Civilizational approach
The essence of the civilizational approach to society.
Development of society: civilizational approach. Methodologies formational approach in modern science, the methodology of the civilizational approach is to some extent opposed. This approach to explaining the process of social development began to take shape back in the 18th century. However, it received its most complete development only in the 20th century. In foreign historiography, the most prominent adherents of this methodology are M. Weber, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler and a number of major modern historians united around the French historical journal "Annals" (F. Braudel, J. Le Goff, etc.). IN Russian science his supporters were N.Ya. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontyev, P.A. Sorokin, L.N. Gumilyov.
The main structural unit of the process of social development, from the point of view of this approach, is civilization. Civilization is understood as a social system bound by common cultural values (religion, culture, economic, political and social organization, etc.), which are consistent with each other and are closely interconnected. Each element of this system bears the stamp of the originality of a particular civilization. This uniqueness is very stable: although certain changes occur in civilization under the influence of certain external and internal influences, their certain basis, their inner core remains unchanged. When this core is eroded, the old civilization dies and is replaced by another, with different values.
The civilizational approach, according to modern social scientists, has a number of strengths.
First, its principles apply to the history of any country or group of countries. This approach is focused on understanding the history of society, taking into account the specifics of countries and regions. True, the flip side of this universality is the loss of criteria for which specific features of this specificity are more significant and which are less significant.
Secondly, emphasizing specificity necessarily presupposes the idea of history as a multilinear, multivariate process. But awareness of this multivariance does not always help, and often even makes it difficult to understand which of these options are better and which are worse (after all, all civilizations are considered equal).
Thirdly, the civilizational approach assigns a priority role in the historical process to human spiritual, moral and intellectual factors. However, underscore important religion, culture, mentality to characterize and evaluate civilization often leads to abstraction from material production as something secondary.
The main weakness of the civilizational approach lies in the amorphous nature of the criteria for identifying types of civilization. This identification by supporters of this approach is carried out according to a set of characteristics, which, on the one hand, should be of a fairly general nature, and on the other, would allow us to identify specific features characteristic of many societies.
Most often, when identifying types of civilizations, a confessional criterion is used, considering religion to be a concentrate of cultural values.
Another weakness of the civilizational approach, which reduces its attractiveness, is the denial of progress in the development of society (or at least emphasizing its homogeneity).
The essence of the civilizational approach is the denial of a single path for the development of human society. He argues that we can only talk about the history of local communities - ethnic groups, and this history will be a series of peaks and troughs. A characteristic feature is anti-Europeanism, since European civilization was declared decrepit. The central question was the question of the essence of the impulse leading to intensive development.
Based on the civilizational approach, there are many concepts built on different foundations, which is why it is called pluralistic.
Like formational concepts, the civilizational approach also allows for a “simplified” interpretation, and, in this form, can become the basis for the most odious ideologies and regimes. If formational theories provoke social engineering (the forced imposition by one country of another of its own, “more progressive” model of development), then civilizational theories provoke nationalism and xenophobia (cultural contacts supposedly lead to the destruction of original cultural values).
28. Formational and civilizational approach to the development of society
The term "civilizational" comes from the word "civilization", which has many meanings and is used even in social philosophy, or philosophy of history, in different senses depending primarily on the general position of the philosopher or sociologist. (Introduced by the philosophy of English historian, philosopher and sociologist Arnold Toynbee). Let us take as the initial understanding of civilization, contrasting it with the period of savagery and barbarism of mankind and connecting the formation of civilization with the formation of human culture. The concept of “civilization” allows us to record the beginning of the social stage the evolution of the human race, its emergence from a primitive state; the dynamics of the development of the social division of labor, information infrastructure, the dominant form of social communication and social organization within the framework of the “big society”. Based on this extremely broad understanding of the phenomenon of civilization in modern historiography and philosophy, it is customary to distinguish three main historical forms (types) of the civilizational world order: 1) agricultural (agrarian), 2) industrial (technogenic) and 3) informational (post-industrial). Some sociologists clarify that the first (pre-industrial) stage is agrarian-craft and covers not only primitive patriarchal society, but also slave-owning and feudal societies; technogenic society correlates with the emergence and widespread distribution of machines and is qualified as the “industrial-machine” era of humanity (in its two guises, “capitalist” and “socialist”).
The representative, or rather, the founder of the formational approach was K. Marx. He divided all societies in human history according to the “form” of the method of production, which were production relations, primarily property relations. They distinguished: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist (with the first phase - socialist) socio-economic formations. Another one was added to them - the “Asian method of production”. Productive forces, base and superstructure constitute the main framework of the socio-economic formation. In addition to the above three subsystems, the socio-economic formation includes culture, nations, family and other structural formations of society. A socio-economic formation, as it was customary to define this concept, is a society at one or another stage of its development.
The literature notes both the positive aspects of these two approaches (civilizational and formational) and their disadvantages. Some researchers believe that the first approach makes it possible to focus attention specifically on the technological basis of society, i.e., on the productive forces, on their evolutionary and revolutionary (“wave”) changes, without tying them unambiguously to production relations, as well as to the political sphere and culture. Meanwhile, the formational path of human development also does not explain all the complex vicissitudes of the progressive development of societies. This is largely due to an exaggerated idea of the role of economic relations in the life of society and a belittlement of the independent (not always relative) role of social customs and mores, culture as a whole in people’s activities.
There is a general impression that the formational approach and the civilizational approach, if their extremes are overcome, can be compatible with each other; they are complementary.
Formational and civilizational approaches to the development of society. Types of civilizations, their distinctive features and development.
There are 2 approaches to assessing historical events. This is formational and civilizational (the civilizational approach in this case is not the theory of local civilizations, but the theory of global civilizations).
The formational approach occupies a significant position. It was formed in the 30s of the 20th century. It used to be called Marxism-Leninism, but it is only partially related to it. The fundamental idea according to Marx is the socio-economic formation. The socio-economic formation consists of productive forces, production relations (economic basis), the idea of the method of production, the superstructure (political, social, spiritual). Productive forces are divided into labor, objects, and tools. (Who, with what and from what).
Depending on the level of development of the productive forces, production relations are formed, which manifest themselves in three forms: a property system, an exchange system, and a product appropriation system. The idea of unity between the level of development of productive forces and production relations was determined by the concept of mode of production. Political, social, spiritual, etc. relations (superstructure) are formed on the mode of production. All of the above points constitute an economic formation.
But this approach has three global disadvantages:
1 Its founders proceeded from the idea of uniform development of human society according to a certain pattern. (Primitive communal system, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist). Some stages of development may have been skipped or not completed completely. 2 .Vulgar economism. The economic system is becoming extremely absolute. 3 .Striving for purity of society, it was believed that only one mode of production could exist at any one time.
The formational approach took the concept of economic basis from Marx. But Marx also introduced the concept of a real economic basis. He understood that in any society, at any stage of development, there is not one, but several methods of production. A step towards the diversity of human society.
The second difference between Marxism and the formation approach was the Asian mode of production, although Marx did not fully develop its idea. Specifics in Asia natural conditions generates a specific economic system. The climate is arid; irrigation systems are needed, canals need to be built. What is happening is not a process of disintegration of communal relations, but, on the contrary, conservation of the communal system. The private property system will not develop. The needs of society are growing. One community can no longer cope. A community of the second kind appears - the state (the economic theory of the origin of the state). Now the community is the user, and the state is the owner. The possibility of exploitation of society is created. The state turns into a single despotic principle that exploits society in the form of work and in the form of tribute.
But Marx was concerned with the West. He extended the processes of part of society to the entire human society. But humanity is conventionally divided into 2 parts: East and West. This is one of the fundamental ideas that formed the basis of the civilizational approach.
The central idea is the concept of civilization. Civilization – the totality of material and spiritual achievements of society. But this definition is not methodological. It's abstract.
Civilization– a system of interaction and mutual influence of the basic elements of society.
Three types of society: natural type of civilization, eastern type and western type.
Natural type. Here society is built into the natural environment and functions according to its laws. All humanity began its development with a natural type. IN this moment there are pieces of this type. He is not able to influence the development processes of human society. He's vulnerable. The environment changes - society dies. It was preserved because there was no need to overcome the environment, or an inability to overcome it due to its cruelty. Western type: 1) high degree of individualization of the company => development of private property; 2) a civil legal society (all its Els operate within the framework of the legal system) with the increasing development of democracy; 3) Class social structure (quite mobile, a person can change his status) with the gradual washing away of class differences; 4) subordination of the state to the interests of the society (the dominant classes in the society); 5) a spiritual system that provides a fairly high freedom of choice for a person; 6) progressive progressive development of the society by moving beyond the point of crisis to a higher quality level; 7) this open type about-va – extroverted type. Eastern type: 1) collectivism, communalism, poor development of private property; 2) the absence of a legal civil society, a despotic form of government; 3) caste social structure (what you were born with is what you will remain); 4) the society is subordinate to the state => the state is the ruling class; 5) fatalism - predetermined fate; 6) cyclical development; 7) closed type of society - introverted type.
The basis of the caste structure of the East is not economic, but political. Deification of supreme power. The superstructure becomes the base, the economic structure becomes the superstructure.
3. The problem of the historical path and place of Russia in Russian socio-historical thoughtXIX– XXcenturies
The problem was posed in the 19th century. They stood at the origins. They determined the directions of thinking.
Karamzin is the founder of the idea that Russia is a classic West, although it began as an East. Tatar yoke didn't change the situation. It only slowed down the development of Rus', but did not change the Western essence. The West did not recognize itself 200 years ago. Hence the concept of Russia's catching-up development.
Chaadaev has a different approach. He believed that Russia is neither East nor West. We are something special, not average. The 19th century is exhausted by these two approaches.
