Head of the Department of Socio-Economic Systems and social policy High school Economics Natalya Tikhonova believes that the main focus when defining the “middle class” should be not income or consumption as such, but the presence of capital, economic or human, that allows one to receive this income. Professor at the Higher School of Economics Ovsey Shkaratan notes that our middle class is heterogeneous and not all of its components play a positive role in terms of economic development.

The share of the middle class in the country will increase, and the average salary of its representatives will be 30 thousand dollars a year, said the head of the Ministry of Economic Development, Elvira Nabiullina, at the end of last week. This course of events is included in the Concept 2020.

However, there is one big “but” in all this - the government, as the minister admitted, does not yet have a clear idea of ​​what the middle class is.

According to Ms. Nabiullina, the concept of ensuring Russia’s economic leadership involves, among other things, changing the standard of living and standards of behavior, including economic ones. “Even an attractive lifestyle, so that it is comfortable to live in the country, so that everyone can realize themselves here, this also applies to Russia’s leadership position,” she said. And the middle class, which according to government plans in 2020 will make up the majority of the population, must play a decisive role in this. However, the head of the Ministry of Economic Development admitted that the authorities do not yet have a clear definition of the “middle class,” but noted a number of parameters necessary to assess “class affiliation.” According to her, this is, first of all, the level of income, comfort and accessibility of social services (education and healthcare), and the level of professional education.

Natalya Tikhonova, head of the department of socio-economic systems and social policy at the Higher School of Economics, believes that the focus should not be on income or consumption as such, but on the availability of capital, economic or human, that allows one to receive this income. “When the first studies of this group began in the middle of the 19th century in the United States, we were talking about people who had not just income, but a professional status that ensured this income. If you pay a cleaner $1.5 thousand a month, then she will not will automatically move into the middle class and become just a highly paid cleaner,” the expert told NI.

The head of the department for studying income and consumption of the Levada Center, Marina Krasilnikova, also believes that the middle class prescribed by the authorities is not actually such. “People who are considered middle class in our country do not have the same value orientation and method of earning income as in the West. They do not have such values ​​as, for example, freedom and equality of opportunity,” she told NI. The expert suggests, in particular, that those who receive money from the state should not be classified as the middle class: civil servants, state employees, employees of state companies, since the middle class should be independent of the state in its sources of income.

Professor at the Higher School of Economics Ovsey Shkaratan notes that our middle class is heterogeneous and not all of its components play a positive role in terms of economic development. “We, for example, have a comprador bourgeoisie, which lives on income from the sale of domestic raw materials to Western consumers. Along with this, we also have a comprador middle class, which produces neither material nor spiritual values, but is exclusively engaged in servicing the upper class,” - the specialist told NI.

The government believes that the middle class will grow thanks to innovative development: It itself should create jobs for highly skilled labor. However, Ovsey Shkaratan believes that so far the Concept 2020 has much more stated goals than justifications for their implementation. “We can talk about an increase when we have 5-7 years of development in this direction. Now, structurally, we are a working-class economy, not a middle-class one. Primary industries large number skilled workers are not required, and there is no growth in the number of people employed in the innovation economy yet. With this type of development in our country, there will be no growth of the middle class,” the expert believes.

According to experts, for a real increase in the middle class, not only a structural restructuring of the economy is necessary, but also a change in the mentality of potential candidates for this social category. For example, until recently, education was considered more of a sociocultural norm rather than an investment in future income. The indicator of a person’s status is still the presence of certain property, rather than human capital. As a result, many people prefer to invest money in goods rather than in their own professional development or the education of their children. This is called the consumption of capital and does not in any way contribute to the formation of a full-fledged middle class.

The class approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of the ruling class, which imposes its own will on the rest of the population of the state. The class approach is characteristic of the Marxist understanding of the state, which interpreted the state as an instrument of suppression of the proletariat.

2. Whole-social approach (interests of the whole society)

The general social approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of all social strata. It is based on the ability of the state to act as an arbiter of social relations, to create the possibility of compromise between different social classes and groups. The general social approach is characteristic of most modern democratic states governed by the rule of law.

In addition, there are secondary approaches to interpreting the essence of the state:

1. National approach (interests of the titular nation)

The national approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of only one nation. Based on the provision of advantages and privileges to the titular nation. The national approach was characteristic of many empires.

2. Racial approach (interests of one race)

The racial approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of only one race. Based on providing advantages and privileges to the so-called superior race and gross disregard for the interests of other racial groups. The racial approach was characteristic of Nazi Germany.

