Large groups of people differentiated by their location. Public classes

public) (from Lat. classis - group, category). The most complete and comprehensive definition of the essence of class division and K. antagonistic. society was given by Lenin: “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system social production, according to their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in public organization labor, and, consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy" (Lenin V.I., Soch., vol. 29, p. 388). The starting point of this definition is K . is the recognition of the dependence of the class division of society on historically determined methods of production (for example, slaves and slave owners are the capitalist society, proletarians and bourgeois are capitalist societies). With a change in the method of production, the class division of society also changes. Fundamental and always are such capitals, the existence of which follows from the dominant mode of production in a given society. Non-basic complexes are associated with the existence of more or less significant remains. preceding or the embryos of a subsequent method of production, represented by special ways of farming. method of production. At the same time, their place and role in society changes: a non-basic society can become the main one (for example, the peasantry with the change of slave owners. feudal societies; the working peasantry after the overthrow of capitalism), the main K. - non-mainstream (for example, the bourgeoisie in transition period from capitalism to socialism), oppressed by the K. - dominant (for example, the proletariat in the same period). K. are not eternal, they arose for a certain reason. stage of development of society and with the same inevitability must disappear. For the complete destruction of society, “... it is necessary not only to overthrow the exploiters, landowners and capitalists, not only to abolish their property, but also to abolish all private ownership of the means of production, it is necessary to destroy the distinction between city and countryside, so is the difference between people of physical labor and people of mental labor" (ibid.). K. are preserved in the first phase of communism - under socialism, since these differences have not yet been eliminated, but the essence of K. changes radically. This is no longer K. in the proper sense of the word, not such societies. groups, of which one can live by the labor of another; private ownership of the means of production has been eliminated, and therefore class antagonism has been eliminated, the main thing has been done, which is decisive in the destruction of K. Production. relations in a society divided into communities are, first of all, relations between communities occupying different place in society production Basic production parties. relations correspond to the signs of K.: attitude to the means of production, role in society. organization of labor, methods of obtaining and the size of that share of society. the wealth they have. The defining feature is the attitude towards the means of production. The form of ownership of the means of production determines both the relationships between people in the production process and the form of distribution of produced products between them. Marxism-Leninism rejects attempts to put in the first place such features of capitalism, considered in isolation from the whole, as their role in the organization of societies. production [so-called organizational theory (A. Bogdanov)] or methods of obtaining and the amount of their income (the so-called distributive theory of K., which was adhered to, for example, by K. Kautsky, Tugan-Baranovsky). Marx noted when characterizing the bourgeoisie: “A capitalist is not a capitalist because he manages an industrial enterprise; on the contrary, he becomes the head of industry because he is a capitalist. The highest power in industry becomes an attribute of capital, just as in the feudal era the highest power in the military case and in court was an attribute of land ownership" ("Capital", vol. 1, 1955, p. 339). In the "Introduction" and in last chapters 3rd volume of Capital, Marx emphasized that it is not the method of distribution, but the method of production that determines the class structure of society. “The main feature of the difference between classes is their place in social production, and therefore their relationship to the means of production” (V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 6, p. 235). Marxism-Leninism also opposes confusing the division of society into classes with the division of people according to professions. The latter is determined in the field of material production directly by technique and technology, while the division into capital is determined by the nature of economics. relations, primarily relations of ownership of the means of production. The mixture of these categories by certain bourgeois. sociologists and revisionists expresses “... a practical tendency to erase the very concept of “class”, to eliminate the very idea of ​​class struggle” (ibid., vol. 5, p. 175). Marxism-Leninism views capitalism not only as economic, but also as a broader social category. Taking shape on economic grounds. relations, the class division of society also permeates the sphere of politics and ideology and is reflected in societies. consciousness, in the spiritual life of society. The differences between classes also cover the area of ​​everyday life, are reflected in their way of life, in their family relationships, in their psychology, morality, etc. The formation of capital is an objective process determined by the development of economics. relationships. The living conditions of each community determine its interests and their relationship to the interests of other communities. On the basis of the commonality of fundamental class interests and their opposition during the class struggle to the interests of others opposed to the community, the consolidation of the members of a given community occurs. As Marxism-Leninism teaches, the community " ... takes shape in struggle and development" (ibid., vol. 30, p. 477). In the process of constituting a culture, a huge role is played by subjective factor– K.’s awareness of his fundamental interests and the creation of his own class organizations. K., which had already been objectively formed, but had not yet realized its fundamental interests, Marx called K. “in itself.” Having realized his fundamental interests and organized himself, he turns into a class “for himself” (see Class “in himself” and class “for himself”). The unification of the most conscious people is of decisive importance in this process. elements of K. into one or another class organization, among which the most important are political. parties. Historical development of the concept of cosmos. The idea that society is divided into cosmos appeared long before the emergence of Marxism, but sociology, which preceded historical materialism, was unable to create a scientific theory of cosmos. In pre-capitalist formations, the class division of society was covered with religious-class or class shells. This made it difficult to understand class structure and its relationship with economics. structure of society. A big obstacle for scientific K.'s analysis was the desire of the ideologists of the dominant K. to prove the naturalness, inviolability, and eternity of existing orders. People have long seen that society is divided into rich and poor, noble and ignorant, free and unfree, but could not explain the reasons for this inequality. At first, the prevailing desire was to explain social gradations by the dictates of God or nature. In antiquity the world slavery was considered as natural. phenomenon. The division of free citizens into various classes. Plato saw the weakness of modern times. his state is that in every city “no matter how small it is, there are always two mutually hostile cities in it: one city of the poor, the other of the rich...” ("State" IV 422 E - 423 A ; Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1863). However, he did not seek to abolish classes, but to streamline the relationships between them. In Plato’s “ideal state” there remains a division into 3 classes: philosophers, or rulers, guards (warriors), farmers and artisans; the division of labor between them is based, according to Plato, on natural. basis. “... Each of us is born... different by nature, and is assigned to perform certain work” (ibid., II 370 B), some from birth are “capable of commanding,” others to be “farmers and other artisans” (ibid. same, III 415 A). Aristotle also recognized the naturalness of slavery: “some people are free by nature, others are slaves, and it is useful and fair for the latter to be slaves” (“Politics” I 2, 1254 in 24 - 1255 a 19; Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1911). Criticizing Plato's “ideal state,” Aristotle gave preference to the middle strata of slave owners. “In every state we meet three classes of citizens: the very wealthy, the extremely poor, and the third, standing in the middle between both.” People of the first category, according to Aristotle, predominantly become insolent and major scoundrels; people of the second category are scoundrels and petty scoundrels. “Average wealth is the best of all blessings; it gives birth to moderation in people” (ibid., IV 9, 1295 and 23 - in 18). The emergence of democracy or oligarchic. Aristotle explained the construction by the struggle between common people and the wealthy class: "... whichever of them manages to defeat the enemy will introduce a non-common and equal one for mutual interests political system", but pulls the state order to its side (ibid., IV 9, 1296 a 16 - in 19). In the era of feudalism, the existing class-estate structure of society was declared a divine institution. Only in the era of the breakdown of the feudal system and the emergence of capitalism, which simplified class structure of society, the prerequisites arose for the development of the very concept of feudalism. On the eve and during the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century, philosophers and publicists sharply condemned the feudal system. J. Meslier classified the wealthy as feudal nobility, clergy, bankers, tax farmers, etc., and to the other K. - the peasantry. “It’s as if two races of people live in one society,” says Meslier: one does nothing, enjoys and commands, the other works, suffers and obeys" (quoted from book: Volgin V.P., French utopian communism, 1960, p. 28). Some thinkers (for example, G. Mably) are already looking for the basis for the division into society in property. "... Property divides us into two classes - the rich and the poor" (Mabley G., Izbr. prod., M.-L., 1950, p. 109–10). A deep understanding of the opposition between rich and poor permeates the works of J. P. Marat, who viewed the revolution as a manifestation of the struggle of society. In the works of the bourgeoisie. economists late 18th - early. 19th centuries (partly by F. Quesnay and mainly by A. Smith and D. Ricardo) made important step to knowledge of economics. anatomy K. Instead of the usual in the French era. bourgeois revolution of dividing society into two communities - rich and poor - they divide it into three communities. For Quesnay, this division is not yet clear: he sees in society: 1) communities of owners (landowners, clergy), who do not invest labor in production companies. product, but by virtue of property rights appropriates all net income and performs management functions; 2) K. manufacturers, ch. arr. capitalist farmers; 3) K. barren or unproductive (merchants, industrialists, workers, artisans, etc.). A. Smith gives a much clearer description of K. bourgeois. society: he distinguishes between landowners, capitalists and workers. Society the product, according to Smith, is divided into three parts and “... constitutes the income of three different classes of people: those who live on rent, those who live on wages, and those who live on the profits of capital. These are the three main , the main and initial classes in every civilized society..." ("Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations", vol. 1, M.