Class structure of society. The emergence and development trends of the class
18. Marxist theory of classes and the class structure of society
The presence of classes in society is currently recognized by most sociologists; in Marxist sociology, the first and leading place is given to the social class structure of society. The central, main element of this structure are classes. Classes were formed at a certain stage in the development of society and became a consequence of the inequality of people in society. The concept of “classes” was first introduced at the beginning of the 19th century, and was widely used by scientists F. Guizot, O. Thierry, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, but the most complete and developed doctrine of classes and class struggle was presented in Marxism. K. Marx and F. Engels substantiated the economic reasons for the emergence and functioning of classes; they argued that the division of society into classes is the result of the social division of labor and the formation of private property relations. The exploitation and appropriation of the results of labor of some classes by others is a manifestation of class relations in society. Classes are formed in two ways - by separating the clan community from the exploitative elite, which initially consisted of the clan nobility, and by enslaving prisoners of war and impoverished fellow tribesmen who fell into insurmountable debt obligations.
For the first time he used an economic approach to classes and defined them in his work “The Great Initiative” by V.I. Lenin. According to Marxism, classes are divided into basic− those whose existence follows from the prevailing relations in a given socio-economic formation (property relations): slaves and slave owners (for a slave-owning system); peasants and feudal lords (for the feudal system); proletarians and bourgeoisie (for the capitalist system), and not basic− the remnants of the previous classes in the new socio-economic formation and the resurgent classes that will replace the main ones and form the basis of the class division in the new formation.
Thus, according to Marxism, classes are developing large groups of people. Their fundamental social interests are those that determine their existence and position in society.
In foreign sociology, different bases are used to distinguish classes:
access to information, etc.
inequality of living conditions;
income level;
privilege;
attitude to power;
belonging to a certain group;
The main features in determining classes are the attitude to the means of production and the method of obtaining income.
In modern Western society, most sociologists distinguish three main classes:
class of owners of economic resources;
middle class;
lower class.
19. Social communities - the main component of the social structure
A social community is a collection of people characterized by the conditions of their life that are common to a given group of interacting individuals; belonging to historically formed territorial formations, belonging to the studied group of interacting individuals to one or another social institution.
The most important condition for the emergence of social communities is solidarity - unanimity, awareness of commonality with the interests of other people. At the same time, the level of solidarity in different types of communities, as we will see below, can manifest itself in different ways.
Functionally, social communities direct the actions of their members to achieve group goals. The social community ensures the coordination of these actions, which leads to an increase in its internal cohesion. The latter is possible thanks to patterns of behavior, norms that define relationships within this community, as well as socio-psychological mechanisms that guide the behavior of its members.
Among many types of social communities, such as family, work collective, groups of joint leisure activities, as well as various socio-territorial communities (village, small town, large cities, region, etc.) are of particular importance in terms of influencing behavior. . For example, the family socializes young people in the course of mastering the norms of social life, creates a sense of security in them, satisfies the emotional need for joint experiences, prevents psychological imbalance, helps to overcome the state of isolation, etc.
The territorial community and its state also influence the behavior of its members, especially in the sphere of informal contacts. Professional groups, in addition to the opportunity to resolve purely professional issues, form a sense of labor solidarity among members, provide professional prestige and authority, and control people’s behavior from the standpoint of professional morality.
Social community is the main category of sociology. A social community is not a simple sum of individuals and not any group of people, but a more or less stable and holistic social formation, the subjects of which are united by a common interest and interact with each other. It is thanks to such interaction that social relations are formed, the social area is distinguished in society, and each person acquires his own social quality. Social community covers all types and forms of social existence of an individual, who usually belongs to various social communities and plays different social roles in them. It mediates the relationship and interaction of the individual and society. The category “social community” adequately reflects and especially highlights the subject-active side of phenomena and processes that are social in nature, which is extremely important for understanding the essence and specifics of sociology.
By type of social community differ in spatiotemporal scales (for example, the planetary community of people and their state communities; settlement communities of different scales; sociodemographic communities) and the content of the interests that unite them (for example, social-class, socio-professional, ethno-national and other communities).
Properties of social communities:
1) the presence of a common goal of activity or the coincidence of goals of the people making up the community;
2) the presence of common, shared by all participants in the community, rules, norms;
3) solidary social interactions of partners, due to the presence of coinciding goals and common norms.
Typology of social communities:
1. Depending on the level of solidarity:
1) sets in which imaginary solidarity is embodied (in the absence of mutual social actions, there are coinciding goals, interests, etc.). Set forms:
b) aggregation (unification of people spatially located in one place): passengers of one train, visitors of one supermarket, etc.;
c) masses (characterized by similar (homogeneous), but not social actions): people fleeing from a real or fictitious threat (a similar action is panic); people who strive to wear the same clothes (a similar action is following fashion), etc.;
2) contact communities in which real, but, as a rule, short-term solidarity is embodied. Their forms:
a) audiences – one-time, relatively short-term (from several minutes to several hours) interactions between the lecturer (singer, actor, etc.) and listeners;
b) crowds - communities of people united by the momentary present (varieties of crowds: random (onlookers at a fire), conditioned (queuing for tickets), active (rebels));
c) social circles - communities of people of the same social status who have gathered together to satisfy their social needs (for communication, caring for others, recognition, prestige, etc.): a meeting of friends, a conference of scientists, a school ball, etc. (social circles often become the basis for the formation of group communities);
3) group communities in which institutionalized (long-term, stable, determined by norms, customs, etc.) solidarity is embodied (5.2).
2 . By number:
1) dyads (interaction of two people);
2) small communities (include from 3 to several dozen people);
3) large communities (from hundreds to thousands of people);
4) super-communities (include tens of thousands and millions of people); 5) the entire world community.
3 . By lifetime:
1) short-term (exist from several minutes to several hours: the audience of a specific event, passengers of an intercity bus);
2) long-term (exist from several days to several years: enterprise teams, military units);
3) long-term (exist from several decades to centuries and millennia: territorial, ethnic communities, nations).
4. According to the density of connections between individuals:
1) closely knit (organizations);
2) amorphous formations (football club fans, beer drinkers).
5. According to the basic system-forming feature:
1) territorial (Far Eastern community),
2) ethnic (Russian),
3) demographic (youth, women),
4) cultural (subcultural), etc.
In social psychology at the beginning of the twentieth century. Another understanding of social communities has emerged. The most famous representatives of this trend - G. Tarde and G. Le Bon - argue that all associations of people can be designated by the concept of a crowd. In their opinion, a crowd is not only a spontaneous, unorganized accumulation of individuals, but also a more or less structured, organized association of people.
G. Le Bon identifies the following types of crowds:
1) heterogeneous, including a) anonymous (street crowd) and b) non-anonymous (parliamentary assembly);
2) homogeneous, including a) sects (political, religious) and b) castes (military, workers);
3) classes (bourgeoisie, merchants).
Thus, there are different interpretations of the concept of social community and diverse types of communities. In sociology, the type of group communities (social groups) has been most deeply studied, and this is not accidental.
| " |
YES - SOCIALIZATION OF THE RUSSIAN CONSTITUTION! YOU GIVE SOCIAL GUARANTEES AND PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS!
SOCIAL BASE OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.
27 January 2013 14:56:44REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE PARTY OF THE COMMUNISTS OF RUSSIA K.A. ZHUKOV AT THE IOC SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE 01/26/2013
“The class structure of modern Russian society
And the social base of the communist movement."
Abstracts of the report of the Executive Secretary of the Central Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic Zhukov K.A. at the scientific and practical conference of the Interregional Association of Communists on January 26, 2013.
Introduction
Scientific analysis and forecast of changes in the existing class structure of modern Russian society, contradictions between classes and social groups, has not only theoretical, but also the most important applied significance for all political forces in Russia.