3. Religious approach (interests of a particular religion)

The religious approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of the most religious strata of society within the framework of one religion. Based on strict adherence to religious norms and dogmas. The religious approach is characteristic of modern Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The essence of a modern social, democratic, legal state is that it is a tool for achieving social compromise and harmony in a socially heterogeneous society. Thus, depending on different scientific understandings (approaches), two approaches can be distinguished in the essence of the state: 1. the ability to express generally significant interests of the majority (general social essence); 2. the ability to represent the interests of the economically dominant class, or individual social groups(class entity). In addition, speaking about the essence of the state, it should be noted that its internal content also consists of the listed features that distinguish the state from non-state institutions and public organizations.

Typology of the state. Formational and civilizational approaches.

Typology is a theory about the types of certain phenomena. When we talk about the typology of states, this means that we are talking about the “division” of all states that exist in the past and present into groups, classes - types. The division of states into types is intended to help clarify whose interests were expressed and served by the states united in a given type.

State type- a set of states that have similar general features, manifested in the unity of patterns and development trends, based on the same economic (production) relations, on the same combination of general social and narrow group (class) aspects of their essence, a similar level of cultural and spiritual development.

The type of state is characterized by:

The elite (class, social group) that is in power;

The system of production relations and forms of ownership on which this power is based;

A system of methods and methods that this government uses to protect production relations and forms of ownership;

The real (and not declared) general social content of state policy, its true role in society;

The level of cultural and spiritual development of the population of the state in general and individuals in particular.

Approaches to the typology of states:

1) formational approach. This approach was developed within the framework of the Marxist-Leninist theory of state and law. According to it, the type of state is understood as a system of basic features characteristic of states of a certain socio-economic formation, which is manifested in the commonality of their economic base, class structure and social purpose;

2) civilizational approach.

To determine the type of state, the formational approach takes into account:

1) correspondence of the level of the state to a certain socio-economic formation. Socio-economic formation is a historical type of society that is based on a specific mode of production;

2) a class whose instrument of power is the state;

3) social purpose states.

The formational approach identifies the following types of states:

1) slave-owning;

2) feudal;

3) bourgeois;

4) socialist

The formational approach has the following advantages:

1) the productivity of dividing states based on socio-economic factors;

2) the possibility of explaining the stage-by-stage development, the natural-historical nature of the formation of the state.

Flaws: 1) one-sidedness; 2) spiritual factors are not taken into account.

Positive features of the civilizational approach: 1) highlighting spiritual, cultural factors; 2) a clearer typology of states.

Flaws: 1) low assessment of the socio-economic factor; 2) the predominance of the typology of society over the typology of the state.

The difference between the civilizational approach and the formational one lies in the possibility of revealing the essence of any historical era through a person, through the totality of the prevailing ideas of each individual in a given period about the nature of social life, about the values ​​and purpose of his own activity. The civilizational approach allows us to see in the state not only an instrument of political domination of the exploiters over the exploited, but also the most important factor in the spiritual and cultural development of society.

Thus, in accordance with the civilizational approach:

1) the essence of the state is determined both by the relationship of social forces and by the accumulation and continuity of cultural and spiritual patterns of behavior;

2) state policy is not so much a product of the play of social forces as the result of the influence of society’s worldview, its morality, and value orientation;

3) the diversity of national cultures determines the development paths of states and their types.

Types of states according to the level of protection of human rights and freedoms:

legal: states with a regime of constitutional legality;

illegal: either states with a regime of lawlessness, or states with a regime of revolutionary legality.

Types of states by method of acquiring power:

legitimate(the acquisition of power is recognized as legitimate by the population of the country and the international community);

illegitimate, but existing de facto (the acquisition of power was carried out illegally).

Class approach to social development

On February 4, 2015, a seminar was held for party activists of the Primorsky district branch of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation on the topic: “Class and civilizational approach to the development of society.” Member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Yuri Pavlovich Belov took part in the seminar.

The essence of the class approach

Speaker Andrey Viktorovich Onisenko

mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">

" times="" new="" roman="">1.

The concept of class approach.

mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">

" times="" new="" roman="">2.

A brief history of the emergence and development of the theory of social classes.

mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">

" times="" new="" roman="">3.

Marxist theory of classes.

mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">

" times="" new="" roman="">4.

Bourgeois criticism of Marx's theory. Stratification theory.

mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">

" times="" new="" roman="">5.