According to Chaadaev, religion determines the development processes of human society. If religion ensures human freedom, society develops progressively (West). If it does not provide, there is no progress (Eastern religions). Orthodoxy differs from Catholicism in that it does not provide freedom of choice. Russia has no internal source of development, therefore Russia is not the West. But we are not the East, unlike the East, we are developing, but we are not standing still. But how? A progressive personality comes (Peter I), who borrows the best achievements of the West. Russia is making a leap and is waiting for another progressive personality (but this is not good, but bad).
These positions formed the basis of the concepts of Westerners and Slavophiles.
Slavophiles.(– main ideologist, Kireevsky brothers, Aksakov brothers, Samarin). They defended the idea of a special Slavic path. The Western way is bad, but the Russian way is good. These are 2 parallels that cannot get closer. According to the Slavophiles, the development of the West was based on:
1. At the origins of the development of Western society lay the original individualism. The strong begin to subjugate the weak, socialism begins. collisions, conflicts. The path through strife, through revolution
2. forced arrival of the state. Conflict. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the barbarians established a dictatorship to consolidate power in the conquered territories.
3. Catholicism. Which was not for spirituality, but resolved political issues. The final split of society. As a result, the West is doomed to move along the path of collisions.
Unlike the West, the situation in Russia is brilliant.
1. in contrast to individualism, collectivism. The possibility of exploitation of man by man is excluded.
2. Orthodox religion, which, unlike collectivism, is aimed at developing spiritual foundations. The established principles are strengthened and improved.
3. The Russian people, a non-state people, could not create a state. But the state was needed to protect external interests. And it appeared. (The Legend of the Calling of the Varangians). The Russian land invited the state. The state is a servant of society. Russia was moving towards a welfare society, which would be socialism. But Peter ruined the course of development. Russia must return to its pre-Petrine state. Peter violated the original principles by which society developed. Peter placed the state over society. In this situation, the Western process of split began. Before Peter there was no serfdom and no landowner as an exploiter.
The Slavophiles saw the main danger for Russia in the disintegration of the privileged strata of society, as well as in the possibility of transferring to Russian soil the social contradictions tearing apart European countries. They were especially frightened by the threat of the proletarianization of the peasantry, which could lead to a split in society into an open clash between its individual parts. It is necessary to restore the original principles that underlay the development of Russia. True Orthodoxy, true autocracy, true nationality.
Unlike the Slavophiles, supporters Westernizing points of view evaluate Peter's reforms unequivocally positively, seeing them as a response to demands historical development Russia. (, Belinsky).
The relationship between Russia and the West was that the path of the West and Russia would come to one point. The reasons for the slow progress were also seen in Russian specifics. They agreed that individualism lies at the origins of the West. Progress comes at a bloody price. Russia began its journey with a community. But the basis of progress is not the collective, I am the individual. But the selection of individuals must proceed gradually. In their opinion, Peter contributed to the development. But development must be combined with the formula: community + individual. Preserving the community will protect the weak from the pressure of the strong. Social conflict will not arise. But Russia will slowly, but more steadily, come to the same point that the West will come to through bloody collisions. Many strong individuals will stand out from society. Not a repetition of the development path of the West, but a merging of paths.
The beginning of the 20th century brought adjustments to the problem. A problem arises related to the east. The views of the school can be considered classics Eurasians.(P. Savitsky, G. Vernadsky, Trubetskoy). The school was formed in emigration.
The central idea is the idea of Eurasia. Russia is a special historical and cultural continent of Eurasia. 2 basic ideas that act in conjunction: the idea of geographical location and the idea of culture. Eurasians emphasized that the cultural environment cannot be analyzed globally. It needs to be broken down into industries. There are no cultural or uncultured peoples.
We are at the intersection of two cultures. Russia has absorbed the best achievements of all surrounding cultures. 3 waves:
1. Christian wave, 2. Asian ( Tatar-Mongol invasion), 3. Western. And as a result, by the middle of the 19th century, Eurasia, i.e. Russia, emerged.
Russian Marxism. 2 largest ideologists: Plekhanov and Lenin.
Plekhanov is considered the founder. In his opinion, until the middle of the 19th century, before the reforms of Alexander II, Russia was an oriental country, developing on the basis of the Asian mode of production. But then Russia became the West, because it was moved to the capitalist path of development. Russia will have to repeat the pattern that the West followed, but with a lag. By the end of the 90s of the 19th century, Lenin changed his positions. In Russia, the combination of east and west is a country in which everything is intertwined. Russia will not be able to follow the Western pattern. She must come to socialism, but she must have her own path.
This is where the differences end. The time has come for a formational approach. The problems were returned to discussion again after perestroika.
2. Russia’s place in the system of world civilizations (modern views). Features, stages and factors of its historical development.
The history of our country is part of the world and cannot be considered outside its context. What is Russia’s place in the world community of civilizations? Let's look at some basic visions. There are 3 main visions: Russia is the classic West, Russia is the East and Russia is something specific.
According to the Marxist-Leninist point of view, civilizational characteristics do not matter. It is proposed to consider Russia by analogy with societies belonging to Western civilization.
The following point of view suggests considering Russia also as part of Western civilization. Its supporters recognize only Western categories with the exception of Marxist ones. They believe that Russia, although lagging behind, developed in line with Western civilization. On the eve of WWI, its development became very dynamic and in the near future promised Russia’s entry into the category of developed countries. However, in a country weakened by the war, the Bolsheviks, relying on the illiterate masses, took power, and Russia left the civilizational path. It established ochlocracy - the power of the crowd, which led to totalitarianism. Only now, say supporters of this concept, have conditions emerged for a return to civilization, which is understood exclusively as Western.
Russia is often classified as an eastern type country. Attempts were made to direct it along the European path of development: the adoption of Christianity, the reforms of Peter I, but they ended in failure.
Other ideas are held by supporters of the so-called Eurasianism, which first declared itself in the early 1920s. The main idea of Eurasianism is that Russia is different from both the West and the East, it is a special world – Eurasia. The following factors were cited in support: the Russian nationality, formed under the strong influence of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes, took the initiative to unite multilingual ethnic groups into a single multinational nation of Eurasians. The uniqueness of Russian culture was emphasized. Much has been written about symphony, conciliarity, and the integrity of the Russian world. Eurasians assigned a decisive role in this part to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church.
We must agree that Russia is irreducible to pure form neither to the east nor to the west., it is necessary to take into account the influence of both factors. From a scientific point of view, the concept of “Russian civilization” is illegitimate. Russia does not have specific development features. Russia is a mixture of West and East.
On the territory of Russia, features of the West and East can exist within the same village; in one house you can find features of the East and West. Russia is not a special society; Russia has a special path of development.
Throughout its history, one can identify stages in which one or another factor predominates.
1. stage of Kievan Rus (IX-XIII series). This also includes the period of fragmentation, before the arrival of the Mongols. The tendency to move from a society of a predominantly Eastern type to a society of a predominantly Western type.
2. mid-XIII - turning point: Russia, from a society close to the West, again begins to move towards an Eastern society - the end of the 16th century. (oprichnina is the peak of eastern society).
3. turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. (Time of Troubles) - until the early 40s. XVIII century. An extremely unique stage is the balance between East and West.
4. stage of the noble empire - 40s. XVIII century - end of the XVIII century. The Western vector of Russia's development, but this does not mean Russia's global progress. She moved not forward, but backward. The class of nobility took a turn in the development of society. (Movement towards slavery). This created a crisis.
5. first half of the 19th century - before the reforms of Alexander II: trend - east - pressure political factor.
6. mid-19th century – early 20s of the 20th century (NEP): the development trend is Western.
7. socialism - the restoration of an eastern type of society took place (socialist society is a real Asian type of development). Crisis situations constantly arise and constant attempts to solve them - as was shown by the beginning of the Second World War (the national movement rose sharply, mass uprisings of workers and peasants, mass surrenders).
8. 1985 (Andropov had the makings until the early 90s). Western tendencies, but the basis for restoration has not been eliminated.
Factors of development of Russia.
Objective:
1. natural and climatic
2. geopolitical ( geographical position and foreign policy contacts).
· Subjective
1. social. (a dual social structure - both class and caste - is inherent in almost all social strata.
2. spiritual
3. political (internal political) – the role of the state principle.
There is a specificity in Russian factors - duality. (they contain both eastern and western tendencies; movement depends on their fluctuations).
33.Civil war in Russia: causes, periodization, balance of power (main points of view).
The question of the periodization of the civil war is also not completely settled today. If the final stages do not cause any particular controversy (it is believed that the civil war ended in 1920, and until October 1922, the process of eliminating its residual pockets was underway), then the problem of the beginning demonstrates a fairly wide range of views. Some historians talk about episodes of the civil war long before 1917, others begin counting it from February Revolution, still others - from the Kerensky-Krasnov campaign against Petrograd after the October Revolution, while others consider the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly to be the beginning. The historian even defends the opinion that there were two civil wars: one from the summer to October 1917, the other from October of the same year. However, two leading approaches can be distinguished. The first begins its countdown in the spring of 1918, with the mutiny of the Czechoslovak corps. The second takes as its starting point either August 1917 (the general’s rebellion) or October of the same year, namely, the Bolshevik uprising in Petrograd and the parallel performance of the Don ataman general on the Don.
To resolve the question of the beginning, it is necessary to define what a “civil war” is. Civil war is an organized armed struggle for state power between classes and social groups, the most acute form of class struggle. The definition seems not entirely accurate. Firstly, the class approach is too absolute here. It is more logical to talk about civil war camps, which often included representatives of various social groups and classes. Secondly, it should be emphasized that the struggle is being waged first and foremost internal forces, and foreign intervention is just a layer on top of this internal struggle, otherwise any foreign intervention may fall under the category of civil war. Thirdly, it is also logical to note that the struggle for power is being waged with the aim of subsequently implementing the program guidelines of the fighting camps.