This question is especially important for communists who are guided by the scientific Marxist materialist and dialectical approach when analyzing economic and social relations.
Class approach
Marxist sociology is guided by a class approach to the analysis of the social and class structure of society.
The definition of classes according to V.I. Lenin fully retains its significance, according to which classes are “... large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy” (V.I. Lenin, Complete Works, 5th ed., vol. 39, p. 15).
Non-Marxist approaches to analysis
Social class structure of society
The main directions in bourgeois sociology are the stratification approach, the founder of which is M. Weber, as well as functionalism.
Functionalism
Theorists of functionalism view society as consisting in the interpretation of society as a social system that has its own structure and mechanisms of interaction of structural elements, each of which performs its own function.
Functionalism, as formulated by its theorists, should be recognized as an unscientific reactionary bourgeois theory, since its basis is the idea of "social order" and virtually excludes contradictions between classes and class struggle.
Stratification approach
The stratification approach is based on taking into account not only economic, but also political, social, as well as socio-psychological factors.
This implies that there is not always a rigid connection between them: a high position in one position can be combined with a low position in another.
Thus, the main difference between the stratification and class approaches is that within the framework of the latter, economic factors are dominant, all other criteria are their derivatives.
In a society with a well-established social structure, economic factors are certainly dominant and, of course, the classical Marxist class approach is correct.
At the same time, the classical class approach was developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin to societies with an established social class structure.
Modern Russian society is a society with a rapidly changing and still unstable social class structure, the analysis of which must take into account additional dynamic factors.
Such a society is characterized by:
Mass transition of people from one class or social group to another class or social group,
Rapid change in property relations,
Lack of established class consciousness,
Lack of established mechanisms for the reproduction of the social class structure,
The presence of a number of transitional social groups.
Therefore, in conditions of rapid changes in the social-class structure of society, along with economic factors, other factors of a political, social, and socio-psychological order can take on a commensurate importance.
In this regard, individual studies and conclusions made by bourgeois sociologists on the basis of a stratification approach in relation to societies with a rapidly changing social class structure may correspond to reality and not contradict Marxist analysis.
Theory of post-industrial society
and the bourgeois sociological theories arising from it
At the same time, attempts by non-Marxist theorists of the stratification approach to apply the non-Marxist theory of the so-called to Russia are completely unscientific and untrue. post-industrial society, and the resulting theories of the division of society into upper, middle and lower classes.
Even the absurd concept of a “creative” class appeared.
The theorists of “post-industrial society” themselves admit that due to the looseness and multi-layered nature, it is very difficult for them to give a clear definition of the concepts of upper, middle and lower, especially “creative” class.
According to bourgeois theories, post-industrial society is the next stage in the development of society and the economy after the so-called. an industrial society in which the economy is dominated by the innovative sector of the economy with highly productive industry, knowledge industry, with a high share of high-quality and innovative services in GDP, and with competition in all types of economic and other activities. In a post-industrial society, an effective innovative industry satisfies the needs of all economic agents, consumers and the population, gradually reducing its growth rate and increasing qualitative, innovative changes. Scientific developments become the main driving force of the economy - the basis of the knowledge industry.
The most valuable qualities are the level of education, professionalism, learning ability and creativity of the employee. The main intensive factor in the development of post-industrial society is human capital - professionals, highly educated people, science and knowledge in all types of economic innovation.
Thus, if you believe the theorists who substantiate the concept of a post-industrial society, then this society is very close to the communist one.
In fact, we have no signs of such a society or movement towards it in Russia or in other countries.
In modern Russia, not only is there no innovative economy, but the industrial economy has collapsed, and the level of education and professionalism of workers has not been growing, but has been steadily declining in recent years.
State monopoly capitalism in Russia
There are many answers to the key question of what kind of society we live in now, and there is no unity on this issue among the theorists of the communist movement.
The assessment of the regime established during the presidency of B. Yeltsin as bourgeois and comprador, which was fair in the 90s of the last century, and which some continue to repeat even now, is completely wrong at the present time.
Let us recall the concept of state capitalism from the Soviet dictionary of scientific communism of 1983:
State capitalism is an economy conducted by the state either together with private capital or for it, but on the principles of capitalist entrepreneurship.
In relation to Russia, the state currently, using the raw material model of economic development, controls more than 90 percent of the economy, acting in the interests of the large national bourgeoisie and bureaucracy (bureaucracy).
Thus, in Russia there is no so-called “post-industrial society”, neither a comprador bourgeois regime, nor some unique model of Russian capitalism.
In Russia, after the bloc of the national bureaucracy and the national bourgeoisie came to power in 2000, whose interests were expressed by V.V. Putin, and the bloc of the comprador bourgeoisie was removed from power, the regime of state monopoly capitalism, long studied theoretically and practically, was gradually established.
This is what we must proceed from when analyzing the existing social-class structure of Russian society and forecasting its changes.
The ruling classes of modern Russia
In modern Russia, a bloc of two ruling classes has formed - the bureaucracy (bureaucracy) on the one hand, and the big and middle bourgeoisie - on the other.
Bureaucracy (officialdom)
The question of whether under capitalism the bureaucracy (officialdom) is an independent social class, or a social group expressing the interests of the ruling class, is debatable, including among theorists of the communist and leftist movements.
Marx, Engels and Lenin did not classify the bureaucracy as an independent social class.
Meanwhile, in countries where there is a regime of state monopoly capitalism, due to the peculiarities of the disposal of the means of production and the resulting surplus value, the role of the bureaucracy is fundamentally different from that in countries with a classical capitalist economy.
Based on Lenin’s definition of classes, in Russia the highest bureaucracy at the moment is not only and not so much an exponent of the will of the oligarchic bourgeoisie, but an independent social class:
Independently managing raw materials and natural monopolies,
Independently managing the surplus value obtained from the extraction and sale of a significant part of raw materials and from the activities of natural monopolies,
Having class consciousness and aware of his interests,
Having established the mechanisms of its reproduction, since the children of senior government officials, prosecutors, and judges en masse become government officials, prosecutors, and judges,
Having certain contradictions with another ruling class - the bourgeoisie, imposing tribute on it in the form of bribes and kickbacks, resolving its contradictions with the bourgeoisie using mechanisms of economic and non-economic coercion.
If we draw historical parallels, then to some extent (in terms of functional position in society) the analogue of the modern Russian bureaucracy is the nobility in Tsarist Russia.
It is no coincidence that back in 2000, the then director of the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, called career state security officers “the new nobility.”
The Russian bureaucracy is an independent ruling social class, and not a social group serving the interests of another ruling class - the bourgeoisie.
Bourgeoisie
The second ruling class of modern Russia is the large (“oligarchs”) and middle (“regional barons”) bourgeoisie.
The large and middle Russian bourgeoisie should become the subject of permanent monitoring and independent research by Marxist scientists.
This issue, due to its scale, is not within the scope of this report.
The petty bourgeoisie in Russia is not the ruling class and, rather, can be classified as an oppressed social group.
3. Oppressed classes and social groups of modern Russia.
Industrial working class
The size of the industrial working class in Russia over the past 20 years, due to deindustrialization, has decreased significantly, according to unreliable official statistics, up to 1.5 times, to approximately 40 percent.
Part of the industrial working class changed their social status by going into small business, while another part stopped working due to age.
In the industrial working class, there is a significant stratification by income, primarily between workers in the energy sector, natural monopolies, enterprises serving them, forming the “labor aristocracy,” and everyone else.
There is a noticeable deskilling of workers caused by the retirement of skilled workers and the destruction of the vocational training system.
The bourgeoisie is actively using migrants who are afraid to express their protest, and the possibility of manipulation by them on the part of enterprise administrations is much higher.
As a consequence of the above factors, over the past 20 years the role of the industrial working class in society has declined; at the moment, unlike the beginning of the 20th century, the industrial working class is not in the vanguard of the class struggle.