Lenin's definition of classes.

mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">

" times="" new="" roman="">6.

Application of the class approach to the analysis of social phenomena.

mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">

" times="" new="" roman="">7.

Why should the class approach be the basis of all assessments and decisions of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation?

When starting to present issues related to the concept of “class approach,” it is necessary to decide in what cases and in relation to what phenomena it is legitimate to use this term.

normal">The class approach is a system of views and principles (method) used in analysis and assessment public phenomena.

normal">Entity this approach, as follows from the very name of the term, lies in the fact that when studying events in public life, the recognition of the class division of society is taken as a starting point. But what is important is not this recognition itself, but the conclusion drawn from it that in his social life a person interacts with other members of society, based on the interests that dictates him the class position he occupies in society. Moreover, this happens completely regardless depends on how aware the person himself is of such a course of events.

The class approach can be used to study practically any from directions social activities person. Of course, this is not necessary in all cases and not under all conditions, but this does not change the essence of the matter - any the issue of social interaction can be considered from the point of view of the class approach.

The main area human activity, in which the class approach is practically irreplaceable and plays a crucial role, is policy. In all questions connected with the acquisition, retention and use of state power, a clash of class interests inevitably appears, and none of these questions can be properly resolved without the use of a class approach.

The essence of the class approach was most vividly described by V.I. Lenin in his work “Three Sources, Three Components of Marxism”:

“People have always been and will always be stupid victims of deception and self-deception in politics until they learn to look for the interests of certain classes behind any moral, religious, political, social phrases, statements, promises.”

(V.I. Lenin, Complete collected works, 5th ed., vol. 23, p. 47.)

It is important to emphasize here that the concept of “class approach” acquired its meaning only with the advent of Marx’s class theory. That is why in my speech the main attention will be paid to the consideration of this theory. WITH Marxist point of view class approach- this is nothing more than the use of the dialectical-materialist method in the study of production, social, political and ideological relations that are objectively developing in society.

line-height:150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> -2-

In order not to get confused in issues of class theory and not make banal mistakes, you should clearly understand what exactly the concept “ social class».

We all know well from history that at a certain stage in the development of human society, property and, after this, social inequality began to appear among people. To display social differentiation people there was a need to use the corresponding term. It is precisely this content that is expressed in the concept of “social classes”. Those. when we say that society is divided into classes, we mean that different segments of the population have different property and social status, that’s all. There is nothing else implied in this term. Therefore, to deny the existence of classes means to deny the very fact of social stratification of society.

The word "classes" comes from Latin language(classis - rank, estate, order). In the VI century. BC e. V Ancient Rome during the period of decomposition of the ancient tribal system was carried out political reform, attributed to the penultimate Roman king Servius Tullius, who introduced a new structure of the Roman community based on

normal">territorial property principle.

Servius Tullius divided the entire male population of Rome - patricians and plebeians, that is, all citizens - into 5 classes. Belonging to one class or another was determined property by qualification

Note. The concept " proletarian"(from the Latin proles - offspring) also owes its appearance to this reform. This was the name given to the poorest poor segments of the population who were not included in any of the classes, but were considered Roman citizens.

Similar processes of formation of the class structure of society are observed among other peoples. True, other terms were used to name these groups, but over time the concept of “classes” became universal.

The class structure of society among peoples ancient world and peoples formed in the later feudal period, is distinguished by its diversity and complexity. In addition to property qualifications, origin, traditional division of labor and some other characteristics were taken into account. However, it never occurred to anyone to deny the very fact of differentiation of society.

But if the existence of social inequality has never been particularly denied, then causes dividing society into classes different stages The development of scientific and philosophical thought was explained in different ways. Let us note only the most important milestones in the development of theoretical views on this issue.

normal">In ancient philosophy (Plato, Aristotle) ​​they proceeded primarily from natural principles in the formation of classes. It was believed that each person is born different from the rest by nature and is therefore intended to perform a certain job. The eternity and inevitability of class division was proven.

normal">In the Middle Ages, class differences between people were entirely explained by the will of God, and therefore no special scientific developments this issue was not addressed.

normal">Philosophers of the New Age, especially philosophers of the Enlightenment, justifying the natural equality of all people, showed that the class division of society is the result of prevailing conditions social environment and education of people. Some thinkers (for example, K. A. Helvetius) believed that the cause of the emergence of classes are “bad” (unreasonable) laws of social structure. Other thinkers (for example, G. Mably) see the reason for the division of society into rich and poor in property relations.

normal">In the era that immediately preceded the emergence of Marxist theory, according to the views of English classical political economy, people’s belonging to one class or another began to be determined by their economic income, i.e. distribution relations (A. Smith, D. Ricardo).

