals, Marx indicated that these conditions could lead to revolution in their country, but added that the revolution would be successful only if it spread to other Western countries. Under this condition, the revolutionary government of Russia will be able to use the developed economy of Europe and ensure rapid modernization in their country.

Grade

Contrary to According to Marx's expectations, the revolution did not take place in the developed countries of the West. In most Western countries (the exception being the United States) there are political parties that consider themselves socialist or communist; many of them declare their adherence to the ideas of Marx. However, where these parties have come to power, they have generally become much less radical. It is possible, of course, that Marx simply made a mistake in time, and one fine day revolutions will take place in Europe, and in America, and somewhere else. However, it is more likely that Marx's prediction turned out to be wrong. The development of industrial capitalism does not lead, as Marx supposed, to the intensification of conflicts between workers and capitalists.

It certainly does not follow from this that Marx's theory is irrelevant to the modern world. There is an important reason why it cannot fail to matter - Marx's theory has become part of the ideals and values ​​of both revolutionary movements and governments that have come to power. Moreover, some of his views may contribute to the understanding of revolutions in the Third World. The ideas expressed by Marx about Russia are relevant to most of the peasant countries that are experiencing the formation of industrial capitalism. The points of contact between booming industry and traditional systems are becoming hotbeds of tension. People affected by the change in traditional way of life become a source of potential revolutionary opposition to the government, which is trying to maintain the old order.

Written as an appendix to a biography of Lenin that Trotsky was preparing and included in an unfinished biography of Stalin, this work contrasts the perspectives of the Russian revolution as developed by Plekhanov, Lenin, and Trotsky. The author expounds the position of the Mensheviks (“Russian social relations are only ripe for a bourgeois revolution”); the theory developed by Lenin before 1917 of the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" (which he abandoned after writing the "April Theses" in 1917); as well as his own theory of permanent revolution, "the source of all the delusions of 'Trotskyism'." The author also examines Stalin's attitude to the debate about the prospects of the Russian revolution and shows that the theory of "socialism in one country" was the ideological expression of the bureaucratic reaction against the October Revolution.

The text is cited from a manuscript kept in the Trotsky Archive at Harvard University (folder bMS Russ 13, T4684). Subheadings have been added for ease of reading.

The revolution of 1905 became not only the "dress rehearsal" of 1917, but was a laboratory in which all the main groupings of Russian political thought were developed and all currents and shades within Russian Marxism took shape or were outlined. At the center of disputes and disagreements was, of course, the question of the historical character of the Russian revolution and the further paths of its development. In itself, this struggle of concepts and forecasts is not directly related to the biography of Stalin, who did not take an independent part in it. The few propaganda articles he wrote on this subject are not of the slightest theoretical interest. Dozens of pen-in-hand Bolsheviks popularized the same ideas, much better. A critical exposition of the revolutionary concept of Bolshevism should naturally enter Lenin's biography. However, theories have their fate. If during the period of the first revolution and later, until 1923, when the revolutionary doctrines were developed and implemented, Stalin did not take any independent position, then from 1924 things immediately changed. An era of bureaucratic reaction and a radical revision of the past is opening. The film of the revolution unfolds in reverse order. Old doctrines are being reassessed or reinterpreted. Quite unexpectedly, at first glance, the concept of “permanent revolution” becomes the center of attention, as the primary source of all the errors of “Trotskyism”. Over the next few years, criticism of this concept constitutes the main content of the theoretical - sit venia verbo[lat.: sorry for the expression] - the work of Stalin and his staff. It can be said that all "Stalinism", taken on a theoretical plane, grew out of criticism of the theory of permanent revolution, as it was formulated in 1905. To the extent that the presentation of this theory, in its difference from the theories of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, cannot but be included in this book , at least as an application.

Combined development of Russia

The development of Russia is characterized primarily by backwardness. Historical backwardness does not mean, however, a simple repetition of the development of advanced countries, with a delay of a hundred or two hundred years, but gives rise to a completely new, "combined" social formation in which the latest achievements of capitalist technology and structure are introduced into the relations of feudal and pre-feudal barbarism, transform and subordinate them to themselves, creating a peculiar correlation of classes. The same applies to the realm of ideas. Precisely because of its historical belatedness, Russia turned out to be the only European country where Marxism, as a doctrine, and Social Democracy, as a party, received powerful development even before the bourgeois revolution. Naturally, if the problem of the relationship between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism has undergone the most profound theoretical development precisely in Russia.

The idealistic democrats, chiefly the Narodniks, superstitiously refused to recognize the impending revolution as bourgeois. They called it "democratic", trying to disguise - not only from others, but also from themselves - its social content with a neutral political formula. However, the founder of Russian Marxism, Plekhanov, in his struggle against populism, showed back in the 80s of the last century that Russia had no reason to count on privileged paths of development; that, like the "profane" nations, it will have to pass through the purgatory of capitalism, and that it is on this path that it will win the political freedom necessary for the proletariat to continue its struggle for socialism. Plekhanov not only separated the bourgeois revolution, as the next task, from the socialist revolution, which he pushed back into an indefinite future, but also drew for each of them a completely different combination of forces. The proletariat will achieve political freedom in alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie; after a long series of decades, at a high level of capitalist development, the proletariat will make a socialist revolution in a direct struggle against the bourgeoisie.

“To the Russian intellectual,” wrote Lenin in his turn at the end of 1904, “it always seems that to recognize our revolution as bourgeois means to discolor, belittle, trivialize it ... For the proletarian, the struggle for political freedom and a democratic republic in bourgeois society is only one of the necessary stages in the struggle for social revolution” (PSS, ed. 5, vol. 9, p. 131).

“Marxists are unquestionably convinced,” he wrote in 1905, “of the bourgeois character of the Russian revolution... This means that those democratic transformations that have become a necessity for Russia not only do not in themselves mean the undermining of capitalism, the undermining of the rule of the bourgeoisie, but, on the contrary, , they will for the first time clear the ground in a real way for a broad and rapid, European, and not Asian, development of capitalism, they will for the first time make possible the domination of the bourgeoisie as a class ”(PSS, ed. 5, vol. 11, p. 35).

“We cannot jump out of the bourgeois-democratic framework of the Russian revolution,” he insists, “but we can expand these frameworks on an enormous scale” (ibid., p. 39), i.e. to create in bourgeois society more favorable conditions for the further struggle of the proletariat. Within these limits, Lenin followed Plekhanov. The bourgeois character of the revolution was the starting point of both factions of the Russian Social Democracy.

It is quite natural under these conditions if Koba, in his propaganda, did not go further than those popular formulas that were the common property of both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.

“The Constituent Assembly, elected on the basis of universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage,” he wrote in January 1905, “that is what we must fight for now! Only such an assembly will give us a democratic republic, which we desperately need in our struggle for socialism" (Stalin, Works. Politizdat, 1951, vol. 1, p. 79). The bourgeois republic, as the arena of a long class struggle in the name of the socialist goal - such is the prospect.

In 1907, i.e. After countless discussions in the foreign and St. Petersburg press, and after a serious test of theoretical forecasts on the basis of the experience of the first revolution, Stalin writes:

“That our revolution is bourgeois, that it must end in the defeat of the serfs, and not of the capitalist system, that it can only be crowned with a democratic republic—in this, it seems, everyone in our party agrees” ( Compositions, vol. 2, p. 59).

Stalin does not talk about how the revolution will begin, but about how it will end, and he preemptively and quite categorically limits it to "only a democratic republic." We would search in vain in his writings of that time for even a hint of the prospect of a socialist revolution in connection with a democratic revolution. This was his position at the beginning of the February Revolution of 1917, right up to Lenin's arrival in St. Petersburg.

View of the Mensheviks

For Plekhanov, Axelrod, and the leaders of Menshevism in general, the sociological characterization of the revolution as bourgeois had, above all, the political value that it forbade prematurely teasing the bourgeoisie with the red specter of socialism and "repelling" it into the camp of reaction. “The social relations of Russia are ripe only for a bourgeois revolution,” said the chief tactician of Menshevism, Axelrod, at the Unity Congress. - With general political lack of rights, we can not even talk about a direct battle of the proletariat with other classes for political power ... It fights for the conditions of bourgeois development. Objective historical conditions doom our proletariat to the inevitable cooperation with the bourgeoisie in the struggle against a common enemy. The content of the Russian revolution, therefore, was limited in advance only to those transformations that were compatible with the interests and views of the liberal bourgeoisie.

