QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1. What explains the increase in the dynamism of social processes in the 20th century?
2. What forms of social relations did the desire take community groups protect their economic interests?
3. Compare the two points of view on the social status of the individual given in the text and discuss the validity of each of them. Draw your own conclusions.
4. Specify what content you put into the concept of " social relations". What factors determine the social climate of society? Expand the role of the trade union movement in its creation.
5. Compare the views given in the appendix on the tasks of the trade union movement. How did the economic determinism of the ideologists of the Comintern influence their attitude towards trade unions? Did their position contribute to the success of the trade union movement?
§ 9. REFORMS AND REVOLUTIONS IN SOCIO-POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT 1900-1945.
In the past, revolutions played a special role in social development. Starting with a spontaneous explosion of discontent populace, they were a symptom of the existence of the most acute contradictions in society and at the same time a means of their speedy resolution. Revolutions destroyed institutions of power that had lost their effectiveness and trust of the masses, overthrew the former ruling elite (or ruling class), eliminated or undermined the economic foundations of its domination, led to the redistribution of property, and changed the forms of its use. However, the patterns of development of revolutionary processes, which were traced in experience bourgeois revolutions European countries and North America XVII-XIX centuries, in the XX century have changed significantly.
Reforms and social engineering. First of all, the relationship between reform and revolution has changed. Attempts by reform methods to solve the aggravating problems were made in the past, but the inability of the majority of the ruling nobility to transcend the boundaries of class prejudices, hallowed by traditions of ideas, determined the limitedness and low effectiveness of reforms.
With the development of representative democracy, the introduction of universal suffrage, the growing role of the state in regulating social and economic processes, the implementation of transformations became possible without disturbing the normal course of political life. In the countries of democracy, the masses were given the opportunity to express their protest without violence, at the ballot box.
The history of the 20th century gave many examples when changes associated with changes in the nature of social relations, the functioning of political institutions, in many countries occurred gradually, were the result of reforms, and not violent actions. Thus, industrial society, with such features as the concentration of production and capital, universal suffrage, active social policy, was fundamentally different from the capitalism of free competition of the 19th century, but the transition from one to the other in most European countries was of an evolutionary nature.
Problems that in the past seemed insurmountable without the violent overthrow of the existing order, many countries of the world solved with the help of experiments with the so-called social engineering. This concept was first used by the theorists of the British trade union movement Sydney and Beatrice Webb, it became generally accepted in legal and political science in the 1920s-1940s.
Social engineering refers to the use of leverage state power to influence the life of society, its restructuring in accordance with theoretically developed, speculative models, which was especially characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Often these experiments led to the destruction of the living fabric of society without giving rise to a new, healthy social organism. At the same time, where social engineering methods were applied in a balanced and cautious manner, taking into account the aspirations and needs of the majority of the population, material possibilities, as a rule, managed to smooth out emerging contradictions, improve the standard of living of people, and resolve their concerns at a much lower cost.
Social engineering also covers such a field of activity as the formation of public opinion through the media. This does not exclude elements of spontaneity in the reaction of the masses to certain events, since the possibilities of manipulating people by political forces that advocate both the preservation of the existing order and their overthrow in a revolutionary way are not unlimited. So, within the framework of the Comintern in the early 1920s. an ultra-radical, ultra-left trend emerged. Its representatives (L.D. Trotsky, R. Fischer, A. Maslov, M. Roy and others), proceeding from the Leninist theory of imperialism, argued that the contradictions in most countries of the world had reached the utmost acuteness. They assumed that a small push from within or from without, including in the form of acts of terror, the forcible "export of the revolution" from country to country, was enough to realize the social ideals of Marxism. However, attempts to push revolutions (in particular, in Poland during the Soviet-Polish war of 1920, in Germany and Bulgaria in 1923) invariably failed. Accordingly, the influence of representatives of the ultra-radical bias in the Comintern gradually weakened, in the 1920s-1930s. they were expelled from the ranks of most of its sections. Nevertheless, radicalism in the 20th century continued to play a large role in world socio-political development.
Revolutions and violence: the experience of Russia. In the countries of democracy, a negative attitude has developed towards revolutions as a manifestation of uncivilization, characteristic of underdeveloped, undemocratic countries. The experience of the revolutions of the 20th century contributed to the formation of such an attitude. Most of the attempts to overthrow the existing system by force were suppressed by armed force, which was associated with heavy casualties. Even a successful revolution was followed by a bloody civil war. In the context of continuous improvement military equipment the devastating consequences, as a rule, exceeded all expectations. In Mexico during the revolution and the peasant war of 1910-1917. at least 1 million people died. AT civil war in Russia 1918-1922 at least 8 million people died, almost as many as all the warring countries, taken together, lost in the First World War of 1914-1918. 4/5 of the industry was destroyed, the main cadres of specialists, skilled workers emigrated or died.
Such a way of resolving the contradictions of industrial society, which removes their sharpness by throwing society back to the pre-industrial phase of development, can hardly be considered in the interests of any segments of the population. In addition, at high degree development of world economic relations, the revolution in any state, the civil war that follows it affects the interests of foreign investors and producers. This prompts the governments of foreign powers to take measures to protect their citizens and their property, to help stabilize the situation in a country engulfed in civil war. Such measures, especially if they are carried out by military means, add to the civil war intervention, bringing even greater casualties and destruction.
Revolutions of the 20th century: basics of typology. According to the English economist D. Keynes, one of the creators of the concept of state regulation of a market economy, revolutions by themselves do not solve social and economic problems. At the same time, they can create political prerequisites for their solution, be a tool for overthrowing political regimes of tyranny and oppression that are incapable of reforming, removing weak leaders from power who are powerless to prevent the aggravation of contradictions in society.
According to political goals and consequences, in relation to the first half of the 20th century, the following main types of revolutions are distinguished.
First, democratic revolutions directed against authoritarian regimes (dictatorships, absolutist monarchies), culminating in the full or partial establishment of democracy.
In developed countries, the first revolution of this type was the Russian Revolution of 1905-1907, which gave Russian autocracy the features constitutional monarchy. The incompleteness of change led to a crisis and the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, which put an end to the 300-year rule of the Romanov dynasty. In November 1918, as a result of the revolution, the monarchy in Germany, discredited by the defeat in the First World War, was overthrown. The republic that emerged was called the Weimar Republic, since the Constituent Assembly, which adopted a democratic constitution, was held in 1919 in the city of Weimar. In Spain, in 1931, the monarchy was overthrown and a democratic republic proclaimed.
The arena of the revolutionary, democratic movement in the 20th century was Latin America, where in Mexico, as a result of the revolution of 1910-1917. established a republican form of government.
Democratic revolutions also engulfed a number of Asian countries. In 1911-1912. In China, as a result of the upsurge of the revolutionary movement, led by Sun Yat-sen, the monarchy was overthrown. China was proclaimed a republic, but the actual power was in the hands of the provincial feudal-militarist cliques, which led to a new wave of the revolutionary movement. In 1925, a national government headed by General Chiang Kai-shek was formed in China, and a formally democratic, in fact one-party, authoritarian regime arose.
The democratic movement has changed the face of Turkey. The revolution of 1908 and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy paved the way for reforms, but their incompleteness, the defeat in the First World War caused the revolution of 1918-1923, headed by Mustafa Kemal. The monarchy was liquidated, in 1924 Turkey became a secular republic.
Secondly, national liberation revolutions became typical of the 20th century. In 1918, they captured Austria-Hungary, which collapsed as a result freedom movement peoples against the power of the Habsburg dynasty on Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. National liberation movements unfolded in many colonies and semi-colonies European countries, in particular in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, India, although the greatest rise in the national liberation movement was outlined after the Second World War. Its result was the liberation of the peoples from the power of the colonial administration of the metropolises, the acquisition of their own statehood, national independence.
The national liberation orientation was also present in many democratic revolutions, especially when they were aimed against regimes that relied on the support of foreign powers, were carried out in conditions of foreign military intervention. Such were the revolutions in Mexico, China and Turkey, although they were not colonies.
A specific result of the revolutions in a number of countries in Asia and Africa, carried out under the slogan of overcoming dependence on foreign powers, was the establishment of regimes that were traditional, familiar to the poorly educated majority of the population. Most often, these regimes turn out to be authoritarian - monarchical, theocratic, oligarchic, reflecting the interests of the local nobility.
The desire to return to the past appeared as a reaction to the destruction of the traditional way of life, beliefs, lifestyle due to the invasion of foreign capital, modernization of the economy, social and political reforms that affected the interests of the local nobility. One of the first attempts at a traditionalist revolution was the so-called Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, initiated by peasants and the urban poor.
In a number of countries, including developed ones, which have a great influence on international life, there have been revolutions that led to the establishment of totalitarian regimes. The peculiarity of these revolutions was that they took place in the countries of the second wave of modernization, where the state traditionally played a special role in society. With the expansion of its role, up to the establishment of total (comprehensive) control of the state over all parties public life, the masses tied the prospect of solving any problems.
Totalitarian regimes were established in countries where democratic institutions were fragile and ineffective, but the conditions of democracy ensured the possibility of unimpeded activity of political forces preparing to overthrow it. The first of the revolutions of the 20th century, culminating in the establishment of a totalitarian regime, took place in Russia in October 1917.
For most revolutions, armed violence, the broad participation of the masses of the people was a common, but not mandatory attribute. Often, revolutions began with an apex coup, the coming to power of leaders who initiated change. At the same time, most often the political regime that arose directly as a result of the revolution was not able to find a solution to the problems that caused it. This determined the onset of new upsurges in the revolutionary movement, following one after another, until society came to a stable state.
DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
From the book of J. Keynes “Economic Consequences Treaty of Versailles»:
“Rebellions and revolutions are possible, but at present they are not capable of playing any significant role. Against political tyranny and injustice, revolution can serve as a weapon of defense. But what can a revolution give to those who suffer from economic deprivation, a revolution that will not be caused by the injustice of the distribution of goods, but by their general lack? The only guarantee against revolution in Central Europe is that even for the people who are most gripped by despair, it does not offer hope for any significant relief.<...>The events of the coming years will be directed by non-conscious actions statesmen but by hidden currents running unceasingly under the surface of political history, the results of which no one is able to predict. We are only given a way to influence these hidden currents; this way is to use those forces of enlightenment and imagination that change people's minds. The proclamation of truth, the exposure of illusions, the destruction of hatred, the expansion and enlightenment of human feelings and minds - these are our means.
From the work of L.D. Trotsky “What is a permanent revolution? (Basic Provisions)":
“The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the basis of class struggle on a national and international scale. This struggle, under conditions of the decisive predominance of capitalist relations in the international arena, will inevitably lead to outbreaks of internal, that is, civil and external revolutionary war. This is the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a question of a backward country that only yesterday completed its democratic revolution, or of an old democratic country that has gone through a long era of democracy and parliamentarism.
The completion of the socialist revolution within a national framework is unthinkable. One of the main causes of the crisis of bourgeois society is that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled to the framework of the nation-state. Hence the imperialist wars<...>The socialist revolution begins in the national arena, develops in the national arena, and ends in the world. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes permanent in a new, broader sense of the word: it does not reach its completion until the final triumph of the new society on our entire planet.
The scheme of development of the world revolution indicated above removes the question of countries "ripe" and "not ripe" for socialism in the spirit of that pedantically lifeless qualification given by the present program of the Comintern. Insofar as capitalism has created the world market, the world division of labor and the world's productive forces, it has prepared the world economy as a whole for socialist reconstruction.
From the work of K. Kautsky "Terrorism and Communism":
“Lenin would very much like to carry victoriously the banners of his revolution through Europe, but he has no plans for this. The revolutionary militarism of the Bolsheviks will not enrich Russia, it can only become a new source of her impoverishment. Today, Russian industry, inasmuch as it has been set in motion, works primarily for the needs of the armies, and not for productive purposes. Russian communism becomes truly barracks socialism<...>No world revolution, no outside help can remove the paralysis of Bolshevik methods. The task of European socialism in relation to "communism" is completely different: to take care that the moral catastrophe of one particular method of socialism does not become a catastrophe of socialism in general - that a sharp dividing line be drawn between this and the Marxist method and that the mass consciousness perceive this difference.