Already on the basis of this brief excursion, one can trace how the transition gradually took place from an idealistic explanation of the emergence of classes to attempts to justify social inequality by economic relations developing in society. And the natural conclusion of the development of these theoretical views was Marx’s class theory.

About 170 years ago, the scientist-philosopher Karl Genrikhovich Marx made the first of his two greatest discoveries- entered materialistic understanding of history. This is how Marx himself summed up this scientific research in the preface to his work “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”:

“The general result that I arrived at and which then served as the guiding thread in my further research can be briefly formulated as follows. In the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, necessary, relations independent of their will - relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces. The totality of these production relations is economic structure society, the real basis on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which they correspond certain forms public consciousness. The method of production of material life determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness.”

Marx K., Engels F., Op. 2nd ed., vol. 28, pp. 6-7

Based on this law of the development of human society discovered by him, Marx approached the analysis of class relationships.

It has already been said above that, contrary to the opinion that existed in those days and is still widely circulated, it was not Marx who discovered the existence of classes in modern society. In the famous letter to Weydemeyer, written by Marx on March 5, 1852, he directly names the bourgeois authors who, much earlier than him, outlined the history of the development of classes and pointed out the existence of class struggle (Thierry, Guizot, John Wade) and that the economic justification for the emergence of classes was also given bourgeois scientists (in particular D. Ricardo).

“What I did that was new,” writes Marx, “was to prove the following: 1) that the existence of classes is connected only with certain historical phases of the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Produktion), 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself constitutes only a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a society without classes."

(Marx K., Engels F., Soch. 2nd ed., vol. 28, pp. 424-427).

Unlike previous teachings, Marx approached this problem dialectically, i.e. he was not satisfied with a simple statement of the fact of dividing society into classes, but examined the process of the formation of classes in its development.

Based on his theory, Marx proved that class is a historical category, and each socio-economic formation has its own strictly defined classes. On early stages the development of human society, classes did not exist. Classes arise only with the advent of the social division of labor and private property, that is, with the advent of those conditions under which only differences in property status become possible.

The belonging of people to one class or another—their objective social status—is determined by the socio-economic relations of the production system that have developed in society (i.e., production relations).

In the process of their formation and development, classes enter into struggle among themselves. In the preface to the Communist Manifesto, Engels wrote:

“...the entire history of mankind (since the disintegration of primitive tribal society with its communal land ownership) has been the history of the struggle of classes, the struggle between the exploiting and the exploited, the ruling and the oppressed classes...”

(Marx K., Engels F., Soch. 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 367).

The lower classes are fighting to eliminate established social inequality and are trying to occupy political system a place corresponding to the role they play in the process of social production. The upper classes are trying to maintain their dominant position. Ultimately, this struggle is waged for the right to wield state power and for the opportunity to have real influence on political decision-making. The result of the class struggle is certain changes in the political and social position of various groups of the population, which in turn affects the economic relations that develop in society. Thus, class struggle is the driving force of all social development.

But Marx not only explained the origin of classes and the forms of their interaction. He explored their direction objective development and came to the conclusion that classes must inevitably disappear, and a necessary condition This means the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which will mark the transition to a society without classes. At the same time, he identified and substantiated the revolutionary role of the proletariat in this movement.

After Marx came up with his theory of classes and various representatives of society comprehended its conclusions, this theory was sharply criticized by bourgeois ideologists. And since this theory is supported by undeniable scientific argumentation, despite all efforts, it was not possible to refute it. But it was precisely since then that the term “classes” became seditious among bourgeois scientists, and they try, at every opportunity, to throw a stone in the direction of this theory or to question it in some way, even if not always scientifically.

Modern scientists give different assessments of the Marxist theory of classes. But this theory cannot simply be ignored if you want to retain at least the appearance of scientific analysis. Therefore, the main path taken by the bourgeois critics of Marx, more or less general outline can be expressed as follows.

It is recognized that this theory, in its basic principles, correctly reflected the stratification of society based on property until the beginning of the 20th century, but now it has lost its significance and cannot be used in explaining the essence of social inequality among people. According to these scientists, today it is almost impossible, based on the sign of property, to classify certain people into any specific class due to the diffusion of property itself that has occurred in Western society. Moreover, in modern societies the source of material well-being or ill-being is no longer so much material as intellectual property.