It was from this point that the main disagreement between the two factions began. Bolshevism resolutely refused to admit that the Russian bourgeoisie was capable of carrying through its own revolution to the end. With immeasurably greater force and consistency than Plekhanov, Lenin raised the agrarian question as the central problem of the democratic revolution in Russia. “The nail of the Russian revolution,” he repeated, “is the agrarian (land) question. It is necessary to conclude about the defeat or victory of the revolution ... on the basis of taking into account the position of the masses in the struggle for land ”(PSS, vol. 14, p. 178). Together with Plekhanov, Lenin considered the peasantry as a petty-bourgeois class; peasant land program as a program of bourgeois progress. “Nationalization is a bourgeois measure,” he insisted at the Unity Congress ... It will give impetus to the development of capitalism, sharpening the class struggle, intensifying the mobilization of the land, influx of capital into agriculture, lowering the price of bread. Despite the deliberately bourgeois character of the agrarian revolution, the Russian bourgeoisie remains, however, hostile to the expropriation of the landed estates, and that is why it strives for a compromise with the monarchy, on the basis of a constitution of the Prussian model. To Plekhanov's idea of ​​an alliance between the proletariat and the liberal bourgeoisie, Lenin counterposed the idea of ​​an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. He proclaimed the establishment of a “democratic dictatorship” as the only means of radically clearing Russia of feudal rubbish, creating free farming and paving the way for the development of capitalism not according to the Prussian, but according to the American model, as the task of the revolutionary cooperation of these two classes.

The victory of the revolution, he wrote, can be completed “only by a dictatorship, because the implementation of the changes that are immediately and indispensable for the proletariat and peasantry will arouse desperate resistance from the landowners, the big bourgeois, and tsarism. Without a dictatorship, it is impossible to break this resistance, to repel counter-revolutionary attempts. But it will, of course, not be a socialist, but a democratic dictatorship. It will not be able to touch (without a whole series of intermediate stages of revolutionary development) the foundations of capitalism. It will be able, at best, to bring about a radical redistribution of landed property in favor of the peasantry, to carry out consistent and complete democracy up to a republic, to root out all Asian, enslaving traits not only from village life, but also from factory life, to initiate a serious improvement in the condition of the workers. and raising their standard of living, and finally, last but not least [English: last but not least] - to transfer the revolutionary fire to Europe ”(PSS, vol. 11, pp. 44-45).

The Vulnerability of Lenin's Position

Lenin's concept represented a huge step forward, since it proceeded not from constitutional reforms, but from an agrarian revolution as the central task of the revolution, and indicated the only real combination of social forces to carry it out. The weak point in Lenin's conception, however, was the internally contradictory concept of the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." Lenin himself emphasized the main limitation of this "dictatorship" when he openly called it bourgeois. By this he meant to say that, in the name of preserving the alliance with the peasantry, the proletariat would be compelled in the next revolution to renounce the immediate setting of socialist tasks. But this would also mean that the proletariat was refusing to his dictatorships. Essentially, therefore, it was a question of the dictatorship of the peasantry, albeit with the participation of the workers. In some cases, Lenin said exactly that, for example, at the Stockholm Congress, where he objected to Plekhanov, who rebelled against the “utopia” of seizing power: “What program are we talking about? About the agricultural Who is supposed to take power in this program? revolutionary peasantry. Does Lenin confuse the proletariat with this peasantry? (PSS, vol. 13, p. 23). No, he says of himself: Lenin sharply distinguishes the socialist power of the proletariat from the bourgeois-democratic power of the peasantry. “But how is it possible,” he exclaims, “a victorious peasant revolution without the seizure of power by the revolutionary peasantry??” (ibid., pp. 23-24). In this polemical formulation, Lenin especially clearly reveals the vulnerability of his position.

The peasantry is scattered over the surface of a vast country, the nodal points of which are the cities. The peasantry itself is incapable of even formulating its own interests, since in each region they are presented differently. The economic connection between the provinces is created by the market and railways; but the market and the railroads are in the hands of the city. Trying to break out of the narrow-mindedness of the countryside and to generalize their interests, the peasantry inevitably falls into political dependence on the city. Finally, the peasantry is also heterogeneous in social terms: the kulak stratum naturally strives to win them over to an alliance with the urban bourgeoisie; the lower strata of the countryside are drawn, on the contrary, in the direction of the urban workers. Under these conditions, the peasantry, as a peasantry, is completely incapable of seizing power.

True, in old China, revolutions put the peasantry in power, or rather, the military leaders of the peasant uprising. This led each time to the redistribution of land and the establishment of a new, "peasant" dynasty, after which history began anew: a new concentration of lands, a new aristocracy, a new usury, a new uprising. As long as the revolution retains its purely peasant character, society does not emerge from these hopeless cycles. Such is the basis of old Asiatic history, including old Russian history. In Europe, since the end of the Middle Ages, every victorious peasant uprising has placed in power not a peasant government, but a left-wing burgher party. More precisely, the peasant uprising turned out to be victorious exactly to the extent that it succeeded in strengthening the position of the revolutionary part of the urban population. In bourgeois Russia of the 20th century there could no longer be any talk of the seizure of power by the revolutionary peasantry.

Attitude towards liberalism

The attitude towards the liberal bourgeoisie was, as has been said, a touchstone in the demarcation between revolutionaries and opportunists among the Social Democracy. How far the Russian revolution can go, what character the future Provisional Revolutionary Government will assume, what tasks and in what order it will face - all these questions, for all their importance, could be correctly posed only depending on the basic character of the policy of the proletariat, and this one character was determined, above all, by the attitude towards the liberal bourgeoisie. Plekhanov obviously and stubbornly turned a blind eye to the main conclusion of the political history of the 19th century: where the proletariat emerges as an independent force, there the bourgeoisie moves into the camp of counter-revolution. The bolder the struggle of the masses, the faster the reactionary degeneration of liberalism. No one has yet invented means to paralyze the operation of the law of class struggle.

“We must cherish the support of non-proletarian parties,” Plekhanov repeated during the years of the first revolution, “and not push them away from us with tactless antics” (see: Lenin, PSS, vol. 12, p. 177). With monotonous moralizing of this kind, the philosopher of Marxism showed that the living dynamics of society remained inaccessible to him. "Tactlessness" can alienate an individual sensitive intellectual. Classes and parties are attracted or repelled by social interests. “It can be said with certainty,” Lenin objected to Plekhanov, “that the liberal landowners will forgive you millions of 'tactlessness', but they will not forgive calls for the seizure of land” (ibid., p. 179). And not only the landowners: the tops of the bourgeoisie, connected with the landowners by the unity of property interests and, more narrowly, by the banking system; the tops of the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, materially and morally dependent on large and medium-sized proprietors, they are all afraid of an independent movement of the masses. Meanwhile, in order to overthrow tsarism, it was necessary to rouse tens and tens of millions of the oppressed to a heroic, selfless, selfless, unreserved revolutionary assault. But the masses could rise only under the banner of their own interests, and consequently in the spirit of irreconcilable hostility against the exploiting classes, beginning with the landlords. The "repulsion" of the opposition bourgeoisie from the revolutionary workers and peasants was, therefore, an immanent law of the revolution itself and could not be avoided by diplomacy and "tact".

Each new month confirmed Lenin's assessment of liberalism. Contrary to the best hopes of the Mensheviks, the Cadets not only did not intend to stand at the head of the "bourgeois" revolution, but, on the contrary, increasingly found their historical mission in the struggle against it.

After the defeat of the December uprising, the liberals, who, thanks to the ephemeral Duma, occupied the political proscenium, tried with all their might to justify themselves before the monarchy in their insufficiently counter-revolutionary behavior in the autumn of 1905, when the most sacred foundations of "culture" were threatened. The leader of the liberals, Milyukov, who conducted behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Winter Palace, quite correctly argued in the press that at the end of 1905 the Cadets could not even show themselves in the face of the masses. “Those who now reproach the (Cadet) Party,” he wrote, “that it did not protest then, by arranging rallies, against the revolutionary illusions of Trotskyism ... simply do not understand or do not remember the then mood of the democratic public that gathered at the rallies” (“How did elections to the II State Duma”, 1907, pp. 91-92). Under the “illusions of Trotskyism”, the liberal leader understood the independent policy of the proletariat, which attracted the sympathy of the urban lower classes, soldiers, peasants, all the oppressed to the soviets, and thereby repelled the “educated” society. The evolution of the Mensheviks unfolded along a parallel line. They had to make more and more excuses to the liberals that after October 1905 they found themselves in a bloc with Trotsky. The explanations of Martov, a talented Menshevik publicist, boiled down to the fact that concessions had to be made to the "revolutionary illusions" of the masses.