The reduction in the number and role of the industrial working class was significantly affected by the raw materials model of functioning of the Russian economy.
Other wage earners (including intellectuals)
The number of persons employed in wage labor, physical and intellectual, who do not belong to the industrial proletariat, is commensurate with the number of the latter.
At the same time, the possibility of organization and self-organization of wage earners working in trade, public catering, and service enterprises is significantly lower than that of the industrial working class.
It should be noted that the INTERNET is becoming an important element of self-organization of hired labor, physical and intellectual, not related to the industrial proletariat.
A significant part of hired labor consists of workers in state enterprises and institutions, where the possibilities of manipulating employees are much higher, and where the employer is actually the bureaucracy (officialdom).
Persons of wage labor, physical and intellectual, who do not belong to the industrial proletariat, can be divided into various social groups (according to occupation, income level and other criteria).
Homogeneous, so-called These social groups do not form a “middle class”; some of them may be the social base of the Communist Party.
Peasantry
The collective farm peasantry, as a class, has been virtually destroyed in modern Russia.
The ruling classes managed, basically, to carry out decollectivization in the countryside, which was reflected in the destruction of most collective farms of the Soviet period and the purchase of a significant part of attractive agricultural land by the large and middle bourgeoisie.
Over the past 20 years, the reduction in numbers and property stratification of the former collective farm peasantry has continued. In particular, a new, but still small class of rural bourgeoisie (farmers) was formed.
Of course, both the industrial working class and the majority of other wage earners who do not belong to the industrial working class, as well as the rural proletariat, are the social base and support group of the Communist Party.
Petty bourgeoisie
In recent years, the ruling classes have been using administrative methods to curtail the economic activity of the population and limit small private business.
The most noticeable results of this policy are in the sphere of trade, in which its monopolization by trade networks belonging to the large and middle bourgeoisie is increasingly visible.
As a result, a significant part of the petty bourgeoisie has a negative attitude towards the ruling regime, which creates objective preconditions for its temporary alliance with other oppressed classes and social groups.
At the same time, as V.I. Lenin noted, the petty bourgeoisie is characterized by instability, swaying from side to side, which allows us to consider this social group only as a possible fellow traveler of the working people, led by the Communist Party, at certain stages of the struggle.
Pensioners
Pensioners form a special social group of significant numbers, which, as a rule, has lost contact with their social groups and classes, and is dependent on the state, on whose behalf the bureaucracy acts.
At the moment, the number of pensioners in Russia is more than 39 million people, which exceeds the number of the industrial working class, the peasantry, and any other individual classes and social groups.
The dependence of pensioners on the bureaucracy and the policy of social maneuvering carried out by the bureaucracy since 2000 have significantly reduced protest sentiments among pensioners.
At the same time, such a socio-psychological factor as the positive perception by the majority of pensioners of the Stalin and Brezhnev periods of development of our country allows us to continue to consider the majority of pensioners as a social base and support group for the Communist Party.
Declassed elements
The number of declassed elements in Russia is very large compared to the Soviet period of development and has increased by several orders of magnitude.
To estimate the size of this social group, due to the lack of official data, one can use expert estimates, according to which declassed elements make up up to 14 percent of the working population (about 10 million people).
For obvious reasons, this social group as a whole cannot be a social base or a support group for communists, although individual members of it can participate in the communist movement.
Class struggle in modern Russia
Already in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” it was stated that the history of all existing societies was the history of class struggle, that is, that it is the class struggle that drives the development of human society, since it inevitably leads to a social revolution, which is the culmination of the class struggle, and to the transition to new social order. From the point of view of Marxists, class struggle will always and everywhere, in any society where antagonistic classes exist.
In modern Russia, the antagonist classes are, on the one hand, the bureaucracy (officialdom), the large and middle bourgeoisie, and, on the other hand, the industrial working class, other wage earners, and the majority of peasants.
Politics of the ruling classes:
aimed at the almost complete appropriation of surplus value created by the labor of the entire people, the privatization of raw materials, land, water bodies, rivers and lakes;
Led to the deindustrialization of Russia, deskilling of the working class, destruction of agriculture, science and culture, loss of social guarantees of the Soviet period;
It hinders the reintegration of Russia and some of the former Soviet republics, generates interethnic tension;
Leads to the infringement of general democratic rights and freedoms;
It infringes on the economic interests of not only workers, but also the petty bourgeoisie.
Meanwhile, the interests of all social classes and social groups not related to the ruling classes correspond to a mixed socialist model of the economy, the restoration of democracy and state unity of the country, destroyed in 1991.
It is these preferences of the working masses, the majority of the lower and middle bureaucracy, military personnel and law enforcement officials, and pensioners that the results of numerous sociological surveys, including those conducted by bourgeois sociologists, indicate.
Thus, the state monopoly capitalism established in Russia contradicts the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, with the exception of the ruling classes.
Therefore, the socialist revolution can be supported, under certain conditions, in addition to the working masses by part of the lower and middle bureaucracy, military personnel and law enforcement officers; part of the petty bourgeoisie and individual representatives of the middle bourgeoisie; most of them are pensioners.
An important negative feature of the modern stage of the class struggle due to the transitional unstable social-class structure of Russian society is the absence of a clearly defined avant-garde revolutionary class.
Social base of Russian communists
As V.I. Lenin wrote in his work “The Infantile Disease of Leftism in Communism”:
Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes; - that it is possible to contrast masses and classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, not divided according to their position in the social system of production, to categories that occupy a special position in the social system of production; -that classes are usually and in most cases, at least in modern civilized countries, led by political parties.
The ruling class of bureaucracy in Russia, represented by specialists in “situational analysis” and “political modeling” from the Main Directorate of Internal Policy of the Administration of the Russian Federation, decided to go down in history by refuting this indisputable and generally accepted conclusion of Lenin.
The perverted economic model of state monopoly capitalism that has developed in Russia has also given rise to a perverted political system.
The majority of political parties in Russia are not created naturally as a spokesman for the interests of certain classes and social groups, but are constructed by the ruling regime, for the most part, artificially, with “leaders” at the head of these parties imitating the fight against the regime.
Meanwhile, the technology for creating “cheating parties” is becoming less and less effective.
Life shows that the existing social classes and social groups no longer trust and are not going to trust the pseudo-parties created by the ruling regime to express their interests.
The Communists of Russia, regardless of their division into political parties and organizations, have long had their own social base, which, however, is insufficient for a victorious socialist revolution.
The potential social basis for expanding the influence of communists at the current stage of development of Russia are those social classes and social groups whose interests correspond to the mixed socialist model of the economy, the restoration of democracy and state unity of the country:
The majority of wage earners (both industrial workers and those employed in the service sector, trade, and intellectual activity);
Most of the peasantry;
Part of the lower and middle bureaucracy, military personnel and law enforcement officials;
Part of the petty bourgeoisie and some representatives of the middle bourgeoisie;
Most of them are pensioners.
The main task of the organizational, ideological and propaganda work of Russian communists is to ensure that this potentially broad social base of the communist movement turns into a real one, so that broad sections of the working people entrust the communists with the right to express their interests.
Broad support of the working masses is a necessary condition for removing the bloc of bureaucracy and bourgeoisie from power and returning Russia to the path of socialist development.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
JSC Medical University Astana
Department of Philosophy and Sociology
Student's independent work
On the topic: “Marxist theory of classes and social structure of society”
Completed by: Moldabaev Arman 237 OM
Checked by: Abdrkhimova S.E.