And on the basis of these and some other arguments, the class theory does not seem to be refuted, but at the same time it is carefully removed from the range of scientific problems discussed in modern society.

Of course, it will not be possible to consider all the variants of modern bourgeois theories in all their diversity. In my opinion, within the framework of our seminar it is most appropriate to dwell on only two of them: theories of stratification and theories of civilization, as the most widespread.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> A detailed consideration of the theory of civilization is entrusted to my co-rapporteur, and I will not dwell on it in my speech. And the following must be said about the theory of stratification.

normal">The theory of social stratification arose shortly after the death of Marx and was initially opposed to it.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> The word “stratification” can be translated into Russian as “stratification”, “stratification” (from “stratum” - “layer”, “facere” - “to do”). The creator of this theory is considered to be Maximilian Karl Emil Weber (1864 - 1920) - a German historian, social philosopher, sociologist.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> According to the Weberian approach, society is characterized by a more complex stratification, which is not determined only by economic factors. Society is divided into diverse and various structures and layers depending on the functions they perform. It was from the works of M. Weber that the concept became widespread in sociology. middle class or middle layers.

From Weber's concept of social stratification grew a whole movement in modern research social inequality and social mobility, often called neo-Weberian (P.A. Sorokin, R. Merton, etc.).

The general meaning of this theory is that, without denying the existence of classes and class differences, other signs of social differentiation of people come to the fore. The analysis of relations to property and methods of distribution of the social product is replaced by an analysis of the political, social, cultural hierarchy (the so-called “ elite"), as well as analysis of interprofessional and intraprofessional, racial, gender and other differences. Some scientists developing this direction even speak out in the sense that the most complete and adequate picture of the social differentiation of people can only be given by a combination of the Marxist approach with the theory of stratification.

At first glance, this is a really reasonable approach. Undoubtedly, all of the above characteristics may be important when analyzing social relations, and in certain situations the stratification method can be successfully used to target scientific research. However, this is what is missed when posing the question in this way: what is the purpose of these studies?

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Marx perfectly saw and understood the complexity and diversity of social relations, and to say that the theory of stratification “develops and complements” Marxist theory is simply absurd. While conducting his research, Marx

normal">deliberately abstracted himself from all these options for social gradation. He set himself a very specific task, which was defined by him at the very beginning of his scientific path and clearly expressed in one of his theses about Feuerbach:

“Philosophers only in different ways explained peace, but the point is to change his".

(Marx K., Engels F., Works. 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 4).

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Based on this, Marx explored not all kinds connections and relationships that can be imagined in society. He tried to identify only those of them that are

normal">a source of progressive development of humanity and can set the whole society in motion.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> What works in the analysis of a group does not always work in the analysis of society. If we set ourselves the goal of changing political system state, then only those signs of social division that create the basis for a given political superstructure will have significance. These characteristics are the place of a person in the production process and the system of social division of labor, as well as the form of ownership that dominates in society and influences the distribution and appropriation of the products of this labor.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> By introducing the theory of stratification into the consciousness of the masses, bourgeois ideology tries to disperse the efforts of various groups of people in their struggle for social justice. This is one of the manifestations of the old principle of Roman rule - divide and conquer.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> The work of communists in the formation of class consciousness is to unite people to fight a common enemy, to transfer the struggle for improving the social situation from a professional or other narrowly limited sphere of human activity to a general political level. In politics, the decisive role is played not by the momentary desires of heterogeneous and numerous social groups, but only by the consolidated will of an entire class. That is why class struggle is always a political struggle.

line-height:150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> -5-

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Before moving on to consider the sequence of application of the class approach, it is necessary learn to identify classes existing in modern society.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Neither Marx nor Engels gave a general, comprehensive definition of classes. They clearly and unambiguously singled out only one key feature - the relationship of ownership to the means of production. Names of the two main classes modern society- the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are formed precisely on the basis of this characteristic.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Bourgeois in Russian translation means nothing more than the concept of “owner”. The big bourgeoisie are large owners, the petty bourgeoisie are small owners. A "

normal">proletarian" corresponds to the concept of "poor". When this term first came into use in Western Europe, people belonging to this class were truly practically poor. They rarely owned anything other than what they were wearing and what fit in their backpack.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> When assessing the modern class structure of society, this is no longer enough. Belonging to a particular class must be determined by a combination of several characteristics. All these signs are given in the now classic Lenin's definition of classes, which was given by Vladimir Ilyich in his work “The Great Initiative” (1919):

"Classes are large groups of people, differing in their place in a historically determined system of social production, in their relation to the means of production, in their role in public organization labor, and therefore according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have."