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1 Remember what revolutions in the history of a number of countries before the 20th century did you study? How do you understand the content of the terms "revolution", "revolution as a political phenomenon". and
2 What are the differences in social functions revolutions of past centuries and the 20th century? Why have views on the role of revolutions changed? Z. Think and explain: revolution or reforms - under what socio-economic, political conditions is this or that alternative realized?
4. Based on the read text and previously studied history courses, compile a summary table "Revolutions in the world in the first decades of the 20th century" in the following columns:
the date
Revolution, goals, character. type
Outcomes, consequences, significance
Draw possible conclusions from the data obtained.
5. Name the most famous revolutionary figures in the world to you. Determine your attitude towards them, evaluate the significance of their activities.
6. Using the material given in the appendix, characterize the typical attitude of liberal theorists (D. Keynes), "left" communists (LD Trotsky) and social democrats (K. Kautsky) to revolutions.
The 20th century in many countries of the world was marked by a significant increase in the role of the state in solving problems of social development. The institutions and principles of public administration that had developed by the beginning of the century were subjected to serious tests, and not in all countries they turned out to be adequate to the challenges of the era.
The collapse of the monarchies in Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary marked not only the fall of political regimes that were unable to find ways out of the socio-economic crisis caused by the extreme exertion of forces during the World War of 1914-1918. The principle of power organization collapsed, based on the fact that the population of vast territories considered themselves subjects of this or that monarch, the principle that ensured the possibility of the existence of patchwork, multinational empires. The collapse of these empires, Russian and Austro-Hungarian, gave great urgency to the problem of choosing the path for the further development of peoples.
It was not only monarchies that suffered the crisis. Democratic political regimes in the USA, Great Britain, France and other countries also faced serious difficulties. Those principles of liberalism, on which democracy was based, demanded a significant revision.
§ 10. EVOLUTION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
The theoretical basis of liberal democracy was the political views of the Enlightenment on natural human rights, the social contract as the basis for creating a state where citizens have equal rights from birth, regardless of class. The concept of such a state was based on the political philosophy of J. Locke, the ethics and legal philosophy of I. Kant, the ideas of economic liberalism of A. Smith. For the time of the period of bourgeois revolutions, liberal ideas were revolutionary in nature. They denied the right of monarchs, the aristocracy to rule by arbitrary methods over their subjects.
Liberal state at the beginning of the 20th century. The general principles of liberal democracy have been established in countries with various forms state structure. In France and the United States, these were presidential republics. In Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium - parliamentary monarchies. The political life of all these countries was characterized by the following.
Firstly, the existence of universal, uniform for all legal norms guaranteeing the personal rights and freedoms of a citizen, which could be limited only by a court decision. The economic basis for the independence of the individual was the guarantee of the right to own private property and its inviolability from extrajudicial confiscation, freedom of the market and freedom of competition.
Secondly, a special emphasis on the political rights of citizens, freedom of the press, speech, and the activities of political movements and parties. These rights created the basis for the existence of civil society, a system of cooperating and competing non-governmental organizations, by participating in the activities of which a person could realize his political aspirations.
Thirdly, the limited role of the state, which was seen as a potential source of threat to the rights and freedoms of citizens. The functions of the state were reduced to maintaining law and order, representing and protecting the interests of society in the international arena. The creation of three independent branches of power - legislative, executive and judicial, as well as the separation of the functions of the central administration and local self-government bodies served to prevent abuses of power.
Political stability in a liberal democracy was ensured by the development of civil society structures. Various public organizations, parties and movements, fighting for votes, neutralized each other's influence to a greater extent, which kept the political system in a state of equilibrium. Citizens' dissatisfaction manifested itself primarily at the level of civil society institutions. New mass movements and parties emerged. Whatever new ideas they tried to introduce into society, interacting with other parties, they accepted the same rules of the game for all. In principle, in a democracy, any political party had a chance to peacefully come to or return to power by winning the votes of the electorate. Accordingly, incentives to use unconstitutional, violent means of struggle for power were reduced to a minimum.
According to the theory and practice of classical liberalism, the state should not interfere in social processes and relations. The prevailing view was that the free market and free competition under conditions of equality civil rights and freedoms themselves will provide a solution social problems.
The weakness of the social policy of the state was compensated by the wide development of social charity. It was carried out by the church, various non-governmental organizations of citizens, charitable foundations, that is, structures of civil society. Forms of social charity in developed countries were very diverse. It included helping the most disadvantaged sections of society: organizing free meals, shelters for the homeless, orphanages, free Sunday schools, creation of free libraries, involvement of young people from low-income families in cultural life, sports. Traditionally, charitable activities have been directed to the healthcare sector, ranging from visiting the sick, giving them gifts, helping the disabled on religious holidays, and ending with the establishment of free hospitals. International charitable organizations with great prestige have been formed. Among them is the Red Cross, whose activities, including the improvement of the conditions of detention of enemy prisoners of war, did not stop even during the years of world wars.
Public charitable activity on a large scale has become the most important factor in shaping the social climate of society. It helped to reduce the risk that people faced with serious life problems would become embittered and take the path of confrontation with society and its institutions. An attitude of care, attention to those in need was formed, ignoring the needs of one's neighbor became a sign of bad taste. The wealthy, middle-class people who have the means, began to perceive charity as a manifestation of social responsibility.
At the same time, charity did not extend to the sphere of labor relations. The conditions for hiring labor, according to the canons of liberalism, were spontaneously regulated by the situation on the labor market. However, the liberal principle of non-intervention of the state in social processes and the economic life of society required revision.
Thus, the idea of free competition, advocated by the liberals, in its implementation led to the concentration and centralization of capital. The emergence of monopolies limited the freedom of the market, led to a sharp increase in the influence of industrial and financial magnates on the life of society, which undermined the foundations of the freedom of citizens who were not among them. Associated with the concentration of capital, the trend towards social polarization of society, the growing gaps in the incomes of the haves and the have-nots undermined the principle of equal rights for citizens.
Social policy: experience Western Europe. In changing conditions, as early as the beginning of the 20th century, among the intelligentsia, people with average incomes, charitable activists, who make up the majority of members of liberal parties, a conviction was formed in the need to intensify social policy. In England, at the insistence of the liberal politician Lloyd George, even before the First World War, laws on compulsory primary education, free meals in school canteens for the children of poor parents, free medical treatment and disability pensions for victims of accidents. The maximum length of the working day was set at 8 hours for miners employed in particularly difficult underground work, it was forbidden to involve female workers in the night shift, old-age pensions were introduced (from 70 years old). The payment of unemployment and sickness benefits began, which were partly paid by the state, partly had to be covered by entrepreneurs and deductions from the wages of employees. In the United States, antimonopoly legislation was adopted that limited the possibilities of monopolizing the domestic market, which marked a departure from the principles of non-intervention of the state in the freedom of market relations.
Under pressure from groups and associations of industrialists, more than once there were attempts at social revenge - the abolition or restriction of the rights of workers to strike, the curtailment of funds allocated for social purposes. Often, such measures were economically justified by the motives for increasing the profitability of production, creating incentives for entrepreneurs to expand investments in the national economy. However, the general trend in the 20th century was associated with an increase in state intervention in the economy.
The development of this trend was greatly influenced by the World War of 1914-1918, during which all states, including those with liberal democratic traditions, were forced to put under strict control the distribution of labor resources, food, the production of strategic raw materials, and military products. If in democratic industrial countries in 1913 the state disposed of about 10% of the gross domestic product (GDP), then in 1920 it was already 15%. AT post-war years the scale of state intervention in the life of society has steadily increased, which was due to the following main factors.
First, for reasons of internal stability. State non-intervention in social relations was tantamount to protecting the interests and property of entrepreneurs. Repressions against participants in unsanctioned strikes led to the escalation of a purely economic struggle into a political one. The danger of this was clearly shown by the experience of the revolutionary movements of 1905-1907. and 1917 in Russia, where the unwillingness of the authorities to take into account the interests and demands of the labor movement, clumsy social policy led to the collapse of statehood.
Secondly, changes in the functioning of the political system. In the 19th century, democracies had severe restrictions on citizen participation in political life. The residency requirement, the property qualification, the lack of the right to vote for women and youth created a situation in which only 10-15% of the adult, mostly the property-owning population, whose opinion politicians reckoned with, enjoyed the fruits of democracy. The expansion of the suffrage in the 20th century forced the leading political parties to reflect in their programs the interests of all segments of the population, including those without property.
Thirdly, the entry into the arena of political life of parties standing on the platform of social egalitarianism (equality), social democrats, bound to their voters by obligations to carry out social reforms, had a great influence on the politics of many states. In Great Britain, the leader of the Labor Party, R. MacDonald, became prime minister and formed the first Labor government in 1924. In France and Spain, in 1936, Popular Front governments came to power, relying on the support of leftist parties (socialists and communists), oriented towards social reforms. In France, a 40-hour work week was established, two weeks of paid holidays were introduced, pensions and unemployment benefits were increased. In the Scandinavian countries since the mid-1930s. The Social Democrats were almost always in power.
Fourth, rational economic considerations pushed the industrial countries to intensify their social policy. The ideas of the 19th century that within the framework of a market economy a balance between supply and demand is spontaneously established and the state can limit its economic policy to support "its" producers in foreign markets, during the years of the great crisis of 1929-1932. a devastating blow was dealt.
"New Deal" F.D. Roosevelt and his results. The oversupply crisis in the US and the stock market crash in New York shook the economies of almost every country in the world. In the United States itself, the volume of industrial production fell by 50%, the production of automobiles decreased by 12 times, and heavy industry was loaded only at 12% of its capacity. Due to the collapse of the banks, millions of people lost their savings, unemployment reached astronomical levels: together with family members and the semi-unemployed, it affected half the country's population, deprived of their livelihoods. Tax collection dropped sharply, as 28% of the population had no income at all. Due to the bankruptcy of most banks, the country's banking system collapsed. Marches of the hungry on Washington shocked the American society, completely unprepared to respond to social problems of this magnitude.
The "New Deal" of US President F.D. Roosevelt, who was elected to this post in 1932 and was re-elected four times (an unprecedented case in the history of the United States), was based on measures that were unconventional for liberalism to help the unemployed, establish public works, regulate social relations, and help farmers. A nationwide system of assistance to widows, orphans, the disabled, unemployment insurance, pensions was created, the rights of workers to form trade unions and strikes were secured, the principle of state mediation in labor conflicts was adopted, and so on. The state put under control the issuance of shares by private corporations, increased taxes on high incomes, inheritances.
The experience of the depression of 1929-1932. showed that the crises of overproduction characteristic of a market economy during the transition to mass production become too destructive. The ruin of dozens, even hundreds of small commodity producers could be relatively unnoticeable, but the collapse of a large corporation, on whose prosperity the well-being of hundreds of thousands of families depended, turned out to be a heavy blow to social peace and political stability.
Supporters of classical liberalism in the United States sought to prevent the implementation of the New Deal, using the Supreme Court, which recognized many reforms as unconstitutional. They believed that the policy of F.D. Roosevelt slows down the way out of the crisis, disrupts the natural cycle of its development. From a business standpoint, this may have been true, but socially, the New Deal was a lifesaver for American society.
The English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) is considered to be the founder of the theory that substantiated the possibility of regulating a market economy in order to ensure stable growth, full employment, and an increase in living standards. The system of macroeconomic indicators developed by him, which reveals the relationship between national income, the level of investment, employment, consumption, and savings, became the basis for state regulation of the economy in a democracy.
The main idea of Keynesianism in relation to the sphere of social relations was that an active social policy is ultimately beneficial for business as well. His desire to increase production volumes required the expansion of markets for products. However, the possibilities of external expansion, the conquest of new markets by force of arms were not unlimited. The capacity of the markets could constantly increase only by increasing the well-being of the majority of the population, which was ensured by active social policy states.
The Keynesian theory, which substantiated the compatibility of the expansion of the functions of the state with the democratic ideals of the past, became the basis of the so-called neoliberalism, which assumes that the special role of the state not only does not threaten freedom, but, on the contrary, strengthens the guarantees of the rights and freedoms of citizens. Accordingly, initially in the United States, and then in most democratic countries, anti-crisis programs to support business and regulate the economy began to be implemented, and spending on social needs began to expand. The regulation of labor disputes (state arbitration, mediation, court decisions in case of violation of the terms of collective labor agreements, and so on) has taken on a wide scale. By 1937, the share of the state in the distribution of GDP exceeded 20%. Thus, conditions were created for the promotion and implementation in the second half of the century of the concept of a socially oriented market economy.