–L., 1935, pp. 220–21). Viewing labor as common source income, Smith comes to understand the contradictory interests of capitalists and workers: “The workers want to receive as much as possible, but the owners want to give as little as possible” (ibid., p. 62). However, Smith does not consistently pursue this view, because sometimes claims that income is the source of value. This inconsistency was eliminated by Ricardo, who viewed labor as a unity. source of value and established the opposition between wages and profit. Ricardo believed that wages always rise due to profits, and when they fall, profits always rise (see Soch., vol. 1, Moscow, 1955, pp. 98–111). Having substantiated the contradictory interests of the main. K. capitalist. society, Ricardo openly defended the need for high profits as a condition for the rapid development of production. According to Ricardo, the interests of landowners are in conflict with the interests of all other communities and interfere with the development of society. English Economists have made progress in understanding the class structure of capitalism. society, however, they connected the class division of society only with relations of distribution, and not production, and viewed it not historically, but as natural and eternal. According to Marx, for Ricardo capitalist. the mode of production with its class opposites was “... a natural form of social production” (Capital, vol. 1, 1955, p. 519). In contrast to the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, utopian. socialists tried to prove the irrationality and historical. the doom of a society built on the exploitation of man by man. Already early representatives of utopianism. socialism, and especially the ideologists of revolutionary plebeianism (for example, T. Münzer in the 16th century, G. Babeuf in the 18th century), put forward demands for the destruction of private property and class differences. Subsequently, some of the utopian Socialists (for example, Saint-Simon) came close to understanding the historical process as a struggle of social capitals. However, Saint-Simon did not distinguish workers' capital from the general capitalism of industrialists, which included the bourgeoisie. In addition, the implementation of socialism was thought of by Saint-Simon and Fourier as a result of the “bringing together” of society and the establishment of harmony between them. Some utopians tried to overcome this limited views. socialists. Russians played an important role in the development of K. theory. revolutionary democrats and utopians socialists, especially Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, from whose works, in Lenin’s words, “...breathes the spirit of class struggle” (Works, vol. 20, p. 224). Behind the opposing forces in the history of mankind, they saw different classes, K. with their conflicting material interests. "By benefits, everything European society, wrote Chernyshevsky, “is divided into two halves: one lives on the labor of others, the other on its own; the first is prosperous, the second is in need... This division of society, based on material interests, is reflected in political activity"(Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 6, 1949, p. 337). However, Chernyshevsky could not yet give a strictly scientific definition of K. He, for example, spoke about the agricultural class and commoners as one whole, did not single out worker K. from the general mass of the exploited and did not see its special historical role.Only the founders of Marxism, who acted as the ideologists of the most revolutionary K. - the proletariat, were able to create a truly scientific theory K. Characterizing the difference between his theory of K. and all previous ones, Marx wrote: “As for me, I have neither the merit that I discovered the existence of classes in modern society, nor that I discovered their struggle among themselves. Bourgeois historians long before me, the historical development of this class struggle was outlined, and bourgeois economists - the economic anatomy of classes. What I did new was to prove the following: 1) that the existence of classes is connected only with the the historical and historical phases of the development of production, 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. and Engels F., Selected letters, 1953, p. 63). The emergence of K.K. arose during the period of decomposition of the primitive communal system, which occurred among different peoples at different times. Class society developed at the end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. in the valleys of the Nile, Euphrates and Tigris rivers, in the 3rd–2nd millennia BC. in India, China and other countries, in the 1st millennium BC. in Greece and then in Rome. The emergence of K. - duration. process. Its most general premise was the development of produces. forces that led to the emergence of a surplus product, division of labor, exchange and the emergence of private ownership of the means of production. The emergence of a surplus product created an economic the possibility of the existence of some people at the expense of the labor of others. The emergence of private property turned this possibility into reality. When in communities as a result of development produces. forces, private ownership of the means of production arose when the place of the former, collective production was taken by individual production, by departmental forces. families has become inevitable and economical. inequality between people. This created the preconditions for class stratification in society. The education of society, as Engels showed in Anti-Dühring, took place in two ways: 1) by identifying an exploiting elite within the community, which initially consisted of the clan nobility; 2) by enslaving prisoners of war, and then impoverished fellow tribesmen who fell into debt bondage. These are two sides of a single process, which leads to the fact that on the ruins of the clan system, as a rule, a society arises, divided into three groups: 1) slave owners, who first represented the dominant elite of the clan nobility, and then a wider layer of rich people; 2) free community members - farmers, cattle breeders, artisans, who usually became dependent on the former; 3) slaves. The founders of Marxism associated the education of society with the development of societies. division of labor. As Engels noted, “... the basis of division into classes is the law of division of labor” (Anti-Dühring, 1957, p. 265). The first large society. The division of labor is associated with the separation of pastoral tribes from the general mass. tribes; it leads to the emergence of exchange between pastoralists and farmers, to the growth of societies. wealth and wider use of slave labor. The second large company. division of labor is associated with the separation of crafts from agriculture; it promotes the penetration of exchange within the community and the strengthening of economics. inequality, the emergence, along with the division into free and slaves, of a distinction between rich and poor. Further development of societies. division of labor leads to separation of minds. labor from physical to mental transformation. labor into the monopoly of a small minority - the ruling capitals, who concentrated in their hands the management of production and the management of societies. affairs, etc., while the vast majority of society is doomed to bear the entire burden of heavy physical. labor. Thus, Marxism does not see the reasons for the emergence of violence in deception and violence, as, for example, supporters of the theory of violence do, although there is no doubt that violence played a significant role in this process. The emergence of K. is the result of a natural economic. development of society; violence only facilitated this process and consolidated the created economies. development of class differences. Political violence itself is a product of economics. development. The main types of class division of society. For all the differences in class structure, it is antagonistic. their societies common feature– appropriation of labor by the dominant society directly. manufacturers. “Wherever a part of society has a monopoly on the means of production,” Marx pointed out, “the worker, free or unfree, must add to the labor time necessary for his own maintenance, surplus labor time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owner of the means of production, whether this owner is an Athenian... (aristocrat), an Etruscan theocrat... (Roman citizen), a Norman baron, an American slave owner, a Wallachian boyar, a modern landlord or capitalist" ("Capital", vol. 1, p. 240). In a class society, the means of production always belong to the ruling class. However, which means of production become the object of class monopolization (land, tools, or the worker himself, considered as a means of production), this depends on specific historical factors. conditions, features this method production Along with the change in the distribution of means of production, the methods of exploitation also change. “That specific economic form in which unpaid surplus labor is pumped out of the direct producers determines the relation of domination and enslavement as it grows directly from production itself, and, in turn, affects the latter determining reverse action. And the whole structure is based on this economic society..., growing out of the very relations of production, and at the same time its specific political structure" (ibid., vol. 3, 1955, p. 804). "Slavery is the first form of exploitation inherent in the ancient world; - writes Engels, - it is followed by: serfdom in the Middle Ages, hired labor in new times. These are the three great forms of enslavement, characteristic of the three great eras of civilization..." (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 175). All these forms of exploitation were encountered already in antiquity. In the era of the disintegration of the primitive communal system, along with slavery, wage labor relations also arose (for example, day laborers in Homeric Greece) and the first embryos of serfdom. relations (see F. Engels, ibid., vol. 24, 1931, pp. 605–06). However, these relations did not become dominant then. Slavery, serfdom, and wage labor differ from each other not only in the degree of exploitation, but also in the different situations themselves. manufacturer. Under slavery and serfdom, the producer is personally dependent. This is one of the reasons why the class division of society appears here in the form of division into estates. The position of each class in society is legally secured with the help of the state. authorities. In the slaveholding In society, a slave represented the property of the slave owner, which in Ancient Greece and Rome did not differ from ownership of a thing, a tool of production. Rome. writer Varro (1st century BC) in a treatise about the village. x-ve divided the tools with which the fields are cultivated into three parts: “... tools that speak, tools that make inarticulate sounds, and dumb tools; the talking ones include slaves, the ones that make inarticulate sounds include oxen, and the dumb ones include carts.” (cited from the book: “The Ancient Method of Production in Sources”, Leningrad, 1933, p. 20). A slave was not considered a person: in most cases, the law allowed the slave owner not only to sell him, but also to kill him. A slave could not, at least in principle, own property and had no family. In Greece, a slave did not even have a name, but only a nickname. The method of exploitation of slave labor and the sources of their replenishment are war, sea robbery, etc. - determined the need for non-economic coercion as a characteristic feature of slave owners. building. With relatively slow development it produces. forces, with crude and primitive tools of production, in the absence of a slave's interest in the results of his labor, it was impossible to achieve regular production of surplus product except by means of direct physical labor. coercion. This, in turn, is associated with extremely crude and cruel forms of exploitation. The life expectancy of a slave in itself did not matter to the slave owner, who sought to extract as much as possible from the slave. large mass labor in the shortest possible time. Therefore, the mortality rate of slaves was very high. With this method of exploitation of slave labor, regular reproduction did not occur work force inside the country; the need for slaves was covered by Ch. arr. through imports from outside. In general, it was considered more profitable to buy an adult slave than to raise the offspring of slaves on one’s own farm (see A. Vallon, History of Slavery in ancient world. Greece, vol. 1, M., 1936, p. 56). Exploitation acquired its most brutal character where commercial capital appeared on the scene, where production had the goal of exchange. Along with the main K. - slave owners and slaves - in ancient world There were also small peasants and artisans. Many of them were forced out slave labor and went bankrupt, forming, for example, in Rome a mass of lumpen proletariat. IN last centuries existence of slave owners. society in Rome, new relationships began to emerge in its depths, preparing the transition to serfdom. Large slave owners The latifundia were fragmented and cultivated in columns, which were considered slaves of the earth; they could be transferred to another owner only along with the