In the scientific thought of the past and present, many concepts and theories have developed on the problem of the typology of the state.

The founders of Marxism formulated the position according to which the definition of one or another type of state is possible only in connection with the study and development of class society.

In contrast to bourgeois researchers who consider society "in general", K. Marx believed that in real history such an abstract society does not exist, but there is a society that is at a certain stage of historical development. He developed the concept of a socio-economic formation, which is a prerequisite and basis for theoretical generalizations that make it possible to present individual aspects of social life as moments of the whole - outside this concept it is impossible to bring together the diversity of empirical facts of human history.

K. Marx put an end to the view of society as a mechanical aggregate of individuals, allowing all sorts of changes at the will of the authorities (or, anyway, at the will of society and the government), arising and changing by chance, and for the first time put sociology on a scientific basis, establishing the concept of social economic formation as a set of data of production relations, having established that the development of such formations is a natural-historical process.

Representatives of the Marxist school never reduced the concept of a socio-economic formation only to a system of production relations, as is sometimes noted in modern journalistic literature, but considered them in the unity of all its aspects. The socio-economic formation, being a scientific abstraction, gives an idea of ​​its typical features. This applies both to the characterization of the entire social system and to the consideration of its constituent elements - production relations, social structure, political superstructure, serves as a criterion for substantiating the corresponding types of the latter.

The concept of a socio-economic formation can be defined as a society at a certain stage of historical development, taken in the unity of all its aspects, with its inherent mode of production, economic system and a superstructure towering above it.

One of the main features of the Marxist interpretation of the socio-economic formation is that it reflects, in their opinion, the most important, essential phenomena, i.e., only such fundamental features of social orders that are basically repeated in the same way in different countries and which can be generalized .

The development of a definition of a socio-economic formation allows representatives of the Marxist school to distinguish between the economic structure and the formation itself, between different social systems.

It is quite clear that a socio-economic formation in its pure form, that is, as a special social organism, can exist only in theory, but not in historical reality.

The concept of a socio-economic formation, on the one hand, is a theoretical abstraction that makes it possible to detect stages in the development of world history. Such a concept of a socio-economic formation makes it possible to separate one period from another, to single out qualitatively unique stages in the history of society, each of which has specific laws of its movement.

There is no doubt that the doctrine of socio-economic formations and the typification of states deserves close attention and analysis in the periodization of the development of human history. But we must not forget the fact that the change of socio-economic formations and types of states occurs synchronously (with the exception of the longest period of existence of the primitive communal system on earth), but already with the advent of the slave-owning type of state, the simultaneous existence of two or more types of states begins. Hence the concept of socio-economic formation can reveal the essence of the historical process not in all countries, but only in one specific country or group of countries.

The theory of socio-economic formations contains the concept of the unity of the world historical process and assumes a natural change in the types of states. In the course of changing socio-economic formations, there is also a consistent change in the types of states. The theory of socio-economic formations is aimed at establishing the patterns of dependence of the class essence of the state on the system of socio-economic relations that form the basis of a particular formation.

The typification of state-legal systems forms the basis for scientific knowledge of the enormous variety of constantly developing concrete political phenomena, and is included in the methodology of Marxist-Leninist jurisprudence. It develops certain methods of cognition of the state and law, methods of revealing their essence.

The most important feature of the scientific typology of the state, which is based on the Marxist doctrine of socio-economic formations, is that it is based on the nature of the connections of the state and law with other phenomena of social life, that is, on the identification of social laws. Among them, for example, is the objective relationship between the state and the rights of a class society.

The development of the concept of "type of state" in the Marxist school is connected, first of all, with the essential characteristics of the state, and not with the content. In the Marxist state-legal literature there is no single definition of the type of state. The difficulty in developing the concept of the type of state is, firstly, the fact that the material of social life is vast and constantly increasing, primarily due to new countries embarking on the path of independent statehood building.

Marx's generalized periodization divides historical development into three stages. The first includes primitive society, in which there is no private ownership of the means of production and labor is directly socialized. This type of historical development rests on the immaturity of the individual man, who has not yet broken away from the umbilical cord of natural ancestral ties with other people.

The second stage is antagonistic societies, in which the heap process takes the social form of relations of exploitation of man by man. Antagonistic societies are divided into two groups:

• a) ancient and feudal societies in which there are direct relations of domination and subordination;
• b) capitalist society, where production relations take the form of real dependence of direct producers on the products of labor.