BIOGRAPHIC APPENDIX
Franklin Delano Roosevelt(1882-1945) is rightfully placed by many American historians on a par with such leaders of the country who changed its history as George Washington and A. Lincoln. Roosevelt was the only leader to win four consecutive presidential elections. Subsequently, a law was passed in the United States that limited the stay of one politician in power as president to two terms.
F.D. Roosevelt came from the highest ruling elite in the United States, which undoubtedly facilitated his political career. His father was a large landowner, president of a number of railway companies, his mother came from a family of wealthy shipowners. In 1905 F.D. Roosevelt married his relative, the niece of the then US President T. Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt.
Graduated from Harvard University and Columbia Law School, F.D. Roosevelt took up the practice of law, in 1910 he was elected to the New York State Senate, in 1913-1920. served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. In 1920, the US Democratic Party nominated Roosevelt for Vice President, but the Democrats lost the election.
In 1921 F.D. Roosevelt contracted polio, which left both legs paralyzed. This, however, did not interrupt his political career. In 1928 he was elected, and in 1930 re-elected Governor of the State of New York. The measures he took, in particular to improve the labor legislation of the state, the fight against corruption and the mafia, increased his popularity in the Democratic Party. This predetermined the nomination of F.D. Roosevelt as a candidate for President of the United States in the 1932 elections.
The New Deal policy was strongly opposed by conservative lawmakers, members of the Supreme Court, who considered it unconstitutional. Nevertheless, it allowed not only to overcome the social consequences of the crisis of 1929-1932, but also became the first experience in creating the foundations of a socially oriented market economy system, applying the methods of its state regulation, which became a model for emulation in many countries in the postwar years.
New course F.D. Roosevelt was also associated with the intensification of US policy in the international arena. With regard to the countries of Latin America, the doctrine of the “good neighbor” was proclaimed, which implied the desire to establish equal relations. With the outbreak of World War II in Europe, especially when there was a threat of an invasion of German troops into the British Isles, on the initiative of F.D. Roosevelt, despite the resistance of isolationist circles, the United States began to provide assistance to Great Britain.
F.D. Roosevelt considered it possible to maintain cooperation relations between the countries of the anti-fascist coalition even after the war, which prompted him to look for compromise approaches to controversial issues of relations with allies, including the USSR. It was Roosevelt who coined the term "United Nations". After his death on April 12, 1945, former Vice President G. Truman, a supporter of a hard line of force in protecting America's interests in the post-war world, became the President of the United States. According to Truman and his entourage, Roosevelt's pliability was explained by the president's morbid state, which was used by the allies, primarily the USSR.
DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
FrombooksY. Schumpeter"Capitalism, socialismanddemocracy":
“The war and the shifts in political structure that it caused opened ministerial offices to the socialists, but hidden under the tatters of old clothes, the social organism and, in particular, the economic process remained the same as before. In other words, the socialists were supposed to rule in an inherently capitalist world.
Marx spoke of the seizure of political power as a necessary prerequisite for the destruction of private property, which must begin immediately. Here, however, it was implied, as, indeed, in all the arguments of Marx, that the possibility of such a seizure will arise when capitalism has completely exhausted itself or, as we have already said, when objective and subjective conditions are ripe for this. The collapse that he had in mind was the collapse of the economic engine of capitalism, caused by internal causes. According to his theory, the political collapse of the bourgeois world should have been only a separate episode in this process. But the political collapse (or something very similar to it) is already happened<...>while no signs of maturation were observed in the economic process. The superstructure in its development outstripped the mechanism that moved it forward The situation, frankly speaking, was highly non-Marxist<...>
Those who by that time had already learned to identify themselves with their country and take the standpoint of state interests had no choice. They faced a problem that was insoluble in principle. The social and economic system they inherited could only move along capitalist lines. The socialists could control it, regulate it in the interests of labor, squeeze it to such an extent that it began to lose its effectiveness, but they could not do anything specifically socialist. If they were to take control of this system, they had to do so according to its own logic. They had to "manage capitalism". And they began to manage it. They diligently dressed the measures taken in decoration from socialist phraseology.<...>However, in essence, they were forced to act in exactly the same way as liberals or conservatives would act if they were in their place.
FrombooksJ. Keynes"Generaltheoryemployment, percentand money":
“Individualism is most valuable if it can be cleansed of defects and abuses; it is the best guarantee of personal freedom in the sense that, compared with all other conditions, it greatly expands the possibilities for the exercise of personal choice. It also serves as the best guarantee of the variety of life that follows directly from the wide possibilities of personal choice, the loss of which is the greatest of all losses in a homogeneous or totalitarian state. For this diversity preserves the traditions that embody the most faithful and successful choice of previous generations.<...>Therefore, although the expansion of the functions of government in connection with the task of coordinating the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest would have seemed to the publicist of the nineteenth century. or to the modern American financier with a horrendous attack on the foundations of individualism, I, on the contrary, defend it as the only practicable means of avoiding the complete destruction of existing economic forms and as a condition for the successful functioning of individual initiative.
FrompoliticalplatformsDemocraticUS parties, 1932:
“Now that we are experiencing an unprecedented economic and social disaster, the Democratic Party declares its firm conviction that the main reason that led to the emergence of this situation was the disastrous policy of laissez-faire in the economy, which our government pursued after the world war and which contributed to both the merger competing firms in a monopoly, and the wrong increase in the issuance of credit to private capital at the expense of the interests of the people<...>
Only a fundamental change in the economic policy of the government can give us hope for an improvement in the existing situation, a decrease in unemployment, a lasting improvement in the life of the people and a return to that enviable position when happiness reigned in our country and when we were ahead of other countries of the world in financial, industrial, agricultural and commercial areas<... >
We advocate maintaining national credit by balancing the annual budget on the basis of an accurate calculation of government spending, which should not exceed tax revenues determined by the ability of taxpayers to pay.<...>
We are in favor of increasing the employment of the labor force through a significant reduction in the working day and for encouraging the transition to part-time working week by introducing it into public institutions. We stand for smart public works planning.
We advocate for the passage of laws in the states for social insurance for unemployment and old age.
We stand for revival Agriculture, this principal branch of the national economy, for better financing of mortgages for farms, which should be carried out through special agricultural banks, subject to the collection of special interest and provide for the gradual redemption of these mortgages; we are in favor of issuing loans in the first place to bankrupt farmers to buy back their farms and houses<...>We advocate that the navy and army would correspond to the real needs of national defense<...>so that in peacetime the people are forced to bear expenses, the annual value of which approaches a billion dollars. We advocate stronger antitrust laws and fair enforcement to prevent monopolies and unfair business practices, and to review our laws to better protect both labor and the small producer and small trader.
We stand for the conservation, development and use of national energy water resources in the interests of the whole society.
We are in favor of non-interference by government in the activities of private enterprise, except in cases where it is necessary to increase the volume of public works and the use of natural resources in the interests of the whole society.
From Sydney and Beatrice Webb, The Theory and Practice of Trade Unionism:
“If a certain branch of industry is fragmented between two or more contending societies, especially if these societies are unequal in number of their members, in breadth of their views and in character, then in practice there is no way to unite the policies of all sections or to adhere consistently to any course of action.<...>
The whole history of trade unionism confirms the conclusion that trade unions in their present form are formed for specific purpose- achieve certain material improvements in the working conditions of their members; therefore they cannot, in their simplest form, go without risk beyond the territory within which these desired improvements are exactly the same for all members, that is, they cannot expand beyond the boundaries of individual professions.<...>If the differences between the ranks of workers make a complete fusion impossible, then the similarity of their other interests makes it necessary to look for some other form of union.<...>The solution was found in a number of federations, gradually expanding and crisscrossing; each of these federations unites, exclusively within the limits of specially set goals, those organizations that are aware of the identity of their goals.
From the Constitution of the International Labor Organization (1919):
“The purposes of the International Labor Organization are:
to promote lasting peace by promoting social justice;
improve working conditions and living standards through international measures, as well as contribute to the establishment of economic and social stability.
To achieve these goals, the International Labor Organization convenes joint meetings of representatives of governments, workers and employers in order to make recommendations on international minimum standards and develop international labor conventions on such issues as wages, hours of work, minimum age for entry into work. , working conditions of various categories of workers, compensation in case of accidents at work, social insurance, paid holidays, labor protection, employment, labor inspection, freedom of association, etc.
The organization provides extensive technical assistance to governments and publishes periodicals, studies and reports on social, industrial and labor issues.
From resolutionIII Congress of the Comintern (1921) "The Communist International and the Red International of Trade Unions":
“Economy and politics are always connected with each other by inextricable threads.<...>There is not a single major issue of political life that should not be of interest not only to the workers' party, but also to the proletarian trade union, and, conversely, there is not a single major economic issue that should not be of interest not only to the trade union, but also to labor party<...>
In terms of saving strength and better concentration of blows, ideal position will be the creation of a single International, uniting in its ranks both political parties and other forms of working organization. However, in the present transitional period, with the current diversity and diversity of trade unions in various countries, it is necessary to create an independent international association of red trade unions, which, by and large, stand on the platform of the Communist International, but accept into their midst more freely than is the case in the Communist International.<...>
The basis of the tactics of the trade unions is the direct action of the revolutionary masses and their organizations against capital. All the gains of the workers are directly proportional to the degree of direct action and revolutionary pressure of the masses. By direct action is meant all kinds of direct pressure from the workers on the entrepreneurs of the state: boycotts, strikes, street performances, demonstrations, seizure of enterprises, armed uprising and other revolutionary actions that rally the working class to fight for socialism. The task of the revolutionary class trade unions is therefore to turn direct action into an instrument of education and combat training of the working masses for the social revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
From the work of W. Reich "Psychology of the masses and fascism":
“The words 'proletarian' and 'proletarian' were coined over a hundred years ago to refer to a deceived class of society that was doomed to mass impoverishment. Of course, such social groups and now exist, however, the adult grandchildren of the proletarians of the 19th century have become highly skilled industrial workers who are aware of their skill, indispensability and responsibility<...>
In 19th-century Marxism, the use of the term "class consciousness" was limited to manual laborers. Persons in other necessary professions, without which society could not function, were labeled "intellectuals" and "petty bourgeoisie." They were opposed to the "proletariat of manual labor"<...>Along with industrial workers, doctors, teachers, technicians, laboratory assistants, writers, public figures, farmers, scientists, etc., should be counted as such persons.<...>
Thanks to ignorance of mass psychology, Marxist sociology contrasted the "bourgeoisie" with the "proletariat." From the point of view of psychology, such a contrast should be recognized as incorrect. The characterological structure is not limited to capitalists, it exists among workers of all professions. There are liberal capitalists and reactionary workers. Characterological analysis does not recognize class differences.
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1. What explains the increase in the dynamism of social processes in the 20th century?
2. What forms of social relations did the desire of social groups to defend their economic interests take?
3. Compare the two points of view on the social status of the individual given in the text and discuss the validity of each of them. Draw your own conclusions.
4. Specify what content you put into the concept of "social relations". What factors determine the social climate of society? Expand the role of the trade union movement in its creation.
5. Compare the views given in the appendix on the tasks of the trade union movement. How did the economic determinism of the ideologists of the Comintern influence their attitude towards trade unions? Did their position contribute to the success of the trade union movement?
§ 9. REFORMS AND REVOLUTIONS IN SOCIO-POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT 1900-1945.
In the past, revolutions played a special role in social development. Starting with a spontaneous explosion of discontent among the masses, they were a symptom of the existence of the most acute contradictions in society and at the same time a means of their speedy resolution. Revolutions destroyed institutions of power that had lost their effectiveness and trust of the masses, overthrew the former ruling elite (or ruling class), eliminated or undermined the economic foundations of its domination, led to the redistribution of property, and changed the forms of its use. However, the patterns of development of revolutionary processes, which were traced in the experience of the bourgeois revolutions of the countries of Europe and North America in the 17th-19th centuries, changed significantly in the 20th century.
Reforms and social engineering. First of all, the relationship between reform and revolution has changed. Attempts by reform methods to solve the aggravating problems were made in the past, but the inability of the majority of the ruling nobility to transcend the boundaries of class prejudices, hallowed by traditions of ideas, determined the limitedness and low effectiveness of reforms.