Returning to periodization and taking into account the above, we can perhaps argue that starting a civil war in the spring of 1918 is not entirely legitimate. This approach does not reflect the socio-political aspect, but the military-political situation in the country, which has aggravated and globalized due to the rebellion of the Czechoslovak corps. This rebellion relates rather to external rather than internal factors, to aspects of foreign intervention. Therefore, the periodization defining the beginning of August or October 1917 seems more acceptable. That. we can talk about the following main stages of the civil war in Russia: 1. August (or October) 1917 – November 1918 – the stage of the formation of the white movement and the fight against “constituent democracy”. The most acute period of this stage was the summer - autumn of 1918.
3. autumn 1920 - autumn 1922 - the stage of eliminating the last centers of civil war and foreign intervention.
We can talk about three main views on the question of the causes of the civil war.
The essence of the first is that the civil war is presented as the result of the purposeful activities of opponents of Soviet power.
Supporters of the second approach declare the civil war a direct consequence of Bolshevik policies.
The third point of view tries to express a compromise between the first two - the White Guards started the war, but the Bolsheviks are also responsible for its occurrence and escalation, having made a number of serious miscalculations and erroneous actions.
The first point of view clearly ignores the facts of mass anti-Soviet peasant uprisings in 1918, the uprising of the Don Cossacks in the spring of 1918. These events, without a doubt, were provoked by the actions of the Bolshevik authorities. The second approach is unlikely to be able to explain the Kornilov rebellion or Kaledin's speech by Bolshevik politics. The third point of view is more productive. But it simplifies the complex picture of developing conflicts, perhaps without noticing it, into a confrontation between only two camps. Then we can talk about the following reasons not only the emergence, but also the protracted nature of the civil war in Russia.
First of all, this is the unresolvedness of pressing socio-economic and political problems during the February Revolution of 1917, resistance to transformations on the part of the ruling classes, which ultimately formed the camp of the white movement.
The refusal of the right-wing socialist parties to independently (without the obligatory participation of the bourgeoisie) solve pressing problems, their confrontation with the Bolsheviks, and the confrontation is by no means one-sided (exclusively on the part of the Bolsheviks), but precisely mutual;
Leftist excesses allowed by the Bolshevik party and leadership in their policies;
Interference with internal processes foreign forces in Russia.
An analysis of the problems of periodization and the causes of the civil war allows us to get an idea of the main opposing camps in it. Firstly, this is the Soviet camp, the core of which was the Communist Party. Secondly, right-wing socialist and nationalist democracy (Socialist Revolutionary governments, Cossack movement, etc.). Thirdly, the camp of the white movement.
The question of civil war camps naturally leads to the problem of foreign intervention. The latter is often attached to the white movement. The rationale for this position is based on the thesis of the interventionists’ desire to assist anti-Soviet forces in restoring the “bourgeois-landlord order” in Russia and destroying the “Bolshevik infection,” even to the point of using direct large-scale military intervention. At the same time, it was believed that the allies entered Russia not for the sake of saving it, but for the sake of their own benefits.
Resolving the issue requires briefly touching on the goals and tactics of the interventionists.
The agreement concluded in August 1920 with the French government on the provision of military assistance contained, among other obligations, a curious guarantee clause for payment both for old Russian debts to France and for new ones: “Payment of interest and annual repayment is guaranteed: a) transfer of rights to France operation of all railways of European Russia for a certain period of time; b) transferring to France the right to collect customs and port duties in all ports of the Black and Azov Seas; c) placing at the disposal of France surplus grain in Ukraine and the Kuban region for a certain number of years, and for pre-war exports are taken as the starting point; d) by placing at the disposal of France three-quarters of oil and gasoline production for a certain period of time, with pre-war production being the basis; e) by transferring a fourth of the coal mined in the Donetsk region for a certain number of years. The specified period will be established. a special agreement that has not yet been worked out. Points b, c and d come into force immediately upon the occupation of the general by troops. Wrangel of the respective territories."
The “Proposed Borders in Russia” map, which the US State Department provided to the American delegation at the Paris Conference in January 1919, appears to be a phenomenon of a similar order. The map showed borders dividing the country into large areas. Each would be economically separate, but not strong enough to form an independent state.
One should not exaggerate foreign military assistance to the same whites, which, moreover, is not provided for free. Similar facts can be listed ad infinitum, but those already cited allow us to think about the legitimacy of the thesis that emerged in Stalin’s historiography about the predominantly anti-socialist orientation of foreign intervention and its unity with anti-Soviet forces.
Anti-socialist aspects were undoubtedly present, but were hardly of central importance. The above facts make it possible to talk about other determining motives.
The first goal was related to the ongoing world war. Depending on which bloc countries carried out their interventionist policy, this goal boiled down to either the desire to withdraw Russia’s still significant forces from participating in hostilities, or, on the contrary, to prevent this.
It is clear that under such conditions it would be methodologically erroneous to consider the latter as a kind of monolith. The white movement seems to be a more loose and motley phenomenon, and, therefore, it is incorrect to define its essence exclusively as bourgeois-landowner. It seems more legitimate to talk about it as a movement that is conservative and protective in its ideology and practice.
The duality of the white movement is gradually beginning to be realized by researchers and publicists, but at the same time this awareness is built on the previous vulgar class approach in essence, albeit in an inside-out form.
Indeed, by the time the First World War began, approximately half of the career officer corps Tsarist Russia came from humble families, many were sons and grandsons of serfs. The war further stimulated the process. Up to 80% of wartime officers, by their social origin, belonged to the middle and petty bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, and there were many who came from among workers and peasants. In the original Volunteer Army, 90% of the officers did not have any real estate and lived on salaries, 40% came from the bourgeoisie, peasants, and were the sons of minor officials and soldiers.
BASIC APPROACHES TO SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT
Social Development – difficult process Therefore, its understanding led to the emergence of various approaches and theories that in one way or another explain the history of the emergence and development of society.
There are two main approaches to the development of society: formational and civilizational.
Formational approach to the development of society.
According to the formational approach, whose representatives were K. Marx, F. Engels and others, society in its development passes through certain, successive stages - socio-economic formations - primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist.
Socio-economic formation- This is a historical type of society based on a certain method of production.
Mode of production includes productive forces and production relations.
TO productive forces include means of production and people with their knowledge and practical experience in the field of economics. Means of production, in turn, include objects of labor(what is processed in the labor process - land, raw materials, materials) and means of labor(that with the help of which objects of labor are processed - tools, equipment, machinery, production premises).
Relations of production- these are relations that arise in the production process and depend on the form of ownership of the means of production.
IN primitive society the means of production were common property, therefore everyone worked together, and the results of labor belonged to everyone and were distributed equally. On the contrary, in a capitalist society, the means of production (land, enterprises) are owned by private individuals - capitalists, and therefore the relations of production are different. The capitalist hires workers. They produce products, but the very owner of the means of production disposes of them. Workers only receive wages for their work.
According to the formational approach, there is a pattern: productive forces develop faster than production relations. The means of labor, knowledge and skills of people involved in production are improved. Over time, a contradiction arises: old production relations begin to hinder the development of new productive forces. In order for the productive forces to have the opportunity to develop further, it is necessary to replace the old relations of production with new ones. When this happens, the socio-economic formation also changes.
For example, under a feudal socio-economic formation (feudalism), the main means of production - land - belongs to the feudal lord. Peasants perform duties for the use of the land. In addition, they are personally dependent on the feudal lord, and in a number of countries they were attached to the land and could not leave their master. Meanwhile, society is developing. Technology is being improved and industry is emerging. However, the development of industry is hampered by the virtual absence of free labor (the peasants depend on the feudal lord and cannot leave him). The purchasing power of the population is low (mostly the population consists of peasants who do not have money and, accordingly, the opportunity to purchase various goods), which means there is little point in increasing industrial production. It turns out that for the development of industry it is necessary to replace old production relations with new ones. The peasants must become free. Then they will have the opportunity to choose: either continue to engage in agricultural work or, for example, in the event of ruin, take a job at an industrial enterprise. The land should become the private property of the peasants. This will allow them to manage the results of their labor, sell their products, and use the money received to purchase industrial goods. Production relations in which there is private ownership of the means of production and the results of labor, and wage labor is used - these are already capitalist production relations. They can be established either during reforms or as a result of revolution. Thus, the feudal one is replaced by a capitalist socio-economic formation (capitalism).
The formational approach is based on several postulates:
1) the idea of history as a natural, internally determined, progressive, world-historical and teleological (directed towards the goal - the construction of communism) process. The formational approach practically denied the national specificity and originality of individual states, focusing on what was common to all societies;
2) the decisive role of material production in the life of society, the idea of economic factors as basic for other social relations;
3) the need to match production relations with productive forces;
4) the inevitability of transition from one socio-economic formation to another.
Features of the historical process from the point of view of the formational approach:
· Natural development (it is based on the laws of development and change of formations).
· Development is based on economic (material) factors.
· Universalism (all societies go through the same stages of development).
· Linear progress (each subsequent formation is more complex and more developed than the previous one).
The formational approach has its own flaws:
· Many peoples did not go through all stages of development.
· Most processes cannot be explained only from an economic point of view.
· Does not allow us to evaluate the role of man in history.
· Insufficient attention is paid to the originality and uniqueness of history.
Compiled by: A. Toynbee, U. Rostow, G. Jellinek, G. Kelsen and etc.
With a civilizational approach, the main criterion is the spiritual and cultural factor (religion, worldview, worldview, historical development, territorial location, originality of customs, traditions, etc.). A. J. Toynbee gave the following definition of civilization:
Civilization - this is a relatively closed and local state of society, characterized by a commonality of religious, psychological, cultural, geographical and other characteristics.
Civilization is a sociocultural system that includes the socio-economic conditions of society, its ethnic and religious foundations, the degree of harmonization of man and nature, as well as the level of economic, political, social and spiritual freedom of the individual.
