The problem of the regularity of the historical process

test

3. Basic concepts of the historical process

social reality historical philosophy

People have long tried to understand the complex historical process. Where is history heading and is there a direction? What are the stages of history? What are the laws of its development? Humanity is still resolving these and other questions. At different times, different answers were given to them. The presence of different ideological positions led to the presence of different concepts (from the Latin “conceptio” - understanding, system, a certain way of understanding) of world history.

The earliest is the CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION (from the 4th-5th centuries to the mid-18th century). Its main problem is the question of the meaning and content of human earthly history. From the point of view of Christianity, the meaning of history lies in the consistent movement of humanity towards God, in the knowledge of the ultimate truth given to man in Revelation. The content of the historical process is the liberation of man, his transformation into a conscious historical figure. Thus, the “father of history” Herodotus considered the main content of the historical process to be the struggle between Asia and Europe, which by his time resulted in a series of Greco-Persian wars. Historians of later times considered the main result of the development of human civilization to be the establishment of the power of the Roman Republic throughout the Mediterranean. Part of the Bible - the book of the prophet Daniel - divided world history into periods of existence of one or another empire that dominated the world.

Human history begins with the fall of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from paradise. The idea of ​​the end of history (the end of the world), the timing of which is hidden from the human mind, is hushed up. The fact that different peoples live in different historical times is explained by the difference in the timing of the adoption of Christianity, and therefore the main line of history (Christian peoples) and its dead-end lines (pagan periphery) are identified.

The Christian interpretation of history bequeathed to historical science the idea of ​​world history. Currently, works on Russian history by G. Florovsky, N. Kantorov, A. Nechvolodov - supporters of the Christian concept - have been republished.

With the beginning of modern times, the Christian concept was subjected to critical rethinking. A RATIONALIST (WORLD HISTORICAL) CONCEPT OF HISTORY appeared, which found philosophical and theoretical justification and systematization in the philosophy of history of Hegel and the historical materialism of K. Marx.

The main problem of this concept is the relationship between the spiritual and the natural in the historical process. Both Hegel and Marx considered history to be universal, developing according to general and objective laws. Both thinkers are characterized by the thesis that the most important social institution is the state: as the actual existence of a moral idea (Hegel) or as a political and legal superstructure over the economic basis (Marx). They are also united by the interpretation of historical knowledge - they include both a section related to the study of the factual side of history, and a theoretical and methodological section: philosophy (Hegel) or sociology (Marx). However, Hegel comprehended world history with the help of the then-current concept of “the spirit of the people.” This spirit, according to Hegel, manifests itself in religion, art, science, the moral life of society, in the constitution, and the state. Hegel brought to the forefront in the historical process one or another people - the bearer of the absolute spirit. The starting point of world history According to the concepts of historical materialism, or the materialistic understanding of history, the production and reproduction of material goods are an eternal natural necessity of human existence, the basis of the historical development of society. When engaged in the production of material goods, people not only use and modify the material of nature, but also modify themselves, improve, and form as social beings. The method of production of material life, according to Marx, determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, social existence determines consciousness.

The concept of socio-economic formation became a concretization and further development of the Marxist understanding of history.

The concept of socio-economic formation in Marxism designates qualitatively unique stages in the history of mankind. There are five such stages or formations in total: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist. The transition from one socio-economic formation to another occurs as a result of a social revolution; it is based on the conflict between productive forces and production relations. It is in the consistent change of formations that progress lies, the final result of which should be the establishment of a just world order. The new basis gives rise to a new superstructure. Such a transition cannot occur without struggle between people, classes (groups) of people, especially since some classes are exploitative, while others are exploited. History, according to K. Marx, is all permeated with this struggle. Marx considered the class struggle to be the driving force of history, and revolutions its “locomotives.”

Historical process and historical reality through the prism of the history of philosophy

History is the movement of society through time. The dynamic unity of past, present and future reveals history as a purposeful process. The historical dynamics of society are diverse, individual, eventful, unique...