With the development of representative democracy, the introduction of universal suffrage, the growing role of the state in regulating social and economic processes, the implementation of transformations became possible without disturbing the normal course of political life. In the countries of democracy, the masses were given the opportunity to express their protest without violence, at the ballot box.
The history of the 20th century gave many examples when changes associated with changes in the nature of social relations, the functioning of political institutions, in many countries occurred gradually, were the result of reforms, and not violent actions. Thus, industrial society, with such features as the concentration of production and capital, universal suffrage, active social policy, was fundamentally different from the capitalism of free competition of the 19th century, but the transition from one to the other in most European countries was of an evolutionary nature.
Problems that in the past seemed insurmountable without the violent overthrow of the existing order, many countries of the world solved with the help of experiments with the so-called social engineering. This concept was first used by the theorists of the British trade union movement Sydney and Beatrice Webb, it became generally accepted in legal and political science in the 1920s-1940s.
Social engineering is understood as the use of the levers of state power to influence the life of society, its restructuring in accordance with theoretically developed, speculative models, which was especially characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Often these experiments led to the destruction of the living fabric of society without giving rise to a new, healthy social organism. At the same time, where social engineering methods were applied in a balanced and cautious manner, taking into account the aspirations and needs of the majority of the population, material possibilities, as a rule, managed to smooth out emerging contradictions, improve the standard of living of people, and resolve their concerns at a much lower cost.
Social engineering also covers such a field of activity as the formation of public opinion through the media. This does not exclude elements of spontaneity in the reaction of the masses to certain events, since the possibilities of manipulating people by political forces that advocate both the preservation of the existing order and their overthrow in a revolutionary way are not unlimited. So, within the framework of the Comintern in the early 1920s. an ultra-radical, ultra-left trend emerged. Its representatives (L.D. Trotsky, R. Fischer, A. Maslov, M. Roy and others), proceeding from the Leninist theory of imperialism, argued that the contradictions in most countries of the world had reached the utmost acuteness. They assumed that a small push from within or from without, including in the form of acts of terror, the forcible "export of the revolution" from country to country, was enough to realize the social ideals of Marxism. However, attempts to push revolutions (in particular, in Poland during the Soviet-Polish war of 1920, in Germany and Bulgaria in 1923) invariably failed. Accordingly, the influence of representatives of the ultra-radical bias in the Comintern gradually weakened, in the 1920s-1930s. they were expelled from the ranks of most of its sections. Nevertheless, radicalism in the 20th century continued to play a large role in world socio-political development.
Revolutions and violence: the experience of Russia. In the countries of democracy, a negative attitude has developed towards revolutions as a manifestation of uncivilization, characteristic of underdeveloped, undemocratic countries. The experience of the revolutions of the 20th century contributed to the formation of such an attitude. Most of the attempts to overthrow the existing system by force were suppressed by armed force, which was associated with heavy casualties. Even a successful revolution was followed by a bloody civil war. With the constant improvement of military equipment, the devastating consequences, as a rule, exceeded all expectations. In Mexico during the revolution and the peasant war of 1910-1917. at least 1 million people died. In the Russian Civil War 1918-1922. at least 8 million people died, almost as many as all the warring countries, taken together, lost in the First World War of 1914-1918. 4/5 of the industry was destroyed, the main cadres of specialists, skilled workers emigrated or died.
Such a way of resolving the contradictions of industrial society, which removes their sharpness by throwing society back to the pre-industrial phase of development, can hardly be considered in the interests of any segments of the population. In addition, with a high degree of development of world economic relations, a revolution in any state, followed by a civil war, affects the interests of foreign investors and commodity producers. This prompts the governments of foreign powers to take measures to protect their citizens and their property, to help stabilize the situation in a country engulfed in civil war. Such measures, especially if they are carried out by military means, add to the civil war intervention, bringing even greater casualties and destruction.
Revolutions of the 20th century: basics of typology. According to the English economist D. Keynes, one of the creators of the concept of state regulation of a market economy, revolutions by themselves do not solve social and economic problems. At the same time, they can create political prerequisites for their solution, be a tool for overthrowing political regimes of tyranny and oppression that are incapable of reforming, removing weak leaders from power who are powerless to prevent the aggravation of contradictions in society.
According to political goals and consequences, in relation to the first half of the 20th century, the following main types of revolutions are distinguished.
First, democratic revolutions directed against authoritarian regimes (dictatorships, absolutist monarchies), culminating in the full or partial establishment of democracy.
In developed countries, the first revolution of this type was the Russian revolution of 1905-1907, which gave the Russian autocracy the features of a constitutional monarchy. The incompleteness of change led to a crisis and the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, which put an end to the 300-year rule of the Romanov dynasty. In November 1918, as a result of the revolution, the monarchy in Germany, discredited by the defeat in the First World War, was overthrown. The republic that emerged was called the Weimar Republic, since the Constituent Assembly, which adopted a democratic constitution, was held in 1919 in the city of Weimar. In Spain, in 1931, the monarchy was overthrown and a democratic republic proclaimed.
The arena of the revolutionary, democratic movement in the 20th century was Latin America, where in Mexico as a result of the revolution of 1910-1917. established a republican form of government.
Democratic revolutions also engulfed a number of Asian countries. In 1911-1912. In China, as a result of the upsurge of the revolutionary movement, led by Sun Yat-sen, the monarchy was overthrown. China was proclaimed a republic, but the actual power was in the hands of the provincial feudal-militarist cliques, which led to a new wave of the revolutionary movement. In 1925, a national government headed by General Chiang Kai-shek was formed in China, and a formally democratic, in fact one-party, authoritarian regime arose.
The democratic movement has changed the face of Turkey. The revolution of 1908 and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy paved the way for reforms, but their incompleteness, the defeat in the First World War caused the revolution of 1918-1923, headed by Mustafa Kemal. The monarchy was liquidated, in 1924 Turkey became a secular republic.
Secondly, national liberation revolutions became typical of the 20th century. In 1918, they engulfed Austria-Hungary, which disintegrated as a result of the liberation movement of the peoples against the rule of the Habsburg dynasty into Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. National liberation movements unfolded in many colonies and semi-colonies of European countries, in particular in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and India, although the greatest upsurge of the national liberation movement was noted after the Second World War. Its result was the liberation of the peoples from the power of the colonial administration of the metropolises, the acquisition of their own statehood, national independence.
The national liberation orientation was also present in many democratic revolutions, especially when they were aimed against regimes that relied on the support of foreign powers, were carried out in conditions of foreign military intervention. Such were the revolutions in Mexico, China and Turkey, although they were not colonies.
A specific result of the revolutions in a number of countries in Asia and Africa, carried out under the slogan of overcoming dependence on foreign powers, was the establishment of regimes that were traditional, familiar to the poorly educated majority of the population. Most often, these regimes turn out to be authoritarian - monarchical, theocratic, oligarchic, reflecting the interests of the local nobility.
The desire to return to the past appeared as a reaction to the destruction of the traditional way of life, beliefs, lifestyle due to the invasion of foreign capital, modernization of the economy, social and political reforms that affected the interests of the local nobility. One of the first attempts at a traditionalist revolution was the so-called Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, initiated by peasants and the urban poor.
In a number of countries, including developed ones, which have a great influence on international life, there have been revolutions that led to the establishment of totalitarian regimes. The peculiarity of these revolutions was that they took place in the countries of the second wave of modernization, where the state traditionally played a special role in society. With the expansion of its role, up to the establishment of total (comprehensive) control of the state over all aspects of public life, the masses associated the prospect of solving any problems.
Totalitarian regimes were established in countries where democratic institutions were fragile and ineffective, but the conditions of democracy ensured the possibility of unimpeded activity of political forces preparing to overthrow it. The first of the revolutions of the 20th century, culminating in the establishment of a totalitarian regime, took place in Russia in October 1917.
For most revolutions, armed violence, the broad participation of the masses of the people was a common, but not mandatory attribute. Often, revolutions began with an apex coup, the coming to power of leaders who initiated change. At the same time, most often the political regime that arose directly as a result of the revolution was not able to find a solution to the problems that caused it. This determined the onset of new upsurges in the revolutionary movement, following one after another, until society came to a stable state.
DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
From the book of J. Keynes "Economic Consequences of the Treaty of Versailles":
“Rebellions and revolutions are possible, but at present they are not capable of playing any significant role. Against political tyranny and injustice, revolution can serve as a weapon of defense. But what can a revolution give to those who suffer from economic deprivation, a revolution that will not be caused by the injustice of the distribution of goods, but by their general lack? The only guarantee against revolution in Central Europe is that even for the people who are most gripped by despair, it does not offer hope for any significant relief.<...>The events of the years to come will be directed not by the conscious actions of statesmen, but by hidden currents running unceasingly under the surface of political history, the results of which no one can predict. We are only given a way to influence these hidden currents; this way is in using those forces of enlightenment and imagination that change people's minds. The proclamation of the truth, the exposure of illusions, the destruction of hatred, the expansion and enlightenment of human feelings and minds - these are our means.
From the work of L.D. Trotsky “What is a permanent revolution? (Basic Provisions)":
“The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the basis of class struggle on a national and international scale. This struggle, under conditions of the decisive predominance of capitalist relations in the international arena, will inevitably lead to outbreaks of internal, that is, civil and external revolutionary war. This is the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a question of a backward country that only yesterday completed its democratic revolution, or of an old democratic country that has gone through a long era of democracy and parliamentarism.
The completion of the socialist revolution within a national framework is unthinkable. One of the main causes of the crisis of bourgeois society is that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled to the framework of the nation-state. Hence the imperialist wars<...>The socialist revolution begins in the national arena, develops in the national arena, and ends in the world. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes permanent in a new, broader sense of the word: it does not reach its completion until the final triumph of the new society on our entire planet.
The scheme of development of the world revolution indicated above removes the question of countries "ripe" and "not ripe" for socialism in the spirit of that pedantically lifeless qualification given by the present program of the Comintern. Insofar as capitalism has created the world market, the world division of labor and the world's productive forces, it has prepared the world economy as a whole for socialist reconstruction.
From the work of K. Kautsky "Terrorism and Communism":
“Lenin would very much like to carry victoriously the banners of his revolution through Europe, but he has no plans for this. The revolutionary militarism of the Bolsheviks will not enrich Russia, it can only become a new source of her impoverishment. Today, Russian industry, inasmuch as it has been set in motion, works primarily for the needs of the armies, and not for productive purposes. Russian communism becomes truly barracks socialism<...>No world revolution, no outside help can remove the paralysis of Bolshevik methods. The task of European socialism in relation to "communism" is completely different: to take care of about so that the moral catastrophe of one particular method of socialism does not become a catastrophe of socialism in general, so that a sharp dividing line is drawn between this and the Marxist method, and so that the mass consciousness perceives this difference.
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1 Remember what revolutions in the history of a number of countries before the 20th century did you study? How do you understand the content of the terms "revolution", "revolution as a political phenomenon". and
2 What are the differences in the social functions of the revolution of the past centuries and the 20th century? Why have views on the role of revolutions changed? Z. Think and explain: revolution or reforms - under what socio-economic, political conditions is this or that alternative realized?
4. Based on the read text and previously studied history courses, compile a summary table "Revolutions in the world in the first decades of the 20th century" in the following columns:
Draw possible conclusions from the data obtained.
5. Name the most famous revolutionary figures in the world to you. Determine your attitude towards them, evaluate the significance of their activities.
6. Using the material given in the appendix, characterize the typical attitude of liberal theorists (D. Keynes), "left" communists (LD Trotsky) and social democrats (K. Kautsky) to revolutions.
: Grade 11 - M.: LLC "TID "Russian ... Working programm
Late XIX century"(2012); N.V. Zagladin, S.I. Kozlenko, S.T. Minakov, Yu.A. Petrov " Story Fatherland XX– XXI century"(2012); N.V. Zagladin « World story XX century"(2012 ...