land. With the change in the method of production of slave owners. the form of exploitation was replaced by feudalism. Under feud. In the farming system, the owner of the land was considered a feudal lord, a landowner, who endowed the peasant with a plot of land, and sometimes other means of production, and forced him to work for himself. Characterizing the serfdom. system of farming, Lenin pointed out that “firstly, serf farming is a natural economy... Secondly, in serf farming, the instrument of exploitation is the attachment of the worker to the land, the allotment his land... To receive income (i.e., a surplus product), the serf-landowner must have a peasant on his land who has an allotment, implements, and livestock. A landless, horseless, ownerless peasant is an unsuitable object for feudal exploitation... B- thirdly, the peasant endowed with land must be personally dependent on the landowner, for, possessing land, he will not go to the lord’s work except under coercion The economic system here gives rise to “non-economic coercion,” serfdom, legal dependence, lack of rights, etc.” (Works, vol. 15, p. 66). Feud. the farming system also assumed the personal dependence of the producer, and, depending on specific conditions, accepted various shapes: from the most cruel form of serfdom, which was not much different from slavery, to the relatively easy quitrent obligation. But, unlike the ancient a slave, a serf, firstly, was not considered the full property of the feudal lord; the latter could sell, buy, but, according to the law, could not kill him; secondly, the serf peasant had his own farm, owned certain property and used a plot of land; thirdly, the serf was a member of the villages. community and enjoyed its support. These features of the feud. The agricultural system was also determined by its characteristic method of exploitation: the appropriation of surplus product in the form of feudal. annuities. Marx pointed out 3 main points. feudal forms rents: working rent, product rent and cash rent, which were usually combined with each other. IN different periods feudal history system, one form predominated, replacing another in a certain way. historical sequence: labor rent was followed by product rent, and the latter by money rent. Compared to feudal slavery. the system was a historically progressive phenomenon. Feud. the production method involved more high development produces. strength and created a certain interest of the manufacturer in the results of his work. In addition, great opportunities arose for the class struggle of the oppressed masses. The place of the diverse mass of slaves was taken by serf peasants, united in a community. The emergence of cities, in which new societies grew, was also of great progressive importance. layers: artisans organized in workshops and corporations, traders, etc. In cities late Middle Ages A new exploitative layer grew from among the guild foremen. Capitalist elements also emerged from the top of the peasantry. The capitalist method of production replaced feudalism. a new, capitalist form of exploitation. The main classes of capitalist society are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (see Working class). The worker is considered legally free, but is in an economic position. dependence on capitalists. Being deprived of all the means of production and owning only his own labor power, he is forced to sell it to the capitalists - the owners of the means of production. Capitalist the method of exploitation is characterized by the appropriation by capitalists of surplus value created by the labor of hired proletarian workers. With the abolition of personal dependence directly. manufacturers and replacing it economically. With dependence, the need to divide society into classes disappears. Therefore, unlike slave owners. and feud. societies, K. capitalist. societies no longer act as classes. However, remnants of class division still have an impact on societies. life of a number of capitalist countries Capitalism does not exist in any country in its “pure” form. Next to the capitalist relationships exist everywhere more or less means. remnants of relationships inherited from previous formations. Therefore, along with the main K. in capitalist. There are also non-core ones in countries. For example, in a number of countries, K. belongs to them. During the transition from feudalism to capitalism in some countries, landownership was abolished. In other countries (Germany, etc.), the landlord economy gradually turned into a capitalist one, and the class of landowners into a layer of the agrarian bourgeoisie. Finally, in less developed countries, where they were saved. remnants of feudalism (Russia before October revolution etc.), the landowners continued to exist as a special K. In the present. K.'s time represents the landowners. strength in backward, dependent countries, where imperialism supports them as its support. Among the non-basic K. capitalist. Society also includes the petty bourgeoisie, especially the peasantry, which in all countries except England represents. the mass, and in some less developed countries even the majority of the population. Peasantry, artisans and other small-town residents. As capitalism develops, the layers are eroded and stratified, releasing a few from their midst. capitalist the elite and the masses of poor proletarians and semi-proletarians. In developed capitalist countries. countries, the peasantry is increasingly being exploited by monopolies and banks, entangling them in networks of bondage. Without being the main K. capitalist. society, the peasantry, however, due to its role in the agricultural sector. production, that is. numbers (even in capitalist Europe, about a third of the population) and connections with the working class can become a great force in the class struggle against capitalism. Basic forces on which the course of the class struggle in capitalism depends. countries, the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie (especially the peasantry), and the proletariat are speaking out (see V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 30, p. 88). The class structure of modern capitalist society a. Contrary to the claims of the reformists, the capitalist class structure. Over the past hundred years, society has not undergone such fundamental changes that could smooth out the opposition between classes. Marx's conclusion that the accumulation of wealth at one pole of society is accompanied by the growth of proletarianization at the other remains in full force. Specific gravity bourgeoisie in the capitalist population. countries has decreased in recent decades (for example, in the USA from 3% in 1870 to 1.6% in 1950; in England from 8.1% in 1851 to 2.04% in 1951), and at the same time its wealth and power. Monopolistic stood out. the top of the bourgeoisie, the region united in its hands both economic and political. power. Burzh. the state has turned into a committee for managing the affairs of the monopoly. bourgeoisie, as a tool for its enrichment. A handful of billionaires and millionaires rises not only above society, but also above all other layers of the capitalist class. The dominance of monopolies intensifies the process of absorption of small and medium-sized farms by large ones. Thus, the interests of monopolies find themselves in conflict with the interests of not only workers, but also small and even some medium-sized entrepreneurs. In modern conditions capitalism accelerates the process of ruin of the peasantry, artisans, handicraftsmen, small shopkeepers, etc. The share of these old “middle strata” in the population is falling. So, for example, in the USA from 1910 to 1954 the share of the population of the so-called. “independent” decreased from 27.1% to 13.3%; in the West Germany's number is self-sufficient. owners decreased from 33.8% in 1907 (data for all of Germany) to 24.5% in 1956. Along with the displacement of the “middle strata” from production, “a whole number of “middle strata” are inevitably created again by capitalism (an appendage of the factory, work at home, small workshops scattered throughout the country due to the demands of large, for example, the bicycle and automobile industries, etc.). These new small producers are also inevitably thrown back into the ranks of the proletariat" (Lenin V.I., Works, t 15, pp. 24–25). Such processes occur not only in the sphere of production, but also even more in the sphere of trade and services. As a result of the reduction in the number of independent small producers, the proportion of wage earners in the population is growing. According to the International organization of labor, the share of people in hired labor has increased: in the West. Germany in 1882–1956 from 64.7% to 75.4% self-employed. population, in France in 1851–1954 from 54.6% to 64.9%, in the USA in 1940–50 from 78.3% to 82.2%, in Australia in 1911–54 from 74.3% to 81, 3%. The number of employees and intellectuals, especially engineers, is growing among hired workers. An increase in the proportion of these layers, which are often called new “middle layers,” is considered bourgeois. sociologists, as well as right-wing socialists, as an indicator of the “deproletarianization” of the population. In reality, the class composition of civil servants and intellectuals is heterogeneous: only some of them can be classified as “middle strata”; the top of the civil servants and intelligentsia (high-ranking officials, managers, etc. ) merges with the bourgeoisie, and the majority merges in its position with the working class or directly adjoins it. In modern capitalist In society, especially in the most developed countries, the overwhelming mass of employees has lost their former privileged position and has turned or is turning into a “white-collar proletariat.” As for engineering and technical. intelligentsia, then in connection with the automation of production means. Some engineers and technicians, by the nature of their work, are becoming closer to the bulk of the workers, at the same time losing the function of managing and supervising the workers. In developed capitalist countries. In countries such as the USA, an increasing number of engineers and technicians find themselves as ordinary participants in production. process occupied by working machines. Thus, what is happening is not the “deproletarianization” of the population, but, on the contrary, the proletarianization of those strata that previously occupied a more or less privileged position in society. Basic The mass of the proletariat is still made up of physical workers. labor. But socio-economic. borders of the proletariat in modern times. capitalist society expanded and entered its ranks and that means. layers of hired workers, busy minds. labor (see "Exchange of views. What changes are taking place in the structure of the working class?", in the journal: "Problems of Peace and Socialism", 1960, No. 5, 9, 12; 1961, No. 4, 5, 6, 9). The growth of the working class occurs not only nationally, but also internationally. scale. K ser. 20th century in developed capitalist countries. countries concentrated more than half total number workers and employees of all non-socialist. countries (over 160 million) and 3/4 of industrial proletariat (approx. 85 million). In economically underdeveloped countries over the past decades, numerous working class. In Asian countries, Lat. America and Africa there are now St. 100 million workers and employees - St. 30% of the total number of people employed in non-socialist countries. world. In modern conditions capitalism continues to grow the share of industrial. workers and the share and number of agricultural workers is declining. proletariat. There is an increasing tendency towards a deterioration in the situation of the working class, expressed, in particular, in wages lagging behind the cost of labor, in mass unemployment, etc. The development of automation displaces some workers from production; in a number of production areas it leads to the replacement of skilled workers with low-skilled workers who have undergone short-term training. The change in the ratio between skilled and trained workers and the convergence of their pay levels give rise in a number of capitalist countries. countries tend to narrow the layer of the labor aristocracy. This is also facilitated by the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, which reduces sources due to monopolies. the bourgeoisie in the countries of imperialism bribes the top workers of the capital. However, this process proceeds contradictorily; in some countries (USA, etc.) the labor aristocracy retains its privileged position and is even growing. State monopolistic capitalism "... not only does not change the position of the main classes in the system of social production, but also deepens the gap between labor and capital, between b