Stalin's involvement in the dispute

In Tiflis, political groupings took shape on the same principled basis as in St. Petersburg. “To break the reaction,” wrote Zhordania, the leader of the Caucasian Mensheviks, “to win back and implement a constitution will depend on the conscious unification and direction of the forces of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie towards a common goal ... True, the peasantry will be involved in the movement, which will give it a spontaneous character, but everything will play a decisive role -they will still have these two classes, and the peasant movement will pour water on their mill ”(Quoted from: social democrat, No. 1, Tiflis, 7(20) Apr. 1905). Lenin mocked Jordania's fear that an uncompromising policy towards the bourgeoisie might doom the workers to impotence. Jordania "discusses the question of the possible isolation of the proletariat in a democratic upheaval and forgets... about the peasantry! Of the possible allies of the proletariat, he knows and takes a fancy to the Zemstvo landowners and does not know the peasants. And this is in the Caucasus!” (PSS, vol. 11, p. 51). Lenin's objection, correct in essence, simplified the question in one point. Zhordania did not "forget" about the peasantry, and, as can be seen from Lenin's own hint, he could not possibly forget about it in the Caucasus, where it then flourished under the banner of the Mensheviks. Jordania, however, saw in the peasantry not so much a political ally as a historical battering ram, which the bourgeoisie can and must use in alliance with the proletariat. He did not believe that the peasantry was capable of becoming the leading or even independent force of the revolution, and in this he was not wrong; but he also did not believe that the proletariat, as a leader, was capable of ensuring the victory of the peasant uprising - and this was his fatal mistake. The Menshevik idea of ​​an alliance between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie meant in fact the subordination of both workers and peasants to the liberals. The reactionary utopianism of this program was determined by the fact that the far-reaching division of classes paralyzed the bourgeoisie as a revolutionary factor in advance. In this fundamental question, the rightness was wholly on the side of Bolshevism: the pursuit of an alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie was bound to set Social Democracy against the revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants. In 1905 the Mensheviks still lacked the courage to draw all the necessary conclusions from their theory of the "bourgeois" revolution. In 1917 they carried their ideas to the end and broke their heads.

In the question of the attitude towards the liberals, Stalin took the side of Lenin during the years of the revolution. It must be said that in that period even the majority of the rank and file Mensheviks, when it came to the opposition bourgeoisie, turned out to be closer to Lenin than to Plekhanov. A contemptuous attitude towards liberals constituted the literary tradition of intellectual radicalism. However, it would be a waste of time to look for an independent contribution to this question from Koba, an analysis of Caucasian social relations, new arguments, or even a new formulation of old arguments. The leader of the Caucasian Mensheviks, Zhordania, was incomparably more independent in relation to Plekhanov than Stalin was in relation to Lenin. “Messrs. the liberals are trying in vain,” wrote Koba after January 9, “to save the crumbling throne of the tsar. In vain they extend a helping hand to the king!” ( Compositions, vol. 1, p. 77).

“On the other hand, the agitated masses are preparing for revolution, and not to reconciliation with the king ... Yes, gentlemen, your efforts are in vain! The Russian revolution is inevitable. It is as inevitable as the sunrise is inevitable! Can you stop the rising sun!” (ibid., p. 78), etc.

Above this, Koba did not rise. Two and a half years later, he wrote, repeating Lenin almost verbatim: “The Russian liberal bourgeoisie is anti-revolutionary, it cannot be either the engine, let alone the leader of the revolution, it is the sworn enemy of the revolution, and a stubborn struggle must be waged against it” (vol. 2 , page 62). However, it was precisely in this fundamental question that Stalin underwent a complete metamorphosis over the next ten years, so that he met the February Revolution of 1917 as a supporter of a bloc with the liberal bourgeoisie and, in accordance with this, as a herald of unification with the Mensheviks in one party. Only Lenin, who arrived from abroad, abruptly cut off Stalin's independent policy, which he called a mockery of Marxism. Everything necessary about this will be said in due time in the main text of the book.

The role of the peasantry

The Narodniks saw the workers and peasants as simply "workers" and "exploited", equally interested in socialism. The Marxists regarded the peasant as a petty bourgeois, who is only able to become a socialist to the extent that, materially or spiritually, he ceases to be a peasant. With their characteristic sentimentality, the Narodniks saw in this sociological characterization a moral insult to the peasantry. For two generations the main struggle between the revolutionary trends in Russia went along this line. In order to understand the further disputes between Stalinism and Trotskyism, it must be emphasized once again that, in accordance with the entire Marxist tradition, Lenin never for a moment saw the peasantry as a socialist ally of the proletariat; on the contrary, he deduced the impossibility of a socialist revolution in Russia precisely from the enormous predominance of the peasantry. This thought runs through all his articles that deal directly or indirectly with the agrarian question.

“We support the peasant movement,” wrote Lenin in September 1905, “inasmuch as it is revolutionary-democratic. We are preparing (now, preparing immediately) to fight it, insofar as it will appear as reactionary, anti-proletarian. The whole essence of Marxism lies in this dual task…” (PSS, vol. 11, p. 221). Lenin saw a socialist ally in the Western proletariat, partly in the semi-proletarian elements of the Russian countryside, but by no means in the peasantry as such. “First we support to the end, by all means, to the point of confiscation,” he repeated with his characteristic persistence, “the peasant in general against the landowner, and then (and not even later, but at the same time) we support the proletariat against the peasant in general.”

“The peasantry will triumph in the bourgeois-democratic revolution,” he writes in March 1906, “and in this way it will finally exhaust its revolutionary spirit, like the peasantry. The proletariat will triumph in the bourgeois-democratic revolution and in this way alone will truly develop its true, socialist revolutionary spirit” (PSS, vol. 12, p. 335). “The movement of the peasantry,” he repeats in May of that year, “is the movement of another class; this is not a struggle of the proletariat, but a struggle of petty proprietors; this is a struggle not against the foundations of capitalism, but for cleansing them of all remnants of serfdom” (PSS, vol. 13, p. 96).

This view can be traced in Lenin from article to article, from year to year, from volume to volume. Expressions and examples vary, the main idea remains unchanged. It couldn't be otherwise. If Lenin saw in the peasantry socialist ally, he would not have the slightest reason to insist on bourgeois the nature of the revolution and limit the "dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" to purely democratic tasks. In those cases when Lenin accused the author of this book of “underestimating” the peasantry, he had in mind by no means my rejection of the socialist tendencies of the peasantry, but, on the contrary, insufficient, in Lenin’s opinion, recognition of the bourgeois-democratic independence of the peasantry, its ability to create my power and thus prevent the establishment of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.

A reassessment of values ​​in this matter was only revealed during the years of the Thermidorian reaction, the beginning of which approximately coincided with Lenin's illness and death. From now on, the alliance of Russian workers and peasants was declared in itself a sufficient guarantee against the dangers of restoration and an unshakable guarantee of the realization of socialism within the borders of the Soviet Union. Having replaced the theory of international revolution with the theory of socialism in a separate country, Stalin began to refer to the Marxist assessment of the peasantry as "Trotskyism", moreover, not only in relation to the present, but also to the entire past.

One can, of course, raise the question of whether the classical Marxist view of the peasantry turned out to be erroneous. This topic would take us far beyond the scope of this reference. Here it will suffice to say that Marxism has never given the evaluation of the peasantry as a non-socialist class an absolute and immovable character. Even Marx said that the peasant has not only prejudice, but also reason. Under changed conditions, the nature of the peasantry itself is changing. The regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat opened up very broad possibilities for influencing the peasantry and for re-educating the peasantry. History has not yet fully measured the limit of these possibilities.

Nevertheless, it is clear even now that the growing role of state coercion in the USSR did not refute, but basically confirmed the view of the peasantry that distinguished the Russian Marxists from the Narodniks. However, however things may be in this regard now, after twenty years of the new regime, it remains undoubted that before the October Revolution, or rather before 1924, no one in the Marxist camp, least of all Lenin, saw in the peasantry a socialist factor of development. Without the help of the proletarian revolution in the West, Lenin repeated, restoration in Russia was inevitable. He wasn't wrong. The Stalinist bureaucracy is nothing but the first stage of the bourgeois restoration.