Astana 2013
Plan
Introduction
1. Understanding of the term “classes” in Marx
2. A narrow approach to understanding K. Marx’s class theory
3. A broad approach to understanding Marx’s class theory
4. Social stratification
5. The concept of social structure of society
6. Marxist doctrine of classes as the main element of social structure
Conclusion
Literature
Introduction
Social structure is a stable connection of elements in a social system. The main elements of the social structure of society are individuals occupying certain positions (status) and performing certain social functions (roles), the unification of these individuals based on their status characteristics into groups, socio-territorial, ethnic and other communities, etc. Social structure expresses the objective division of society into communities, roles, layers, groups, etc., indicating the different positions of people in relation to each other according to numerous criteria. Each of the elements of the social structure, in turn, is a complex social system with its own subsystems and connections.
1. Understanding of the term “classes” in Marx
The theory of social classes is the most important part of the creative heritage of K. Marx. Based on how often Marx spoke about classes, one can conclude that this is the main theme of his writings. And although the word “class” appears in most of his works, K. Marx never explored the issue systematically. He did not leave a coherent theory to his descendants, did not give a clear and precise definition of class. The unfinished third volume of Capital ends at chapter 54, from which only two pages have reached us. This was the only chapter on classes where he seemed to be going to speak at length on the subject.
K. Marx used the term “class” in a variety of meanings. You can count dozens of expressions that in one way or another relate to classes. Marx writes about the nobility as a class of large landowners, calls the bourgeoisie the ruling class, and the proletariat the working class. F. Engels had the same attitude towards classes as Marx. The bureaucracy is called the “third class,” the petty bourgeoisie, independent farmers, and petty nobility (junkers) are called the “new classes.” Most often, no distinction is made between class and estate, and both terms are used as synonyms, although Marx and Engels make it clear in several places that class personifies a certain group in the national economy of a given country, for example in large-scale industry and agriculture, which is absolutely not the case talk about classes. He classifies both the bourgeoisie as a whole and its layers, namely the financial aristocracy, the industrial bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, etc. Class refers to the petty bourgeoisie, peasantry, workers, etc.
2. A narrow approach to understanding K. Marx’s class theory
Since Marx did not precisely indicate the criteria for class formation, experts find it difficult to give an unambiguous interpretation of his theory. Nevertheless, his theory of classes can be reconstructed using all of his writings, as well as the works he prepared together with F. Engels, and the works written by Engels after Marx's death. In order to get a general idea of his theory, it has to be reconstructed from various fragments scattered throughout the works of different years. To correctly understand Marx’s class theory, one must pay attention not to the verbal form, but to the socio-economic content hidden beneath it, which is revealed through the use of the method of sociological reconstruction of the worldview. This is precisely what allows us to carry out a logical reconstruction of Marx’s theory.
Such a reconstruction allows us to assert that, firstly, Marx analyzed classes through their relationship to ownership of capital and means of production. His class-forming basis was economics, i.e. nature and method of production. He did not attach much importance to the size of income (although he emphasized the importance of the method of obtaining it), the common interests of people and the role of psychological factors. Secondly, he distinguished two main classes - bourgeoisie(owners of means of production) and proletariat(subjects of hired labor receiving wages). Within the two main classes into which any society is divided, there are many separate groups. Thirdly, class, based on the entire body of Marx's works, can be characterized as a number of people occupying the same position in an economic structure. For Marx, this position was based on a person’s relationship to the means of production - ownership or non-ownership of property, and for the owners themselves - on the type of property. The source of income, the size of which he did not include among the class-forming characteristics, is not only property, respectively, the number of things that can be bought with this money, but also power or control over economic resources, and through them, over people.
3. A Broad Approach to Understanding Marx's Class Theory
However, a broader approach is also possible. It is quite likely, and this can be seen in the logic of his thoughts, that Marx adhered to not just one, economic, but several criteria for class formation. This means that the author of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” based the division of people into classes: 1) economic forces(sources and amount of income); 2) social factors(ownership or non-ownership of the means of production) and 3) political factors(dominance and influence in the power structure). In this form, Marx’s class theory resembles Weber’s class theory, which also identifies three class-forming characteristics: economic (property), social (prestige) and political (power). But this is only an external similarity; later we will see that the two theories are significantly different from each other. class marx stratification social
Unlike Weber, Marx believed that the relationship between the two main classes of society is antagonistic those. irreconcilable, not only because some dominate and others are subordinate, but also because some exploit others. exploitation is called the gratuitous appropriation of someone else's unpaid labor. Slaves, peasants and workers produce more wealth (goods and services) than they need for their own food, i.e. satisfaction of primary life needs. In other words, they create accessory product. But they do not have the opportunity to use what they themselves produce. Those who own the means of production extract from the surplus product what they call “profit.” This is the economic source of exploitation, as well as of conflict between classes, which usually manifests itself in the form of class struggle.
4. Social stratification
In Marxism, classes act as a universal historical and the main form of stratification that permeates everything formations, all historical era. Marx believed that all societies that have ever existed and exist today are in one sense or another class. What makes classes a universal historical type of stratification is the fact that in all formations there was one of the main features - the exploitation of other people's labor. In all types of society, the owners who make up the ruling class exploit the non-owners who represent the other class. Throughout historical times, one part of the population, as a rule, a minority, owned the means of production and controlled the material resources of society, exploiting the labor of others, while other groups of the population did not have this. In ancient Rome, patricians owned the land, and slaves were forced to work for them, receiving only living wage, primarily food and housing. In medieval Europe, feudal lords owned the land, and serfs performed economic and military duties, paying for a leased plot of land. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie owns enterprises, land and banks, and the proletarians, who have no property other than the ownership of their working hands, are forced to become hired workers. The salary they receive compensates only part of the costs, since it is set at the subsistence level.
However, class as the leading type of stratification underwent a significant evolution and only under capitalism showed itself in its most mature and complete form. In previous formations, it was relegated to the background by other types of stratification, for example, the class type. Marx distinguished between class and estate divisions, but such an assumption cannot be proven, since Marx nowhere explained how these two types of stratification differ and how they are interconnected. At the same time, his associate F. Engels pointed out that under slavery and feudalism the class division of society takes the form class stratification.. Classes are forced to submit to the class type of stratification in certain historical periods because the class-forming factor - attitude to the means of production and free wage labor - gives way, in particular, under feudalism, to another criterion - personal dependence, which is a distinctive property of the class hierarchy. As soon as capitalism gains strength, personal dependence recedes into the background, and free wage labor comes to the fore.
From previous formations, residual classes are preserved in each subsequent formation, as a result of which the class structure of society is not a two-layer structure, for example, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but a multi-layered pie. Marx pointed out that the two main classes of capitalist society are falling apart into “fragments.” For example, within the bourgeoisie there are different industrialists, financiers, landowners, and merchants, between whom conflicting relationships may exist. Industrialists may be dissatisfied with the high rents paid to landowners, and merchants with interest on bank rates.
The proletariat is subdivided into those who have guaranteed employment and those who do not (the unemployed and the lumpen proletariat), those employed in industry and in the service sector. In addition to them, there are the peasantry and the nobility, which do not fall into the two-term classification of classes. They have been preserved from previous formations. Peasants and small proprietors are atavisms for modern capitalism, which, according to Marx's theory, must die out as capitalism develops. The withering away of intermediate and inherited from the past strata was dictated by Marx by the theoretical postulates of his teaching. The fact is that class struggle only becomes the driving force of history when it is built on the irreconcilable contradiction of two antagonistic classes. The appearance of additional ones prevents it from manifesting itself and disrupts the revolutionary spirit of the exploited class. A mature society must be bipolar.
5. Understande social structure of society
The concept of social structure in society is usually used in the following basic senses. In a broad sense, social structure is the structure of society as a whole, a system of connections between all its main elements. With this approach, social structure characterizes all the numerous types of social communities and the relationships between them. In a narrow sense, the term “social structure of society” is most often applied to social-class and social-group communities. Social structure in this sense is a set of interconnected and interacting classes, social strata and groups.