Classes are “large groups of people, differing in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in methods of obtaining and size the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.”

The existence of classes is connected only with historically determined modes of production. Class differentiation is the main one for society among other differences between people precisely because it arises in the sphere of production on the basis of the social division of labor and private ownership of the means of production. Classes arise at that stage of social production when the emergence of surplus product and division of labor has made the exploitation of labor economically profitable.

The most important provisions of the scientific theory of classes were formulated by K. Marx and F. Engels. In a letter to I. Weidemeier dated March 5, 1852, Marx wrote: “What I did that was new was to prove the following: 1) that the existence of classes is connected only with certain historical phases of the development of production, 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.”

When analyzing the class structure of society, Marxism distinguishes between main and non-main classes, and also takes into account the presence of various groups, layers within classes and intermediate layers between classes. The main classes are those classes whose existence directly follows from the dominant mode of production in a given socio-economic formation. These are slaves and slave owners, peasants and feudal lords, landowners, proletarians and bourgeois. But along with the dominant mode of production in class formations, remnants of previous modes of production may also remain, or the sprouts of new modes of production may arise in the form of special economic structures. The existence of non-basic, transitional classes is connected with this. In those capitalist countries where significant remnants of feudalism have been preserved, landowners exist as a minor class, increasingly merging with the bourgeoisie. In most capitalist countries there are numerous layers of the petty bourgeoisie (small peasants, artisans), which differentiate themselves as capitalism develops. Within classes there are usually various layers and groups whose interests do not partially coincide. For example, in ancient society there was a struggle between the slave-owning aristocracy and democracy, which reflected the conflicting interests of various layers of slave owners. In a capitalist society, there are also contradictions between the interests of different layers of the bourgeoisie (for example, the monopoly and non-monopoly bourgeoisie).

The development of capitalism leads to changes in the class structure of society, which, however, contrary to the claims of reformists, do not eliminate, but exacerbate and deepen class antagonisms. The most important of these changes are connected, on the one hand, with the process of growth of monopoly capitalism and its development into state-monopoly capitalism, and on the other, with the development of the scientific and technological revolution. Behind last century in developed capitalist countries, the share of the bourgeoisie in the amateur population has decreased (if in the mid-19th century it exceeded 8% in Great Britain, then in the 60-70s of the 20th century it was only from 1-2 to 3% in highly developed capitalist countries 4%). At the same time, the wealth of the bourgeoisie increased enormously. A monopoly elite emerged within it, uniting economic and political power in its hands. The interests of the monopolies turned out to be in conflict with the interests of not only workers, but also small and even some medium-sized entrepreneurs. Under the conditions of state-monopoly capitalism, the process of ousting and ruining small private owners (peasants, artisans, etc.) accelerated and their share in the population decreased. At the same time, the share of workers has increased hired labor. The share of hired workers in developed capitalist countries by the 80s. 20th century ranged from 70 to 90% (and higher) of the amateur population. Among the total mass of wage earners, the modern working class occupies the most important place both in number and in its role in production.

The development of capitalist production, and especially the development of the scientific and technological revolution, leads to significant changes in the structure of the working class. The ratio of various groups of the working class is changing, first of all, the number of industrial classes is increasing and the number of agricultural classes is decreasing.

Scientific and technological progress, the growth of education and culture led to a rapid growth of the intelligentsia and office workers. The social composition of the intelligentsia is heterogeneous. Its top (for example, managers) merges with the ruling class; part of the intelligentsia engaged in the so-called “free labor” professions is close in its position to the petty bourgeoisie and is included in the middle strata of society. At the same time, an increasingly significant part of the intelligentsia and office workers is losing its former position as a privileged layer of society and is moving closer in its position to the working class.

Changes in the social structure of capitalism create the preconditions for an ever closer alliance of the working class with broad sections of the working people of city and countryside. The convergence of the interests of the peasantry, urban middle strata and intelligentsia with the interests of the working class contributes to the narrowing of the social base of the monopolies and opens up opportunities for the creation of a broad alliance of all anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist forces. The leading force in this union is the working class, which is increasingly becoming the center of attraction for all working segments of the population.