(V.I. Lenin, Complete collected works, 5th ed., vol. 39, p. 15.)

Many people have heard, know and mention this definition, but not everyone fully understands what exactly is meant by this or that sign. And therefore they do not know how to use the above definition in their practical activities to identify class differences in modern society.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Within the framework of our seminar there is no opportunity for a detailed acquaintance with the rationale for all the signs. But it is necessary to dwell at least briefly on the essence of each of them.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> So, Lenin’s definition gives four characteristics of classes.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Firstly, these are large groups of people who differ according to their place in the historical system of social production.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> The main essence of this feature is that the class is a historical community. Those. At different stages of the development of human society, the grouping of people along class lines changed. Each socio-economic formation was characterized by its own class groups. At the present stage, the main classes of society are represented by wage workers and the bourgeoisie. This does not mean that there are no other classes or special social groups. But they are all secondary, and the production relations of these classes and groups occupy a subordinate position. And the economic foundation of modern society is the relationship between wage labor and capital.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Second the sign by which membership in a particular class is determined is the attitude towards the means of production. As already mentioned, it is recognized as key in determining the entire system of class relations.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> This sign has been discussed a lot and is usually not difficult to understand. Therefore, without dwelling on it, let’s move on to consider the following.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Third the attribute of classes is the most difficult to reveal its essence, and it is this that most often receives the wrong interpretation.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> When we talk about “role in the social organization of labor,” then this, first of all, should mean what type of labor - productive or unproductive- the person is engaged.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> The difficulty here lies not in this position itself, but in explaining what is considered productive and what is unproductive labor. Many copies have already been broken in this field, and a separate conversation will be required to clarify this issue. Without going into details, I will give just a couple of examples that will give you an idea of ​​how this characteristic influences the determination of class affiliation.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> For example, a proletarian, whose interests the Communist Party is called upon to protect, can only be considered one who participates in productive labor Social groups such as military personnel, police officers, judges and lawyers cannot be classified as a proletariat under any prevailing relations of production. Civil servants and officials under the capitalist system, they are also not productive workers, and, therefore, cannot be considered as representatives of the proletariat, despite the fact that they have similar other class characteristics.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> And finally fourth the sign of class membership lies in the method and amount of income received.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> If earlier sources of income were strictly differentiated among different classes, then in modern society the same proletarian can receive income not only through wages, but, for example, in the form of interest, as a holder of shares in his own or some other enterprise. Therefore, in order not to fall into error, when the conversation turns to this sign, it is necessary to highlight only basic source of income.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> All four of the above characteristics taken together make it possible to correctly determine which class of society a particular person belongs to. At the same time, we must remember that in addition to clearly defined and characteristic representatives of various classes, intermediate and transitional class forms have always existed and continue to exist.

line-height:150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> -6-

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> We became acquainted with the basic principles of dividing modern society into classes. But the ability to distinguish between classes is not yet a class approach; it is only a necessary foundation for its application.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Previously, we found out that the essence of the class approach is that all political events must be considered from the point of view of the interests of various classes of society. Now let's talk about how exactly this assessment should be carried out, and what exactly we will have to do.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> First of all, applying a class approach, everyone is firmly obliged take the position of a particular class. In our case, this is the position of the proletariat - the class of hired workers. At the same time, objectively in its own way social status the person himself may not belong to the specified class, but subjectively he must share the views and interests of this class. As the classics said, he must “take the point of view of the proletariat.”

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> The same goes for political parties. One can imagine a situation where the interests of the same class are defended by several parties, but the same party will not be able to simultaneously express the interests of different classes of society. Therefore, any party counting on success in the political struggle must decide the interests of which specific class it is going to defend and which class it will rely on in its struggle for power.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> As next step in applying the class approach should become analysis of the current political situation. At this stage it is necessary to identify all parties, public and state institutions, which can influence the balance of political forces in the country and determine the interests of which classes each of these parties or organizations objectively expresses.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Further need to decide - what position should our party take in relation to everyone else? taking into account the specific circumstances and conditions in which this moment There is a political struggle going on all the time. Based on this, a set of measures must be developed that must be carried out to clarify one’s position among representatives of the proletariat and its possible supporters, slogans of the current moment must be formulated and the immediate goals of the struggle must be determined.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> If political situation changes (for example, new parties appear, new laws and levers of political or economic influence are introduced, etc.), it is necessary to clarify and adjust your position on all of the above points.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Ultimately, all these actions should help to encourage broad social strata to take certain

normal">joint actions with the aim of influencing the authorities, and when certain conditions- take over state power in the country.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> This, in fact, is the entire algorithm for applying the class approach.

line-height:150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> -7-

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> In conclusion, we are left to consider the question of why it is vital for communists to master the class approach and be guided by it in their daily activities.