6. Marxist doctrine of classesas a basic element of social structure
In sociology, there are a large number of concepts of the social structure of society; historically, one of the first is Marxist teaching. In Marxist sociology, the leading place is given to the social-class structure of society. The social class structure of society, according to this direction, represents the interaction of three main elements: classes, social strata and social groups. The core of social structure is classes. The presence of classes in society was noted in science even before Marx at the beginning of the 19th century. This concept was widely used by the French historians F. Guizot, O. Thierry and the English and French political economists A. Smith and D. Ricardo. However, the doctrine of classes received its greatest development in Marxism. K. Marx and F. Engels founded the economic reasons for the emergence of classes. They argued that the division of society into classes is the result of the social division of labor and the formation of private property relations. The process of class formation occurred in two ways: by identifying an exploitative elite in the clan community, which initially consisted of the clan nobility, and by enslaving prisoners of war, as well as impoverished fellow tribesmen who fell into debt bondage.
This economic approach to classes is captured in the famous definition of classes, which was formulated by V.I. Lenin in his work “The Great Initiative” and which became textbook in Marxism for 70 years.
“Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in methods of obtaining and size the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.” Thus, according to Lenin, the main feature of a class is the attitude towards the means of production (ownership or non-ownership) that determines the role of classes in the social organization of labor (managers and controlled), in the system of power (dominant and controlled), their well-being (rich and poor). The class struggle serves as the driving force of social development.
Marxism divides classes into basic and non-basic.
The main classes are those whose existence directly follows from the economic relations prevailing in a given socio-economic formation, primarily property relations: slaves and slave owners, peasants and feudal lords, proletarians and the bourgeoisie.
Minor ones are the remnants of previous classes in a new socio-economic formation or emerging classes that will replace the main ones and form the basis of the class division in the new formation. In addition to the main and non-main classes, the structural element of society is the social strata (or strata).
Social strata are intermediate or transitional groups that do not have a clearly expressed specific relationship to the means of production and, therefore, do not possess all the characteristics of a class. Social strata can be intraclass (part of a class) or interclass. The first include large, medium,... Small, urban and rural monopoly and non-monopoly bourgeoisie, industrial and rural proletariat, labor aristocracy, etc. A historical example of inter-class strata is the “third estate”, during the period of the ripening of the first bourgeois revolutions in Egypt - the urban philistinism and handicrafts. In modern society - the intelligentsia. In turn, interclass elements of the modern structure can have their own internal division. Thus, the intelligentsia is divided into proletarian, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois. Thus, the social layer structure does not completely coincide with the class structure. Using the concept of social system according to the thoughts of Marxist sociologists allows us to concretize the social structure of society, point out its diversity and dynamism.
Despite the fact that in conditions of ideological dictate and the prosperity of dogmatism in Marxist sociology, Lenin’s definition of classes, based not on a purely economic approach, had absolute dominance, some Marxist sociologists realized that classes are a broader formation. Consequently, the concept of the social-class structure of society must include political, spiritual and other relational connections. With a broader approach in the interpretation of the social structure of society, a significant place is given to the concept of “social interests”.
Interests are the real life aspirations of individuals, groups and other communities, which they consciously or unconsciously guide in their actions and which determine their objective position in the social system. Social interests find the most general expression of the current needs of representatives of certain social communities. Awareness of interests is carried out during the process of social comparison that continuously occurs in society, that is, comparison of life status with comparison of other social groups. For understanding classes, the term “radical social interests” is essential, which reflects the presence of major social interests that determine its existence and social position. Based on all of the above, we can propose the following definition of classes: classes are large social groups that differ in their role in all spheres of society, which are formed on the basis of fundamental social interests. Classes have common socio-psychological characteristics, value orientations, and their own “code” of behavior.
Each social community is a subject of activity and relationships. Classes as a socio-political community have a common program of activity for all their members. This program, corresponding to the fundamental interests of this or that class, is developed by its ideologies.
Social strata in this approach are social communities that unite people on the basis of some private interests.
Conclusion
Modern history has proven fallacy some of Marx's propositions. Contrary to his predictions, there was no pauperization (impoverishment) of the working class. On the contrary, as society industrialized, its standards of living increased. Contrary to his forecast, the size of the working class was constantly declining, its wages were increasing, and its revolutionary spirit was decreasing. On the other hand, private property is now not concentrated in the hands of a few people, but is distributed among the broad masses of shareholders. The unfulfilled forecast regarding the increasing social polarization in modern society undermined confidence in Marx's class theory.
Lliterature
1. A.A. Radugin, K.A. Radugin “Sociology” 1999 -160 p.
2. Dobrenkov V.I., Kravchenko A.I. Textbook_2001 -624
3. Radaev V.V., Shkaratan O.I. Social stratification: Textbook. M., 1995. P. 71
4. Classes, social strata and groups in the USSR / Rep. ed. Ts.A. Stepanyan and B.S. Semenov. - M.: Nauka, 1968.
5. Materials from Internet sites
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
The concept of the class structure of society. Ideas about the stratification of society. Basic bourgeois theories of social stratification. Classes in post-industrial society according to E. Giddens. The pyramidal structure of modern capitalist society.
abstract, added 06/02/2016
Characteristics of the social structure of society, the study of its main elements: classes, estates, city and village residents, socio-demographic groups, national communities. Features of social mobility and analysis of the problem of civil society.
abstract, added 02/01/2010
The concept of the social structure of society, a description of its elements. Analytical review of the social structure of society as a whole. The state of the social structure of society in post-Soviet Russia, its transformation at the present time, the search for ways to improve it.
course work, added 05/06/2010
Groups, layers, classes are the most important elements of the social structure of society. The relationship between the class theory of the social structure of society and the theory of social stratification and mobility. Types of social communities of people, their features and characteristics.
abstract, added 03/15/2012
Concepts, elements and levels of the social structure of society, analysis of its state and transformation in post-Soviet Russia. Proposals and recommendations for the formation of a new social stratification and middle class social structure of Russian society.
course work, added 05/06/2010
Study of the social system of society: characteristics and development trends. Basic functions of social stratification. Analysis of contradictions in society. The concept of social structure. Features and attributes of a social group. Types of social mobility.
course work, added 03/05/2017
Sociology as a science of society. The concept of “social system” in the works of ancient thinkers. Elements of the social structure of society. The meaning of elements, their place in the structure, significant connections. Types of social community. Concepts of social structure.
abstract, added 02/13/2010
Class is the main element of social stratification of society. The emergence of classes. Social classification of society. Stratification of modern Russian society. Studying class consciousness: different approaches. "Middle class" in modern Russia.
abstract, added 04/04/2008
Basic elements of Ukrainian social structure. Hidden and obvious elements of social structure. The theory of social stratification and its role in the study of the social structure of modern Ukrainian society. Social inequality of society in Ukraine.
test, added 01/09/2008
The concept of the structure of society, its main elements and dynamics of development. Theories of social stratification. Personal status and prestige as the basis for the stratification of society. Social mobility: group and individual, horizontal and vertical.
Clarification of the concept
There are two main approaches to the study of socio-economic structure.
Firstly, the so-called. "gradational approach", or the classical theory of social
stratification. Its subject is socio-economic strata (strata). The layers differ in the degree to which they have certain social and economic characteristics (for example, income, property, prestige, education
and so on.). Typical of this approach is the division of society into upper, middle and lower strata. This is stratification analysis in the narrow sense of the word.
Secondly, this is a class analysis, the subject of which is socio-economic groups connected by social relations (hence
its other name is relational approach), occupying different places in the social division of labor. If strata are arranged in a hierarchy located
along one axis, then the classes differ not in the quantity, but in the quality of features, although
often they can be interrelated. Thus, a small entrepreneur can have the same standard of living as a highly skilled worker or low- or middle-level manager. They may be part of the same stratum, but in terms of their place in the market exchange system they belong to different socio-economic classes.