The third stage is the future communist society. The social relations of people to their labor remain here transparently clear, both in production and in distribution.

Under the historical type of the state, he understands the system of essential features of states of the same social economic formation, expressing the commonality of their economic basis, class essence and social purpose.

From this definition it follows that each socio-economic formation needs a certain type of state, while the pre-class and post-class socio-economic formation excludes the existence of a state.

One of the main ideas of the Marxist theory of formations is the correspondence between the invariant systems of each layer of social life - the correspondence of the invariant of the state to the invariant of the economy, the invariant of spiritual life - the invariant of the economy and the invariant of the state.

The theory of formations explains certain changes in history and explains the existence of certain types of societies. In this sense it is a theory of history and even a general theory of history. Unlike the theory of separate formations, for example, the theory of capitalism. The theory of each separate formation presupposes the existence of a theory of formations, and is not reduced to this theory.

The question of the type, which, according to the Marxist doctrine, is based on the class-essential moment, is inextricably linked with the question of the form of the state.

History shows that within the framework of one type of state, a variety of forms of the state is possible, that is, the dominance of historically defined classes can take on various political forms, some of which may prevail in a given type of state, in which the laws of a state of a certain social economic formation. Such forms of the state can be called typical, more common in this type of state. Others, not characteristic of a certain type of state, can be attributed to atypical forms of the state.

Such was the theory of K. Marx, set forth by him, due to objective circumstances (obtaining information about the East through "second hands", the poor scientific development of this problem, due, in particular, to the lack of factual material, fragmentation, Marx's lack of study to the end of the Eastern (Asian) production type). which replaced theory in the 20th century. another, already well-known theory about the unconditional priority of the class nature of state formation within the framework of a five-term scheme of socio-economic formations, which turned out to be very attractive and meets the interests of the intensified political struggle in Europe and in Russia, today, as historical practice has shown, is much less preferable and far from being so universal , as wanted by the vulgar dogmatists - the followers of Marx's teachings.

Introduction

Today, the concepts of the historical process (formational, civilizational, modernization theories) have found their limits of applicability. The degree of awareness of the limitations of these concepts is different: most of all, the shortcomings of the formational theory are realized, as for the civilizational doctrine and modernization theories, then there are more illusions regarding their possibilities of explaining the historical process.

The insufficiency of these concepts for the study of social changes does not mean their absolute falsity, the point is only that the categorical apparatus of each of the concepts, the range of social phenomena it describes is not complete enough, at least in relation to the description of what is contained in alternative theories.

It is necessary to rethink the content of descriptions of social changes, as well as the concepts of general and unique, on the basis of which generalizations and differentiations are made, schemes of the historical process are built.

Theories of the historical process reflect a one-sided understanding of historical changes; there is a reduction in the diversity of their forms to some kind. The formational concept sees only progress in the historical process, moreover, total, believing that progressive development covers all spheres of social life, including man.

The theory of socio-economic formations of K. Marx

One of the important shortcomings of orthodox historical materialism was that it did not identify and theoretically develop the basic meanings of the word "society". And this word in the scientific language has at least five such meanings. The first meaning is a specific separate society, which is a relatively independent unit of historical development. Society in this understanding, I will call a socio-historical (socio-historical) organism or, in short, a socior.

The second meaning is a spatially limited system of socio-historical organisms, or a sociological system. The third meaning is all the socio-historical organisms that have ever existed and still exist, taken together - human society as a whole. The fourth meaning is society in general, regardless of any specific forms of its real existence. The fifth meaning is a society of a certain type in general (a particular society or type of society), for example, a feudal society or an industrial society.

There are different classifications of socio-historical organisms (according to the form of government, the dominant confession, the socio-economic system, the dominant sphere of the economy, etc.). But the most general classification is the division of sociohistorical organisms into two main types according to the method of their internal organization.

The first type is socio-historical organisms, which are unions of people organized on the basis of personal membership, primarily kinship. Each such socior is inseparable from its personnel and is capable of moving from one territory to another without losing its identity. Such societies I will call demosocial organisms (demosociors). They are characteristic of the pre-class era of human history. Examples are primitive communities and multi-communal organisms called tribes and chiefdoms.

The boundaries of organisms of the second type are the boundaries of the territory they occupy. Such formations are organized according to the territorial principle and are inseparable from the areas of the earth's surface they occupy. As a result, the personnel of each such organism acts in relation to this organism as an independent special phenomenon - its population. I will call such societies geosocial organisms (geosociors). They are characteristic of a class society. They are usually referred to as states or countries.