For thousands of years, the existence of classes has been historically necessary. It was due, as F. Engels noted, to the relative underdevelopment of the productive forces, when the development of society could only be carried out with the enslavement of the mass of workers; under this condition, a privileged minority could engage in government affairs, science, art, etc. In connection with the enormous increase in labor productivity achieved by large-scale capitalist industry, the material prerequisites arose for the abolition of classes. The existence of any ruling exploiting class has not only become unnecessary, but has become a direct obstacle to further development society.

The destruction of classes is possible only through the conquest of political power by the proletariat and a radical transformation of the economic system. To destroy the exploitative system, it is necessary to eliminate private ownership of the means of production and replace it with public property. “To abolish classes means to put all citizens in the same relationship to the means of production of the whole society, this means that all citizens have the same access to work on public means of production, on public land, in public factories, and so on.” Classes cannot be destroyed immediately; they continue to exist for some time even after the overthrow of the power of the capitalists and the establishment of the power of the working class. During the transition period from capitalism to socialism, the economic system is multi-structured; in most countries there are three classes: working class, associated mainly with the socialist structure of the economy, the working people peasantry, associated in its overwhelming majority with the small-scale commodity structure of the economy (main classes; in developed countries, the peasantry is practically absent), and the capitalist elements of the city and village associated with the private capitalist structure of the economy (minor, secondary class). As a result of the victory of socialist forms of economy, all exploiting classes are eliminated, society becomes classless.

Bourgeois class theories are usually characterized by an ahistorical approach. For example, supporters biological theories argue that the division of society into classes is based on the different biological values ​​of people, differences in origin, and race. Most bourgeois theories are characterized by denial material foundations division of society into classes. Bourgeois sociological theories tend either to obscure the differences between classes, or, conversely, to declare them natural and irremovable. Many bourgeois sociologists argue that the proletariat itself has “disappeared” and dissolved into the “middle class.” However, in reality there is no “middle class”; there are numerous intermediate layers that do not form a single class. Their existence does not at all lead to an equalization of the position of opposing classes. Equally untenable are attempts to replace the division of society into opposite classes by dividing it into many layers (“strata”), differing from each other by occupation, income, place of residence and other characteristics. Marxism, of course, does not deny the existence in society of other social strata and groups along with classes. However, their place and role can only be understood by taking into account the place they occupy in the class structure of society and in the struggle between classes. Class oppositions cannot be obscured by professional, cultural and other differences. These opposites disappear only as a result of a radical change in the relations of production, a revolutionary overthrow of the foundations of capitalist society and the creation of a new, socialist society.

Classes

social, “... large groups of people, differing in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy" (Lenin V.I., Complete collection works, 5th ed., vol. 39, p. 15). This definition was given by V.I. Lenin in relation to the culture of an antagonistic society. Relations between such groups inevitably lead to class struggle (See Class struggle). However, K. still remain in a socialist society that has eliminated exploitation. Complete destruction of the class division of society is possible only at a very high stage of development of productive forces (See Productive force of labor) and production relations (See Production relations) : it requires not only the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, but also the overcoming of old forms of social division of labor, significant differences between city and countryside, between mental and physical labor.

Relations between the people of a socialist society are based on joint work and cooperation, and not on exploitation and mutual struggle. Under socialism, society is no longer divided into groups of people, of which one can, due to the place it occupies in the social economic system, appropriate the labor of another. In this sense, the fundamental foundations of the class division of society have already been eliminated. Nevertheless, the most important features indicated in Lenin’s definition also apply to the quality of a socialist society. These are communities united by the socialist economic system, the same type of social cost for the means of production, and joint labor, but at the same time they still differ within the framework of this community in their attitude to the means of production, their role in the social organization of labor, and the forms of distribution of social income.

The scientific theory of culture was developed as a result of the long development of social thought. The fact that society is divided into noble and ignorant, rich and poor, etc. has been known for a long time. But these differences were explained by the will of God, fate, the nature of people, etc. reasons. The first steps towards explaining the economic foundations of the division of society into society were made by the French and English economists late 18th - early 19th centuries. (partly by F. Quesnay and mainly by A. Smith and D. Ricardo). However, explaining the existence of K. by the difference in the sources of their income, Smith and Ricardo were unable to find out the deepest reasons for the class division of society, which are rooted not in the method of distribution, but in the method of production. Moreover, Smith and especially Ricardo did not consider the division of society into society historically; they considered capitalist relations to be natural and eternal.

The historical development of the struggle of society in the era of bourgeois revolutions was reflected in the works of French historians of the 1st half of the 19th century - A. Thierry, F. Migne, F. Guizot and others, who considered these revolutions as a manifestation of the struggle of the third estate (mainly the bourgeoisie ) against feudal lords. Key to Understanding political history they looked in the property relations of people, in the conditions of the existence of various classes. However, French historians were not able to reveal the true basis of the class division of society. They explained the origin of K. by conquest, the subjugation of some peoples by others; recognizing as “legitimate” only the class struggle of the bourgeoisie against the feudal lords, they condemned the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

Unlike bourgeois economists and historians, utopian socialists (see Utopian socialism) condemned the exploitation of man by man and called for its abolition. Some of them (for example, A. Saint-Simon) came close to understanding the historical process as the struggle of society. But the implementation of socialism was conceived by the majority of utopian socialists as the result of the establishment of harmony between society. A serious step forward in the development of the theory of society was made by Russian socialists and revolutionary democrats , especially N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov. From the works of Chernyshevsky, V.I. Lenin said, “... the spirit of class struggle emanates” (ibid., vol. 25, p. 94). “In terms of benefits, the entire European society,” wrote Chernyshevsky, “is divided into two halves: one lives on the labor of others, the other on its own; the first is prospering, the second is in need... This division of society, based on material interests, is reflected in political activity” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 6, 1949, p. 337). Placing your hopes on revolutionary struggle working people, for the victory of the peasant revolution, Russian revolutionary democrats were not yet able - due to the immaturity of capitalist relations in Russia - to give a strictly scientific definition of capitalism and understand the historical role of the proletariat.

The discovery of the world-historical role of the proletariat belongs to K. Marx and F. Engels, who, thanks to the materialist understanding of history, developed the scientific theory of proletariat. The most important provisions of this theory were formulated by K. Marx in a letter to J. Weidemeyer dated March 5, 1852: “What I have done is new , consisted in proving the following: 1) that the existence of classes is connected only with certain phases of the development of production, 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. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 28, p. 427). Having connected the existence of capital with certain historical phases in the development of production, i.e. in certain ways production, Marxism revealed the material foundations of the class division of society and the deepest sources of class antagonism. Marxism proved that the division into society is not inherent in all phases of the development of society and is a historically arose, and, therefore, a historically transitory phenomenon.

For all peoples, class society arose in the process of decomposition of the primitive communal system, but at different times (at the end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd millennium BC in the valleys of the Nile, Euphrates and Tigris rivers, in the 3rd-2nd millennium BC AD in India, China, in the 1st millennium BC in Greece, and then in Rome). The emergence of capitalism becomes possible only when the growth of labor productivity leads to the appearance of a surplus product, and common ownership of the means of production is replaced by private property. With the advent of private property, property inequality within the community becomes inevitable: some clans and families become richer, others become poor and find themselves economically dependent on the former. Elders, military leaders, priests and other persons who form the clan nobility, using their position, enrich themselves at the expense of the community. Relations of domination and subordination arose, as F. Engels showed in his work “Anti-Dühring,” in two ways: 1) by identifying an exploiting elite within the community and 2) by turning prisoners of war captured in clashes between communities into slaves. Both of these paths are intertwined. The development of production, the growth of trade, and the increase in population are destroying the former unity of the clan and tribe. Thanks to the division of labor, cities grew - centers of craft and trade. On the ruins of the old, tribal system, a class society arises, the characteristic feature of which is the antagonism between the capitalists of the exploiters and the exploited. The dominant societies, being the owners of all or at least the most important means of production, have the opportunity to appropriate the labor of the oppressed societies, who are completely or partially deprived of the means of production. In all class antagonistic societies, the ruling classes, who make up a minority of the population, concentrate in their hands the management of production and the management of state affairs, and turn mental labor into their monopoly, while the vast majority of the population, belonging to the oppressed classes, are doomed to hard physical labor.