Toynbee identified up to 100 independent civilizations, but then reduced their number to two dozen. Civilizations go through several stages in their development:
The first is local civilizations, each of which has its own set of interconnected social institutions, including the state (ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Indus, Aegean, etc.);
The second is special civilizations (Indian, Chinese, Western European, Eastern European, Islamic, etc.) with corresponding types of states.
The third stage is modern civilization with its statehood, which is currently just emerging and is characterized by the coexistence of traditional and modern socio-political structures.
In the literature there are primary And secondary civilization. It is characteristic of the state in primary civilizations that they are part of the base, and not just the superstructure. At the same time, the state in primary civilization is connected with religion into a single political-religious complex. Primary civilizations include ancient Egyptian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Sumerian, Japanese, Siamese, etc. The state of secondary civilization does not constitute an element of the basis, but is included as a component in the cultural-religious complex. Among the secondary civilizations there are Western European, Eastern European, North American, Latin American, etc.
W. Rostow classified states according to stages of economic development, dependent, in turn, on scientific and technological achievements:
Traditional (agricultural);
Industrial;
Post-industrial (informational).
G. Jellinek shared:
Ideal ( Utopia);
Empirical:
Ancient Eastern;
Antique;
Medieval;
Modern.
Formational approach to the typology of the state.
Formational approach based on the concept of socio-economic formation.
Formation is a historical type of society based on a specific mode of production and corresponding production relations.
Determining the type of state in this approach is equivalent to establishing which class dominates in a given society or in a given country. In addition, the main means of production, the ownership of which makes one or another social group (class) dominant, is of fundamental importance.
According to the formation criterion there are following types states: slaveholding, feudal, bourgeois and socialist. Let's consider the main characteristics of these states.
Economic basis slave state constituted production relations in which the objects of property of slave owners were not only the means of production, but also production workers - slaves. A slave was considered a thing. In slave states there also existed groups of free but economically dependent people - small artisans, peasants, whose rights were severely limited.
The main functions of the slave state were to protect private property and suppress the resistance of slaves and other oppressed groups. External functions: defense, peaceful relations, conquest and enslavement of other peoples, administration of conquered territories.
The slave system, and with it the state and law, went through two main stages of development. The first stage is ancient eastern land ownership. It is characterized by the presence of significant remnants of the primitive communal system: the existence of primitive forms of patriarchal slavery and farming, in which the slave was allowed to have his own property and even a family. The second stage is Greek slavery, characterized by a higher level of development of the method of production, more developed forms of exploitation of slaves and poor citizens.
At the beginning of the development of the slave system, the state apparatus was distinguished by its relative diversity, underdevelopment, and weakness. It was formed strictly along class lines. The highest positions in the military-bureaucratic mechanism of the slave state were occupied by representatives of the ruling class, the nobility. Priests played a huge role in the state apparatus. They influenced the consciousness of people, deified kings, emperors, and pharaohs. Priests occupied a privileged position in society. Their person and property were considered inviolable.
The main objectives of slave law were: consolidating the private ownership of slave owners in the means of production and slaves, establishing a slave-owning social and state system, various forms of domination of the slave-owning class, legitimizing existing social inequality between different groups and strata of people.
The main forms of Roman law were customs, which until the 5th century BC. e. acted as the only source of law and differed little from religious and moral precepts. Later laws appeared. Edicts of magistrates, i.e., public announcements of rules that were prepared and promulgated by magistrates upon taking office, became widespread. Of great importance in the system of sources of Roman law were the “answers of jurists” - the opinions and judgments of outstanding jurists. As a rule, the slave system was replaced by a feudal system.
Most countries in the world have passed the stage feudal state. This type of state arises either through the gradual decomposition of the slave-owning economic and socio-political system and the emergence in its depths of the rudiments of a feudal system, or through the gradual development and then decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of a feudal system on its basis. In the latter case, states bypass the stage of slaveholding law and the state. This is how Russian history developed.
The main means of production in the feudal state was land, based on the relationship to which society was divided into its owners - landowners and persons who did not own land - peasants. The serf peasant of the feudal state was, in addition to this, also personally dependent on the feudal lord. This method of production was more effective than the slave method, since it aroused in the peasant some interest in the results of his labor: after paying the rent, part of the production remained with him. There were three types of rent: working rent, natural rent and cash rent.
The church played a huge role in the feudal state; secular and religious authorities were often united. Thus, under the conditions of the feudal system, economic coercion was organically combined with non-economic, direct coercion of the serfs.
The internal functions of such a state were aimed at maintaining feudal ownership of land, exploiting peasants, suppressing their resistance, external functions - at establishing and maintaining economic ties, as well as at seizing new territories.
A characteristic feature of the feudal state was the unification in one hand of land ownership and political power, economic management apparatus and the administration of administrative, fiscal, police and judicial functions.
Feudal law expressed the interests and will of the feudal lords. The main tasks of feudal law were to legally formalize and consolidate feudal ownership of land and other means of production, to consolidate the existing system of exploitation and maintain an order beneficial to the ruling class, to regulate the system of hierarchical relations that existed within the ruling class, to ensure economic, political and spiritual the dominance of feudal lords, in the protection of feudal property and power. The law had a pronounced class character and openly consolidated economic and socio-political inequality in society.
The privileged classes were the clergy and feudal lords. Citizens' rights were significantly limited. The peasants were a disenfranchised class; they could only own livestock and implements.
A characteristic feature of feudal law was particularism, that is, the absence of a unified system of law throughout the country and the predominance of local customs and acts of individual feudal lords, the fragmented nature of law. Feudal law did not know the division into branches and institutions. Its components were serfdom, city law, canon law and church law.
Bourgeois state characterized by the following features: the dominance of capitalist property, the presence of a bourgeois class that owns the overwhelming majority of the means of production, and a proletarian class that lives by wage labor. Private property and its possession is the basis, the measure of economic freedom under this type of state. And economic freedom serves as the foundation of human political, social and personal freedom. The main source of the emergence and subsequent accumulation of property is work activity, as well as the exploitation of man by man, the oppression of broad sections of the working masses by the ruling strata, their appropriation of the results of alien labor.
The social structure of bourgeois society is represented by the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Modern approaches to dividing society in a capitalist state distinguish three classes: higher, middle and lower. The dominant position is occupied by the upper class; it determines domestic and foreign policy, the essence of the state.
Bourgeois law is divided into private and public. The main forms of law are normative acts: government decrees, decisions, regulations, instructions. The role of precedent, both administrative and judicial, is great.
A feature of bourgeois law is the proclamation of formal equality. We are talking primarily about legal equality: before the law, before the court, procedural equality of the parties, equality of men and women, equality of rights and responsibilities. Bourgeois law enshrines the basic values of a given state and society: freedom, equality and fraternity. It was under these slogans that bourgeois revolutions were carried out. The bourgeoisie, which had accumulated enormous material reserves even under feudalism, opposed the class privileges of feudalism in the revolution.
At the same time, this type of state and law, having stood up for the protection of private property, created conditions for property inequality in which the poorest population, having extensive rights, actually cannot take advantage of them.
The bourgeois state may be replaced by socialist state. The world's first socialist state arose as a result of the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917. Over more than 70 years, an extensive system of socialist states was formed: Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the USSR and a number of others.
As a result of political transformations at the end of the 20th century, socialist states abandoned this type through reforms or revolution. Today, Cuba and China have characteristics of this type.
The socialist state, unlike all other types, does not arise by evolutionary means. It is always the result of a revolution. A prerequisite for the formation and development of such a state is the demolition of the old state machine, the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus.
Of fundamental importance is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a class alliance between the proletariat and other sections of the working people. The economic basis of a socialist state is state ownership of the means of production. There is no private property, but there is individual property created as a result of one’s own labor. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work” is the formula of the socialist distribution system.
According to Marxist doctrine, defining the concept of the type of state is tantamount to establishing which class is politically dominant in a given society or in a given country.
The essence of socialist law lies in the expression of the will and interests of the working class. As class society develops and classes gradually die out, the state and law as class institutions and phenomena also die out. Socialist relations in such conditions will be replaced by communist relations.
Civilizational approach to the typology of the state.
Civilizational approach is a typologization built taking into account the diversity of the economic basis, the complexity of the social composition of each period, and cultural and historical characteristics.
The basis of this approach is the relationship between man and state power.
The essence of the civilizational approach is that when characterizing the development of specific countries and peoples, one should take into account not only the development of production processes and class relations, but also spiritual and cultural factors. These include features of spiritual life, forms of consciousness, including religion, worldview, historical development, geographical location, the uniqueness of customs, traditions, etc. Together, these factors form the concept of culture, which serves as a specific way of being for a particular people . A collection of related cultures forms a civilization.
It has been noted that spiritual and cultural factors are capable of:
Completely block the influence of a particular production method;
Partially paralyze its action;
Interrupt the forward formation movement;
Strengthen socio-economic development.
Thus, according to the civilizational approach, economic processes and civilization factors closely interact, stimulating each other.
The question of the criteria for the typology of civilizations is difficult. The English historian Arnold John Toynbee called religion, a way of thinking, a common historical-political destiny and economic development, etc. as a type of civilization. Other bases for typologization are also used. Thus, a geographical criterion is used, according to which southern, northern and middle civilizations are distinguished. Based on the relationship between church, state and law, the following types are distinguished: theocratic, clerical, atheistic, secular. The sign of independence allows us to divide civilizations into primary and derivative ones. There are other grounds and, as a consequence, the type of state and law. Let's consider the characteristic features of individual types.
The historical process has led to the formation of over two dozen civilizations, differing from each other not only in the value systems established in them, the dominant culture, but also in the type of state characteristic of them. Civilizations go through several stages in their development.