Marxism in the system of scientific knowledge

As mentioned above, Marxism is a theory of history (although it cannot be reduced to history as a scientific discipline). The terms “Marxism” and “historical materialism” are often used as synonyms...

Worldview

Having emerged from the animal state, man, like animals, learned about the world through his senses. The difference between man and animal at that time was only that man was aware of the world, perceives it with his senses...

Science and its role in modern society

Modern science arose in Europe during the 15th-17th centuries. Being a special form of knowledge of the world and its transformation, science has formed an understanding of what the world, nature is, and how a person can and should relate to them. Absolutely obvious...

Society as a developing system

In addition to the above approaches, there is a continuous process of involving new connections and categories that reflect social life. The theoretical model of society is not an end in itself. It is a tool for understanding real society...

Society as a self-developing system

Society is a historically developing system of relations between people, emerging in the processes of their joint activities. At the same time, changes in society do not mean the loss of the essence of man, as is sometimes believed. Now...

Approach to the study of man as a bisocial being

The many different concepts of human origin are explained, first of all, by the fact that this issue was considered by representatives of various sciences - technical, natural and humanitarian...

The meaning of history and social progress

The concept of purposefulness of the historical process implies that history has some specific goal. The concept of purposefulness of the historical process in European culture was started by St. Augustine...

The formation of the concepts of space and time in philosophical science

The most important philosophical problems concerning space and time are the question of the essence of space and time, the relationship of these forms of being with matter, the objectivity of space-time relationships and patterns...

Physical basis of vacuum coating application

The process of applying vacuum coatings involves the implementation of the following main stages: - formation of the gas phase (generation of vapors, volatile products); - transfer of atoms...

Philosopher F.L. Feuerbach

a) Understanding of being One of the largest materialistic concepts is the concept of Ludwig Feuerbach. Feuerbach builds his philosophy on the basis of the opposition of philosophy and religion as firms of worldview, which, as he himself believed...

Philosophy of history

“History is not only the revelation of God, but also the responsive revelation of man to God. ON THE. Berdyaev Philosophical and historical analysis of human society involves clarifying the issue of dividing history into certain periods, eras and stages...

Philosophy of history

“If history can teach anything, it is first of all self-awareness, a clear view of the present.” IN. Klyuchevsky One of the most important tasks of the philosophy of history is the study and disclosure of the driving forces of history...

Man as a subject of the historical process

When we turn to social development, the question naturally arises: what drives it and who are the subjects of this development? The sources of the historical process are the results of the interaction of three worlds independent of each other: - firstly...

The history of Russia can only be known based on the tasks of studying the general history of mankind. The general history of mankind is called general (or world) history. In scientific language, the word history (from the Greek “historia” - a story about the past) is understood as: 1) the process of development of nature and society, movement in time, and 2) as a science that studies the past of humanity, facts, events and processes on the basis of historical sources.

The content of history, as a special branch of scientific knowledge, is historical process, that is, the life of humanity in its development and results. Human society is expressed in various unions of people, clan, tribal, state formations, nations and nationalities, which arise, grow, move, pass one into another, and finally are destroyed - the emergence, growth, development, decline of these human unions with all the conditions and the consequences of their lives is what we call the historical process.

The successes of human life and the acquisition of culture are not the result of one people, but were created by the joint efforts of all peoples constantly interacting with each other. In the course of the historical process, peoples and generations changed, scenes of historical life moved, but the thread of historical development was not interrupted. Studying the historical past of mankind, we first of all build a chronological sequence of successive stages: primitive society, slave states, feudal and bourgeois countries, etc. In the development of the historical community of people, successive stages are also distinguished: a primitive family was built on the physiological foundations of blood ties, families formed a clan, which then grew into a tribe, and from a tribe or union of tribes a nationality or nation was formed. Finally, a people becomes a state when the feeling of national unity is expressed in political ties, sovereignty and law. In the state, the people become a historical phenomenon with a pronounced national character and awareness of their importance as part of the world community. Thus, states and peoples become participants in a continuous, consistent historical process. Everything that happens happens in time, which is irreversible.