Trotsky takes the third position

The starting positions of the two main factions of Russian Social-Democracy have been set out above. But next to them, already at the dawn of the first revolution, a third position was formulated, which almost did not meet with recognition in those years, but which we are obliged to state here with the necessary completeness - not only because it found its confirmation in the events of 1917, but especially because, seven years after the coup, it began to play a completely unexpected role in the political evolution of Stalin and the entire Soviet bureaucracy.

At the beginning of 1905, Trotsky's pamphlet was published in Geneva, analyzing the political situation as it developed by the winter of 1904. The author came to the conclusion that the independent campaign of liberal petitions and banquets had exhausted its possibilities; that the radical intelligentsia, which transferred their hopes to the liberals, fell into a dead end with them; that the peasant movement creates favorable conditions for victory, but is not capable of securing it; that the only solution could be an armed uprising of the proletariat; that the next stage on this path must be a general strike. The brochure was called “Until January 9th,” as it was written before Bloody Sunday in St. Petersburg. The mighty strike wave that opened from that day, with the first armed clashes supplementing it, gave undoubted confirmation to the pamphlet's strategic forecast.

The preface to my work was written by Parvus, a Russian émigré who had already become a German writer by that time. Parvus was an outstanding creative person, capable of being infected by the ideas of others, as well as enriching others with his ideas. He lacked inner balance and diligence to make a contribution to the labor movement worthy of his talents as a thinker and writer. He had an undoubted influence on my personal development, especially with regard to the social-revolutionary understanding of our era. Several years before our first meeting, Parvus passionately defended the idea of ​​a general strike in Germany; but the country was going through a long industrial boom, the Social Democracy was adapting itself to the Hohenzollern regime, the foreigner's revolutionary propaganda met with nothing but ironic indifference. On the second day after the bloody events in Petersburg, on the second day after the bloody events in Petersburg, Parvus read my pamphlet in manuscript form and was captivated by the thought of the exceptional role that the proletariat of backward Russia was called upon to play.

The few days we spent together in Munich were filled with conversations that cleared up a lot for both of us and brought us personally closer together. The preface, which Parvus wrote at the same time to the pamphlet, has firmly entered the history of the Russian revolution. On several pages, he highlighted those social features of belated Russia, which, it is true, were known before, but from which no one before him had drawn all the necessary conclusions.

“Political radicalism in Western Europe,” wrote Parvus, “as you know, relied mainly on the petty bourgeoisie. These were artisans and, in general, all that part of the bourgeoisie that was taken up by industrial development, but at the same time was driven away by the capitalist class ... In Russia, in the pre-capitalist period, cities developed more according to the Chinese than according to the European model. These were administrative centers that were purely bureaucratic in nature without the slightest political significance, and in economic terms - trading bazaars for the surrounding landlord and peasant environment. Their development was still very insignificant when it was suspended by the capitalist process, which began to create large cities on its own pattern, i.e. factory towns and centers of world trade ... What hindered the development of petty-bourgeois democracy served to the benefit of the class consciousness of the proletariat in Russia: the weak development of the handicraft form of production. He immediately found himself concentrated in factories ... "

“The peasants will be drawn into the movement in ever greater masses. But they are only able to increase the political anarchy in the country and thus weaken the government; they cannot form a united revolutionary army. With the development of the revolution, therefore, an increasing part of the political work falls to the lot of the proletariat. At the same time, his political self-consciousness is expanding, his political energy is growing ... "

“The social democracy will face a dilemma: either take responsibility for the provisional government, or stand aside from the labor movement. The workers will regard this government as their own, no matter how the Social Democracy conducts itself... Only the workers can bring about a revolutionary upheaval in Russia. The revolutionary provisional government in Russia will be the government workers' democracy. If Social Democracy is at the head of the revolutionary movement of the Russian proletariat, then this government will be Social Democratic.”

"The Social-Democratic Provisional Government cannot carry out a socialist revolution in Russia, but the very process of eliminating the autocracy and establishing a democratic republic will give it a fertile ground for political work."

In the midst of revolutionary events, in the autumn of 1905, we again met with Parvus, this time in St. Petersburg. Maintaining organizational independence from both factions, we edited together with him a mass workers' newspaper Russian word and, in coalition with the Mensheviks, a large political newspaper Start. The theory of permanent revolution was usually associated with the names of "Parvus and Trotsky". This was only partly true. The period of Parvus' revolutionary culmination came at the end of the last century, when he led the struggle against the so-called "revisionism", i.e. opportunistic distortion of Marx's theory. The failure of attempts to push the German Social Democracy onto the path of a more resolute policy undermined his optimism. Parvus began to treat the prospects of a socialist revolution in the West with increasing restraint. At the same time, he believed that "the Social-Democratic provisional government cannot carry out a socialist revolution in Russia." His forecast, therefore, indicated not the transformation of the democratic revolution into a socialist one, but only the establishment in Russia of a regime of workers' democracy, similar to Australia, where for the first time a workers' government arose on a farmer basis, which did not go beyond the boundaries of the bourgeois regime.

I did not share this conclusion. Australian democracy, organically growing on the virgin soil of the new continent, immediately took on a conservative character and subjugated a young but rather privileged proletariat. Russian democracy, on the other hand, could only arise as a result of a grandiose revolutionary upheaval, the dynamics of which would in no way allow a workers' government to maintain itself within the framework of bourgeois democracy. Beginning soon after the revolution of 1905, our differences led to a complete break at the beginning of the war, when Parvus, in whom the skeptic finally killed the revolutionary, turned out to be on the side of German imperialism, and later became the adviser and inspirer of the first president of the German Republic, Ebert.

Theory of permanent revolution

Starting from brochure Until January 9th, I have repeatedly returned to the development and substantiation of the theory of permanent revolution. In view of the importance it subsequently acquired in the ideological evolution of the hero of this biography, it must be presented here in the form of exact quotations from my writings of 1905–6.

“The core of the population in a modern city, at least in a city of economic and political importance, is a sharply differentiated class of wage labor. It is precisely this class, still essentially unknown to the Great French Revolution, that is destined to play a decisive role in ours... In an economically more backward country, the proletariat may find itself in power earlier than in a capitalist advanced country... The notion of some kind of automatic dependence of the proletarian dictatorship on technical The strength and means of the country is the prejudice of an extremely simplified "economic" materialism. Such a view has nothing in common with Marxism... Despite the fact that the productive forces of the industry of the United States are ten times higher than ours, the political role of the Russian proletariat, its influence on the politics of its country, the possibility of its close influence on world politics is incomparably higher than the role and significance of the American proletariat... Results and prospects)

“The Russian revolution creates, in our opinion, such conditions under which the authorities can (with the victory of the revolution must) pass into the hands of the proletariat before the politicians of bourgeois liberalism have the opportunity to fully develop their state genius ... The Russian bourgeoisie is surrendering all revolutionary positions to the proletariat. It will also have to surrender its revolutionary hegemony over the peasantry. The proletariat in power will appear before the peasantry as a liberating class... The proletariat, relying on the peasantry, will set in motion all forces to raise the cultural level in the countryside and develop political consciousness among the peasantry...” (ibid.)

“But perhaps the peasantry itself will push back the proletariat and take its place? This is impossible. All historical experience protests against this assumption. He shows that the peasantry is completely incapable of independent political role... From what has been said, it is clear how we look at the idea of ​​a "dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." The point is not whether we consider it fundamentally acceptable, whether we “want” or “don't want” this form of political cooperation. But we consider it unrealizable - at least in the direct and immediate sense ... ”(ibid.)

What has already been said shows how wrong it is to say that the conception presented here "jumped over the bourgeois revolution", as was repeated endlessly later.

“The struggle for the democratic renewal of Russia,” I wrote at the same time, “has grown entirely out of capitalism, is being waged by forces that have taken shape on the basis of capitalism and, directly, first, directed against the feudal-serf obstacles that stand in the way of the development of capitalist society.

The question, however, was what forces and by what methods were capable of throwing off these interferences.