The following are distinguished: types of civilization:
local civilizations existing in certain regions or among certain peoples (Sumerian, Aegean, etc.);
special civilizations (Chinese, Western European, Eastern European, Islamic, etc.);
worldwide a civilization that embraces all of humanity. It is formed on the basis of the principle of global humanism, which includes the achievements of human spirituality created throughout the history of world civilization.
Also distinguished primary And secondary civilizations, whose states differ in their place in society, social nature, and role.
It is characteristic of states of primary civilizations that they are part of the base, and not just the superstructure. This is explained by the key role of the state in the development of the socio-economic sphere. The state is connected with religion into a single political-religious complex. The primary ones include, in particular, the ancient Egyptian, Assyro-Babylonian, Sumerian, Japanese, and Siamese civilizations.
The state of a secondary civilization is not so omnipotent; it does not constitute an element of the basis, but is included as a component in the cultural-religious complex. Such civilizations include Western European, North American, Latin American, etc.
It is possible to classify states according to their attitude towards religion. There are secular, clerical, theocratic and atheistic states.
IN secular state All types of religious organizations are separated from the state; they have no right to perform either political or legal functions, and cannot interfere in the affairs of the state. In turn, the state and its bodies do not have the right to control the attitude of its citizens towards religion. The state does not interfere in intra-church activities unless they violate current legislation. The state does not provide any of the faiths with financial or any other assistance.
In secular states, religious organizations do not perform legal functions under state instructions. Confessions are engaged only in activities related to satisfying the religious needs of the population. The Church does not perform political functions and, therefore, is not an element of the political system of society. The secular state does not interfere in internal church activities if they do not violate current legislation, but it has the right to regulate the most important aspects from the point of view of general interest.
The state protects the legal activities of religious associations, guarantees freedom of religion, and ensures the equality of religious organizations before the law.
An intermediate option between secular and theocratic states - clerical. The peculiarity of this state is that it is not united with the church, but the church, through legally established institutions, has a decisive influence on state policy. A clerical state is considered to be a state where one or another religion officially has the status of a state and occupies a privileged position compared to other faiths. The status of a state religion presupposes close cooperation between the state and the church, which covers various spheres of social relations.
The status of a state religion is characterized by the following features:
Recognition of the church's ownership of a wide range of objects - land, buildings, structures, religious objects, etc.;
Receipt by the church of various subsidies and material assistance, tax benefits from the state;
Granting the church a number of legal powers, for example, the right to register marriage, birth, death and even regulate marital relations;
The right of the church to have its representation in government bodies;
The exercise of control by the church in the field of education, the introduction of religious censorship in printed materials, cinema, television, etc.
Currently, the clerical states are Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Israel and some others. Thus, in Great Britain, representatives of the highest clergy sit in the House of Lords. The Church deals with civil registration and sometimes regulates marriage and family relations. The Church has broad powers in the field of raising the younger generation and education, and conducts religious censorship of printed materials. It should also be noted that the church has a fairly strong economic position: it receives various subsidies from the state, is a large owner, and usually enjoys preferential taxation.
Atheist states are crowding out religion as a worldview, and the church as a social institution, from public life. Religious organizations are either prohibited or placed in conditions in which they cannot function normally. Clergymen are persecuted, and the church's property, including churches and religious objects, is confiscated.
Religious associations do not have the rights of a legal entity and cannot perform legally significant actions. Priests and believers may be subject to repression; holding religious ceremonies, rituals in public places, publishing religious literature and its distribution is prohibited. Freedom of conscience comes down to freedom to promote atheism.
Article 44. Everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience - the right to freely profess any religion or not to profess any, to choose, have and disseminate religious, non-religious or other beliefs and to act in accordance with them, subject to compliance with the law (Constitution of the Russian Federation)
Religious associations in the Russian Federation are separated from the state, and the state education system is secular in nature.
All religions and religious associations are equal before the law.
Insulting the beliefs of citizens is punishable by law.
Theocratic state is the opposite of a secular state, since in it state power belongs to the church. The monarch is also the supreme cleric. Such states are the Vatican, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, etc. Religious norms constitute the main source of legislation, regulate all spheres of private and public life and take precedence over secular law.
Jean Bodin divided states into three categories according to geographical criteria - southern, northern and middle. Southern nations surpass all other nations in subtlety and strength of mind. Northern Peoples differ in their physical strength. Average same - they are superior to the northerners in intelligence, but inferior in strength, and superior to the southerners in physical strength, but inferior to them in cunning and sophistication.
In accordance with the civilizational approach, the following types of states are also distinguished: democratic And anti-democratic(based on the form of a political regime).
The modern model of the civilizational approach is the libertarian-legal one. V.S. Nersesyants proposed to understand the type of state as the main historical forms of recognition and organization of people’s freedom, expressing the stages of its progress.
The 1st type of states represents the ethnic countries of the Ancient World. The subjects of state-legal relations are only persons of titular nations. All other people were considered objects of law.
Type 2 – estate state of the Middle Ages. The properties of subjects of law are predetermined by belonging to a certain class.
Type 3 – states of the individualistic type. This type corresponds to the understanding of a person by a subject of law only as an individual, outside of his social, ethnic, national, class and class ties.
The 4th type is the humanitarian legal type, in which a person has inalienable rights of natural origin. These rights are the basis of legislation created by the state.
1) law corresponding to the pre-civilization stage of legal development. An example is the right of leaders of ordinary origin;
2) fist law of Asian theocratic states of the era of slavery and feudalism. This law combined customary norms, elements of written state law, and a strong theological principle;
3) the right of power means the recognition by law of a special order of state origin;
4) the law of civil society, based on natural law. Law in general is understood as a humanitarian value.
The advantage of the civilizational approach is seen in the fact that it focuses on the knowledge of social values inherent in a particular society. It is more multidimensional than the formational approach, since it allows us to consider the state not only as an organization of political domination of one class over another, but also as a great value for society.
It is unconstructive to contrast formational and civilizational approaches. They should be used in combination, which will allow combining the materialistic achievements of the formational approach and the cultural, spiritual principles of the civilizational typology.
Pluralism in the understanding and definition of the state.
Since ancient times, thinkers have tried to answer the question of what a state is. Even the ancient Roman orator, philosopher and politician Marcus Tullius Cicero asked and at the same time answered: “And what is a state if not a general legal order?” Cicero had many followers in different time and in various countries - the founder of the normativist theory of law G. Kelsen, the Russian economist and philosopher P. Struve, etc. A somewhat different position was held by the prominent legal scholar N. M. Korkunov. He argued that “the state is a social union of free people with a coercively established peaceful order by granting the exclusive right of coercion only to the organs of the state.” In a word, many scientists characterized the state as an organization of law and order, and saw this as its essence and main purpose. But this is only one of the signs of this phenomenon. In the bourgeois era, the definition of the state as a collection (union) of people, the territory occupied by these people, and power became widespread. The famous state scientist P. Duguit identifies four elements of the state: 1) the totality of human individuals; 2) a certain territory; 3) sovereign power; 4) government. “The name of the state,” wrote G. F. Shershenevich, “is understood as a union of people settled within certain borders and subordinate to one government.” The definition under consideration, which correctly reflects some features (signs) of the state, served as a reason for various simplifications. Referring to it, some authors identified the state with the country, others with society, and still others with the circle of persons exercising power (the government). V.I. Lenin criticized this definition for the fact that many of its supporters called coercive power among the distinctive features of the state: “Coercive power exists in every human community, in the clan structure, and in the family, but there was no state here.” Supporters of the psychological theory of law also disagree with this concept. “The state is not a collection of people of a certain kind,” argued F.F. Kokoshkin, “but the relationship between them, a form of community life, a certain mental connection between them.” However, the “form of community life,” the form of organization of society, is also only one of the signs, but not the entire state. The difficulties of developing a definition of the complex and changing phenomenon being analyzed gave rise in those years to disbelief in the possibility of its formulation at all. M. Weber, in particular, wrote: “After all, the state cannot be defined sociologically based on the content of its activities. There are almost no tasks that the political union does not take into its own hands here and there; on the other hand, there is no task about which it could be said that at any time it is completely, that is, exclusively, inherent in those unions that are called “political”, that is, in our days - states or unions that historically preceded the modern to the state." K. Marx and F. Engels turned to the definition of the state more than once. They believed that this is “the form in which individuals belonging to the ruling class realize their common interests and in which the entire civil society of a given era finds its concentration.” Many years later, F. Engels formulated a brief, but perhaps most confrontational definition according to which “the state is nothing more than a machine for the suppression of one class by another.” V.I. Lenin made some changes to the above definition. He wrote: “The state is a machine for maintaining the dominance of one class over another.” Both formulations were widespread both in science and in official propaganda. However, they are applicable only to states in which high class tension arises and political confrontation threatens to destroy society. In other words, these definitions apply to tyrannical and dictatorial states. By bringing their violent side to the fore, these definitions prevent one from seeing valuable phenomena of civilization, culture and social order in the state. In modern educational literature, the state is usually defined as a political-territorial sovereign organization of public power, which has a special apparatus capable of making its orders binding on the entire country. This definition synthesizes the most essential features and characteristics of the state and is generally acceptable, but it poorly reflects the connection between the state and society. Therefore, we believe that the following formulation will be more accurate: the state is the political organization of society, ensuring its unity and integrity, exercising through the state mechanism the management of the affairs of society, sovereign public power, giving law a generally binding meaning, guaranteeing the rights, freedoms of citizens, legality and order . The above definition reflects general concept state, but is more suitable for the modern state. It emphasizes that the state is the political organization of the entire society, all its citizens. It performs vital functions for society, ensures its unity and integrity, and manages the most important public affairs. At the same time, the state (especially the legal one) is called upon to comprehensively guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens and maintain a reliable and humane law and order in society.
The concept and characteristics of the state.