Slavery, serfdom, and wage labor form three successive modes of exploitation, characterizing the three stages of a class-antagonistic society. With the first two methods of class exploitation, the direct producer (slave, serf) was legally powerless or lacking rights, personally dependent on the owner of the means of production. In these societies “... class differences were also recorded in the class division of the population, accompanied by the establishment of a special legal place in the state for each class... The division of society into classes was common to slave, feudal, and bourgeois societies, but in the first two there were classes -classes, and in the latter the classes are classless” (Lenin V.I., Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 6, p. 311, note).

When analyzing the class structure of society, Marxism-Leninism distinguishes between basic and non-basic communities, and also takes into account the presence of various groups, layers within communities and intermediate layers between communities. Basic communities are those communities whose existence directly follows from the prevailing social order in a given society. economic formation of the production method. But along with the dominant mode of production in class formations, remnants of previous methods of production may also remain, or sprouts of new methods of production may arise, or sprouts of new methods of production may arise in the form of special economic structures. Connected with this is the existence of non-basic, transitional capitals. In those capitalist countries where significant remnants of feudalism have been preserved, landowners exist as non-basic capitals, increasingly merging with the bourgeoisie. In most capitalist countries there are numerous layers of the petty bourgeoisie (artisans, small peasants), which differentiate themselves as capitalism develops. Subjecting to the cruelest exploitation not only the proletarians, but also most peasants, capitalism creates conditions that make it possible to win over the working peasantry, its exploited majority, to the side of the proletariat. Within a society there are usually various layers and groups whose interests do not partially coincide. For example, in ancient society there was a struggle between the slave-owning aristocracy and democracy, which reflected the conflicting interests of various layers of slave owners. In a capitalist society, there are also contradictions between the interests of different layers of the bourgeoisie (for example, the monopoly and non-monopoly bourgeoisie).

The development of capitalism leads to changes in the class structure of society, which, however, contrary to the claims of reformists, do not eliminate, but deepen class antagonisms. The most important of these changes are connected, on the one hand, with the process of growth of monopoly capitalism and its development into state-monopoly capitalism, and on the other hand, with the development of the scientific and technological revolution. Over the last century, in developed capitalist countries, the share of the bourgeoisie in the amateur population has decreased (if in the mid-19th century it exceeded 8% in Great Britain, then in the 60-70s of the 20th century it was only 1-2% in highly developed capitalist countries up to 3-4%). At the same time, the wealth of the bourgeoisie increased enormously. A monopoly elite emerged within it, uniting economic and political power in its hands. The interests of the monopolies turned out to be in conflict with the interests of not only workers, but also small and even some medium-sized entrepreneurs. Under the conditions of state-monopoly capitalism, the process of ousting and ruining small private owners (peasants, artisans, etc.) accelerated and their share in the population decreased. At the same time, the proportion of wage workers has increased. The share of hired workers reached 93.5% in Great Britain by 1969, 91.6% in the USA, 82.6% in Germany, 76.8% in France, and 62.6% in Japan of the total amateur population. In the total mass of wage earners, the most important place, both in number and in its role in production, is occupied by the modern working class.

The development of capitalist production, and especially the development of the scientific and technological revolution, leads to significant changes in the structure of the working class. The ratio of various groups of the working class, primarily industrial and agricultural, is changing. In the USA in 1870 the industrial proletariat was related to the agricultural proletariat as 1:1, in 1960 as 16:1; in Great Britain in 1951 as 14:1, in 1964 as 19:1; in France in 1954 as 6:1, in 1965 as 12:1; in Germany in 1950 as 7.4: 1, in 1967 as 38: 1.

In developed capitalist countries, the share of the service sector is growing. However, the redistribution of labor between production and non-production spheres does not indicate a reduction, much less the impending “disappearance” of the proletariat, because the service sector is not outside the class structure of society, it reproduces its inherent division into K. The core of the working class is the factory proletariat. But the working class also includes the agricultural proletariat, as well as transport and trade workers who take part in completing the production process and creating surplus value or create, through unpaid labor, the conditions for its appropriation by capitalists.

In modern conditions, the working class is not reduced to a collection of manual workers. The scientific and technological revolution is changing production functions worker, abolishes a number of old professions, creates new professions that require more high level qualifications. The vast majority of workers are engaged primarily in physical labor, but the development of the scientific and technological revolution leads to an increase in the share of mental labor in production, which also creates surplus value for capitalists.

Scientific and technological progress, the growth of education and culture have led to a rapid increase in the number of people engaged primarily in mental work - the intelligentsia (See Intelligentsia) and employees (See Employees). For example, in the USA their share in the total number of employed people increased from 31% in 1940 to 45% in 1966. The social composition of the intelligentsia is heterogeneous. Its top (for example, managers, etc.) merges with the ruling class; part of the intelligentsia engaged in the so-called “free labor” professions is close in its position to the middle strata of society. At the same time, an increasingly significant part of the intelligentsia and employees are losing their former position as a privileged layer of society and are moving closer in their position to the working class. Office workers and engineering workers, to a greater extent than before, are replenished not at the expense of the “top” of society, but at the expense of the working people - not only the petty bourgeoisie, but also the proletariat. The gap between the wages of workers and the salaries of the mass of employees is narrowing. A small and often an average employee is paid no better than a worker. Finally, a significant part of the engineering and technical personnel is losing their command role as “chief” and “non-commissioned” officers of capital, since automation and mechanization of production themselves determine the forced rhythm of the production process.

Changes in the social structure of capitalism create the preconditions for an ever closer alliance of the working class with broad sections of the working people of city and countryside. The convergence of the interests of the peasantry, urban middle strata and intelligentsia with the interests of the working class contributes, as noted by the International Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties (1969), to the narrowing of the social base of the monopolies and opens up opportunities for the creation of a broad alliance of all anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist forces. The leading force in this union is the working class, which is increasingly becoming the center of gravity of all working segments of the population,

In assessing the historical role of each capital, Marxism-Leninism proceeds from an analysis of its objective position in the system of social production and its living conditions. This determines his class interests, which, once realized, find more or less clear expression in his ideology. The world-historical mission of the working class is determined by its position in the system of capitalist production and consists in the destruction of bourgeois society and the creation of a classless communist society. For thousands of years, the existence of K. was historically necessary. It was due, as F. Engels noted, to the relative underdevelopment of the productive forces, when the development of society could only be achieved through the enslavement of the mass of workers; under this condition, a privileged minority could engage in government affairs, sciences, arts, etc. In connection with the enormous increase in labor productivity achieved by large-scale capitalist industry, the material prerequisites arose for the destruction of society. The existence of any kind of dominant exploitative society not only became unnecessary, but turned into a direct obstacle to the further development of society.

The destruction of K. is possible only through the conquest of the proletariat political power and a radical transformation of the economic system. To destroy the exploitative system, it is necessary to eliminate private ownership of the means of production and replace it with public property. “To abolish classes means putting all citizens in the same relationship to the means of production of the entire society, this means all citizens have equal access to work on public means of production, on public land, in public factories, and so on” (V.I. Lenin. , ibid., vol. 24, p. 363). Capitalism cannot be destroyed immediately; they continue to exist for a long time even after the overthrow of the capitalist power. During the transition period from capitalism to socialism in countries where the economic system is multi-structured, there are three communities: the working class, associated mainly with the socialist structure of the economy, the working peasantry, associated in their overwhelming majority with the small-scale commodity structure of the economy (main communities), and capitalist elements of the city and countryside associated with the private capitalist structure of the economy (non-basic, secondary capital). As a result of the victory of socialist forms of economy, all exploitative societies are eliminated and the class structure of society is radically changed. However, as experience shows, even at the stage of socialism certain class differences between the working class and the peasantry remain. These differences are associated with the presence of two forms of socialist property: state public property and cooperative-collective farm property, the existence of which is in turn determined by the unequal degree of socialization of production and the development of productive forces in industry and agriculture. The significant differences between city and countryside, mental and physical labor, which have not yet been overcome, are reflected in the social structure of society, which consists of the working class, the cooperative peasantry, office workers and the intelligentsia.