“It is possible to limit the framework of all questions of the revolution by the assertion that our revolution is bourgeois according to its objective goals and, therefore, according to its inevitable results, and one can close one’s eyes to the fact that the main agent of this bourgeois revolution is the proletariat, which is pushing towards power throughout the course of the revolution ... One can console oneself with the fact that the social conditions in Russia are still are not ripe for a socialist economy - and at the same time, you can not think about the fact that, having become in power, the proletariat will inevitably, by all the logic of its position, will push towards managing the economy at state expense ... Entering the government, not as powerless hostages, but as the leading force, the representatives of the proletariat, thereby destroy the line between the minimum and maximum program, i.e. put collectivism on the order of the day. At what point the proletariat will be stopped in this direction depends on the correlation of forces, but in no way on the original intentions of the party of the proletariat...” (ibid.)

“But even now one can put before oneself the question: whether the dictatorship of the proletariat must inevitably shatter against the framework of the bourgeois revolution, or, on the basis of the given world historical foundations, can it open up the prospect of victory by breaking these limited limits?.. One thing can be said with certainty: without the direct state support of the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to stay in power and turn its temporary rule into a long-term socialist dictatorship ... "

This does not, however, lead to a pessimistic forecast:

“Political emancipation, led by the working class of Russia, raises the leader to a height unprecedented in history, transfers colossal forces and means into his hands and makes him the initiator of the world liquidation of capitalism, for which history has created all the objective prerequisites ...” (ibid.)

Regarding the extent to which international social democracy will be able to fulfill its revolutionary task, I wrote in 1906:

“The European socialist parties - and first of all the most powerful of them, the German one - have developed their own conservatism, which is the stronger, the larger the masses are captured by socialism and the higher the organization and discipline of these masses. Because of this, Social Democracy, as an organization embodying the political experience of the proletariat, may at a certain moment become a direct obstacle in the way of an open clash between the workers and bourgeois reaction” (ibid.).

I ended my analysis, however, with an expression of confidence that "the Eastern revolution infects the Western proletariat with revolutionary idealism and gives rise to a desire in them to speak 'Russian-style' to the enemy" (ibid.).

Summary of three views

Let's summarize. Populism, following Slavophilism, proceeded from the illusion of completely original ways of development of Russia, bypassing capitalism and the bourgeois republic. Plekhanov's Marxism focused on proving the fundamental identity of the historical paths of Russia and the West. The program that grew out of this ignored the quite real, by no means mystical features of the social structure and revolutionary development of Russia. The Menshevik view of the revolution, cleansed of episodic accretions and individual deviations, boiled down to the following: the victory of the Russian bourgeois revolution is conceivable only under the leadership of the liberal bourgeoisie and must transfer power to this latter. The democratic regime will then allow the Russian proletariat, with incomparably greater success than before, to catch up with its older Western brothers on the path of struggle for socialism.

Lenin's perspective can be summarized in the following words: the belated Russian bourgeoisie is incapable of carrying out its own revolution to the end. The complete victory of the revolution, through the “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry”, will cleanse the country of the Middle Ages, give American pace to the development of Russian capitalism, strengthen the proletariat in town and countryside, and open up broad possibilities for the struggle for socialism. On the other hand, the victory of the Russian revolution will give a powerful impetus to the socialist revolution in the West, and this latter will not only protect Russia from the dangers of restoration, but will also enable the Russian proletariat to come to the conquest of power in a comparatively short historical period.

The prospect of a permanent revolution can be summarized as follows: the complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is conceivable only in the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat supported by the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which will inevitably place not only democratic but also socialist tasks on the order of the day, will at the same time give a powerful impetus to the international socialist revolution. Only the victory of the proletariat in the West will protect Russia from bourgeois restoration and enable her to carry socialist construction to the end.

In this condensed formulation, both the homogeneity of the latter two conceptions, in their irreconcilable contradiction with the liberal-Menshevik perspective, and their extremely essential difference from each other on the question of the social character and tasks of that "dictatorship" that must grow out of the revolution, stand out equally clearly. The objection, not uncommon in the writings of contemporary Moscow theorists, that the program of the dictatorship of the proletariat was "premature" in 1905, is devoid of content. In an empirical sense, the program of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry turned out to be just as "premature". The unfavorable correlation of forces in the era of the first revolution made impossible not the dictatorship of the proletariat as such, but the victory of the revolution in general. Meanwhile, all revolutionary currents proceeded from the hope of a complete victory; without such a hope, a selfless revolutionary struggle would be impossible. Differences concerned the general perspective of the revolution and the strategy that followed from this. The perspective of Menshevism was fundamentally false: it showed the proletariat the wrong road at all. The perspective of Bolshevism was not complete: it correctly indicated the general direction of the struggle, but incorrectly characterized its stages. The insufficiency of the perspective of Bolshevism was not revealed in 1905 only because the revolution itself did not develop further. But at the beginning of 1917, Lenin had to change his perspective in a direct struggle with the old cadres of the party.

A political forecast cannot claim to be astronomical; it is enough if he correctly outlines the general line of development and helps to navigate the real course of events, which inevitably deviates the main line to the right and left. In this sense, it is impossible not to see that the concept of permanent revolution has fully withstood the test of history. In the early years of the Soviet regime, no one denied this; on the contrary, this fact has found recognition in a number of official publications. But when a bureaucratic reaction against October opened up on the calm and cooled tops of Soviet society, from the very beginning it turned against the theory that most fully reflected the first proletarian revolution and at the same time openly revealed its incomplete, limited, partial character. Thus, by way of repulsion, the theory of socialism in a separate country, the basic dogma of Stalinism, arose.

We will destroy the whole world of violence
Down to the bottom and then...
(“International”, A.Ya. Kots)

We continue to publish the materials of Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor O.V. Milayeva dedicated to the theme of the approaching anniversary of the October Revolution. The principle is this: she writes, I edit her materials. Accordingly, she is published "with me", I - with her, and thus we generally cover a significant information space.
IN. Shpakovsky

At the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries, scientific sociological and political thought re-emerged interest in developing a theory of revolution and the revolutionary process. Throughout the 20th century, the theory of revolution developed as an economic and political theory, it was studied from the point of view of the psychology of leaders and the psychology of the masses, from the point of view of rational or irrational choice, studied by structuralists and theorists of deprivation, within the framework of neo-Marxism and elitist theories, in the theory of revolutions and state decays...

Rice. 1. "We are destroying borders between countries." USSR, 1920s

It should be noted that at the moment there is no theorization in this regard. The foundations of the modern theory of understanding revolutions have already been formulated over the course of three generations of theorists studying revolutionary processes. Today, the fourth generation of the theory of revolution is expected to appear, as the American sociologist and political scientist D. Goldstone put it. Under his leadership, large-scale collective studies of intra-social conflicts and stability were carried out as part of global research based on situational and quantitative analysis in the 1980s and 90s. In the same connection, it is worth mentioning the studies of revolutionary processes and social threats in third world countries (Latin America) by D. Foran, T.P. Wickham-Crowley, D. Goodwin and others.

The questions posed by the researchers can be formulated as follows: has the era of revolutions ended? If yes, why? And most importantly: what is the cause of revolutions?

Is it true that in the era of globalization the social sphere is characterized by a conservative trend and the neoliberal economy has no alternative, as Margaret Thatcher argued?

The conclusions of scientists are not so unambiguous. So, in the late 1990s, this issue was discussed in relation to the countries most vulnerable to revolutionary explosions, and the scientific community came to directly opposite conclusions. Thus, Jeff Goodwin, a well-known professor of sociology at the University of New York, argued that the example of Latin American countries can speak of a decrease in the ground for sharp revolutionary conflicts. And they will not be replaced by other progressive social movements, the role of which will increase gradually (feminism, ethnic movements, religious, minorities, etc.)

His opponent, Eric Salbin, known for his advocacy, expressed a different point of view: the global gap between the haves and the have-nots will not decrease, the development of neoliberalism is not able to equalize this gap, therefore revolutions are inevitable and very likely in the future. Moreover, if we take the cultural context as well, then a revolution, especially for third world countries, with its emphasis on resistance and renovationist dominant, always means a new beginning, inspires people, rejuvenates culture. It in itself for the nation is a kind of magical action of rebirth and self-purification.