Since there was no concept of a socio-historical organism in historical materialism, neither the concept of a regional system of socio-historical organisms, nor the concept of human society as a whole as the totality of all existing and existing sociors was developed in it. The latter concept, although present in an implicit form (implicitly), was not clearly delimited from the concept of society in general.

The absence of the concept of a socio-historical organism in the categorical apparatus of the Marxist theory of history inevitably interfered with the understanding of the category of socio-economic formation. It was impossible to truly understand the category of socio-economic formation without comparing it with the concept of a socio-historical organism. Defining the formation as a society or as a stage in the development of society, our specialists in historical materialism did not reveal in any way the meaning that they put into the word "society"; to another, which inevitably gave rise to incredible confusion.

Each specific socio-economic formation is a certain type of society, identified on the basis of the socio-economic structure. This means that a specific socio-economic formation is nothing other than that which is common to all socio-historical organisms that have a given socio-economic structure. The concept of a specific formation always fixes, on the one hand, the fundamental identity of all sociohistorical organisms based on the same system of production relations, and on the other hand, a significant difference between specific societies with different socio-economic structures. Thus, the ratio of a socio-historical organism belonging to one or another socio-economic formation and this formation itself is the ratio of the individual and the general.

The problem of the general and the individual is one of the most important problems of philosophy, and disputes around it have been going on throughout the history of this area of ​​human knowledge. Since the Middle Ages, two main directions in solving this issue have been called nominalism and realism. According to the views of the nominalists, in the objective world there is only the separate. The general either does not exist at all, or it exists only in consciousness, is a mental human construction.

There is a grain of truth in each of these two views, but both are wrong. For scientists, the existence of laws, patterns, essence, and necessity in the objective world is undeniable. And all this is common. The general thus exists not only in consciousness, but also in the objective world, but only in a different way than the individual exists. And this otherness of the being of the general does not at all consist in the fact that it forms a special world opposed to the separate world. There is no special world in common. The general does not exist by itself, not independently, but only in the individual and through the individual. On the other hand, the individual does not exist without the general.

Thus, two different types of objective existence take place in the world: one type - independent existence, as the individual exists, and the second - existence only in the individual and through the individual, as the general exists.

Sometimes, however, it is said that the individual exists as such, while the general, while really existing, does not exist as such. In what follows, I will designate independent existence as self-existence, as self-existence, and existence in another and through another as other-existence, or as other-being.

Different formations are based on qualitatively different systems of socio-economic relations. This means that different formations develop in different ways, according to different laws. Therefore, from this point of view, the most important task of social science is to study the laws of functioning and development of each of the socio-economic formations, that is, to create a theory for each of them. In relation to capitalism, K. Marx tried to solve such a problem.

The only way that can lead to the creation of a theory of any formation is to identify that essential, common thing that is manifested in the development of all sociohistorical organisms of a given type. It is quite clear that it is impossible to reveal the general in phenomena without digressing from the differences between them. It is possible to reveal the internal objective necessity of any real process only by freeing it from the specific historical form in which it manifested itself, only by presenting this process in a "pure" form, in a logical form, i.e., in such a way that it can exist only in theoretical consciousness.

It is quite clear that a specific socio-economic formation in its pure form, that is, as a special socio-historical organism, can exist only in theory, but not in historical reality. In the latter, it exists in individual societies as their inner essence, their objective basis.

Each real concrete socio-economic formation is a type of society and thus that objective common thing that is inherent in all socio-historical organisms of a given type. Therefore, it may well be called a society, but by no means a real sociohistorical organism. It can act as a sociohistorical organism only in theory, but not in reality. Each specific socio-economic formation, being a certain type of society, is the same society of this type in general. The capitalist socio-economic formation is the capitalist type of society and, at the same time, capitalist society in general.

Each specific formation has a certain relationship not only to sociohistorical organisms of a given type, but to society in general, that is, to that objective general that is inherent in all sociohistorical organisms, regardless of their type. In relation to sociohistorical organisms of this type, each specific formation acts as a general one. In relation to society in general, a concrete formation appears as the general of a lower level, i.e., as special, as a concrete variety of society in general, as a particular society.