The working class under developed socialism is the most numerous class in society. Its share in the population of the USSR increased from 14.6% in 1913 to 33.5% in 1939 and 59.8% in 1972. The worker K. plays a leading role in society, due, firstly, to the fact that he works for enterprises owned by the people, representing the highest form of socialist economy. Secondly, the working class makes up the bulk of industry workers, which is the leading force of the entire national economy. Thirdly, the working class has the greatest revolutionary experience, hardening, and organization. The leading role of the working class increases with the growth of its numbers, general culture, education, political activity. The share of workers with secondary and higher education increased in the USSR from 8.4% in 1939 and 39.6% in 1959 to 64% in 1972.

In contrast to the working class, the number of the collective farm peasantry is declining (from 47.2% in 1939 to 19.3% in 1972). However, under socialism this is not the result of proletarianization and ruin of the peasantry; on the contrary, its welfare is growing. The mechanization of agriculture and the growth of technical equipment of labor release surplus labor in the countryside and at the same time change the nature of the peasant’s labor, make it more productive, and bring it closer to the labor of the worker. The proportion of people with higher and secondary education among collective farmers was only 1.8% in 1939, 22.6% in 1959, and 44% in 1972. The common socialist basis on which the working class and peasantry base their existence, and the growing level of socialization of labor in the countryside, determine the steady rapprochement of these classes.

Socialism accelerates the growth of the number of knowledge workers and brings about a rapprochement between manual and mental workers. From 1926 to 1971, the number of workers engaged primarily in mental work increased more than 10 times in the USSR. The share of employees in the population of the USSR increased from 2.4% in 1913 to 16.7% in 1939 and 20.9% in 1972. Under socialism, the intelligentsia has become truly popular; it is replenished to an increasing extent from among workers, peasants, and others. layers of working people and devotes their creative energy to the cause of the people.

The existence under socialism of class and social differences makes it necessary to accurately take into account in politics both the interests of the entire people and the interests of their constituent classes and social groups. The very nature of socialism determines the gradual rapprochement of all these groups and the erasure of differences between them. This process unfolds, first of all, as a result of the economic and cultural rise of the village, the transformation of agricultural labor into a type of industrial labor. The growth of the socialization of labor on collective farms and the development of economic ties between collective farms and the state sector are leading to a rapprochement between collective farm property and public property. At the same time, based on the combination of the scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of socialism, the process of bringing physical labor closer to mental labor is underway. Thus, in the process of building a developed socialist society and its development into communism, society becomes more and more socially homogeneous. This objective process, however, does not unfold spontaneously, but largely depends on the policy of the party, which directs the activities of all social groups in one general direction.

Successes in solving the historical task of destroying exploitative societies practically refuted the assertions of bourgeois ideologists about the “eternity” of private property and the “naturalness” of the division of society into dominant and subordinate.

Bourgeois theories of capitalism are usually characterized by an ahistorical approach. For example, supporters of biological theories argue that the division of society into cultures is based on the different biological values ​​of people, differences in origin, and race. Most bourgeois theories are characterized by the denial of the material foundations of the division of society into society. Representatives psychological theory define K. as groups of people with the same psyche, the same perception external environment, emotions, etc. Bourgeois sociological theories tend either to obscure the differences between cultures, or, conversely, to declare them natural and irremovable. Many bourgeois sociologists argue that the proletariat itself has “disappeared” and dissolved into the “middle class.” However, in reality there is no “middle class”; there are numerous intermediate layers that do not form a single class. Their existence does not at all lead to an equalization of the position of opposite groups. Equally untenable are attempts to replace the division of society into opposite groups by dividing it into many layers (“strata”), differing from each other in occupation, income, place of residence and other characteristics. Marxism-Leninism, of course, does not deny the existence in society of other social strata and groups along with classes. However, their place and role can only be understood by taking into account the place they occupy in the class structure of society and in the struggle between classes. Class opposites cannot be obscured by professional, cultural and other differences. These opposites disappear only as a result of a radical change in the relations of production, a revolutionary overthrow of the foundations of capitalist society and the creation of a new, socialist society.

Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., Manifesto Communist Party. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 4; Marx K., Introduction. (From economic manuscripts of 1857-1858), ibid., vol. 12; his, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, ibid., vol. 8; his, Capital, vol. 1-3, ibid., vol. 23-25; his, Theory of Surplus Value (IV volume of “Capital”), ibid., vol. 26 (parts 1-3); Engels F., Anti-Dühring, ibid., vol. 20; him, Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, ibid., vol. 21, ch. 4; his, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, ibid.; his, Social classes - necessary and unnecessary, ibid., vol. 19; Lenin V.I., What are “friends of the people” and how they fight against the Social Democrats, Complete. collection cit., 5th ed., vol. 1; his, The economic content of populism and its criticism in the book of Mr. Struve, ibid., vol. 1; his, Another destruction of socialism, ibid., vol. 25; him, Karl Marx, ibid., vol. 26; his, State and Revolution, ibid., vol. 33; his, The Great Initiative, in the same place, vol. 39; his, Economics and politics in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat, ibid.; his, Childhood disease of “leftism” in communism, ibid., vol. 41; Program of the CPSU, M., 1972; Materials of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU, M., 1971; International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Prague, 1969; Thorez M., The concept of class and historical role working class, "Communist", 1963, No. 6; Solntsev S.I., Social classes, 2nd ed., Leningrad, 1923; Semenov V.S., The problem of classes and class struggle in modern bourgeois sociology, M., 1959; aka Capitalism. and classes, M., 1969; Grant E., Socialism and the Middle Classes, trans. from English, M., 1960; Varga E., Capitalism of the Twentieth Century, M., 1961; Shneerson A.I., Urban middle strata under capitalism, M., 1961; Aaronovich S., Ruling class[in England], trans. from English, [M.], 1962; Glezerman G.E., Historical materialism and the development of socialist society, 2nd ed., M., 1973, ch. 4; Problems of change social structure Soviet Society, M., 1968; Classes, social strata and groups in the USSR, M., 1968; Rutkevich M.I., Filippov F.R., Social movements, M., 1970; Inozemtsev N. N., Modern capitalism: new phenomena and contradictions, M., 1972; Scientific communism and its falsification by renegades, M., 1972.

1) relatively stable social groups that have common interests and values ​​(e.g. peasantry, working class, bourgeoisie, middle class and etc.). The concept of classes and class struggle became widespread in Europe in the 19th century. (Saint-Simon, O. Thierry, F. Guizot, etc.). K. Marx and F. Engels linked the existence of classes with certain methods of production and considered the struggle of classes driving force history and assigned the proletariat the historical mission of violently overthrowing the bourgeoisie and creating a classless society (Marxism, socialism). Various criteria are put forward for dividing society into classes and social groups (age, economic, professional, system of rights and responsibilities, social status etc.) (stratification, class, status). In modern society in the process social differentiation and integration associated with the division of social labor, property relations and other factors, numerous layers and groups are formed, between which relations of cooperation, competition or conflict develop, which are increasingly regulated on the basis of democratic principles;

2) one of the main types social stratification(elements of social structure) along with caste and class. In theoretical sociology, three approaches to the analysis of classes can be distinguished: two of them originate in the works of K. Marx and M. Weber, who considered various economic forces as class-formers; There is an alternative approach, presented by some modern research social stratification, in which class is not determined purely economically. K. Marx considered class from the point of view of ownership of capital and means of production, dividing the population into property owners and the propertyless, into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. IN AND. Lenin defined classes as large groups of people that differ from each other in their place in the system of social production and their role in the social organization of labor, their relationship to the means of production and the possibility of appropriating the labor of another group, the method of obtaining and the size of their share of social wealth. M. Weber divided the population into classes in accordance with economic differences in market position. One of the bases of market position is capital, and others are qualifications, education and status (social respect). Weber distinguished four classes: (1) the class of owners; (2) the class of intellectuals, administrators and managers; (3) the traditional petty-bourgeois class of small owners and traders; (4) working class. Sociologists developing alternative approaches to class analysis believe that individuals in modern society can be classified based on non-economic factors such as profession, religion, education, and ethnicity.