There is a fairly simple explanation for this. The goal of any party that considers itself communist is to build socialism and create conditions for the further development of society based on communist principles. This goal is also indicated in the Program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Despite the fact that the ultimate goal of socialism is the abolition of classes, however

normal">socialist teaching is a class teaching. Socialism arose at a certain stage in the development of society as an ideology expressing the interests of a specific class - namely, the class of wage workers.

Whatever socialist teachings appear (and in addition to scientific theory Marx has made and continues to make many attempts to indicate other ways to build a socialist society), but the class interests of the proletariat and the need to improve the situation of this particular class are always put forward as their central program positions. One cannot be called a socialist, much less a communist, who does not recognize this class essence of socialism. Such a person simply has not figured it out and does not fully understand the content and meaning of socialist teaching.

A socialist society is, first of all, a society in which absent all exploitation of man by man.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> After all, what is the essence of class inequality? The fact is that by occupying different positions in the production process, some classes have the opportunity to exploit representatives of other classes.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Many simply cannot understand what constitutes the exploitation of some classes by others, and therefore do not recognize their belonging to one class or another.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> The term " exploitation"means gratuitous appropriation of the results of someone else's work.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> The peculiarity of capitalist exploitation is that it is carried out mainly in hidden forms.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> There are three basic forms of hidden economic exploitation.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> First form — appropriation of surplus value. The essence and mechanism of action of this form was explained in detail by Marx. It is hidden because in the process of exchange between the capitalist and the worker the illusion is created that the worker is paid for his work, i.e. the appropriation of the results of his work occurs on a reimbursable basis. But anyone who is even superficially familiar with economic theory Marx, knows that in fact the capitalist does not compensate as wages all the labor produced by the worker, but only part of it, and appropriates the other part for himself without paying for it.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Second form hidden exploitation is unequal exchange. In this case, conditions are created under which various groups of the population are forced to purchase goods and services at inflated prices, thus giving away part of their labor without adequate compensation.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Third form hidden exploitation is taxes. On the one hand, tax collection is a necessary measure. Its main task is the redistribution of funds in order to solve socially significant problems, which, due to their specificity, cannot be implemented otherwise than through specially created public and government agencies. But all the money collected must return to the population in the form of provided public services, benefits, etc. The trick here is that officials do not return a significant part of these fees, appropriating the lion's share for themselves, or disproportionally distributing it among representatives of different classes of society.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> It is not possible to dwell on this issue in more detail within the scope of our seminar. I will only emphasize that the explanation of the essence in various ways exploitation is one of the party's tasks in ideological work. Exploitation can be eliminated only with the destruction of the exploiting classes and the conditions that give rise to this exploitation, the main one of which is private ownership of the means of production.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> Real changes in political structure state can be achieved only if, firstly, appropriate conditions for this have already developed in society, secondly, these conditions are recognized by the current political forces, and thirdly, if broad sections of society are prepared to implement these changes in practice. And it is the class approach that makes it possible to identify these conditions in a timely and scientific manner, to correctly assess the situation and the balance of power, and also to prepare the broadest masses of people for action.

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> ———

150%" class="MsoNoSpacing"> The main conclusions that I would like to draw at the end of my speech are the following:

150%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2" class="MsoNoSpacing"> 1. The class division of society is an objective reality that cannot be ignored.

150%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2" class="MsoNoSpacing"> 2. The success of political struggle depends on how fully and consciously representatives of various political movements take into account the interests of specific classes.

150%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2" class="MsoNoSpacing"> 3.The implementation of the idea of ​​socialism is possible only on the basis of a class approach.

150%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2" class="MsoNoSpacing">

150%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2" class="MsoNoSpacing"> The report by Evgeniy Aleksandrovich Pashkovsky “Civilizational approach...” is being prepared and will be published later.