The state is a developed form of organization of human society. Thus, like any society, it has both general social characteristics and specific ones. General social characteristics 1. the presence of a community of people connected by a common communicative space 2. the presence of public authority, which is universal, legitimate and legal. Power is public because it represents the entire society in both internal and external conflicts. Legitimation is charismatic, traditional and legal. Specific features of the state: 1. the presence of a state apparatus. Only in the state do institutions such as courts and prisons appear. 2. The presence of taxes, through which the state apparatus is maintained. 3. The presence of a certain territory over which public power extends. Thus, the state is a hardware-organized public power exercised in a certain territory. Optional features of a state include a flag, coat of arms, anthem... Communicative approach. While maintaining all of the above features, it emphasizes that the state and society are not opposed to each other, they are interconnected. The state is a political union of all members of society for whose sake and through whom it exists.
Territory as a sign of a state.
One of the signs of a state at a later stage of social development. At the initial stages of their existence, many peoples lead a nomadic lifestyle, changing their location depending on the food resources provided by nature and having at the same time a certain political organization consisting of two other main state elements: the people and state power. Thus, a certain T. is not the main feature of the state, without which the latter would be unthinkable. With the transition of peoples from nomadic to sedentary life, a certain T. is gradually established, which becomes the main basis for the development of the state. In view of this, many consider the territorial region to be the same basic feature of the state as the supreme power and the people. The boundaries of T. establish the limits of the action of the supreme power and the norms it issues.
The state is a single territorial organization of political power throughout the country. State power extends to the entire population within a certain territory, which entails the administrative-territorial division of the state. These territorial units are called differently in different countries: districts, regions, territories, districts, provinces, districts, municipalities, counties, provinces, etc. The exercise of power on a territorial principle leads to the establishment of its spatial limits - the state border, which separates one state from another;
Population as a sign of the state.
This feature characterizes people’s belonging to a given society and state, composition, citizenship, the order of its acquisition and loss, etc. It is “through the population” within the framework of the state that people are united and they act as an integral organism - society;
Public political power as a sign of the state.
The state is a special organization of political power that has a special apparatus (mechanism) for managing society to ensure its normal functioning. The primary cell of this apparatus is the state body. Along with the apparatus of power and administration, the state has a special apparatus of coercion, consisting of the army, police, gendarmerie, intelligence, etc. in the form of various compulsory institutions (prisons, camps, hard labor, etc.). Through the system of its bodies and institutions, the state directly manages society and protects the inviolability of its borders. To the most important government bodies, which to one degree or another were inherent in all historical types and types of government include legislative, executive and judicial. At various stages of social development, state bodies change structurally and solve problems that are different in their specific content;
Sovereignty as a sign of a state.
The state is a sovereign organization of power. State sovereignty is a property of state power that is expressed in the supremacy and independence of a given state in relation to any other authorities within the country, as well as. its independence in the international arena, subject to non-violation of the sovereignty of other states. The independence and supremacy of state power are expressed in the following: a) universality - only decisions of state power apply to the entire population and public organizations of this country; b) prerogative - the possibility of canceling and invalidating any illegal act of another public authority: c) the presence of special means of influence (coercion) that no other public organization has at its disposal. Under certain conditions, the sovereignty of the state coincides with the sovereignty of the people. The sovereignty of the people means supremacy, their right to decide their own destiny, to shape the direction of the policy of their state, the composition of its bodies, and to control the activities of state power. The concept of state sovereignty is closely related to the concept of national sovereignty. National sovereignty means the right of nations to self-determination, up to and including secession and the formation of independent states. Sovereignty can be formal when it is proclaimed legally and politically, but is not actually implemented due to dependence on another state dictating its will. A forced limitation of sovereignty takes place, for example, in relation to those defeated in a war by the victorious states, by decision of the international community (UN). Voluntary limitation of sovereignty can be allowed by the state itself by mutual agreement to achieve common goals, when uniting in a federation, etc.;
The essence and social purpose of the state.
The essence of the state is it is an organization of political power (social institution). The meaning is the main thing in it, which determines its content, purpose and functioning.
The essence of the state is manifested in its functions.
Morozov L.A. notes that currently there are two main approaches to interpreting the essence of any state:
1) class;
2) general social.
The first approach is that the essence of the state is defined as the expression of the interests and will of the economically dominant class and the imposition of the will of this class on the entire society. This approach is inherent in the Marxist understanding of the state. The state is interpreted as an apparatus of violence, coercion, suppression, and its essence is the dictatorship (domination) of the economically dominant class.
It should be noted that the founders of Marxist teaching recognized that the state, being primarily a class organization of political power, simultaneously carries out some “common affairs” inherent in any society and reflecting the interests of all or the majority of its members. This kind of common affairs includes the defense of the country, maintaining public order, and at the present stage - environmental safety of the population, social support for the poor, etc.
Speaking about the Marxist approach to the essence of the state, we must keep in mind that the characterization of the state as a means of violence, suppression, and coercion was used exclusively in relation to exploitative states.
Second approach comes from general social the essence of the state, its purpose to serve society. Accordingly, the essence of the state is seen in its ability to unite the entire society, resolve emerging contradictions and conflicts, and act as a means of achieving social harmony and compromise.
Along with these two approaches to the essence of the state, one can also distinguish national, religious, racial, etc. Depending on various conditions, certain interests may dominate.
Many scientists have interpreted the essence of the state in different ways. Some believed that the state is a political phenomenon inherent in any class society.
L. Gumplowicz argued that the state is the domination of a minority of haves over the mass of have-nots, based on economic power.
Jean Bodin viewed the state as “the legal administration of families and what they have in common with the supreme power, which must be guided by the eternal principles of goodness and justice. These principles must give the common good, which should be the goal of the state structure.”
In the modern period, a common point of view is that the state is a social organism, a political way of existence of civil society.
It is important to understand the essence of the state to understand its goals, objectives and social purpose.
All this captures only certain aspects of the social essence of the state. The main thing in the social essence of the state is that it is an organizational form of society, its unity and functioning on generally accepted principles and norms.
The essence of the state is closely related to the concept of the social purpose of the state.
Social purpose reveals what the state is intended for, what goals it should
The social purpose of the state is determined by its essence: what is the essence of the state,
These are the goals and objectives that it sets for itself.
Attempts to determine the social purpose of the state were made in different historical periods.
Plato and Aristotle, the social purpose of any state is the establishment of morality. This view was later supported by Hegel (1770-1831).
Supporters of the contractual theory of the origin of the state believe that it also arose from the common interests of citizens in ensuring their security (T. Hobbes), achieving the common good (G. Grotius), for the sake of ensuring common freedom (J.-J. Rousseau).
F. Lassalle (1824-1864) saw the main task of the state in the development and implementation of human freedom.
Modern views on the social purpose of the state are determined by those objective
conditions that are characteristic of a given level of development of society. Values such as democracy, equality and justice, and personal freedom have been established in society. All this contributes to the fact that the state must carry out general social functions, i.e. act in the interests of the whole society. But the social purpose of the state can also be influenced by subjective factors, for example, who is in power, how public life is changing under the influence of policies, etc.
The concept of state power. Legality and legitimacy of state power.
Power is, first of all, the ability to impose one's will.
Signs of power:
All power is social. It develops and manifests itself in relationships between people, that is, in society (society). Power is needed in order to organize society.
Power has a strong-willed nature. All power is a manifestation of human will. Power is the interaction of the will of the rulers and the will of the ruled. Will is the side human consciousness, active, active, expressed in the desire to change the environment, change human relationships.
Every power has certain means for its implementation. Power must have support, otherwise the will of those in power cannot be realized.
Power in society varies. It can be considered depending on the areas in which it manifests itself. On this basis, we can distinguish such types of power as economic power, ideological power, family power, and political power.
State power is a type of social power.
State power differs from other types of social power by the presence of two distinctive features (which predetermine its characteristics):
Monopoly on the publication of generally binding decrees;
Monopoly on the use of state coercion.
Signs of state power:
Comprehensive character (universality). It means that state power extends to the entire territory and to the entire population of the state, to all persons located in this territory.
State power has the ability to lawfully use coercion.
Prerogative of state power. It means that state power can permit, suspend, prohibit, or invalidate the manifestation of any other power on its territory.
Structuralization of state power. State power manifests itself externally in the form of a special apparatus in which all organs are interconnected by hierarchical subordination. This is the external side of structure. In addition, each body has a certain rigid structure: it consists of bodies and officials interconnected by hierarchical subordination. This internal structure of state bodies means the internal side of the structuring of state power.
State power has special channels for transmitting its orders, which other authorities do not have (law, legislation) and special means of influencing the population, which other authorities do not have (the correctional system, police, internal troops, etc.).
State power is always authority. Authority is determined various factors, most often it is violence, coercion, but there can also be genuine authority (more about this when characterizing the legitimacy of state power).
State power is associated with law, it has a monopoly on law-making activities, and law is the most effective regulator of social relations.
The basis of the state power of modern states is the principle of separation of powers (its more detailed description will be given in subsequent chapters).
The structure of state power is:
Subject (the state represented by its bodies);
Object (subjects, population of the state);
Any society needs management, coordination of the activities of different people and social groups in order to achieve common goals. Power is one of the main forms of management, which differs from others in that it is exercised by subordinating some people to others. Submission is associated with the possibility of applying coercion to the governed as a necessary sign of power.
Power is one of the forms of management of social processes, in which the consistency of the joint activities of many people is achieved by subordinating them to a single guiding principle; through the determining, dominant significance of the will of some people (subjects of power) for the will of other people (objects of power).
1) Power is associated with dominance, which is understood as coercive violence, command. The directive moment (imposing one's will in the form of an order) is present in power as a generalized symbol (the ability to use violence, punishment) and as real power in relation to those who have broken the laws. On the other hand, the category of domination is already a category of power, because power can act in the form of influence and authority and not resort to violence.