With the advent of the industrial era, the growth of the dynamism of social processes, socio-political science has constantly sought to comprehend the logic of changes in the social structure of society, to determine the role of its constituent groups in historical development.§ 7. MARXISM, REVISIONISM AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY
Back in the 19th century, many thinkers, among them A. Saint-Simon (1760-1825), C. Fourier (1772-1837), R. Owen (1771-1858) and others, drew attention to the contradictions of contemporary society. Social polarization, the growth in the number of poor and disadvantaged, periodic crises of overproduction, from their point of view, testified to the imperfection of social relations.These thinkers paid special attention to what the ideal organization of society should be. They designed its speculative projects that went down in history social science as a product of utopian socialism. Thus, Saint-Simon suggested that a transition to a system of planned production and distribution, the creation of associations, where everyone would be engaged in one or another type of socially useful labor, was necessary. R. Owen believed that society should consist of self-governing communes, whose members jointly own property and jointly use the produced product. Equality in the view of utopians does not contradict freedom, on the contrary, it is a condition for its acquisition. At the same time, the achievement of the ideal was not associated with violence; it was assumed that the dissemination of ideas about a perfect society would become a sufficiently strong incentive for their implementation.
The emphasis on the problem of egalitarianism (equality) was also characteristic of the doctrine that had a great influence on the development of the socio-political life of many countries in the 20th century - Marxism.
The teachings of K. Marx and labor movement. K. Marx (1818-1883) and F. Engels (1820-1895), sharing many of the views of utopian socialists, connected the achievement of equality with the prospect of a social revolution, the prerequisites for which, in their opinion, matured with the development of capitalism and the growth of industrial production.
The Marxist forecast for the development of the social structure of society assumed that with the development of the factory industry, the number of employees deprived of property, living starving and because of this forced to sell their labor power (proletarians) would constantly increase numerically. All other social groups - the peasantry, small owners of towns and villages, who do not use or limitedly use hired labor, employees - were predicted to play an insignificant social role.
It was expected that the working class, faced with a sharp deterioration in its position, especially during periods of crisis, would be able to move from putting forward economic demands and spontaneous uprisings to a conscious struggle for a radical reorganization of society. K. Marx and F. Engels considered the condition for this to be the creation of a political organization, a party capable of introducing revolutionary ideas into the proletarian masses and leading them in the struggle for the conquest of political power. Having become proletarian, the state was supposed to ensure the socialization of property, to suppress the resistance of the supporters of the old order. In the future, the state was to die out, replaced by a system of self-governing communes, realizing the ideal of universal equality and social justice.
K. Marx and F. Engels did not limit themselves to the development of the theory, they tried to put it into practice. In 1848 they wrote a program document for a revolutionary organization, the Union of Communists, which aspired to become the international party of the proletarian revolution. In 1864, with their direct participation, a new organization- The First International, which included representatives of various currents of socialist thought. The greatest influence was enjoyed by Marxism, which became the ideological platform of the Social Democratic parties that had developed in many countries (one of the first such parties in 1869 arose in Germany). They created in 1889 a new international organization - the Second International.
At the beginning of the 20th century, parties representing the working class operated legally in most industrialized countries. In Great Britain, in 1900, a Workers' Representation Committee was set up to bring representatives of the labor movement into parliament. In 1906, the Labor (Workers') Party was created on its basis. In the USA the Socialist Party was formed in 1901, in France - in 1905.
Marxism as a scientific theory and Marxism as an ideology that absorbed certain provisions of the theory, which became political, program guidelines and as such were adopted by many followers of K. Marx, were very different from each other. Marxism as an ideology served as a justification political activity, directed by leaders, party functionaries, who determined their attitude to the original ideas of Marxism and attempts to scientifically rethink them based on their own experience, the current interests of their parties.
Revisionism in the parties of the Second International. Changes in the image of society at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, the growth of the influence of social democratic parties in Germany, England, France and Italy required theoretical understanding. This implied a revision (revision) of a number of initial propositions of Marxism.
As a direction of socialist thought, revisionism took shape in the 1890s. in the works of the German social democracy theorist E. Bernstein, which gained popularity in most of the socialist and social democratic parties of the Second International. There were such directions of revisionism as Austro-Marxism, economic Marxism.
Revisionist theorists (K. Kautsky in Germany, O. Bauer in Austria-Hungary, L. Martov in Russia) believed that there were no universal patterns of social development similar to the laws of nature that Marxism claimed to discover. The conclusion about the inevitability of the aggravation of the contradictions of capitalism caused the greatest doubts. Thus, when analyzing the processes of economic development, the revisionists put forward the hypothesis that the concentration and centralization of capital, the formation of monopolistic associations (trusts, cartels) lead to overcoming the anarchy of free competition and make it possible, if not to eliminate crises, then to mitigate their consequences. Politically, it was emphasized that as suffrage becomes universal, the need for revolutionary struggle and revolutionary violence to achieve the goals of the labor movement disappears.
Indeed, the Marxist theory was created in conditions when power in most European countries still belonged to the aristocracy, and where there were parliaments, due to the system of qualifications (settled life, property, age, lack of voting rights for women), 80-90% of the population did not have voting rights. In such a situation, only the owners were represented in the highest legislative body, the parliament. The state primarily responded to the needs of the wealthy segments of the population. This left the poor with only one way to protect their interests - making demands on entrepreneurs and the state, threatening a transition to a revolutionary struggle. However, with the introduction of universal suffrage, parties representing the interests of wage laborers have the opportunity to win strong positions in parliaments. Under these conditions, it was quite logical to link the goals of social democracy with the struggle for reforms carried out within the framework of the existing state structure without violating democratic legal norms.
According to E. Bernstein, socialism as a doctrine that implies the possibility of building a society of universal justice cannot be fully considered scientific, since it has not been tested and proven in practice and in this sense remains a utopia. As for the social-democratic movement, it is a product of quite specific interests, and it must direct its efforts towards the satisfaction of which, without setting utopian super-tasks.
Social democracy and the ideas of V.I. Lenin. The revisionism of the majority of social democratic theorists was opposed by the radical wing of the labor movement (in Russia it was represented by the Bolshevik faction headed by V.I. Lenin, in Germany by a group of "leftists" led by K. Zetkin, R. Luxemburg, K. Liebknecht) . Radical factions believed that the labor movement should first of all strive to destroy the system of wage labor and entrepreneurship, the expropriation of capital. The struggle for reform was recognized as a means of mobilizing the masses for subsequent revolutionary action, but not as a goal of independent significance.
According to the views of V.I. Lenin, in the final form formulated by him during the First World War, new stage in the development of capitalism, imperialism is characterized by a sharp aggravation of all the contradictions of capitalist society. The concentration of production and capital was seen as evidence of the extreme aggravation of the need for their socialization. The prospect of capitalism V.I. Lenin considered only a stagnation in the development of productive forces, an increase in the destructiveness of crises, military conflicts between the imperialist powers due to the redivision of the world.
IN AND. Lenin was characterized by the conviction that the material prerequisites for the transition to socialism exist almost everywhere. The main reason why capitalism managed to prolong its existence, Lenin considered the unpreparedness of the working masses to rise in the revolutionary struggle. To change this situation, that is, to free the working class from the influence of the reformists, to lead it, according to Lenin and his supporters, was a party of a new type, focused not so much on parliamentary activity as on preparing a revolution, a violent seizure of power.
Lenin's ideas about imperialism as the highest and last stage of capitalism did not initially attract much attention from Western European Social Democrats. Many theorists have written about the contradictions of the new era and the reasons for their exacerbation. In particular, the English economist D. Hobson argued at the beginning of the century that the creation of colonial empires enriched the narrow groups of the oligarchy, stimulated the outflow of capital from the metropolises, and aggravated relations between them. The theoretician of German social democracy R. Hilferding analyzed in detail the consequences of the growth in the concentration and centralization of production and capital, and the formation of monopolies. The idea of a "new type" party initially remained misunderstood in the legally functioning Social Democratic parties of Western Europe.
Creation of the Comintern. At the beginning of the 20th century, both revisionist and radical views were represented in most social democratic parties. There was no insurmountable barrier between them. Thus, in his early works, K. Kautsky argued with E. Bernstein, and later agreed with many of his views.
The program documents of the legally operating social democratic parties included a mention of socialism as the ultimate goal of their activities. At the same time, the commitment of these parties to the methods of changing society and its institutions through reforms, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the constitution, was emphasized.
The left-wing Social Democrats were forced to put up with the reformist orientation of the party programs, justifying it by the fact that the mention of violence, revolutionary means of struggle would give the authorities a pretext for repressions against the socialists. Only in Social Democratic parties operating under illegal or semi-legal conditions (in Russia and Bulgaria) did an organizational delimitation take place between the reformist and revolutionary currents in Social Democracy.
After October revolution 1917 in Russia, the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks of the presentation of V.I. Lenin about imperialism as the eve of the socialist revolution became the basis of the ideology of the radical wing of the international social democratic movement. In 1919 it took shape in the Third Communist International. Its adherents were guided by violent means of struggle, considered any doubt about the correctness of Lenin's ideas a political challenge, a hostile attack against their activities. With the creation of the Comintern, the social democratic movement finally split into reformist and radical factions, not only ideologically, but also organizationally.
DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
From the work of E. Bernstein “Is Scientific Socialism Possible?”:
“Socialism is something more than a simple singling out of those demands around which there is a temporary struggle that the workers are waging with the bourgeoisie in the economic and political field. As a doctrine, socialism is the theory of this struggle; as a movement, it is the result of it and the striving for a definite goal, namely, the transformation of the capitalist social system into a system based on the principle of collective management of the economy. But this goal is not predicted by theory alone, its occurrence is not expected with a certain fatalistic faith; it is largely an intended goal that is being fought for. But in setting such a prospective or future system as its goal and trying to fully subordinate its actions in the present to this goal, socialism is to a certain extent utopian. By this I do not want, of course, to say that socialism strives for something impossible or unattainable, I only want to state that it contains an element of speculative idealism, a certain amount of scientifically unprovable.
From the work of E. Bernstein "Problems of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy":
"feudalism with its<...>estate institutions almost everywhere was eradicated by violence. The liberal institutions of modern society differ from it precisely in that they are flexible, changeable and capable of development. They do not require their eradication, but only further development. And this requires an appropriate organization and vigorous action, but not necessarily a revolutionary dictatorship.<...>The dictatorship of the proletariat - where the working class does not yet possess a strong economic organization of its own and has not yet achieved a high degree of moral independence through training in self-government bodies - is nothing else than the dictatorship of club orators and scientists.<...>A utopia does not cease to be a utopia simply because the phenomena that are supposed to happen in the future are mentally applied to the present. We must take the workers as they are. They, firstly, have not at all become so impoverished as one might conclude from the Communist Manifesto, and secondly, they have not yet got rid of prejudices and weaknesses, as their henchmen want to assure us of that.
From the work of V. I. Lenin "The historical fate of the teachings of Karl Marx":
“Internally rotten liberalism is trying to revive itself in the form of socialist opportunism. The period of preparation of forces for great battles they interpret in the sense of abandoning these battles. They explain the improvement of the position of slaves in order to fight against wage slavery in the sense of the sale by slaves of their rights to freedom. They cowardly preach "social peace" (that is, peace with slavery), renunciation of the class struggle, and so on. Among the socialist parliamentarians, various officials of the labor movement and the "sympathetic" intelligentsia, they have a lot of supporters.
From the work of R. Luxembourg"Social Reform or Revolution?":
“Whoever speaks for the legitimate path of reforms, instead of and in opposition to the conquest of political power and a social upheaval, actually chooses not a calmer, more reliable and slower path to the same goal, but a completely different goal, namely, instead of the implementation of a new social order only minor changes to the old one. Thus, the political views of revisionism lead to the same conclusion as its economic theory: in essence, it is not aimed at the implementation of the socialist system, but only at the transformation of the capitalist one, not at the destruction of the system of hiring, but only at the establishment of more or less exploitation, in a word, at the elimination only of the outgrowths of capitalism, but not of capitalism itself.
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1. Why do you think the theory created by K. Marx in the 19th century, unlike other utopian teachings, found significant distribution in many countries of the world in the 20th century?
2. Why at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries there was a revision of a number of provisions of the Marxist doctrine? Which of them were the object of the most criticism? What new directions of socialist thought emerged?
3. How can you explain the difference between the concepts: "Marxism as a theory"
and "Marxism as an ideology".