John Foran, professor of sociology at the University of Santa Barbara, who at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries was engaged in comparative studies of revolutions, partially agreed with this statement. It is to him that the substantiation of the concept of postmodern revolutions belongs, and above all he refuses the thesis about the end of revolutions. He argues that the era of modern revolutions based on a class approach has ended. Now revolutionary processes are associated with the identification of social groups, based on other criteria - gender, cultural, ethnic, religious, etc. The understanding of class and identification with it is replaced by the search for identity "associated with the way people rank or associate themselves with others, forming social groups or collectives. The main difference here lies in the fact that class is an objective social structure, while identity is an artificial construct that is related to discursive practices and is culturally constructed.

Fig.2. "Destroy the old world and build a new one." China, 1960s

He also objects to the supporters of globalism, who argued that the revolution, as a struggle for power in the state, also loses its meaning, since in a globalizing world the states themselves lose power, world cash flows, flows of power and information bypass and bypass national states, dissolving the power of the latter. He believes that in the new world this struggle will also be relevant, but will become a struggle for identity and against instrumental rationality and the "authoritarian characteristics of modernity."

Regarding the importance of identity and identification with the group and its role in protest movements, it is appropriate to recall the long-established theory of rational choice models. Researchers have pointed out that individuals participating in uprisings and protest movements are motivated, "recruited and sanctioned through the already existing communities to which they belong, but the awakening of a specifically oppositional group identity depends on the actions of revolutionary activists and the state."

The strengthening of oppositional beliefs in the minds of individuals, which makes it possible to form an oppositional identity instead of social, national, state, etc. achieved through a number of factors. Among them, researchers single out faith in the effectiveness of the protest, which is supported by private victories and acquisitions of the revolutionary group, injustice on the part of the state, evidence of its weakness. Rational choice models provide further support for these findings: there is no contradiction with the fact of collective action; on the contrary, rational choice analysis, together with other approaches, is used to identify the processes by which collective actions solve their problems and the general characteristics of such decisions. All these decisions are based on authorization and group identification.

Rational choice models also explain the escalation of revolutionary mobilization. It leads to confidence in the relative weakness of the regime and the presence of other groups and individuals who support protest actions. In this case, the informational impact is important and is a catalyst for those groups that already had an internal conviction in the injustice of the existing social and state system, and solidarity with groups of similar views allows you to gain confidence in your strength and ability to reverse an unsatisfactory situation. Thus, a "trailer effect" is created: more and more new groups take part in actions, the moment for which seems more and more favorable.

Rice. 3. Vietnam - Ho Chi Minh (promotional poster). Vietnam, 1960s

In general, scientists come to the conclusion that the revolutionary process is inevitable. Since its basis is social and economic inequality between classes and groups in the state, wider and in a global context, social inequality between the countries of the North (the most prosperous and rich countries) and the South (poor and socially unstable countries) has not disappeared anywhere, but continues to deepen.

It should be noted that at the end of the 20th century, attempts were made to study the revolutionary process using the methods of the exact sciences. Especially since the late 1980s-90s, in connection with the development of information technology and programming, quantitative studies of revolutions have revived using mathematical modeling methods, but not on the basis of historical material, but on the basis of current political events. For this purpose, statistical analysis of large numbers was used, later - the algebra of logic. These methods make it possible to give a formal description of the logical side of processes. The algebra of logic deals with boolean variables that can only take two values: yes or no/true or false. No matter how complex the logical connection between a logical function and its arguments, this connection can always be represented as a set of three simple logical operations: NOT, AND, OR. This set is called the Boolean basis. The modeling takes into account the specifics of each of the analyzed situations and allows a variety of configurations of independent variables. After that, with the help of certain algorithms, the minimum set or sets of variables are calculated that characterize specific results (in our case, revolutionary processes). At the same time, interest in classical revolutions, cause-and-effect relationships and consequences is declining.

In the 1990s, the method of regression analysis was used to study social conflicts (civil wars and insurgencies) of the period 1960-1990s in the African region. As an example, we can cite the studies of Oxford and similar studies of Stanford scientists. Let us pay attention to the fact that the main elements of the hypothesis, tested independently by all researchers, were the following:
1. the existence of a connection between the increase in the number of civil wars and the period of the end of the Cold War and the changes it generated in the international system;
2. the presence of a connection between the increase in the number of civil wars and the ethnic and religious composition of the population;
3. the presence of a connection between the increase in the number of civil wars and the existence in the state of a rigid political regime that pursues a policy of discrimination against certain ethnic and religious groups.

The hypothesis was not confirmed in these aspects. Researchers come to the conclusion that factors such as religious and ethnic differences are not the underlying cause of permanent social conflicts (this is indirectly confirmed in the works of S. Olzak, who studied the influence of racial and ethnic differences on the escalation of social conflicts on American material).

It is not, according to the results of ongoing research, and the destabilization of political regimes by international actors. The political actions of state institutions, their regime features and actions are also not the root cause of the radicalization of social relations. The duration of the course, the recruitment of participants and their episodic actions do not affect the causes of the emergence of social conflicts. All these parameters are important as conditions for the course of the conflict, determine its features, but no more.

But then what?

Let's go back almost 150 years. It is worth remembering the interaction in the process of social development of the base and the superstructure within the framework of the Marxist concept. Superstructure: state institutions, ideology, religion, law, etc. Basis: economic development and the resulting relations and their consequences. Dialectics, as is known, is such that the basic relations determine the configuration of the superstructure, but not vice versa.

You can also name five interrelated causal factors developed by D. Foran, which must coincide in order to produce a revolutionary explosion: 1) the dependence of the development of the state on the external conjuncture of development; 2) the isolationist policy of the state; 3) the presence of powerful structures of resistance developed within the framework of the culture of society; 4) economic recession or stagnation for a long time, and 5) peace - a systemic opening (even before external control). The combination in one time and space of all five factors leads to the formation of broad revolutionary coalitions, which, as a rule, succeed in gaining power. Examples of this are Mexico, China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Algeria, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Angola and Mozambique. With incomplete coincidence, the achievements of the revolution come to naught or anticipate the counter-revolution. An example of this is Guatemala, Bolivia, Chile and Grenada.

Rice. 4. "Long live Cuba!". Cuba, 1959.

What did independent mathematical analysis eventually lead scientists to? And the conclusion is still the same: the main factors influencing the formation and escalation of social conflicts are the weak development of the economy or stagnation in the economy, generating negative social consequences; low per capita income, high level of social inequality. The following pattern was also revealed: an increase in the aggressiveness of the political struggle, social destabilization and radicalization as free economic competition develops. Historically, this is quite confirmed: millennia of the absence of economic competition under different formations have minimized social revolutions and conflicts. The time of their growth refers precisely to the period of the formation of capitalist relations, and the peak comes under “developed capitalism”, the basis of which, as you know, is free competition.

“No generally accepted theory of the fourth generation has yet been created, but the contours of such a theory are clear. The stability of the regime in it will be considered as a non-obvious state and significant attention will be paid to the conditions for the existence of regimes for a long time; issues of identity and ideology, gender issues, connections and leadership will take an important place; revolutionary processes and consequences will be considered as the result of the interaction of numerous forces. More importantly, it is possible that fourth-generation theories will combine the results of case studies, rational choice models and quantitative data analysis, and the generalization of these theories will cover situations and events that were not even mentioned in the theories of revolution of past generations.

The concept of "social change" is the most general. social change - it is the transition of social systems, communities, institutions and organizations from one state to another. This concept of "social change" is concretized by the concept of development.

Development- this is an irreversible, directed change in material and ideal objects. Development involves a transition from simple to complex, from lower to higher, etc. Sociologists distinguish various types of mechanisms for social change and development: evolutionary and revolutionary, progressive and regressive, imitation and innovation.

evolutionary processes are interpreted as gradual, slow, smooth, quantitative transformations of objects. revolutionary are interpreted as relatively fast, fundamental, qualitative changes. The absolutization of this or that type of change in social objects gave rise to two methodologically different trends in sociology: social evolutionism And revolutionism.

Social evolutionism is an attempt at a global understanding of the historical process, as part of a general, infinitely diverse and active process of the evolution of the cosmos, the planetary system, the Earth, and culture. Social evolutionism is most clearly represented in the system of the English sociologist G. Spencer. He developed a diagram of the evolutionary process, which includes several fundamental points. The core of this scheme is differentiation. Evolutionary changes occur in the direction of increasing harmonization, structural and functional compliance of all components of the whole.