The concept of a socio-economic formation in general, like the concept of society in general, reflects the general, but different from that which reflects the concept of society in general. The concept of society generally reflects what is common to all sociohistorical organisms, regardless of their type. The concept of a socio-economic formation in general reflects the common thing that is inherent in all specific socio-economic formations, regardless of their specific features, namely, that they are all types identified on the basis of socio-economic structure.

As a reaction to this kind of interpretation of socio-economic formations, a denial of their real existence arose. But it was due not only to the incredible confusion that existed in our literature on the question of formations. The matter was more complicated. As has already been pointed out, in theory socio-economic formations exist as ideal sociohistorical organisms. Not finding such formations in the historical reality, some of our historians, and after them some historians, came to the conclusion that formations do not really exist at all, that they are only logical, theoretical constructions.

They were unable to understand that socio-economic formations also exist in historical reality, but otherwise than in theory, not as ideal sociohistorical organisms of one type or another, but as an objective commonality in real sociohistorical organisms of one type or another. For them, existence was reduced only to self-existence. They, like all nominalists in general, did not take into account other beings, and socio-economic formations, as already indicated, have no self-existence. They do not self-exist, but exist differently.

In this regard, one cannot but say that the theory of formations can be accepted or rejected. But the socio-economic formations themselves cannot be ignored. Their existence, at least as certain types of society, is an undeniable fact.

• 1. The basis of the Marxist theory of socio-economic formations is a materialistic understanding of the history of the development of mankind as a whole, as a historically changing set of various forms of human activity in the production of their lives.
• 2. The unity of the productive forces and production relations constitutes the historically determined mode of production of the material life of society.
• 3. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and spiritual process of life in general.
• 4. Under the material productive forces in Marxism, we mean the instruments of production or means of production, technologies and people using them. The main productive force is a person, his physical and mental abilities, as well as his cultural and moral level.
• 5. The relations of production in Marxist theory denote the relations of individuals regarding both the reproduction of the human species in general and the actual production of means of production and consumer goods, their distribution, exchange and consumption.
• 6. The totality of production relations, as a way of producing the material life of society, constitutes the economic structure of society.
• 7. Under the socio-economic formation in Marxism is understood the historical period of the development of mankind, characterized by a certain mode of production.
• 8. According to Marxist theory, humanity as a whole is moving progressively from less developed socio-economic formations to more developed ones. Such is the dialectical logic that Marx extended to the history of human development.
• 9. In K. Marx's theory of socio-economic formations, each formation acts as a society of a certain type in general, and thus as a pure, ideal socio-historical organism of a given type. Primitive society in general, Asiatic society in general, pure ancient society, etc. figure in this theory. Accordingly, the change of social formations appears in it as the transformation of an ideal socio-historical organism of one type into a pure socio-historical organism of another, higher type: ancient society in general into feudal society in general, pure feudal society into pure capitalist society, capitalist society into communist society.
• 10. The entire history of the development of mankind in Marxism was presented as a dialectical, progressive movement of mankind from the primitive communist formation to the Asian and ancient (slave-owning) formations, and from them to the feudal, and then to the bourgeois (capitalist) socio-economic formation.

Socio-historical practice has confirmed the correctness of these Marxist conclusions. And if there are disputes about the Asian and ancient (slave-owning) modes of production and their transition to feudalism in science, then the reality of the existence of the historical period of feudalism, and then its evolutionary-revolutionary development into capitalism, no one doubts.

11. Marxism revealed the economic reasons for the change in socio-economic formations. Their essence lies in the fact that, at a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or - which is only a legal expression of this - with the property relations within which they have so far developed. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations are transformed into their fetters. Then comes the era of social revolution. With a change in the economic basis, a revolution takes place more or less quickly in the entire vast superstructure.

This happens because the productive forces of society develop according to their own internal laws. In their movement they always outstrip the relations of production that develop within the relations of property.

Materialistic approach in the study of civilizations

Within the framework of this approach, civilization appears as a higher level of development that goes beyond the "natural society" with its natural productive forces.

L. Morgan about the signs of a civilizational society: the development of productive forces, the functional division of labor, the expansion of the exchange system, the emergence of private ownership of land, the concentration of wealth, the split of society into classes, the formation of the state.

L. Morgan, F. Engels identified three major periods in the history of mankind: savagery, barbarism, civilization. Civilization is the achievement of some higher level than barbarism.