4. Identify the main differences between the reformist and radical directions in the labor movement.
5. What role did Lenin's theory of imperialism play in the international labor movement?
§ 8. SOCIAL RELATIONS AND THE LABOR MOVEMENT
The existence in society of social groups with different property status does not yet mean the inevitability of conflict between them. The state of social relations for each this moment time depends on many political, economic, historical and cultural factors. Thus, the history of past centuries was characterized by low dynamics of social processes. In feudal Europe, class boundaries existed for centuries; for many generations of people, this traditional order seemed natural, unshakable. The riots of the townspeople, peasants, as a rule, were not generated by a protest against the existence of the upper classes, but by the attempts of the latter to expand their privileges and thereby violate the usual order.The increased dynamism of social processes in countries that embarked on the path of industrial development as early as the 19th, and even more so in the 20th century, weakened the influence of traditions as a factor in social stability. The way of life, the situation of people changed faster than the tradition corresponding to the changes took shape. Accordingly, the importance of the economic and political position in society, the degree of legal protection of citizens from arbitrariness, and the nature of the social policy pursued by the state increased.
Forms of social relations. It is quite natural aspirations of employees to improve their financial situation, and entrepreneurs and managers - to increase the profits of corporations, as the experience of the history of the 20th century showed, caused various social consequences.
First, situations are possible in which workers associate an increase in their income with an increase in their personal contribution to the activities of a corporation, with an increase in the efficiency of its work, and with the prosperity of the state. In turn, entrepreneurs and managers seek to create incentives for employees to increase labor productivity. The relationship between the managed and the managers that develop in such a situation is usually defined as a social partnership.
Secondly, a situation of social conflict is possible. Its occurrence implies the conviction of employees that wage increases, other benefits and payments can be achieved only in the process of tough bargaining with employers, which does not exclude strikes and other forms of protest.
Thirdly, the emergence of social confrontations is not ruled out. They develop on the basis of an exacerbation of a social conflict that is not resolved due to objective or subjective reasons. With social confrontation, actions in support of certain demands become violent, and these demands themselves go beyond claims against individual employers. They develop into calls for a violent change in the existing political system, for breaking the existing social relations.
The parties that were part of the Comintern, which shared the Leninist theory of imperialism, considered social confrontation a natural form of social relations in a society where there is private ownership of the means of production. The position of these parties was that the basic interests of the individual are predetermined by his belonging to one or another social class- haves (owners of the means of production) or their antagonists, the have-nots. National, religious, personal motives of political and economic behavior of a person were considered as insignificant. Social partnership was regarded as an anomaly or a tactical maneuver designed to deceive the working masses and bring down the heat of the class struggle. This approach, associated with the explanation of any social processes by economic causes, the struggle for possession and control over property, can be characterized as economic determinism. It was characteristic of many 20th-century Marxists.
The face of the working class in industrialized countries. Attempts to overcome economic determinism in the study of social processes and relations have been made by many scientists. The most significant of them is associated with the activities of the German sociologist and historian M. Weber (1864-1920). He considered social structure as a multidimensional system, offering to take into account not only the place of groups of people in the system of property relations, but also the social status of the individual - his position in society in accordance with age, gender, origin, profession, marital status. Based on the views of M. Weber, the functionalist theory of social stratification, which became generally accepted by the end of the century, developed. This theory assumes that social behavior people is due not only to their place in the system of social division of labor, attitude to ownership of the means of production. It is also a product of the action of the system of values prevailing in society, cultural standards that determine the significance of a particular activity, justify or condemn social inequality, and can influence the nature of the distribution of rewards and incentives.
According to modern views, social relations cannot be reduced only to conflicts between employees and employers on issues of working conditions and wages. This is the whole complex of relations in society, which determines the state of the social space in which a person lives and works. Great importance have a degree of social freedom of the individual, the opportunity for a person to choose the type of activity in which he can realize his aspirations to the greatest extent, the effectiveness of social protection in the event of a loss of working capacity. Important are the conditions not only of work, but also of life, leisure, family life, the state of environment, the general social climate in society, the situation in the field of personal security, and so on.
The merit of the sociology of the 20th century was the rejection of a simplified class approach to the realities of social life. Thus, employees have never been an absolutely homogeneous mass. From the point of view of the sphere of application of labor, industrial, agricultural workers, workers employed in the service sector (in transport, in the system of public services, communications, warehousing, etc.) were singled out. The most numerous group was made up of workers employed in various industries (mining, manufacturing, construction), which reflected the reality of mass, conveyor production, which was developing extensively and requiring more and more new workers. However, even under these conditions, processes of differentiation took place within the working class, connected with the variety of labor functions performed. Thus, the following groups of employees were distinguished by status:
Engineering and technical, scientific and technical, the lowest layer of managers - masters;
Skilled workers with a high level of professional training, experience and skills necessary to perform complex labor operations;
Semi-skilled workers - highly specialized machine operators whose training allows them to perform only simple operations;
Unskilled, untrained workers performing auxiliary work, engaged in rough physical labor.
Due to the heterogeneity of the composition of employees, some of their layers gravitated toward behavior within the framework of the model of social partnership, others - social conflict, and still others - social confrontation. Depending on which of these models was predominant, the general social climate of society was formed, the appearance and orientation of those organizations that represent social interests workers, employers, public interests and determine the nature of the social policy of the state.
The trends in the development of social relations, the predominance of social partnership, conflict or confrontation were largely determined by the extent to which the demands of the working people were satisfied within the framework of the system of social relations. If there were at least minimal conditions for raising the standard of living, the possibility of increasing social status, individual or separate employed groups, there would be no social confrontation.
Two currents in the trade union movement. The trade union movement has become the main instrument for ensuring the interests of workers in the last century. It originated in Great Britain, the first to survive the Industrial Revolution. Initially, trade unions arose at individual enterprises, then national branch trade unions were formed, uniting workers across the industry, the entire state.
The growth in the number of trade unions, their desire to maximize the coverage of workers in the industry were associated with a situation of social conflict, characteristic of developed countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Thus, a trade union that arose at one enterprise and put forward demands on the employer often faced mass dismissals of its members and the hiring of workers - not members of the trade union, who were ready to work for a lower salary. It is no coincidence that trade unions, when concluding collective agreements with entrepreneurs, demanded that they hire only their own members. In addition, the greater the number of trade unions, whose funds consisted of the contributions of their members, the longer they could provide material support to workers who started a strike action. The outcome of strikes was often determined by whether the workers could hold out long enough for the losses from the shutdown to induce the employer to make concessions. At the same time, the concentration of the labor force on large industrial complexes created the prerequisites for the activation of the workers' and trade union movement, the growth of its strength and influence. Strikes were made easier. It was enough to hold a strike action in only one of the dozens of workshops of the complex to stop all production. A form of creeping strikes arose, which, with the intransigence of the administration, spread from one workshop to another.
The solidarity and mutual support of trade unions led to the creation of national organizations by them. So, in Great Britain in 1868 the British Congress of trade unions (trade unions) was created. By the beginning of the 20th century in the UK, 33% of employees were in trade unions, in Germany - 27%, in Denmark - 50%. In other developed countries, the level of organization of the labor movement was less.
At the beginning of the century, the international relations of trade unions began to develop. In Copenhagen (Denmark) in 1901, the International Trade Union Secretariat (SME) was established, which ensured cooperation and mutual support of trade union centers in different countries. In 1913, the SME, renamed the International (trade union federation), included 19 national trade union centers, representing 7 million people. In 1908, an international association of Christian trade unions arose.
The development of the trade union movement was the most important factor in raising the living standards of employees, especially skilled and semi-skilled workers. And since the ability of entrepreneurs to satisfy the needs of wage earners depended on the competitiveness of corporations in the world market and colonial trade, unions often supported an aggressive foreign policy. There was a widespread belief in the British labor movement that colonies were necessary because their markets provided new jobs and cheap agricultural products.
At the same time, members of the oldest trade unions, the so-called "working aristocracy", were more oriented towards social partnership with entrepreneurs, support for state policy than members of newly emerging trade union organizations. In the United States, the industrial workers of the world trade union, established in 1905 and uniting mainly unskilled workers, stood in a revolutionary position. In the largest trade union organization in the United States, the American Federation of Labor (AFL), which united skilled workers, aspirations for social partnership prevailed.
In 1919, the trade unions of European countries, whose connections during the First World War of 1914-1918. were torn apart, established the Amsterdam Trade Union International. Its representatives took part in the activities of the international intergovernmental organization, the International Labor Organization (ILO), established in 1919 on the initiative of the United States. It was called upon to help eliminate social injustice and improve working conditions throughout the world. The first document adopted by the ILO was a recommendation to limit the working day in industry to eight hours and establish a 48-hour work week.
The decisions of the ILO were advisory in nature for the participating states, which included most of the countries of the world, colonies and protectorates they ruled. Nevertheless, they provided a certain unified international legal framework for solving social problems and labor disputes. The ILO had the right to consider complaints about violations of the rights of trade unions, non-compliance with recommendations, and send experts to improve the system of social relations.
The creation of the ILO contributed to the development of social partnership in the field of labor relations, the expansion of trade unions' opportunities to protect the interests of employees.
Those trade union organizations, whose leaders were inclined towards the position of class confrontation, in 1921, with the support of the Comintern, created the Red International of Trade Unions (Profintern). Its goals were not so much to protect the specific interests of the workers, but to politicize the labor movement, initiating social confrontations.
DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
From Sydney and Beatrice Webb, The Theory and Practice of Trade Unionism:
“If a certain branch of industry is fragmented between two or more contending societies, especially if these societies are unequal in number of their members, in breadth of their views and in character, then in practice there is no way to unite the policies of all sections or to adhere consistently to any course of action.<...>
The whole history of trade unionism confirms the conclusion that trade unions in their present form are formed for a very specific purpose - to achieve certain material improvements in the working conditions of their members; therefore they cannot, in their simplest form, go without risk beyond the territory within which these desired improvements are exactly the same for all members, that is, they cannot expand beyond the boundaries of individual professions.<...>If the differences between the ranks of workers make a complete fusion impossible, then the similarity of their other interests makes it necessary to look for some other form of union.<...>The solution was found in a number of federations, gradually expanding and crisscrossing; each of these federations unites, exclusively within the limits of specially set goals, those organizations that are aware of the identity of their goals.
From the Constitution of the International Labor Organization (1919):
“The purposes of the International Labor Organization are:
to promote lasting peace by promoting social justice;
improve working conditions and living standards through international measures, as well as contribute to the establishment of economic and social stability.
To achieve these goals, the International Labor Organization convenes joint meetings of representatives of governments, workers and employers in order to make recommendations on international minimum standards and develop international labor conventions on such issues as wages, hours of work, minimum age for entry into work. , working conditions of various categories of workers, compensation in case of accidents at work, social insurance, paid holidays, labor protection, employment, labor inspection, freedom of association, etc.
The organization provides extensive technical assistance to governments and publishes periodicals, studies and reports on social, industrial and labor issues”.
From the resolution of the Third Congress of the Comintern (1921) "The Communist International and the Red International of Trade Unions":
“Economy and politics are always connected with each other by inextricable threads.<...>There is not a single major issue of political life that should not be of interest not only to the workers' party, but also to the proletarian trade union, and, conversely, there is not a single major economic issue that should not be of interest not only to the trade union, but also to labor party<...>
From the point of view of economy of forces and better concentration of blows, the ideal situation would be the creation of a single International, uniting in its ranks both political parties and other forms of workers' organization. However, in the present transitional period, with the current diversity and diversity of trade unions in various countries it is necessary to create an independent international association of red trade unions, which, by and large, stand on the platform of the Communist International, but accept into their midst more freely than is the case in the Communist International<...>
The basis of the tactics of the trade unions is the direct action of the revolutionary masses and their organizations against capital. All the gains of the workers are directly proportional to the degree of direct action and revolutionary pressure of the masses. By direct action is meant all kinds of direct pressure from the workers on the entrepreneurs of the state: boycotts, strikes, street performances, demonstrations, seizure of enterprises, armed uprising and other revolutionary actions that rally the working class to fight for socialism. The task of the revolutionary class trade unions is therefore to turn direct action into an instrument of education and combat training of the working masses for the social revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
From the work of W. Reich "Psychology of the masses and fascism":
“The words 'proletarian' and 'proletarian' were coined over a hundred years ago to refer to a deceived class of society that was doomed to mass impoverishment. Of course, such social groups still exist, but the adult grandchildren of the proletarians of the 19th century became highly skilled industrial workers who are aware of their skill, indispensability and responsibility.<...>
In 19th-century Marxism, the use of the term "class consciousness" was limited to manual laborers. Persons in other necessary professions, without which society could not function, were labeled "intellectuals" and "petty bourgeoisie." They were opposed to the "proletariat of manual labor"<...>Along with industrial workers, doctors, teachers, technicians, laboratory assistants, writers, public figures, farmers, scientists, etc., should be counted as such persons.<...>
Thanks to ignorance of mass psychology, Marxist sociology contrasted the "bourgeoisie" with the "proletariat." From the point of view of psychology, such a contrast should be recognized as incorrect. The characterological structure is not limited to capitalists, it exists among workers of all professions. There are liberal capitalists and reactionary workers. Characterological analysis does not recognize class differences.