Differentiation is always accompanied by integration. The natural limit of all evolutionary processes in this case is the state of dynamic equilibrium, which has the inertia of self-preservation and the ability to adapt to new conditions. The evolution of any system consists in increasing and complicating its organization.

Social evolution, according to G. Spencer, is part of the universal evolution. It consists in the complication of forms of social life, their differentiation and integration at a new level of organization.

The main idea of ​​social evolutionism of the XIX century. is the idea of ​​the existence of historical stages of human society, developing from simple to differentiated, from traditional to rational, from unenlightened to enlightened, from a society with manual technology to a society with machine technology, using artificially created power, from a vaguely integrated society to a strictly integrated one.

A contribution to the development of the ideas of social evolutionism was made by the French sociologist E. Durkheim: he substantiated the position that the division of labor is the cause and consequence of the growing complexity of society; contrasted two types of society (simple societies with a developed division of labor and a segmental structure and highly complex societies, which are a system of various organs).

The transition from one society to another occurs in a long evolutionary way:

1) in a segmental society, the population is growing;

2) social relations are multiplying, in which each person is included, competition is intensifying;

3) this creates a threat to the cohesion of society;

4) the division of labor is designed to eliminate cohesion through differentiation (functional, group, rank, etc.)

Theories of the progressive development of society within the framework of social evolutionism:

1 German sociologist F. Tennis (1855 - 1936)

F. Tennis draws a distinction between traditional and modern society on the basis of five main types of social interconnection, and in doing so uses two concepts: “Geminschaft” (about the village community), “Gesellschaft” (toward the industrial urban society). The main differences between them are as follows:

1) Gemeinschaft-type society lives according to the communal principle and worldly values, and Gesellschaft-type society is based on the desire for personal gain;

2) Gemeinschaft emphasizes customs, Gesellschaft is based on formal laws;

3) Geminschaft assumes limited, at that time, in Gesellschaft - specialized professional roles;

4) Gemeinschaft relies on religious values, Gesellschaft - on secular values;

5) Gemeinschaft is based on family and community, Gesellschaft is based on large corporate and associative forms of association of people.

lektsii.net - Lectures. No - 2014-2018. (0.008 sec.) All materials presented on the site are for the sole purpose of familiarizing readers and do not pursue commercial purposes or copyright infringement

Of great importance in understanding social development is a linear paradigm called linear progress. It is also called the theory of evolutionary development (evolutionism). Its creators were O. Comte, G. Spencer, L. Morgan, E. Durkheim, L. Ward and others. Linear progressive understanding considers social development as a process of change from lower to higher, from simple to complex, from partial to integral quality societies and humanity.

The evolutionary understanding of social development was based on an analogy with a biological (living) organism and its growth.

IV. Evolutionary and revolutionary theories of the development of society

Society began to be viewed as an organism consisting of human cells, organs-institutions, and so on.

Proponents of a linear understanding of development proceeded from the fact that humanity and all specific societies develop in an interconnected manner. As a result of the evolutionary development of society, a new quality is added to its former quality (cumulative effect), some transformation of a part of the old and the loss of something. It is very important for this approach to define the criteria of lower and higher, simple and complex, partial and holistic, etc. They are different in different socio-philosophical and sociological theories.

O. Comte believed that in order to understand the modern era of mankind, it is necessary to place it in a broader historical context. The driving force behind the development of society, according to O. Comte, is the strength of the human spirit (intelligence, morality, will). The development of society directly depends on the quantity and variety of its knowledge, which determine the military, political, economic aspects of public life. Society goes through three levels in its development. In the theological stage, people base their creation of life on the presence of supernatural beings, which they worship in the form of mythology and religion. This stage is characterized by military confrontation and slavery. At the metaphysical stage of development, people increasingly proceed in their creation of life from abstract concepts created by their minds: freedom, sovereignty, rights, legitimacy, democracy, etc. At a positive stage of historical development, people discover the laws of nature, society, man, and begin to use them in organizing their lives. Science is gradually becoming the main productive force of society.

G. Spencer considered evolution to be the fundamental principle of the development of nature, society, and man. The world is a material reality in the unity of matter, motion, energy. Evolution is a movement from the homogeneity (homogeneity) of the world to heterogeneity (complexity), accompanied by the dispersion of motion and the integration of matter. Evolution is carried out with the help of structural and functional differentiation of matter from simplicity to complexity, from homogeneity, uniformity to heterogeneity, specialization, from fluidity to stability.

The evolution of society from one stage to another is characterized by: 1) differentiation of functions, power, property, prestige between different groups of people; 2) an increase in the inequality of labor, power, wealth, prestige and, in general, the complication of differentiating people into numerous strata; 3) the division of society into groups, classes, strata according to economic, professional, political, national, religious characteristics.

G. Spencer was the first to propose a dichotomous typology of societies - dividing them into two opposite ideal types. Real societies are a mixture of features of these ideal types: military society and industrial society. Military societies are focused on defense and conquest, integrated through political violence, their basis is an authoritarian state with low social mobility, an extensive, regulated economy, the dominant values ​​are discipline, patriotism, courage. Industrial societies are focused on the development of the economy, a form of integration is the voluntary cooperation of people, a democratic state with high social mobility, a dynamic market economy, the dominant qualities are initiative, ingenuity, independence.

Social revolutions occur when the old socio-economic system, having exhausted the possibilities of its development, must necessarily give way to a new one. The economic basis of the social revolution is the conflict between the productive forces and production relations that do not correspond to them. The revolution is aimed at eliminating these relations of production, which have become the basis for the development of the productive forces. The social revolution includes in most cases a political revolution, the transfer of power from one class and social group to another. The need for a political revolution is due to the fact that in order to change economic relations, it is necessary to overcome the resistance of social groups that are the bearers of the old production relations.

They hold political power in their hands, use the state machine to extend their leading position in society and preserve the old production relations. The materialist understanding of history indicates the need to determine the differences in the nature of each social revolution, depending on which production relations are established as a result of the revolution. An important moment of the revolution is the question of its driving forces, i.e. about the action of those classes and social groups that are interested in the victory of the revolution and are actively fighting for it.

History knows the revolution "from above", i.e. fundamental changes in social relations, which were carried out on the initiative of forces capable of realizing the need for urgent changes and taking the side of progress. Such were, for example, the peasant and other bourgeois reforms in Russia in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Today, the PRC has begun the process of transforming the socialist economy into a market economy.

The reforms currently taking place in Russia have the character of a revolution, since we are talking about the replacement of production relations that have not justified themselves with others corresponding to the progress of production and society. Reforms are progressing slowly. The awareness of the need for such reforms is too long in society, many social groups are not able to fit into the market economy and prefer to exist within the framework of a costly economy. Rigid centralized management, economically unjustified guarantees, leveling created a state-dependent type of worker, devoid of initiative and enterprise, striving for individual success, preferring equality in poverty to social differentiation created as a result of competition from economically free producers who realize their abilities in production activities. Revolution should be seen as a dialectical negation of the old.

The rejection of the old production relations must be accompanied by the preservation of everything positive that the people have accumulated over the decades of previous development. In the social revolution, the most important question is the question of violence and the price of the revolution. Marxism-Leninism allowed civil war for the sake of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the present stage, the illegitimacy of this approach is obvious. The conditions for the transition to new production relations, according to the dialectic, must mature in the depths of the old society, and the revolution must really play in each such case of transition to a new one only the role of a "midwife", i.e. only contribute to the birth of new societies, new production relations. Any attempts to use force to solve socio-economic problems in the modern period, and calls for such methods to any kind of extremism should be regarded as a crime against the people. In modern conditions, "soft", "velvet" revolutions, in which economic and social transformations, the formation qualitatively different, corresponding to the achieved level of scientific and technical progress, production relations occur with the help of political means and methods, mechanisms of democracy, avoiding civil wars, that is, peacefully. Social transformations in a number of countries have taken place and are taking place not by jumps, upheavals, but by more or less calm evolutionary way, that is, through gradual quantitative changes in production relations that do not entail abrupt transitions, jumps, cataclysms, with a minimum of social tension, in an environment where the majority of the population accepts the proposed political course.

⇐ Previous25262728293031323334

Publication date: 2015-02-03; Read: 1138 | Page copyright infringement

studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018. (0.001 s) ...

The concept of evolutionary and revolutionary development of society

One of the most important problems of sociology is the problem of social changes, their mechanisms and direction. The concept of "social change" is very general. Social change is the transition of social systems, communities, institutions and organizations from one state to another. The concept of "social change" is concretized by the concept of development. Development is an irreversible, directed change in material and ideal objects.