The point is not that one approach is correct and the other is false. These two approaches look at different slices of the system of socio-economic inequality.
In post-Soviet Russia, as a reaction to the long dominance of the Marxist-Leninist concept of class structure, the gradational, i.e. stratification approach immediately triumphed. It is in this vein that almost
all major works on socio-economic inequality. Although in them
and the concept of class is used, but in fact as a synonym for “stratum”. Class analysis was left out as an “anachronism.”
Class analysis has several directions. However, they are united by a focus on studying the relationships between positions formed
"employment relations in the labor market and in production units".
1. Structural (theoretical) direction. Its content is the study of the structure of class positions, analysis of the content of individual positions
and forms of communication between them. The content of the class structure is the processes of distribution of capital in society (in its various forms) and the mechanisms of its
reproduction. Anthony Giddens defined this process of redistribution
as a “structuration” during which economic relations transform
into non-economic social structures.
2. The demographic direction focuses attention on people occupying positions in class space, on their mobility, on the number of individuals in each part of class space. This direction dominates
in empirical research.
3. The cultural direction is quite heterogeneous. This may include studies of problems of class consciousness, class habitus, subculture, lifestyles, consumption, etc. One of the central questions that stands in
this direction of research can be formulated as follows: how
Do people reproduce class structure through their culture?
The subject of this work is only theoretical class analysis.
Classical Concepts: Commonalities and Differences
Modern class theories come from two main sources: Karl Marx and Max Weber. Although they are often contrasted with each other, I
it appears that their concepts are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. They have important similarities:
1) both concepts consider class structure as a phenomenon only of capitalist society, the key characteristics of which are
a market economy and private ownership of the means of production are considered;
2) both Marx and Weber used the category of class to designate socio-economic groups;
3) both attached great importance to property as a class criterion
differentiation. Society, from their point of view, is divided primarily into those who
has it, and on those who do not have it.
At the same time, between Marxist and Weberian class concepts
There are also significant differences.
1. Marx's concept is dynamic. At its center are processes
initial accumulation and reproduction of capital. The first he tied,
first of all, with the deprivation of peasants’ property (for example, “fencing”
in England) and colonial robbery, the second - with exploitation.
Weber, apparently, the question of where the wealth of some classes comes from
and the poverty of others, was not interested.
2. Marx viewed his class theory as the theoretical basis of a revolutionary ideology designed to change the world. Weber this problematic
I wasn't interested.
3. Marx linked the process of reproduction of class structure before
with a system of market production, while Weber shifted the focus
its attention to the market.
4. For Marx, the structure of society is very polarized: he analyzes only
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with passing mention of other groups. Weber focuses
attention to more subtle inequalities manifested in the labor and capital markets, which made it possible to approach the study of the new middle class, i.e., highly qualified hired professionals.
5. For Marx, the mechanism of formation of the class boundary is based on capital (primarily the means of production) as a self-increasing value.
Weber wrote about property in general, that is, he used a broader category. On the one hand, this was a step back compared to Marx, since the category of property focuses attention on the phenomenon, leading away
from the analysis of the essence, mechanisms of formation of class inequalities. On the other hand, this approach opens up opportunities for studying lifestyle
various classes, including the spheres of not only labor, but also consumption.
All modern models of class have grown from classical concepts.
analysis, often denoted by the prefix “neo”: neo-Marxism
and neo-Weberianism. If at a general theoretical level the differences between them are noticeable, then in empirical research they become elusive.
Nick Abercrombie and John Urry quite rightly argue that it is now
it is difficult to determine which of the modern researchers of class structure
belongs to the Marxist, and some to the Weberian tradition. These shortcuts
in their opinion, indicate rather differences in the style of analysis or emphasis,
but not to a fundamental conflict.
Class analysis and modern society
How relevant is class analysis, which arose in the West in a completely different
era, for modern Russia? It is obvious that classical concepts cannot adequately explain a number of phenomena in modern society.
1. Capitalism, where the main subject was the individual owner
enterprise or bank, has turned into corporate capitalism, where the main subject is an impersonal corporation. The company owns a company, which in turn creates a whole series of subsidiaries. Although the figure of the individual capitalist has been preserved, it is only in medium-sized businesses.
Therefore, modern Western society is sometimes defined as “capitalism”
without capitalists."
2. After World War II, the Western world began to grow rapidly
a new middle class of salaried professionals. The new phenomenon caused active discussions in sociology.
The reaction to these new phenomena in the life of capitalist society was
denial of class analysis in general, implying denial of relevance
learning and class structure. However, another part of sociologists proceed from the fact that Western society was and is class-based, therefore there is no reason for
refusal of class analysis. “Class inequalities in industrial countries,” writes George Marshall, the famous British sociologist, “remained
more or less unchanged throughout the 20th century. Therefore, the central problem of class theory is not at all what was assumed by generations of critics who spoke about the disappearance of social classes in developed countries.
societies. The real problem is to explain their persistence as a potential social force." And in modern Western sociology it is done
a lot for the development of class analysis in relation to new realities.
The most famous options were proposed by the American Eric Wright and the Englishman John Goldthorpe.
To what extent is class analysis relevant for post-Soviet Russia? Answer
This question depends on two groups of factors. First, class analysis
is relevant for Russia to the extent that it has formed a capitalist society, the economy of which is based on the market and private ownership of the means of production. It is difficult to deny that a step has been taken in this direction, but the process is still far from complete. Secondly, class
the analysis is relevant only for researchers who believe that the distribution of capital in society has a powerful impact on the formation of its
social structure. If you don’t see such a connection or don’t want to see it,
then, naturally, class analysis can be forgotten as an intellectual anachronism.
Capital as a social relation
Modernization of class analysis, it seems to me, can follow the path
modernization of ideas about capital as a kind of watershed in the class structure. In classical theories, capital was limited to specific material forms: money and means of production. In the twentieth century, attempts were made to expand the concept of capital to new objects. Thus, the concepts of “human”, “social”, “cultural” and “organizational” capital appeared. However, the expansion of the list of material forms of capital only emphasizes the need to determine the essence of this phenomenon,
capable of appearing in different forms.
Capital is a process. According to K. Marx, "the objective content of this process is the increase in value." Capital is a kind of coefficient in front of the indicator of simple labor, which in a certain market
context can lead to an increase in the cost of the product of simple labor. Role
This coefficient is fulfilled not only by the means of production, but also by knowledge,
experience, connections, name, etc. So, well-trained and experienced workers will build a house
much faster and better than an amateur builder who has nothing,
except hands and intentions. The use of modern technology changes the process
construction radically.
The categories of resource and capital are related, but are not identical. A resource is an opportunity that does not necessarily become a reality.
Any capital is a resource, but not every specific resource is converted into
into capital. Capital is a market resource realized in the process of increasing value. Therefore, the owners of the same resources in terms of material form may have a different relationship to capital and, accordingly, a different place in the class structure. Money in a jar is a treasure;
money in market circulation that generates profit is capital.
Such a transformation of resource into capital is possible only in the context of a market society. Where there is no market, the market value of resources increases
not happening.
Capital can also be cultural resources, which during the market
exchanges are capable of generating profit. This is primarily knowledge and skills. Capital can be a name, which is clearly manifested in the phenomenon of a brand. Based on this process, class boundaries are formed.
Capital acts as a key factor in the formation of class
structures. Classes are social groups that differ in their attitude to capital: some have it, others do not, some have it as means of production
or financial capital, for others - cultural capital.
Basic elements of class structure
Capital, transformed into elements of social structure, is placed
society is very uneven. On the one hand, there are areas endowed with capital and those deprived of it. On the other hand, the former differ in the nature of the capital available there.
Accordingly, social class space is divided into at least four main fields.