F. Engels about the three great eras of civilizations: the first great era is ancient, the second is feudalism, the third is capitalism. The formation of civilization in connection with the emergence of a division of labor, the separation of craft from agriculture, the formation of classes, the transition from a tribal system to a state based on social inequality. Two types of civilizations: antagonistic (the period of class societies) and non-antagonistic (the period of socialism and communism).

East and West as different types of civilizational development

The "traditional" society of the East (eastern traditional civilization), its main characteristics: the inseparability of property and administrative power, the subordination of society to the state, the absence of private property and the rights of citizens, the complete absorption of the individual by the collective, the economic and political domination of the state, the presence of despotic states. The influence of Western (technogenic) civilization.

Achievements and contradictions of Western civilization, its characteristic features: market economy, private property, rule of law, democratic social order, the priority of the individual and his interests, various forms of class organization (trade unions, parties, etc.) - Comparative characteristics of the West and East, their main features, values.

Civilization and culture. Different approaches to understanding the phenomenon of culture, their connection. Main approaches: activity, axiological (value), semiotic, sociological, humanistic. Contrasting concepts "civilization" and "culture"(O. Spengler, X. Ortega y Gasset, D. Bell, N. A. Berdyaev and others).

The ambiguity of the definitions of culture, its relationship with the concept of "civilization":

• - civilization as a certain stage in the development of the culture of individual peoples and regions (L. Tonnoy, P. Sorokin);
• - civilization as a specific stage of social development, which is characterized by the emergence of cities, writing, the formation of national-state formations (L. Morgan, F. Engels);
• - civilization as the value of all cultures (K. Jaspers);
• - civilization as the final moment in the development of culture, its "decline" and decline (O. Spengler);
• - civilization as a high level of human material activity: tools, technologies, economic and political relations and institutions;
• - culture as a manifestation of the spiritual essence of man (N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov), civilization as the highest manifestation of the spiritual essence of man;
• - culture is not civilization.

culture, according to P. S. Gurevich, it is a historically determined level of development of society, creative forces, human abilities, expressed in the types of organization and activities of people, as well as in the material and spiritual values ​​\u200b\u200bcreated by them. Culture as a set of material and cultural achievements of mankind in all spheres of public life; as a specific characteristic of human society, as something that distinguishes man from animals.

The most important component of culture is the value-normative system. Value - this property of a particular social object, phenomenon to satisfy the needs, desires, interests of a person, society; this is a personally colored attitude to the world, arising not only on the basis of knowledge and information, but also on a person’s own life experience; the significance of the objects of the surrounding world for a person: class, group, society, humanity as a whole.

Culture occupies a special place in the structure of civilizations. Culture is a way of individual and social life, expressed in a concentrated form, the degree of development of both a person and social relations, as well as one's own being.

Differences between culture and civilization according to S. A. Babushkin, are as follows:

• - in historical time, culture is a broader category than civilization;
• - culture is part of civilization;
• - types of culture do not always coincide with the types of civilizations;
• - they are smaller, more fractional than the types of civilizations.

The theory of socio-economic formations of K. Marx and F. Engels

Socio-economic formation - it is a society at a certain stage of historical development, using a certain mode of production.

The concept of linear development of the world-historical process.

World history is a set of histories of many socio-historical organisms, each of which must "go through" all socio-economic formations. Production relations are primary, the foundation of all other social relations. Many social systems are reduced to several basic types - socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist .

Three social formations (primary, secondary and tertiary) are designated by K. Marx as archaic (primitive), economic and communist. K. Marx includes the Asian, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois mode of production in the economic formation.

Formation - a certain stage in the historical progress of society, its natural and gradual approach to communism.

Structure and main elements of the formation.

Social relations are divided into material and ideological. Basis - the economic structure of society, the totality of production relations. material relations- production relations that arise between people in the process of production, exchange and distribution of material goods. The nature of production relations is determined not by the will and consciousness of people, but by the achieved level of development of the productive forces. The unity of production relations and productive forces forms a specific for each formation mode of production. Superstructure - a set of ideological (political, legal, etc.) relations, related views, theories, ideas, i.e. ideology and psychology of various social groups or society as a whole, as well as relevant organizations and institutions - the state, political parties, public organizations. The structure of the socio-economic formation also includes social relations of society, certain forms of life, family, lifestyle. The superstructure depends on the basis and affects the economic basis, and the relations of production affect the productive forces.