Evolutionary theories of the development of society

Development involves a transition from simple to complex, from lower to higher, etc. Sociologists distinguish various types of mechanisms for social change and development: evolutionary and revolutionary, progressive and regressive, imitation and innovation, etc.

Why are progressive changes accelerating rapidly in some societies, while others are frozen at the same economic, political and spiritual level? Mankind has always wanted to accelerate the development of the economy and society as a whole. But in different countries they achieved this in different ways - some by waging wars of conquest, others by carrying out progressive reforms aimed at transforming society and the economy. In the course of the history of the development of mankind, two ways of the development of society were determined - revolutionary and evolutionary.

The evolutionary path (the word "evolution" comes from the Latin word meaning "deployment") - the path of peaceful non-violent transformation of society was to calmly, without jerks and attempts to "jump over time", to help progress, i.e. to capture its main directions and support them in every possible way, quickly adopting the best practices of other states.

Supporters of the revolutionary path believed that for the sake of a good goal, a “bright future” (heaven on earth), all means are good, including violence. At the same time, in their opinion and conviction, everything that stands in the way of progress must be immediately discarded and destroyed. Revolution is generally understood as any (usually violent) change in the nature of the government of society. A revolution is a total change in all aspects of life that takes place over a certain period of time (usually a short one), a radical change in the nature of social relations.

Revolution (from the late Latin term meaning “turn”, “overturn”, “breakthrough of gradualness”) is a change in the internal structure of the system, which becomes a link between two evolutionary stages in the development of the system, this is a fundamental qualitative change, i.e. a leap . At the same time, reform is part of evolution, its one-time, one-time act. This means that evolution and revolution become necessary components of socio-historical development, forming a contradictory unity. Usually evolution is understood as quantitative changes, and revolution - as qualitative ones.

Each reformer of society understood "progress" in his own way. Accordingly, the "enemies of progress" also changed. It could be kings and presidents, feudal lords and bourgeois (for Peter 1 they were boyars), but the essence of this direction has always remained the same - to act quickly and mercilessly. The violent path, the path of revolution (in Latin - "coup") almost certainly turned out to be associated with destruction and numerous victims. In the process of development of socio-political thought, the views and practices of the supporters of the revolutionary path became more and more fierce and merciless. But still, until about the end of the 18th century, before the French Revolution, the theory and practice of ideological and political currents developed mainly in the spirit of evolutionary views. To a certain extent, this was due to the cultural and moral traditions of the Renaissance and humanism, and then the Enlightenment, which rejected violence and cruelty.

Unique are in the late 17th - early 18th centuries. the reforms of Peter 1, who began with cutting the beards of the boyars and ended with severe punishments in relation to the opponents of the reforms. These reforms of the Russian emperor were in the spirit of the revolutionary path of development of society. Ultimately, they contributed to significant progress in the development of Russia, strengthening its position in Europe and the world as a whole for many years to come.

Evolutionary and revolutionary processes are often considered as opposite types of change in material and ideal objects. Evolutionary processes are interpreted as gradual, slow, smooth, quantitative transformations of objects, while revolutionary processes are interpreted as relatively fast, radical, qualitative changes. The absolutization of this or that type of change in social objects gave rise to two methodologically different currents in sociology: social evolutionism and revolutionism.

Social evolutionism is an attempt at a global understanding of the historical process, as part of a general, infinitely diverse and active process of the evolution of the Cosmos, the planetary system. Lands, cultures. Social evolutionism is most clearly represented in the system of the English sociologist G. Spencer. He developed the most complete scheme of the evolutionary process, which includes several fundamental points. The core of this scheme is differentiation, which is inevitable, since any finite homogeneous systems are unstable due to different conditions for their individual parts and the unequal impact of various external forces on their various elements.

Sociologists of all schools and trends view society as a changing system. At the same time, when interpreting social changes, representatives of various schools and trends show significant differences. The absolutization of this or that type of change in social systems gave rise to two methodologically different trends in sociology: social evolutionism and revolutionism.

social evolutionism is an attempt at a global understanding of the historical process as part of a general, infinitely diverse and active process of evolution of the Cosmos, the planetary system, the Earth, and culture. Social evolutionism is most clearly represented in the system of the English sociologist G. Spencer . He developed the most complete scheme of the evolutionary process, which includes several fundamental points. The core of this scheme is differentiation, which is inevitable, since any finite homogeneous systems are unstable due to different conditions for their individual parts and the unequal impact of various external forces on their various elements. As complexity and heterogeneity increase in systems, the pace of differentiation accelerates, since each differentiated part is not only the result of differentiation, but also its further source.

Differentiation, according to Spencer, implies specialization, division of functions between parts and selection of the most stable structural relationships. Evolutionary changes occur in the direction of increasing harmonization, structural and functional compliance of all components of the whole. Therefore, differentiation is always accompanied by integration. The natural limit of all evolutionary processes in this case is the state of dynamic equilibrium, which has the inertia of self-preservation and the ability to adapt to new conditions.

The evolution of any system consists in increasing and complicating its organization. At the same time, the accumulation of inconsistencies and disharmony in the course of evolution can lead to the disintegration of its own works.

social evolution, according to Spencer, is part of universal evolution. It consists in the complication of the forms of social life, their differentiation and integration at a new level of organization. G. Spencer's sociology implements the main idea of ​​social evolutionism 19th century- the idea of ​​the existence of historical stages of human society, developing from simple to differentiated, from traditional to rational, from non-enlightened to enlightened, from a society with manual technology to a society with machine technology, using artificially created power, from an indistinctly integrated society to a strictly integrated.

A significant contribution to the development of the ideas of social evolutionism was made by the French sociologist E. Durkheim. It is E.

3. The concept of evolutionary and revolutionary development of society

Durkheim was the first to elaborately substantiate the proposition that the division of labor is the cause and effect of the growing complexity of society.

E. Durkheim contrasted two types of society: on one pole of social evolution there are simple societies with a developed division of labor and a segmental structure, consisting of segments that are homogeneous and similar to each other, on the other, highly complex societies, which are a system of various organs, of which each has its own special role and which themselves consist of differentiated parts.

The transition from one society to another occurs in a long evolutionary way, the main points of which are as follows: 1) the population grows in a segmental society; 2) it increases the ʼʼmoral densityʼʼ, multiplies the social relations in which each person is included, and, consequently, competition intensifies; 3) hence there is a threat to the cohesion of society; 4) the division of labor is designed to eliminate this threat, since it is accompanied by differentiation (functional, group, rank, etc.) and requires the interdependence of specialized individuals and groups.

The concept of social evolutionism occupies a dominant position in sociology in the interpretation of social change. At the same time, along with it, the theory of the revolutionary transformation of society, the founder of which was K. Marx and F. Engels.

The Marxist concept of social development is based on the formational approach to the interpretation of history. According to this approach, humanity in its development goes through five basic stages: primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and communist. The transition from one socio-political formation to another is carried out on the basis of a social revolution. A social revolution is a radical qualitative revolution in the entire system of social life. The economic basis of the social revolution is the deepening conflict between the growth of the productive forces of society and the outdated, conservative system of production relations, which manifests itself in the strengthening of social antagonisms and the intensification of the class struggle between the ruling class, interested in maintaining the existing system, and oppressed classes.

The first act of social revolution is the conquest of political power. On the basis of the instruments of power, the victorious class carries out transformations in all other spheres of public life and thus creates the prerequisites for the formation of a new system of socio-economic and spiritual relations. From the point of view of Marxism, the great and strategic role of revolutions is that they remove obstacles from the path of social development and serve as a powerful stimulus for all social development. K. Marx called revolutions ʼʼlocomotives of historyʼʼ.

Evolutionist and revolutionary theories of society based on the idea of ​​social progress. Οʜᴎ affirm the possibility of a directed development of society, characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. In one case, the criterion of progress is the complication of the social organization of society ( G. Spencer ), in the other - changes in the system of social relations and the type of regulation of social relations ( E. Tennis ), in the third - changes in the nature of production and consumption ( W. Rostow and D. Bell ), in the fourth - the degree of mastery of society by the elemental forces of nature, expressed in the growth of labor productivity, and the degree of liberation of people from the yoke of the elemental forces of social development ( K. Marx ).