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1. What explains the increase in the dynamism of social processes in the 20th century?
2. What forms of social relations did the desire of social groups to defend their economic interests take?
3. Compare the two points of view on the social status of the individual given in the text and discuss the validity of each of them. Draw your own conclusions.
4. Specify what content you put into the concept of "social relations". What factors determine the social climate of society? Expand the role of the trade union movement in its creation.
5. Compare the views given in the appendix on the tasks of the trade union movement. How did the economic determinism of the ideologists of the Comintern influence their attitude towards trade unions? Did their position contribute to the success of the trade union movement?
§ 9. REFORMS AND REVOLUTIONS IN SOCIO-POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT 1900-1945.
In the past, revolutions played a special role in social development. Starting with a spontaneous explosion of discontent among the masses, they were a symptom of the existence of the most acute contradictions in society and at the same time a means of their speedy resolution. Revolutions destroyed institutions of power that had lost their effectiveness and trust of the masses, overthrew the former ruling elite (or ruling class), eliminated or undermined the economic foundations of its domination, led to the redistribution of property, and changed the forms of its use. However, the patterns of development of revolutionary processes, which were traced in the experience of the bourgeois revolutions of the countries of Europe and North America in the 17th-19th centuries, changed significantly in the 20th century.Reforms and social engineering. First of all, the relationship between reform and revolution has changed. Attempts by reform methods to solve the aggravating problems were made in the past, but the inability of the majority of the ruling nobility to transcend the boundaries of class prejudices, hallowed by traditions of ideas, determined the limitedness and low effectiveness of reforms.
With the development of representative democracy, the introduction of universal suffrage, the growing role of the state in regulating social and economic processes, the implementation of transformations became possible without disturbing the normal course of political life. In the countries of democracy, the masses were given the opportunity to express their protest without violence, at the ballot box.
The history of the 20th century gave many examples when changes associated with changes in the nature of social relations, the functioning of political institutions, in many countries occurred gradually, were the result of reforms, and not violent actions. Thus, industrial society, with such features as the concentration of production and capital, universal suffrage, active social policy, was fundamentally different from the capitalism of free competition of the 19th century, but the transition from one to the other in most European countries was of an evolutionary nature.
Problems that in the past seemed insurmountable without the violent overthrow of the existing order, many countries of the world solved with the help of experiments with the so-called social engineering. This concept was first used by the theorists of the British trade union movement Sydney and Beatrice Webb, it became generally accepted in legal and political science in the 1920s-1940s.
Social engineering is understood as the use of the levers of state power to influence the life of society, its restructuring in accordance with theoretically developed, speculative models, which was especially characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Often these experiments led to the destruction of the living fabric of society without giving rise to a new, healthy social organism. At the same time, where social engineering methods were applied in a balanced and cautious manner, taking into account the aspirations and needs of the majority of the population, material possibilities, as a rule, managed to smooth out emerging contradictions, improve the standard of living of people, and resolve their concerns at a much lower cost.
Social engineering also covers such a field of activity as the formation of public opinion through the media. This does not exclude elements of spontaneity in the reaction of the masses to certain events, since the possibilities of manipulating people by political forces that advocate both the preservation of the existing order and their overthrow in a revolutionary way are not unlimited. So, within the framework of the Comintern in the early 1920s. an ultra-radical, ultra-left trend emerged. Its representatives (L.D. Trotsky, R. Fischer, A. Maslov, M. Roy and others), proceeding from the Leninist theory of imperialism, argued that the contradictions in most countries of the world had reached the utmost acuteness. They assumed that a small push from within or from without, including in the form of acts of terror, the forcible "export of the revolution" from country to country, was enough to realize the social ideals of Marxism. However, attempts to push revolutions (in particular, in Poland during the Soviet-Polish war of 1920, in Germany and Bulgaria in 1923) invariably failed. Accordingly, the influence of representatives of the ultra-radical bias in the Comintern gradually weakened, in the 1920s-1930s. they were expelled from the ranks of most of its sections. Nevertheless, radicalism in the 20th century continued to play a large role in world socio-political development.
Revolutions and violence: the experience of Russia. In the countries of democracy, a negative attitude has developed towards revolutions as a manifestation of uncivilization, characteristic of underdeveloped, undemocratic countries. The experience of the revolutions of the 20th century contributed to the formation of such an attitude. Most of the attempts to overthrow the existing system by force were suppressed by armed force, which was associated with heavy casualties. Even a successful revolution was followed by a bloody civil war. With the constant improvement of military equipment, the devastating consequences, as a rule, exceeded all expectations. In Mexico during the revolution and the peasant war of 1910-1917. at least 1 million people died. In the Russian Civil War 1918-1922. at least 8 million people died, almost as many as all the warring countries, taken together, lost in the First World War of 1914-1918. 4/5 of the industry was destroyed, the main cadres of specialists, skilled workers emigrated or died.
Such a way of resolving the contradictions of industrial society, which removes their sharpness by throwing society back to the pre-industrial phase of development, can hardly be considered in the interests of any segments of the population. In addition, with a high degree of development of world economic relations, a revolution in any state, followed by a civil war, affects the interests of foreign investors and commodity producers. This prompts the governments of foreign powers to take measures to protect their citizens and their property, to help stabilize the situation in a country engulfed in civil war. Such measures, especially if they are carried out by military means, add to the civil war intervention, bringing even greater casualties and destruction.
Revolutions of the 20th century: basics of typology. According to the English economist D. Keynes, one of the creators of the concept of state regulation of a market economy, revolutions by themselves do not solve social and economic problems. At the same time, they can create political prerequisites for their solution, be a tool for overthrowing political regimes of tyranny and oppression that are incapable of reforming, removing weak leaders from power who are powerless to prevent the aggravation of contradictions in society.
According to political goals and consequences, in relation to the first half of the 20th century, the following main types of revolutions are distinguished.
First, democratic revolutions directed against authoritarian regimes (dictatorships, absolutist monarchies), culminating in the full or partial establishment of democracy.
In developed countries, the first revolution of this type was the Russian revolution of 1905-1907, which gave the Russian autocracy the features of a constitutional monarchy. The incompleteness of change led to a crisis and the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, which put an end to the 300-year rule of the Romanov dynasty. In November 1918, as a result of the revolution, the monarchy in Germany, discredited by the defeat in the First World War, was overthrown. The republic that emerged was called the Weimar Republic, since the Constituent Assembly, which adopted a democratic constitution, was held in 1919 in the city of Weimar. In Spain, in 1931, the monarchy was overthrown and a democratic republic proclaimed.
The arena of the revolutionary, democratic movement in the 20th century was Latin America, where in Mexico as a result of the revolution of 1910-1917. established a republican form of government.
Democratic revolutions also engulfed a number of Asian countries. In 1911-1912. In China, as a result of the upsurge of the revolutionary movement, led by Sun Yat-sen, the monarchy was overthrown. China was proclaimed a republic, but the actual power was in the hands of the provincial feudal-militarist cliques, which led to a new wave of the revolutionary movement. In 1925, a national government headed by General Chiang Kai-shek was formed in China, and a formally democratic, in fact one-party, authoritarian regime arose.
The democratic movement has changed the face of Turkey. The revolution of 1908 and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy paved the way for reforms, but their incompleteness, the defeat in the First World War caused the revolution of 1918-1923, headed by Mustafa Kemal. The monarchy was liquidated, in 1924 Turkey became a secular republic.
Secondly, national liberation revolutions became typical of the 20th century. In 1918, they engulfed Austria-Hungary, which disintegrated as a result of the liberation movement of the peoples against the rule of the Habsburg dynasty into Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. National liberation movements unfolded in many colonies and semi-colonies of European countries, in particular in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and India, although the greatest upsurge of the national liberation movement was noted after the Second World War. Its result was the liberation of the peoples from the power of the colonial administration of the metropolises, the acquisition of their own statehood, national independence.
The national liberation orientation was also present in many democratic revolutions, especially when they were aimed against regimes that relied on the support of foreign powers, were carried out in conditions of foreign military intervention. Such were the revolutions in Mexico, China and Turkey, although they were not colonies.
A specific result of the revolutions in a number of countries in Asia and Africa, carried out under the slogan of overcoming dependence on foreign powers, was the establishment of regimes that were traditional, familiar to the poorly educated majority of the population. Most often, these regimes turn out to be authoritarian - monarchical, theocratic, oligarchic, reflecting the interests of the local nobility.
The desire to return to the past appeared as a reaction to the destruction of the traditional way of life, beliefs, lifestyle due to the invasion of foreign capital, modernization of the economy, social and political reforms that affected the interests of the local nobility. One of the first attempts at a traditionalist revolution was the so-called Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900, initiated by peasants and the urban poor.
In a number of countries, including developed ones, which have a great influence on international life, there have been revolutions that led to the establishment of totalitarian regimes. The peculiarity of these revolutions was that they took place in the countries of the second wave of modernization, where the state traditionally played a special role in society. With the expansion of its role, up to the establishment of total (comprehensive) control of the state over all aspects of public life, the masses associated the prospect of solving any problems.
Totalitarian regimes were established in countries where democratic institutions were fragile and ineffective, but the conditions of democracy ensured the possibility of unimpeded activity of political forces preparing to overthrow it. The first of the revolutions of the 20th century, culminating in the establishment of a totalitarian regime, took place in Russia in October 1917.
For most revolutions, armed violence, the broad participation of the masses of the people was a common, but not mandatory attribute. Often, revolutions began with an apex coup, the coming to power of leaders who initiated change. At the same time, most often the political regime that arose directly as a result of the revolution was not able to find a solution to the problems that caused it. This determined the onset of new upsurges in the revolutionary movement, following one after another, until society came to a stable state.
DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
From the book of J. Keynes "Economic Consequences of the Treaty of Versailles":
“Rebellions and revolutions are possible, but at present they are not capable of playing any significant role. Against political tyranny and injustice, revolution can serve as a weapon of defense. But what can a revolution give to those who suffer from economic deprivation, a revolution that will not be caused by the injustice of the distribution of goods, but by their general lack? The only guarantee against revolution in Central Europe is that even for the people who are most gripped by despair, it does not offer hope for any significant relief.<...>The events of the years to come will be directed not by the conscious actions of statesmen, but by hidden currents running unceasingly under the surface of political history, the results of which no one can predict. We are only given a way to influence these hidden currents; this way is in using those forces of enlightenment and imagination that change people's minds. The proclamation of the truth, the exposure of illusions, the destruction of hatred, the expansion and enlightenment of human feelings and minds - these are our means.
From the work of L.D. Trotsky “What is a permanent revolution? (Basic Provisions)":
“The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the basis of class struggle on a national and international scale. This struggle, under conditions of the decisive predominance of capitalist relations in the international arena, will inevitably lead to outbreaks of internal, that is, civil and external revolutionary war. This is the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a question of a backward country that only yesterday completed its democratic revolution, or of an old democratic country that has gone through a long era of democracy and parliamentarism.
The completion of the socialist revolution within a national framework is unthinkable. One of the main causes of the crisis of bourgeois society is that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled to the framework of the nation-state. Hence the imperialist wars<...>The socialist revolution begins in the national arena, develops in the national arena, and ends in the world. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes permanent in a new, broader sense of the word: it does not reach its completion until the final triumph of the new society on our entire planet.