Separate elements of the structure of the socio-economic formation are interconnected and experience mutual influence. As socio-economic formations develop, they change, the transition from one formation to another through a social revolution, the resolution of antagonistic contradictions between the productive forces and production relations, between the base and the superstructure. Within the framework of the communist socio-economic formation, socialism develops into communism.

• Cm.: Gurevich A. Ya. The theory of formation and the reality of history // Questions of Philosophy. 1991. No. 10; Zakharov A. Once again about the theory of formations // Social sciences and modernity. 1992. No. 2.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATION, according to the Marxist concept of periodization of history, a society that is at a certain stage of its development, which is characterized by the originality of social, political, moral relations. In the theory of K. Marx, the concept of "socio-economic formation" is of decisive importance. Each socio-economic formation is a special social organism, the integrity of which is determined by a system of interrelated specific laws. The basis of any social organism, according to this theory, is the mode of production. Not only the laws of production itself, but also other social institutions at a given historical stage of development depend on how, in what way, with the help of what tools of labor people enter into the process of production. Thus, the relations of production, taken in their totality, act as the economic basis of the socio-economic formation, to which political, legal and ideological institutions correspond. They, according to this theory, serve as a superstructure over the economic basis and together with it form a single integrity that determines the specifics of the formation. Therefore, within the boundaries of one socio-economic formation, the main thing in historical development is not the national characteristics of this or that country, but the specifics of the formation itself. Moreover, the national characteristics themselves are largely determined by what historical stages (formations) a particular country has passed through.

Thus, the specific laws of development of each socio-economic formation are common to all countries in which they operate.

According to Marx's theory, the following main socio-economic formations are distinguished: primitive communal system, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, communism. These historical stages of social development are applicable to European countries. For the eastern countries, as a pre-capitalist stage of development, the Asian mode of production and the formation corresponding to it are characteristic.

The successive change of socio-economic formations occurs as a result of the growth of internal socio-economic contradictions, and the main one is the contradiction between the productive forces and production relations.

At the same time, according to this theory, it is not at all necessary that all countries and peoples consistently pass through all stages of historical development, it is not at all necessary that a successive change of formations is necessary. This is due to the existence of local features of a particular country, as well as transitional states, when ways of various socio-economic formations coexist.

Important for Marx's theory was the presentation of history as a process of progressive movement towards a future social system in which humanity's dreams of freedom, equality, and the all-round development of all members of society (communism) on the basis of an unprecedented flourishing of production will be fully realized. According to the theory under consideration, all the formations preceding communism act as the prehistory of mankind, because antagonistic contradictions and the exploitation of man by man have not been overcome, but only change their specific historical forms. According to Marx's theory, all forms of alienation of man from himself (the state, property, money, etc.) are completely overcome only under communism.

K. Marx devoted his whole life to the analysis of capitalism - a socio-economic formation, which, in his opinion, prepares all the objective prerequisites (level, structure of productive forces, the presence of developed socio-economic forms) for the transition to communism.

Thus, the main features of the formational theory are the progressive nature of social development, the gradual (from one formation to another) growth of productive forces, the improvement of all socio-economic forms and institutions, on this basis - the overcoming by society and the individual of dependence on nature and each other. from friend. It should be noted, however, that Marx himself understood a certain conventionality in the selection of formations. This, in particular, is evidenced by his analysis of the Asian mode of production.

Despite the fact that the theory of socio-economic formation has received a certain distribution in the world, it is criticized by many historians and sociologists. The community of scientists is questioning the very approach to history from the standpoint of a non-existent future - communism; analysis of social catastrophes of the 20th century. (world wars, terror, fascism) calls into question the progressive nature of historical development. In the 20th century other concepts of periodization of the historical process became widespread. So, the basis for distinguishing the stages of development of society can be based on such concepts as: "culture" ("cultural values", A. Weber, German economist and sociologist), "civilization" (A.J. Toynbee, English historian and sociologist) , "technological factors" (the theory of "stages of economic growth", W. Rostow, American sociologist and economist; the theory of "new industrial society", J. K. Galbraith, American economist), etc. E. F. Mizhenskaya.

K. Marx worked out his main idea about the natural-historical process of the development of society by singling out the economic one from different areas of social life, and production relations from all social relations as the main and determining other relations1.

Taking as a starting point the fact of earning a livelihood, Marxism associated with it the relations into which people enter in the process of production, and in the system of these production relations saw the basis - the basis of a certain society - which is clothed with political and legal superstructures and various forms of social thought. .