(with minor additions from other magazines). Provoked by discussion famous article Lenin’s “The Great Initiative,” in which, as if in passing, the definition of the concept “class” that is now considered classic by Marxists is given.
So,

THE CONCEPT OF “CLASS”

Let me remind you - according to Lenin,

Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in the methods of obtaining and the size of that the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.

oleg_devyatkin

I consider Lenin’s definition of classes in “The Great Initiative” to be extremely unfortunate, but nothing else, however, could be expected from an article written for kindergarten political studies.

spartako

And what?
A very clear and precise definition.

oleg_devyatkin

How do you like this definition of “fruit”: “fruits are such significant groups of food products that differ: in weight - heavy, light, in size - large, small, in color - red, green, in taste - sweet, sour "?

This objection would be acceptable if Lenin had not defined class at all, and, say, specifically the class of feudal lords or the class of slaves.
But in the case under discussion, we are talking, rather, not about defining a certain object as such, but about highlighting the principles of classification of certain objects. “Large groups of people” can be classified according to different criteria, and Lenin only indicates under what classification principle the identified “large groups of people” will be called classes within the framework of Marxist theory.
I think this is a completely acceptable approach.

oleg_devyatkin

Lenin's definition of classes.
4 signs are listed:

1. place in the system of social production;
2. attitude towards the means of production;
3. role in the social organization of labor;
4. the ability to appropriate the work of another group of people.

Lenin also points out one more sign: “and therefore, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have.” But, in principle, the third sign can be modified in this way: “role in the social organization of labor (and therefore salary).” Salary here must be understood in a generalized sense: “the method of receiving and the size of the share of social wealth that you have.”
In addition, in relation to the last characteristic (“the ability to appropriate someone else’s work”), it is said that it depends on the first (“place in the system of social production”).
This means that we can assume that the remaining characteristics (1, 2, 3) are independent. If each characteristic has at least two gradations, then there should be 2 in the third or even two in the 4th degree classes, that is, 8 or 16 classes. Where are they?
But the most important thing is that this definition is completely unworkable; these signs themselves are not defined in any way. Many people remember the long debate between Soviet social scientists: “Is the intelligentsia a class or not a class?” Based on this definition alone, it is impossible to resolve this dispute.

Why does theory need the concept of class?

Marx himself defined it in the Manifesto as follows: “The entire history of mankind is the history of class struggle.” That is, Marx needed the concept of “class” to understand the historical process.

Lenin begins the paragraph in which he defines classes as follows:
“What does this mean, “abolition of classes”? All who call themselves socialists admit this final goal socialism, but not everyone thinks about its meaning.”
Lenin speaks about the “communism” of the subbotnik, he says: those who write about subbotniks do not pay enough attention to one thing. Which one? And in our memory of subbotniks, we admit, only that they are free and mostly physically difficult. What is “communist” about this? Communism means "abolition of classes."
Lenin even italicizes in the articles he reprints about subbotniks those places where it is said about a significant increase in labor productivity during subbotniks. It is not gratuitousness, and especially not physical hardship, that makes subbotniks communist; it is high labor productivity that makes them communist, or rather, the reason for this high productivity. And as such a reason, Lenin points out the absence of the indicated fourth ghost: “the ability to appropriate the work of another group of people.”

Additional difficulties of the theory based on the “Great Initiative”

A theorist based on Lenin’s work “The Great Initiative” will also face the following difficulties: it turns out that in order to “abolish classes” it is also necessary to destroy the differences between city and countryside, between physical and mental labor, between masculinity and femininity (“between man and woman”). . How such divisions fit into the indicated four characteristics is not in the work.

In general, the main flaw of Lenin’s definition is its scientistic bias. (They used to say - “positivist”, and even earlier - “objective” (remember this word in the “Theses on Feuerbach”. It seems that then the concept of “object” still had the basic meaning of “additional circumstances”, so that the person accused of “objectivism” " was accused not of speaking about the "external world", but about the "external world in relation to the essence of the matter."))

Compare with this definition of the concept of “musician”:

"Musicians are people who differ in their place in historical orchestras, in their relation to musical instruments(mostly brought with them), according to their reaction to the actions of the conductor, and therefore, according to their salary. Musicians are people of whom some can leave their mark on the actions of others, due to the difference in their place in a particular orchestra."

Thank you very much for your comments!
Something seems to have cleared up in my head, but essence This just made things more confusing :-)
Roughly speaking, we are not talking about the principles of systematization of “large groups of people”, but about meaningful side of the matter; but in this case it is not entirely correct to speak of Lenin’s theses as definition concept of "class".
That is, what is primary for us is not that denoting certain “ large groups of people“The term “class”, we are guided by the characteristics listed by Lenin; and what is primary is precisely that at any stage of human history, society is divided into certain “ large groups of people", the contradictions between which (denoted by the term " class struggle") are the driving force of history, and it is such And only such"large groups of people" may be called classes.
Lenin in “The Great Initiative” is not at all definition gave the concept of “class”, but expressed a very controversial thesis about what characteristics classes can be distinguished by. That is, roughly speaking, he said something like this: If“large groups of people” wage class struggle among themselves, That they differ in the following characteristics: ___ ... And then he committed logical fallacy: turned what was written “back to front”: began to reason as if the statement sounded like this: If“large groups of people” are distinguished by the following characteristics: ___, That they are waging a class struggle among themselves.
Well, for example, as far as I understand, behind the words “communism is a classless society” lies only the fact that, by assumption, under communism there will be no class struggle as the “engine of history.” And from Lenin’s “inverted” “definition” it follows that under communism there will be no only class struggle, but also differences between “large groups of people” on the basis of “city-rural”, “physical-mental”, etc.
By the way, similar difficulties with the systematics of the objects being studied were observed at different stages of development in most sciences: let us recall the history of the “periodic table of elements” in chemistry or the struggle for unified approach to the systematics of living organisms in biology: now the basis of systematics is genetic relatedness, the presence of a single common evolutionary ancestor, since it has become clear that all other possible classification characteristics are derived from this.
In sociology, the development of a clear approach to the classification of “large groups of people” from the point of view of their role and place in the evolution of human society, as far as I understand, is still a matter of the future.

oleg_devyatkin

Yes, that's it. To begin with the class struggle, in my opinion, is more natural.
I always quote a story about the Soviet logician (mathematician) Shanin, told to me by his students: Shanin said that in any conversation one must first clearly discuss the “problem”. You can, for example, argue endlessly whether chess players are athletes or not - it’s a completely different matter if you immediately find out “what the problem is.” So, it’s one thing if we’re talking about a parade at the Olympics and the question is whether chess players should be included in the column; Another thing is the distribution of vouchers to the sanatorium from the Ministry of Sports and whether they should be allocated to the chess section.
Lenin had a unique task in the article: to define what should soon be eliminated. The person sending for weeding will not go into detailed taxonomic definitions of weeds; most likely he will say: “These two small round leaves are beets, everything else that is green is weeds.” From these remarks of Lenin, “on the fly” they made a “DEFINITION” and for half a century they tormented and tormented schoolchildren and students.

What should I do, who does not believe in the abolition of the class struggle? Or, in order not to use the vague term “class”, I will say this: in my opinion, humanity will always have a struggle of all against everyone, in this struggle people will naturally unite into associations for quite a long time.

lenivtsyn

We pay unjustifiably much attention to the concept of “class”. The classics treated him more simply. In Marx, and even in Lenin, in various works you will not find any classes; depending on the situation described, you can find references to the class of merchants, some (conditionally) brick makers, or even (not conditionally, but absolutely precisely - in Lenin, at least I’m not ready to give an exact link right now) class of tramps. In any science, classification is a fairly common technique, and into which classes an object ultimately falls depends on the problems for which the classification is performed.
The proletariat and the bourgeoisie were initially meant by Marx as a certain outcome class development society. The meaning of the very division into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is that there are only two classes. And here it is important to note that this classification is justified in Capital by a comprehensive study of capitalist society.

I fully agree that in Marx’s time it was quite legitimate to divide society into “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat”, neglecting other social groups; and, in my opinion, it is just as legitimate to divide today’s society into “bureaucracy” and... I don’t know who – “common people,” or what?