The scheme of development of the world revolution indicated above removes the question of countries "ripe" and "not ripe" for socialism in the spirit of that pedantically lifeless qualification given by the present program of the Comintern. Insofar as capitalism has created the world market, the world division of labor and the world's productive forces, it has prepared the world economy as a whole for socialist reconstruction.
From the work of K. Kautsky "Terrorism and Communism":
“Lenin would very much like to carry victoriously the banners of his revolution through Europe, but he has no plans for this. The revolutionary militarism of the Bolsheviks will not enrich Russia, it can only become a new source of her impoverishment. Today, Russian industry, inasmuch as it has been set in motion, works primarily for the needs of the armies, and not for productive purposes. Russian communism becomes truly barracks socialism<...>No world revolution, no outside help can remove the paralysis of Bolshevik methods. The task of European socialism in relation to "communism" is completely different: to take care of about so that the moral catastrophe of one particular method of socialism does not become a catastrophe of socialism in general, so that a sharp dividing line is drawn between this and the Marxist method, and so that the mass consciousness perceives this difference.
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1 Remember what revolutions in the history of a number of countries before the 20th century did you study? How do you understand the content of the terms "revolution", "revolution as a political phenomenon". and
2 What are the differences in the social functions of the revolution of the past centuries and the 20th century? Why have views on the role of revolutions changed? Z. Think and explain: revolution or reforms - under what socio-economic, political conditions is this or that alternative realized?
4. Based on the read text and previously studied history courses, compile a summary table "Revolutions in the world in the first decades of the 20th century" in the following columns:
Draw possible conclusions from the data obtained.
5. Name the most famous revolutionary figures in the world to you. Determine your attitude towards them, evaluate the significance of their activities.
6. Using the material given in the appendix, characterize the typical attitude of liberal theorists (D. Keynes), "left" communists (LD Trotsky) and social democrats (K. Kautsky) to revolutions.
Think and answer
1. Describe the periodization of history depending on the development of production technology.
2. How did the discovery of new energy sources influence the development of technology?
3. How does the modern scientific and technological revolution differ from previous revolutions in technology?
4. What are the features of the emerging post-industrial society?
5. What is technological determinism?
6. What determines the development of technology?
7. What is the relationship between technology and the productive forces of society?
8. What impact does science have on the development of technology in modern society?
Chapter 12. The role of socio-economic factors in the development of society
At present, most historians in their specific studies tacitly proceed from the premise that the economic and social needs of society play a decisive role in the historical process. However, they often do not make a clear distinction between the technical, economic and social drivers of development. Since these factors interact with other factors in a real process, it is very difficult to establish subordination between them. Nevertheless, the analysis of individual factors seems necessary because it allows us to define and evaluate various conceptions of historical development.
Supporters of the concept of economic determinism are well aware that technology and the productive forces of society as a whole cannot develop in isolation from the economic or production relations that are taking shape in a given society. Therefore, they distinguish the economic factor as the determining force of historical development. In their opinion, it is precisely depending on economic relations that not only political, legal, moral and other ideas and institutions of society are formed, but also the nature of its science and art. As noted in Chapter 1, K. Marx was often reproached for economic determinism. However, these reproaches apply not so much to him, but to his followers and especially to commentators. The talented propagandist of the teachings of K. Marx, Paul Lafargue (1842-1911), who owns the famous work “The Economic Determinism of Karl Marx”, where he tries to prove the dependence of the most abstract ideas and concepts on social, class relations, did not escape this.
“Economic determinism,” writes P. Lafargue, “is a new tool provided by Marx to the socialists to establish some order in disorder historical facts which historians and philosophers have been unable to classify and explain.
Indeed, by singling out economic relations as defining relations in society, Marxism established the recurrence in history, and thus the natural nature of its development. Based on this, P. Lafargue was able to show that such concepts as social progress, justice, freedom, and others are of a historical nature and arise on the basis of the socio-economic conditions that are developing in a given society. However, he did not take into account the relative independence of the development of theoretical thinking, and therefore he even tried to explain the emergence of abstract mathematical concepts and axioms with the help of "facts taken from experience"; in any case, he made no distinction between socio-historical concepts and those of such abstract sciences as mathematics.
“The concepts of progress, justice, freedom, fatherland, etc. etc., like the axioms of mathematics, he pointed out, do not exist by themselves and outside of experience. They do not precede experience, but follow it. But non-Euclidean geometries, to which he referred to to substantiate the historical view on the development of geometric knowledge, just preceded experience, and did not follow it. In fact, the creators of non-Euclidean geometries (N.I. Lobachevsky, J. Bolyai, K. Gauss and B. Riemann) came to their new ideas not with the help of experience, but purely logically. They replaced the axiom about parallel lines in Euclid's geometry with the opposite axiom and deduced all logical consequences from the newly obtained system of axioms. These consequences turned out to be so inconsistent with traditional geometric concepts that N.I. Lobachevsky, out of caution, at first called his geometry imaginary. Only a century later, non-Euclidean geometries found application in general relativity and cosmology, which explore the properties of physical space and matter in the universe. This example clearly shows how untenable attempts to explain the origin of abstract ideas from empirical experience, and even more so from the economic structure of society.
Undoubtedly, P. Lafargue did not at all try to derive philosophical views and scientific theories directly from the economy, although such attempts have sometimes been made. So did, for example, V.M. Shulyatikov in his book Justification of Capitalism in Western European Philosophy. However, carried away by the criticism of idealism in history and sociology, P. Lafargue in a number of cases makes concessions to economic determinism.
The fact that the economy plays, if not decisive, but important role in the development of society, was recognized by many historians who are very far from Marxism. The very logic of the study of historical material led them to such conclusions, although they could not correctly explain how exactly the economic basis affects the ideological superstructure of society. In this regard, it is useful to note that economic determinism appeared before the emergence of Marxism, and some ideas about it can be found in the writings of a number of nineteenth-century economists. We find the clearest formulation of its essence in the writings of the English economist Richard Jones (1790-1855), who emphasized that the basis of any society is the mode of production and distribution of social wealth, which forms its economic structure or organization. It is this organization, in his opinion, that determines all other ties and relationships of people living in a given society. “Changes in the economic organization of society,” he wrote, “are accompanied by major political, social, moral and intellectual changes affecting those abundant or meager means by which the tasks of the economy are carried out. These changes inevitably have a decisive influence on the various political and social foundations of the peoples concerned, and these influences extend to intellectual character, customs, manners, mores and happiness of the peoples"(our italics - G.R.).
The above quotation shows that for R. Jones, the economic organization of society determines not only its political, legal and social structure, but also all the specific features of the existence and behavior of people living in it.
For almost two centuries, ideas of the dominance of the economy in society have increasingly negative impact on the minds and deeds of many people. They even began to talk about the appearance of a peculiar type of person, denoted by the term homo economicus, who is not interested in anything but profit and money. Exactly at a in this he sees his success and the meaning of life, it is from the point of view of the ability to “make money” that he approaches the very assessment of progress in society. Such an attitude to life is strongly imposed by modern ideologists of economic determinism, who consider the market the only regulator of economic life, and assign the role of a night watchman to the state, designed to provide conditions for free competition.
The error of economic determinism lies not in the fact that it puts forward the economic factor as a determining factor in the development of society, but in the fact that it tries to explain all the phenomena and processes of not only material but also spiritual life, the development of science and culture exclusively by economic factors and practice, those. The economic factor is put forward here not as an essential factor, but as the only one that determines the development of society, its ideology and other forms of consciousness.
Supporters of the concept of economic determinism are well aware that technology and the productive forces of society as a whole cannot develop in isolation from the economic or production relations that are taking shape in a given society. For this reason, they single out the economic factor as the determining force of historical development.
Hosted on ref.rf
In their opinion, it is on the basis of economic relations that not only political, legal, moral and other ideas and institutions of society are formed, but also the nature of its science and art. As noted in Chapter 1, K. Marx was often reproached for economic determinism. Moreover, these reproaches apply not so much to him, but to his followers and especially to commentators. Paul Lafargue (1842-1911), a talented propagandist of Karl Marx's teachings (1842-1911), who owns the well-known work "The Economic Determinism of Karl Marx", where he tries to prove the dependence of the most abstract ideas and concepts on social, class relations, did not escape this.
ʼʼEconomic determinism, - writes P. Lafargue, - is a new tool, put at the disposal of socialists by Marx to establish some order in the disorder of historical facts, which historians and philosophers were unable to classify and explainʼʼ.
Indeed, by singling out economic relations as defining relations in society, Marxism established the recurrence in history, and thus the natural nature of its development. Based on this, P. Lafargue was able to show that such concepts as social progress, justice, freedom, and others are of a historical nature and arise on the basis of the socio-economic conditions that are developing in a given society. At the same time, he did not take into account the relative independence of the development of theoretical thinking, and in connection with this, he even tried to explain the emergence of abstract mathematical concepts and axioms with the help of "facts taken from experience"; at least he did not make any distinction between socio-historical concepts and those of such abstract sciences as mathematics.
ʼʼThe concepts of progress, justice, freedom, fatherland, etc. etc., like the axioms of mathematics, he pointed out, do not exist by themselves and outside of experience. Οʜᴎ do not precede experience, but follow itʼʼ. But non-Euclidean geometries, to which he referred to to substantiate the historical view on the development of geometric knowledge, just preceded experience, and did not follow it. In fact, the creators of non-Euclidean geometries (N.I. Lobachevsky, J. Bolyai, K. Gauss and B. Riemann) came to their new ideas not with the help of experience, but purely logically. Οʜᴎ replaced the axiom about parallel lines in Euclid's geometry with the opposite axiom and deduced all logical consequences from the newly obtained system of axioms. These consequences turned out to be so inconsistent with traditional geometric concepts that N.I. Lobachevsky, out of caution, at first called his geometry imaginary. Only a century later, non-Euclidean geometries found application in general relativity and cosmology, which explore the properties of physical space and matter in the Universe. This example clearly shows how untenable attempts are to explain the origin of abstract ideas from empirical experience, and even more so from the economic structure of society.
Undoubtedly, P. Lafargue by no means tried to derive philosophical views and scientific theories directly from economics, although such attempts were sometimes made. So did, for example, V.M. Shulyatikov in his book ʼʼJustification of capitalism in Western European philosophyʼʼ. At the same time, carried away by the criticism of idealism in history and sociology, P. Lafargue in a number of cases makes concessions to economic determinism.
The fact that the economy plays, if not a decisive, but an important role in the development of society, was also recognized by many historians who are very far from Marxism. The very logic of the study of historical material led them to such conclusions, although they could not correctly explain how exactly the economic basis affects the ideological superstructure of society. In this regard, it is worth noting that economic determinism appeared before the emergence of Marxism, and some ideas about it can be found in the writings of a number of economists of the 19th century. We find the clearest formulation of its essence in the writings of the English economist Richard Jones (1790-1855), who emphasized that the basis of any society is the mode of production and distribution of social wealth, which forms its economic structure or organization. It is this organization, in his opinion, that determines all other ties and relationships of people living in a given society. ʼʼChanges in the economic organization of society, he wrote, are accompanied by major political, social, moral and intellectual changes affecting those plentiful or meager means by which the tasks of the economy are realized. These changes inevitably have a decisive influence on the various political and social foundations of the peoples concerned, and these influences extend to intellectual character, customs, manners, mores and happiness at birthʼʼ(our italics - G.R.).
The above quote shows that for R. Jones, the economic organization of society determines not only its political, legal and social structure, but also all the specific features of the existence and behavior of people living in it.
For nearly two centuries, ideas of the dominance of economics in society have had an increasingly negative impact on the minds and deeds of many people. They even began to talk about the appearance of a peculiar type of person, denoted by the term homo economicus, who is not interested in anything but profit and money. Exactly at a in this he sees his success and the meaning of life, it is from the point of view of the ability to "make money" that he approaches the very assessment of progress in society. Such an attitude to life is strongly imposed by modern ideologists of economic determinism, who consider the market the only regulator of economic life, and assign the role of a night watchman to the state, designed to provide conditions for free competition.
The mistake of economic determinism is not that it puts forward the economic factor as a determining factor in the development of society, but that it tries to explain all the phenomena and processes of not only material, but also spiritual life, the development of science and culture exclusively by economic factors and practice, ᴛ.ᴇ. The economic factor is put forward here not as an essential factor, but as the only one that determines the development of society, its ideology and other forms of consciousness.