This or that phase of development (formation) determines the existence of classes: the classes of slave owners and slaves, feudal lords and peasants, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Conflict relationships are established between classes due to the existence of contradictions between them regarding the ownership of property. That is, the basis for dividing society into classes is the attitude towards property, the means of production - this is the main class-forming feature. Classes differ in the ways of obtaining income: for the capitalist, profit is the way, for the worker, wages are the way. The capitalist’s desire to increase profits forces him to cut workers’ wages, i.e. underpay remuneration for their work. This is the essence of the antagonistic nature of class contradictions.

Class contradictions can only be resolved with the liquidation of the bourgeois class as a class through the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the proletariat must realize its interests and become a class “for itself,” that is, a class capable of defending its interests. In order for the working class to realize this mission, a communist party is needed that will educate the working class and organize its activities.

Ways to resolve conflict

Conflict resolution method – social revolution(this is a rapid qualitative sharp shift in changing the method of production and replacing it with a new method of production, a new type of society). The basis is the use of violence in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

« When, in the course of development, class distinctions disappear and all production is concentrated in the hands of associations of individuals, then public power will lose its political character. Political power in the strict sense of the word, it is the organized violence of one class to suppress another. If the proletariat, in the struggle against the bourgeoisie, inevitably unites into a class, if through revolution it transforms itself into the ruling class and, as the ruling class, by force abolishes the old relations of production, then together with these relations of production it destroys the conditions for the existence of class opposition, destroys classes in general, and thereby itself and its own dominance as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class oppositions comes an association in which the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all».

Related information:

1. I. The constitutional model of local self-government in Russia and its role in the formation of a democratic state and civil society
2. II. Requirements for the procedure for providing public services to assist citizens in finding suitable work, and employers in selecting the necessary workers

The Necessity and Essence of the Class Approach

Since the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of private property, human society has been divided into classes. But to say this would simply be to reproduce a real state with which everyone would agree. The division into classes is antagonistic in nature. As the German classical philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach said: “People think differently in palaces than in huts.”

In a class-antagonistic society, there are many points of view on basic issues human life, reflecting the interests of social groups, classes participating in the process of social production, distribution and redistribution of material and spiritual goods. These points of view are objectively the class interests of the main social groups of an exploitative society: workers and exploiters, the oppressed and the oppressed. Therefore, these interests are polar, diametrically opposed, ultimately resulting in class struggle. And it’s not for nothing that the authors of the famous “Manifesto of the Communist Party” began this work with the words:

“The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggle.

Free and slave, patrician and plebeian, landowner and serf, master and apprentice, in short, oppressor and oppressed were in eternal antagonism to each other, waged a continuous, sometimes hidden, sometimes open struggle, always ending in a revolutionary reorganization of the entire social edifice or the death of the fighting classes. "

This is correct with one significant amendment subsequently made by the authors themselves - the history is not of the whole society, but the history of an exploitative, class-antagonistic society.

So, there is a clear fact of the existence of classes, and therefore their interests, which are diametrically opposed in nature. History shows us a lot of examples when the ruling classes of a given era made their own ideas, expressing fundamental class interests, the dominant ideas of this historical era. The exploited masses, as soon as they began to realize their situation and express protest, opposed them with their ideas. History reasoned their disputes in class battles. But the victory of one class over another, which was at the same time the victory of the ideas of this class, did not mean that the truth was behind this class, that it was they who objectively reflected the state of society. Their ideology was, at the same time, a product of a given historical era, and therefore carried with it the prejudices of the latter. Thus, Aristotle was a great scientist, but he could not connect cost with labor costs, because he was an ideologist of the slave-owning class. Spartacus rebelled against slavery, but only in order to turn slave owners into slaves. But then which of these classes and their ideologists were right, who reflected the true state of affairs and thus represented science in this eternal dispute? We, of course, could follow Sharikov and say that both were wrong and that means not one of them represented science. But when Sharikov expressed his well-known critical attitude towards the content of the correspondence of the classics and their disputes, we must remember that he not only had dog's heart, but also a dog's mind. “The truth, as always in such cases, is one. She cannot become like the two-faced Janus, looking equally in both directions. If such a thing were possible, then, I think, science would cease to exist,” Prof. rightly notes in this regard. G. M. Grigoryan (“Political economy: principles of renewal and development”).

In order not to become like Sharikov and be able to correctly express reality, social science developed a class approach to the analysis of society and economic relations. The purpose of this work is precisely to clarify the essence of the class approach and the problem of its application in the past and now.