1. Social field of the working class.
It consists of status positions that are engaged in simple hired labor, sold and bought as a commodity. The ideal type of worker is an unskilled worker who sells his labor power, the main content of which is this
He has natural potential.
In the space of positions of the working class, a zone of relatively skilled labor is distinguished, the proportion of which varies from country to country
and depends on the technological equipment of production and labor organization.
Skilled workers have cultural resources (formal
indicators are ranks, work experience in the specialty).
The proportion of workers with significant cultural capital depends on the nature of production. The more technically complex it is, the more
It requires workers whose training sometimes takes many years. Therefore, in the developed countries of the world, the classical proletarian is increasingly moving towards
marginal positions. However, in Russia, with its characteristically very high
level of simple unskilled labor typical worker - noticeable
phenomenon in the group under consideration.
In the 20th century, a noticeable phenomenon was the formation of the office proletariat - a group of hired workers engaged in simple mental labor. If
consider capital as a key factor in class formation,
then there is no fundamental difference in the class position of manual workers and office proletarians.
2. The social field of the bourgeoisie.
Here status positions require external support
in relation to individuals of types of capital (money, means of production, land).
The form of material remuneration is dividends on capital.
The ideal type of bourgeois is a rentier, a shareholder.
When studying the class structure of modern corporate capitalism, which is also emerging in Russia, the phenomenon of the bourgeoisie creates serious methodological and methodological problems. To replace individual
The owner received a joint stock company with a confusing multi-level ownership structure. Methodological problems in studying this phenomenon can be reduced if we abandon the archaic figure of the individual capitalist
as units of this class. There is a class as a space of positions endowed
ownership of the means of production and money capital. And there are specific individuals included in this space (due to the acquisition of shares)
and those leaving it (as a result of ruin or sale of shares). At the same time, individuals often combine different class positions: a top manager who owns
a significant stake is a typical phenomenon in the West and especially in Russia. Since each class field has its own logic of interests,
then the manager and the owner often represent the interests of the company differently,
evaluate its effectiveness differently. Often the bearer of this contradiction is one individual.
3. Social field of the traditional middle class
. It consists of status
positions that require a combination in one person of labor and organizational capital, and often the means of production. A typical status position of this field is an employee who directly enters the market for goods or services.
This position is often supplemented by means of production and money capital (farmers, artisans, small traders, etc.), but can often do without them (lawyer, sometimes doctor, consultant, artist, etc.).
usually have only cultural and organizational capital). The form of material remuneration is income, which includes both wages and
different types of dividends. There are also differences between class positions and the people who occupy them. With this approach, one person combines positions
does not create a small owner and worker or employee for the researcher
deadlock situation.
4. The social field of the new middle class. The ideal member type of this class is
an employee who has a large amount of cultural capital, dividends from which provide him with his main income. Typical representatives of this class are managers, various kinds of experts working in companies.
However, the nature of the work is completely irrelevant.
Labor force is only physical and intellectual potentialities.
It can be compared to a computer that does not have any special software other than DOS. A representative of the new middle class is described using the metaphor of a computer loaded with valuable and expensive
programs. He, like the worker, has labor power, but the firm pays
to him the bulk of his income is not for this, but for the cultural capital placed at her disposal.
The more complex the cultural resource, the more scarce it is, and in market conditions, the excess of demand over supply leads to an increase in prices. Therefore, the more scarce
specialist (more experience, better education, reputation), the more people want to hire him, the more money income is offered.
The money income of an employee in the position of the new middle class consists of two main parts: 1) wages equal to the value of the labor
strength, which is the same for both the general director and the loader; 2) dividends
on cultural capital.
The worker can also have dividends on cultural capital (for example,
wages for rank, seniority, etc.), but the main income of the worker is the payment for his labor power. Therefore, the class differences between the proletariat and the middle strata do not consist in the set of elements of their income, but in their quantitative ratios, which form a new quality.
In market conditions, the same cultural resource can be capital,
it may not be. If there is no demand for Type A specialists, then their cultural resource does not bring any or almost no dividends to their owners. More
the mild version of this situation is the inability to use these resources effectively. And then a high-class specialist receives a salary comparable to the income of an average-skilled worker. The market is eroding
class boundary between them. Diploma of any nature, including Doctor of Science,
does not guarantee against falling into the ranks of the intellectual working class - a situation typical of post-Soviet Russia.
In a different market situation, the same person may be at a great price
and receive dividends on cultural capital. Therefore, education, experience, knowledge in themselves are not cultural capital; they can turn into
into capital only in the process of market exchange that gives dividends. It follows that the professional structure can be very different from the class structure.
This is manifested in the fact that in one country the owner of cultural resource X falls into the ranks of the new middle class, and in another country he is in the ranks of the working class. Similar fluctuations are possible between regions. Therefore, with this understanding of the class structure, attempts to replace class analysis with the study
professional structure is meaningless.
The logic of the transformation of a cultural resource into capital and back is similar to the transformations that machines often undergo in market production
and equipment. If they produce a commodity that is in demand and profitable, it is capital. If they cannot be effectively
into the market exchange system, they stop, stand idle and turn into scrap metal, which does not exclude their possible resuscitation in the future. This is the path that many factories and plants in post-Soviet Russia have gone through.
The new middle class stands out as a distinct element in almost every key
modern class concepts, although the name often varies. So,
John Goldthorpe calls it service-class or salariat. To this class he includes professionals, administrators and managers employed by employers who have delegated some of their powers to them. For this, they receive relatively high wages, stable employment, increased pensions,
various privileges and wide autonomy in the performance of their functions. In Wright's scheme, the following classes basically correspond to the new middle class:
expert managers, expert supervisors, expert non-managers.
The line separating the new middle class from the working class is fluid,
situational, blurred, devoid of clear outlines. People who are close to
her, may be drawn into interclass social mobility without
unnecessary movements. Occupying the same position in the firm, having the same
same resource, they suddenly find themselves drawn into a new market situation that radically changes their class status.
Class structure is an attribute of a capitalist society, the result of converting the economic processes of capital reproduction into social
processes of its unequal distribution. If in Russia there is already private ownership of the means of production, there is a free market for labor and capital, then there is also a class structure, although one can argue about the degree of its maturity.
and national characteristics. If there is such a structure, then it is necessary
and class analysis as a theoretical tool for its interpretation. Is not
means that, as in Soviet Marxism-Leninism, everywhere and everywhere it is necessary
look for class roots. There are other types of social structures (gender,
age, professional, industry, ethnic, etc.). Class - one
of them. In some cases, it comes to the fore, in others it is relegated.
in the shadow, but it does not disappear completely.
The study of class structure is interesting in itself. In addition, understanding it is the key to understanding the behavior of the people included in it. Class
belonging to a significant extent forms the way of life of people, styles of consumer behavior, electoral choice. In the West, especially in the UK, a lot of research is devoted to the relationship between class and electoral behavior. And it is clearly visible. In Russia
while class status has little effect on the actions of voters. And the reason is not
in the fact that there is no class structure, but in the absence, firstly, of clear ideas about class interests and, secondly, of real parties capable of representing and defending these interests not in words, but in deeds. Is it possible to count
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the party of the working class, and the SPS is the party of the middle classes? I have
there are big doubts about this. Other parties are not positioned at all
in class space. True, in recent years Yabloko has been trying to become
the party of the intelligentsia, the state employees, i.e., speaking in terms of class analysis, the intellectual working class. However, trying and becoming is still
not the same thing.
and stratification of Russian society. M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Sociology, 1998;
Middle class in modern Russian society. M.: RNIS and NP; ROSSPEN, 1999;
Tikhonova N. E. Factors of social stratification in conditions of transition to a market economy
economy. M.: ROSSPEN, 1999.
Marshall G. Repositioning Class. Social Inequality in Industrial Societies. L.: SAGE Publication,
Giddens A. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. L.: Hutchinson, 1981 (2nd ed.). R. 105.