2) Power can be exercised in the form influence. But influence is broader in content than power. We can talk about power even if this influence is not of a random nature, but is observed constantly. Power as influence is exercised either in the form of persuasion (influencing the rational level of consciousness), or in the form of suggestion, which involves the use of special manipulation techniques (influencing the subconscious)
3)Authority is considered as a possible form and source of power. Authority is a leadership that is voluntarily recognized by the subject of power as having the right to power due to his moral qualities or business competence.
Power can be classified on various grounds. For example, from the point of view of its social level, power can be distinguished:
On a society-wide scale;
Within a particular team (organization)
In a relationship between two individuals
Those. power can act as social - be present in relationships between large social groups, and how interpersonal(in relationships between spouses, parents and children, friends, etc.)
Social power can manifest itself in political And non-political forms.
Among non-political types of power, we can highlight family power (parental power, power relations between spouses) as the most important and having a long history.
Political is the power that is capable of acting as a means of realizing and protecting the interests of large social groups. The types of political power are:
The power of one social group (community) over another (for example, the dominance of one class over another)
- government
- party power, as well as other political organizations and movements; power of political leaders
In the special legal and philosophical literature, along with the recognition by some authors of the identity of the concepts of political and state power, other authors advocate distinguishing between these categories. Supporters of the second point of view are united by the fact that they use the term and concept of “political power” in a broader sense than “state power” - in the sense of power exercised not only by the state, but also by other parts of the political organization of society.
Power in its most general form is the ability (property) of a certain subject (individual, collective, organization) to control the will and behavior of another subject (individual, collective, organization) in its own interests or in the interests of other persons.
State power, as a type of social power, fully possesses all of its signs:
1. Power is a phenomenon social, i.e. public
2. She is an attribute of society at all stages of its development, since society constantly needs to be controlled through power. From the point of view of genesis (origin), it is the need to manage society that determines the presence of such a phenomenon as power in it.
3. Power can only function within public relations, i.e. such a relationship that exists between people (individuals, their groups, other social entities). There cannot be a relationship of power between a person and a thing or between a person and an animal (even if that animal is his property). This quality is determined by the following characteristic feature of power.
4. The exercise of power always represents intellectual-volitional process, when the power impulse emanating from the ruling subject, before determining (conditioning, determining) the will and behavior of the subject, must be realized by the latter, perceived by his consciousness. For this reason, people with deformation of consciousness and will cannot be subjects of power and subordination.
5. Social relations within which power exists and is exercised are a type of social relations and have the name power relations. A power relationship is always a two-way relationship, one of the subjects of which is the one in power (the one in power), and the other is the subject subject. From a general social point of view, both of them are precisely subjects, i.e. people endowed with consciousness and will, however, in a specific power relationship, the subject subject acts as an object of the power influence of the ruling subject.
6. Power always based on strength. This is its most important feature, since it is the presence of power that determines the position of a particular subject as a ruler. Power can be of different nature. It could be physical strength, the power of weapons (club, gun, atomic bomb), the power of intellect, the power of authority, the power of persuasion, aesthetic influence (the power of beauty), etc.
In this regard, one should not confuse force with violence: “the authority of force” and “the power of authority” are still different things. Violence involves influencing a subject against his will through physical coercion or under the threat of such coercion. Moreover, the concept of “coercion” is broader than the concept of “violence”. Coercion is not always associated with violence: it can be indirect in nature and fundamentally presupposes a certain dependence of the will of the subject on the will of the ruler. However, such dependence also presupposes belief. What is the difference then? It seems that a characteristic feature of the coercion process is the awareness of the subject that, under the influence of power, he acts contrary to his own interests and value orientations. In the case of persuasion, the subject assumes that the variant of behavior proposed by the subject in power meets the interests of both and fits into the system of values of the subject.
7. Due to the fact that power can only take place in a conscious-volitional relationship and always presupposes the subordination of the will of the subject subject to the will of the ruling subject, the absence of such subordination in a specific relationship means the absence of power in this respect. In other words, conscious submission is a condition for the presence of power in a given specific relationship over a given specific subject.
Power within a particular social community (society, team, organization, etc.), depending on the method of organization and power, can be
democratic and non-democratic
Moreover, this division concerns not only state power, but also any other power related to the management of collectives, since democracy can also be non-political.
State power in society can be legal (legal) and shadow (hidden, illegal)
The carriers of the latter can be informal groups in the ruling elite, political sects, mafia organizations, etc.
However, the concepts should not be confused "legal power" and "legitimate power". These concepts, although close, are not identical. Legality characterizes the legality of the existence of power from the formal legal side, without its ethical assessment, and legitimacy means the recognition of power by the population, its acceptance as a fair and politically justified phenomenon. And it may even be that state power is legal, but not legitimate. A great contribution to the development of the theory of the legitimacy of political domination (power) was made by the German political scientist, economist and sociologist M. Weber (1864-1920)
Speaking about the features of state power, its qualities and characteristics, two circumstances should be kept in mind: firstly, the close, one might say inextricable, connection between state power and the state; secondly, the fact that the state and state power are still different, non-identical phenomena. It follows that, on the one hand, the characteristics of state power and the state are interconnected and closely intertwined, but on the other hand, they do not completely coincide and approaches to their characterization should be different.
Let us list the special properties of state power:
By force, on which it is based, is state: no other government has such means of influence.
Government public. In a broad sense, public, i.e. public is all power. However, in the theory of the state, this characteristic traditionally has a different, specific meaning, namely that state power is exercised by a professional apparatus, separated from society as an object of power.
Government sovereign, which means its independence from the outside and supremacy within the country. The supremacy of state power, first of all, lies in the fact that it is superior to the power of all other organizations and communities in the country; all of them must submit to the power of the state.
Government universal: it extends its power to the entire territory and to the entire population of the country.
Government has the prerogative(exclusive right) to issue generally binding rules of conduct - legal norms.
Let us especially dwell on such a property of state power as sovereignty.
Sovereignty state power within the country is expressed:
in the unity and extension of state power to the entire population and public organizations of the country
in the general binding nature of decisions of state bodies on its territory and within the limits of extraterritoriality (for example, for citizens and institutions located abroad
in the prerogative, i.e. the possibility of canceling and invalidating any manifestation of other public power
in the exclusive powers of the state to independently publish, sanction and apply generally binding norms and other regulations expressed in regulations (laws, decrees, resolutions, orders, etc.), decisions of courts, governing bodies and other government institutions.
State sovereignty- this is the inherent supremacy of the state on its territory and independence in international relations.
The state exercises supreme power within its own borders. It itself determines what relations with other states will be, and the latter do not have the right to interfere in its internal affairs. The state has sovereignty regardless of the size of the territory, population, or political regime.
The supremacy of state power means:
Its unconditional spread to the population and all social structures of society;
The monopoly opportunity to use such means of influence (coercion, forceful methods, up to the death penalty) that other political subjects do not have at their disposal;
Exercising power in specific forms, primarily legal (law-making, law enforcement and law enforcement);
The state has the prerogative to cancel and recognize as void the acts of other political subjects if they do not comply with the provisions of the state.
State sovereignty includes such fundamental principles as the unity and indivisibility of territory, the inviolability of territorial units and non-interference in internal affairs. If any foreign state or external force violates the borders of a given state or forces it to make one or another decision that does not meet the national interests of its people, they speak of a violation of its sovereignty.
Acting as a sign of a state, sovereignty characterizes it as a special subject of political relations, as the main component of the political system of society.
Sovereignty is complete and exclusive, one of the inalienable properties of the state. Moreover, it is precisely this criterion that allows us to distinguish a country from other public legal unions.
Today the prevailing view is that the basis of legitimacy is the belief in the legality of of this system. The conclusion about the existence of a belief can be made, first of all, on the basis of the free expression of their will by citizens. The stability of the system in a particular country can also be considered a sign of the legitimacy of the government. Power becomes legitimate due to its achievement of stability, certainty, and the establishment of order. And vice versa, a government formed democratically, but unable to prevent civil and interethnic wars, confrontation between the center and localities, and a “parade” of sovereignties, is not legitimate.
In a society experiencing a transitional state, a change of authorities, legitimacy exists rather as a problem, in an established society - as a natural quality of political relations.
Speaking about state power as an object of legitimacy, it is necessary to focus on the concept of “power”. This concept is one of the widely used, despite all the heterogeneity and ambiguity of this concept, one can, however, note one unifying characteristic of its numerous definitions - they all reflect relationships in which the will and actions of some dominate the will and actions of others. Power is one of the basic and most comprehensive concepts, which is confirmed both by the absence in modern political thought of one generally accepted definition of it, and by the diversity of concepts of power.
Power is the main object of desire and interaction among groups, communities, and organizations. But power turns out to be the most mysterious phenomenon in politics, the nature of which is not easy to identify. In fact, what is power - an abstraction, a symbol or a real action? After all, we can talk about the power of a person, organization, society, but at the same time about the power of ideas, words, laws. What makes a person or society obey someone or something - fear of violence or desire to obey? With all its mystery and uncertainty, power did not leave anyone indifferent to itself: it was admired and cursed, it was raised to the skies and “trampled into the dirt.”
Many philosophers have turned to the study of the essence and content of power. For example, T. Hobbes defined power as a means to achieve good in the future and therefore put in first place such a tendency of the entire human race as “an eternal and incessant desire for more and more power, a desire that ends only with death.” F. Nietzsche argued that life is the will to power.
In political literature, the correct definition of power is considered to be that given by the famous scientist Max Weber, who believed that power is “the possibility that one person within a social relationship will be able to carry out his will, despite resistance and regardless of what opportunity is founded.” The dictionary of political science defines power as “a strong-willed special relationship of the subject to the object of this relationship. It consists of an inducement to action, which the second subject must perform at the request of the first.” Power, therefore, is seen as a special relationship of domination, as a way of influencing someone, as “power over,” as coercion, as force.