Each system of production relations that arises at a certain stage in the development of the productive forces is subject both to the laws common to all formations and to the laws of emergence, functioning and transition to a higher form that are specific to only one of them. The actions of people within each socio-economic formation were generalized by Marxism and reduced to the actions of large masses, in a class society - classes that realize in their activities the urgent needs of social development.

The socio-economic formation is, according to Marxism, a historical type of society based on a certain mode of production and is a stage in the progressive development of mankind from the primitive communal system through the slave system, feudalism and capitalism to the communist formation. The concept of "socio-economic formation" is the cornerstone of the Marxist understanding of history. At the same time, one formation is replaced by another as a result of a social revolution. Capitalist society, according to Marxism, is the last of the formations based on class antagonism. It ends the prehistory of mankind and begins the true history - communism.

Formation types

Marxism distinguishes five types of socio-economic formations.

The primitive communal system is a primary (or archaic) social formation, the structure of which is characterized by the interaction of communal and related forms of community of people. This formation covers the time from the birth of social relations to the emergence of a class society. With a broad interpretation of the concept of "primary formation", the beginning of the primitive communal system is considered the phase of the primitive herd, and the final stage is the society of communal statehood, where class differentiation has already been outlined. Primitive communal relations reach their greatest structural completeness during the period of the tribal system, which is formed by the interaction of the tribal community and the clan. The basis of production relations here was the common ownership of the means of production (instruments of production, land, as well as housing, household equipment), within which there was also personal ownership of weapons, household items, clothing, etc. Existing in the conditions of the initial stages of technical development of mankind, collective forms of ownership, religious and magical ideas, primitive relations are being replaced by new social relations as a result of the improvement of tools, forms of economy, the evolution of family, marriage and other relations.

The slave-owning system is the first class antagonistic society that arose on the ruins of the primitive communal system. Slavery, according to Marxism, existed in various scales and forms in all countries and among all peoples. Under the slave system, the main productive force of society is slaves, and the ruling class is the class of slave owners, which breaks up into different social groups (landowners, merchants, usurers, etc.). In addition to these two main classes - slaves and slave owners - in a slave-owning society there are intermediate strata of the free population: small proprietors who live by their labor (artisans and peasants), as well as a lumpen proletariat formed from ruined artisans and peasants. The basis of the dominant production relations of a slave-owning society is the private ownership of the slave-owner of the means of production and slaves. With the emergence of a slave-owning society, the state arises and develops. With the disintegration of the slave-owning system, the class struggle intensifies and the slave-owning form of exploitation is replaced by another - feudal.

Feudalism (from Latin feodum - estate) is the middle link in the change of formations between the slave system and capitalism. It arises through the synthesis of elements of the decomposition of primitive communal and slave-owning relations. Three types of this synthesis are observed: with the predominance of the first, the second, or with their uniform ratio. The economic structure of feudalism is characterized by the fact that the main means of production - land - is in the monopoly property of the ruling class of feudal lords, and the economy is carried out by small producers - peasants. The political structure of feudal society at different stages of its development is different: from the smallest state fragmentation to highly centralized absolutist monarchies. The late period of feudalism (the descending stage of its development as a system) is characterized, according to Marxism, by the emergence in its depths of manufacturing production - the germ of capitalist relations and the time of maturation and accomplishment of bourgeois revolutions.

Capitalism is a socio-economic formation that replaces feudalism. Capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of wage labor. The main contradiction of capitalism - between the social nature of labor and the private capitalist form of appropriation - finds expression, according to Marxism, in the antagonism between the main classes of capitalist society - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The culminating point of the class struggle of the proletariat is the socialist revolution.

Socialism and communism represent two phases of the communist formation: socialism is its first, or lowest, phase; communism is the highest phase. According to Marxist teaching, their difference is based on the degree of economic maturity. Even under socialism, there is no private ownership of the means of production and no exploitation of wage labor. In this respect there is no difference between socialism and communism. But under socialism, public ownership of the means of production exists in two forms: state and collective-farm-cooperative; under communism, there should be a single national property. Under socialism, according to Marxism, the differences between the working class, the collective-farm peasantry and the intelligentsia, as well as between mental and physical labor, town and countryside, are preserved, and under communism, the differences disappear. At a certain stage in the development of communism, according to Marxist teaching, political and legal institutions, ideology, and the state as a whole will completely die out; communism will be the highest form of social organization, which will function on the basis of highly developed productive forces, science, technology, culture and social self-government.