Abercrombie N. & Urry J. Capital, Labor, and the Middle Classes. L.: Allen & Unwin, 1983. P. 89, 152.
Marshall G. Repositioning Class. Social Inequality in Industrial Societies. P. 1.
Marx K. Capital. T. 1 // Marx K. and Engels F. Izbr. op. M., 1987. T. 7. P. 146.
In E. Wright's scheme, this group corresponds to two classes: the petty bourgeoisie and the petty
employers.
There are two different approaches to the study of the social structure of society: this is the class theory and the theory of stratification.
Materialist (class) theory proceeds from the fact that the state arose due to economic reasons: the social division of labor, the emergence of surplus product and private property, and then the split of society into classes with opposing economic interests. As an objective result of these processes, a state arises, which, using special means of suppression and control, restrains the confrontation of these classes, ensuring primarily the interests of the economically dominant class.
The essence of the theory is that the state replaced the tribal organization, and law replaced customs. In materialist theory, the state is not imposed on society, but arises on the basis of the natural development of society itself, associated with the decomposition of the tribal system. With the advent of private property and the social stratification of society along property lines (with the emergence of rich and poor), the interests of various social groups began to contradict each other. In the emerging new economic conditions, the tribal organization turned out to be unable to govern society.
There was a need for a government body capable of ensuring the priority of the interests of some members of society as opposed to the interests of others. Therefore, a society consisting of economically unequal social strata gives rise to a special organization that, while supporting the interests of the propertied, restrains the confrontation of the dependent part of society. The state became such a special organization.
According to representatives of the materialist theory, it is a historically transient, temporary phenomenon and will die out with the disappearance of class differences.
Materialist theory identifies three main forms of the emergence of the state: Athenian, Roman and German.
The Athenian form is classical. The state arises directly and primarily from class contradictions that form within society.
The Roman form is distinguished by the fact that the clan society turns into a closed aristocracy, isolated from the numerous and powerless plebeian masses. The victory of the latter explodes the tribal system, on the ruins of which a state arises.
The German form - the state arises as a result of the conquest of vast territories for the state.
The main provisions of materialist theory are presented in the works of K. Marx and F. Engels.
Class and economic conditionality of law are the most important fundamental provisions of Marxist theory. The main content of this theory is the idea that law is a product of class society; expression and consolidation of the will of the economically dominant class. In these relations, the dominant individuals must constitute their power in the form of a state and give their will universal expression in the form of state will, in the form of law. The emergence and existence of law is explained by the need to consolidate the will of the economically dominant class in the form of laws and the normative regulation of social relations in the interests of this class. “Right is only will elevated to law.”
The merit of Marxism is the postulates that law is a necessary tool for ensuring the economic freedom of the individual, which is an “impartial” regulator of the relations of production and consumption. Its moral foundations in the civilized world take into account and implement the objective needs of social development within the framework of permitted and prohibited behavior of participants in social relations.
Representatives of other concepts and theories of the origin of the state consider the provisions of the materialist theory to be one-sided and incorrect, since they do not take into account the psychological, biological, moral, ethnic and other factors that determined the formation of society and the emergence of the state.
Social stratification expresses the social heterogeneity of society, the inequality that exists in it, the dissimilarity of the social status of people and their groups. Social stratification is understood as the process and result of differentiation of society into various social groups (layers, strata), differing in their social status. The criteria for dividing society into strata can be very diverse, both objective and subjective. But most often today, profession, income, property, participation in power, education, prestige, a person’s self-esteem of his social position (self-identification), etc. are highlighted. In empirical sociological studies of social stratification, three or four main measured characteristics are usually identified - the prestige of the profession, income level , attitude towards political power and level of education.
Despite all the differences in theoretical interpretations of the essence of social stratification, one can still identify a common one: it is a natural and social stratification of society, which is hierarchical in nature, stably fixed and supported by various social institutions, constantly reproduced and modernized. Natural differences between people are associated with their physiological and psychological characteristics and can serve as the basis for social inequality.
The inequality of people - social communities - is one of the main characteristics of society throughout the history of its development. What are the causes of social inequality?
In modern Western sociology, the prevailing opinion is that social stratification grows out of society’s natural need to stimulate the activities of individuals, motivating their activities through appropriate systems of rewards and incentives. However, this stimulation is interpreted differently in different scientific and methodological schools and directions. In this regard, we can distinguish functionalism, status, economic theories, etc.
Representatives of functionalism explain the cause of inequality by the differentiation of functions performed by different groups, layers, classes. The functioning of society, in their opinion, is possible only thanks to the division of labor, when each social group, stratum, class carries out the solution of relevant tasks that are vital for the entire social organism: some are engaged in the production of material goods, others create spiritual values, others manage, etc. For the normal functioning of a social organism, an optimal combination of all types of activities is necessary, but some of them are more important from the position of this organism, others are less important. Thus, on the basis of the hierarchy of social functions, a corresponding hierarchy of groups, layers, and classes performing them is formed. Those who exercise general leadership and management are placed at the top of the social pyramid, because only they can maintain the unity of the state and create the necessary conditions for the successful performance of other functions.
Such a hierarchy exists not only at the level of the state as a whole, but also in every social institution. So, according to P. Sorokin, at the enterprise level, the basis of interprofessional stratification is made up of two parameters: 1) the importance of the occupation (profession) for the survival and functioning of the organism as a whole; 2) the level of intelligence necessary for the successful performance of professional duties. P.A. Sorokin believes that the most socially significant professions are those associated with the functions of organization and control. The dishonest work of an ordinary worker will harm the enterprise. But this harm is incomparable with the one that will be inflicted on the enterprise if its top officials and managers act in bad faith, irresponsibly. Thus, in any particular community, more professional work is manifested in a higher level of intelligence, in the function of organization and control, in a higher rank that people of these professions occupy in the interprofessional hierarchy. A clear confirmation of this position, according to P. Sorokin, is the permanent universal order, which consists in the fact that a professional group of unskilled workers is always at the bottom of the professional pyramid. People belonging to this occupational group are the lowest paid workers. They have the least rights and the lowest standard of living, the lowest control function in society.
Close in meaning to functionalism is the status explanation of the causes of social inequality. From the point of view of the representatives of this theory, social inequality is inequality of statuses, arising both from the abilities of individuals to perform one or another social role (for example, to be competent to manage, to have the appropriate knowledge and skills to be a professor, inventor, lawyer, etc.) etc.), and from the opportunities that allow a person to achieve a particular position in society (origin, ownership of property, belonging to influential political forces, etc.).
The economic approach to explaining the causes of social inequality is associated with the interpretation of property relations. From the point of view of representatives of this approach, those individuals and groups who have property, primarily ownership of the means of production, occupy a dominant position both in the sphere of management and in the sphere of distribution and consumption of material and spiritual goods.
The most concise definition of social stratification, often found in the sociological literature, identifies it with social inequality as a universal phenomenon of human civilization. Upon closer analysis of this phenomenon, as a rule, two main features are distinguished. The first is associated with the differentiation of the population into hierarchically formed groups, i.e. upper and lower strata (classes) of society. The second point characterizing social stratification is the unequal distribution in society of various sociocultural goods and values, the list of which is very wide.
In sociological theory, social stratification is analyzed from the point of view of the interaction of three fundamental levels of social life: culture, which forms the value-normative level of regulation of people’s behavior, the social system (the system of social interaction of people, during which various forms of group life are formed) and, finally, the level of behavior the personality itself, affecting his motivational sphere.
If these general principles of sociological analysis are transferred to the sphere of social stratification, then it should be recognized that the specific forms of its manifestation in a particular society will be determined by the interaction of two main factors: the social system or, more precisely, the processes of social differentiation occurring in society on the one hand, and the prevailing social values and cultural standards in a given society, on the other.