As society democratized, power began to be viewed not only as domination, but also as an attitude of subjects based on conviction, authority, as the ability to reach agreements and resolve conflicts. Thus, power is also interpreted as a symbolic means of social communication.
The essence of power lies in the fact that it is a specific relationship of a subject to himself (power over himself), between subjects, which presupposes a certain interaction between them (power can be approved, tolerated or resisted), within the framework of which the ruling subject realizes his will and interests. Power based only on force, in the words of B. Russell, is “naked power.”
Legitimacy is a basic element of the existence and functioning of state power, as well as its consolidation in society.
Everything in the life of society has a beginning. The state power that dominates in a particular country also has its beginning. As historical experience shows, much depends on what this beginning was like in its future fate. In most cases, state power can be formed as a result of free democratic elections, but it can also be the result of a military coup or political revolution that would be a terrible tragedy for many segments of the population and cost millions or more. human lives and can completely destroy the country's economy. The people do not forget and remember the tragedies closely linked to the establishment of power. Decades pass, generations change, but the feeling of people’s distrust of the authorities who illegally led the country remains ineradicable; the relationship between those in power and the masses is based, as a rule, on the fear of the latter.
The people have a different relationship with power, which was initially legitimate and officially recognized by society itself and foreign states. Such an initial empowered establishment of power contributes to the establishment of consent in relation to society and political power, recognition by society and the people of its right to a managerial role. It should be noted that the initially legal establishment of power in itself does not always guarantee that in the future this political power will fully justify the trust of the people. There are numerous examples of bitter disappointment in society. There are a lot of such examples that can be listed, including in the history of Russia there are a lot of such examples, especially in recent years.
So, society’s recognition of the legitimacy and legitimacy of official power is its fundamental characteristic. Speaking about legitimacy, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that we are talking about public recognition of power, about the trust and support that society and the people give it, and not about the legal, legal consolidation of political power in the relevant state documents. It is not difficult for those who have taken power into their own hands to obtain legal legitimacy. Therefore, the price of such formal recognition of power is not so great in comparison with the recognition of state power by the people, i.e. legitimacy of state power. Accordingly, one should distinguish between the concepts of “legitimacy of power” (public recognition of its legality) and “legality of power” (legal, formal consolidation of it).
Concept and characteristics of state functions.
The main activities of the state, the purpose of which is to maintain its structural integrity. The functions of the state are largely determined by the form of the state. Thus, the ideological function in a totalitarian state will not coincide in scope and content with the ideological function in a liberal state. The functions of the state include the following: 1. Political f - organization of state, local government 2. Ideological f - any state is forced to promote any ideology, ranging from a strictly defined totalitarian one to the ideology of negation official ideology in a liberal state. 3. Cultural and educational f - if there is no educated generation, then you inevitably fall under the influence of another elite. 4. Economic f – the state is inevitably forced to participate in economic life, ensuring its proportionate and harmonious development. 5. Fiscal f – taxes on the maintenance of the state apparatus. 6. Social f - maintaining appropriate living conditions....protection, labor, provision... 7. Environmental f 8. Information and communication state must ensure that the subjects receiving it receive both state and non-state information 9. F legal regulation is necessary for the implementation of the above f. It is carried out through lawmaking and law enforcement. f can also be divided into external and internal
The following features of state functions can be distinguished:
1. The function of the state is not any, but the main, main direction of its activity, without which the state at this historical stage, or cannot get by throughout its existence. This is a stable, established substantive activity of the state in one area or another.
2. The functions express the essence of the state.
3. Carrying out its functions, the state solves the tasks facing it in managing society, and its activities acquire a practical orientation.
4. Functions of the state are a management concept. They concentrate the goals of public administration at each historical stage of the development of society.
5. Functions are implemented in certain forms and using special methods characteristic of state power.
The combination of these features allows us to assert that in reality we are talking about the functional characteristics of the state, about the presence of corresponding functions in a particular state.
Classification of state functions.
There are various bases for classifying the functions of the state. In the legal literature they stand out in less or more the following classification criteria:
By objects of influence;
According to social significance;
by objects of influence
Depending on the
S.A. Komarov gives an example of the temporary function of suppressing the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes when changing the state system during the revolution. As a result of either re-education or physical destruction of former exploiters, this function completely dies out or merges with another - the function of protecting law and order of the existing system). There are various bases for classifying the functions of the state. In the legal literature, the following classification criteria are identified in smaller or larger quantities:
By objects of influence;
By duration of action;
According to social significance;
By legal forms existence (the principle of separation of powers);
Based on territorial scale
It is generally accepted that there is a separation of functions by objects of influence to internal and external. Internal functions are associated with the implementation of tasks within the state. External functions are associated with the implementation of tasks at the interstate level, where the state acts as a subject of international legal relations.
It should be noted that there is no consensus among scientists regarding the list of internal and external functions of the state, which will be given attention during their further consideration.
Depending on the duration of its action State functions are divided into permanent and temporary. Permanent functions are inherent to the state at all stages of its existence and development (For example, the economic function), temporary functions are characterized by a short duration of existence, which is due to the specific tasks of the state at certain stages of its life.
S.A. Komarov gives an example of the temporary function of suppressing the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes when changing the state system during the revolution. As a result of either re-education or physical destruction of former exploiters, this function completely dies out or merges with another - the function of protecting law and order of the existing system).
By social significance
general separate
principle of separation of powers
Lawmaking;
Law enforcement;
in the field of political life
By social significance It is customary to distinguish between basic and non-basic.
Relatively well-established ideas about the main and non-core functions can be considered definitions according to which the main functions are understood as “the most important areas of its activity, covering a number of separate homogeneous areas of state work,” and the non-core functions of the state mean “relatively more narrow directions its activities, which are part of the main functions as an element of their internal structure.” This idea of basic and non-basic functions, formulated back in the 70s by N.V. Chernogolovkin, as N.N. Marchenko notes, retains its general theoretical significance to this day. However, there are other points of view.
So, for example, S.A. Komarov calls the main functions general on the basis that they are carried out by all its organs in interaction. They are inherent in every link of the state. He calls non-core functions separate, since they are characteristic of individual government bodies.
The general functions of the state are carried out through the individual functions of state bodies. And vice versa, individual functions are closely related to general ones, are subordinated to them, and are a means of their implementation, therefore, “to call them “non-core”, in our opinion, would be a mistake.”
It should be noted that this classification is traditional and controversial to the same extent. Many authors doubt the need to divide functions into basic and non-core, but at the same time cannot refute its rationality and necessity in full. It is impossible to refute the fact that, for example, in non-standard, emergency situations, one or another function of the state becomes “more equal” among other equal functions. For example, in conditions of war, the defense function predominates among economic, social and others, and in conditions of environmental disasters and accidents - ecological function comes to the fore.
In this regard, it is necessary to mention the related problem of the existence of a “main” function and “secondary” functions for the state.
The opinion is expressed that “the main function of the state cannot be recognized as economic and organizational activity, because this leads to the inevitable nationalization of public life,” and “the protection of human interests, the protection of his rights...” can be recognized as such.
There is no doubt that in a market economy, the scope of state regulation of the country’s economic life is very limited and cannot in any way be the main one among other spheres of activity of the state and people. But underestimating the government's economic impact on the economy is also wrong. It was the Keynesian model of state behavior, expressed in the rejection of the policy of non-intervention by the state and the idealization of the principle of the “invisible hand” (self-regulation of the market), that saved the United States at one time, stopping the “Great Depression” of the 20s-40s. XX century.
As M.N. Marchenko notes, “a modern state... does not and cannot have only one, single main (main) function.”
The protection of human interests and his rights is rather not a function, but a goal of the state, and of any state that respects its citizens. But even if we consider such a goal to be a full-fledged function, then its implementation is impossible without the implementation of all other functions of the state, which in itself calls into question the primacy and autonomy of the function in question. Again, during the “Great Depression,” the United States directed all its efforts to economic development, recognizing precisely this as an opportunity to preserve the “American way of life” and the rights of its recent emigrant citizens to a decent life.
The criteria include principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial.
Indeed, the activities of the state to carry out its functions are clothed in legal forms:
Lawmaking;
Executive and administrative;
Law enforcement;
This means that the functions of the state are divided into legislative, administrative and judicial, which in principle reflects the mechanism for the implementation of state power. This opinion is shared, in particular, by S.A. Komarov and A.B. Vengerov.
A.B. Vengerov includes judicial and information functions among law enforcement functions.
Special attention should be paid Special attention on the information function, which characterizes the activities of the fourth estate - the media.
The specificity of this function lies in the ways of not influencing society: targeted awareness of the population, and sometimes manipulation of public consciousness, other methods of transmitting information create the necessary conditions for the existence and functioning of other branches of government, the entire state.
However, not all legal scholars accept this classification. Many believe that these are not actually functions of the state, but functions of exercising state power or branches of government. That is, there is a confusion of the functions of the state and state power.
The classification of state functions is also given based on territorial scale, within which they are implemented. In a federal state, this is a function of the federation as a whole and the constituent entities of the federation. In a unitary state, these are functions carried out on the territory of a single, only administratively-territorially divisible state. In a confederation, these are the coordinating functions of the entire community (union) of states and functions that are implemented on the territory of each of the participants in this union of states.
Western theorists – adherents of the concept of the “welfare state” (G. Laski, K. Corsland, J. Maden, etc.) believe that the modern state is characterized by the following functions:
in the field of political life– provision of social services, development of the social insurance system, ensuring full employment;
in the field of economic life– a course towards increasing state ownership, creating a “mixed” economy, and implementing its planning;
in social services– providing programs for education, medical care, professional, intellectual and moral “formation” of citizens.
External functions of the state: concept, types and their general characteristics.
(1 ratings, on average: 5,00 out of 5) 
Loading...