Recognizing the legitimacy and logic of the progressive, formational approach, it should be noted that the development of human community is much richer. The world community is a collection of peoples living at different levels of development of productive forces and culture, even within the same state. A judgment arises about the multidimensionality of social reality.

The cyclical nature of the time dimension must be taken into account; day, seasons, the cycle of human life from birth to maturity and death, change of generations. History shows that the fate of many peoples is also cyclical: the formation, flourishing and death of the states of the Ancient East, Ancient Athens and Rome, the disappearance of entire peoples, such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Sumerians, Mayans, etc. From this point of view, the historical process is change of a whole kind of civilizations that existed at different times in different regions of the planet.

Under civilization is understood as the qualitative uniqueness of the material, spiritual, social life of a particular people or group of countries at a certain stage of development.

The level of material, spiritual, social life, the level achieved by human labor and mind is also called culture. Therefore, some historians define civilization as a level of culture. Thus, V.O. Klyuchevsky points out: the degree of “development of man and human society”, “achieved by one or another people, is usually called culture or civilization: the signs by which historical study determines this degree constitute the content of a special branch of historical knowledge, cultural history or civilization. 1) At the present stage __________________________________________________________

1) Klyuchevsky V.O. Works: in 9 volumes. T.1. Russian history course. Part 1. - M.: Mysl, 1987. - P.34-35

In the general historical development of history, two main types of civilizations are distinguished: Western European, technological and eastern, traditional.

Western European developed on the basis of the states of Western Europe and was based on ancient Roman and Greek culture. It is characterized by private ownership of land, the rapid development of commodity-money market relations, a high level of industrial development, and the formation of capitalist relations earlier than in other areas of the world. The basis of transformative activity in the countries of Western Europe and those who have adopted this type of civilization is, first of all, the rationalism of man, and the basis of the creed is God-man, Christ, the savior and transformer. In the sphere of relations between society and the surrounding reality lies the principle of active transformative human activity.

Eastern developed on the basis of the culture of Ancient India and China, Babylon, Ancient Egypt and the states of the Muslim East. The characteristic features of Eastern civilization are the social nature of land use, man’s admiration for nature, which is more contemplative than transformative, and reverence for the traditions of the past. The development of capitalism in these countries was late and often incomplete. The basis of most Eastern religions is the deification of nature, the secondary role of man in relation to nature, activities aimed more at the moral self-purification of man rather than at transforming the surrounding reality.

Summarizing the assessments of various civilizations, we can draw the following conclusions:

The civilization of a particular country or people has the character private;

World civilizations, Western and Eastern, can be classified as special;

Global civilization with its general laws and universal human values ​​can be considered as general.

For historical science, therefore, the indispensable use of these three categories is necessary. This also applies to students of Russian history.

The process of the formation of humanity as a single civilization confronts us with the question of the results of our national history, about Russia's place in world civilization.

Over its more than thousand-year history, the Russian state has gone through a difficult path of development, which was influenced by both internal and external factors. How to find common features in the history of Russia that are inherent in one or another civilization? These questions have been asked for a long time. Four points of view can be distinguished.

1.Russia is part of Western civilization. This position was developed in the 30s and 40s. XIX century Russian historians and writers K.D. Kavelin, N.G. Chernyshevsky, B.I. Chicherin and others, who were called “Westerners.” They believed that Russia, in its culture, economic ties, and Christian religion, lies closer to the West than to the East, and should strive for rapprochement with the West. The period of Peter's reforms took a significant step in this direction.

2. Russia is part of Eastern civilization. Many modern Western historians take this point of view. Thus, the American historian D. Tredgold, determining that Russia belongs to the Eastern American civilization, notes the following common features: Eastern society is characterized by political monism - the concentration of power in one center; social monism, meaning that the rights and property of different social groups are determined by the central government; a weakly expressed principle of property, which is always conditional and not guaranteed by the authorities; arbitrariness, the essence of which is that man rules, and not the law. It is precisely this model of society, Tredgold believes, that arose and strengthened during the formation of the Moscow state in the 15th - 17th centuries. With the reforms of Peter I, Russia began a shift towards the Western model. And only by 1917 did it manage to come close to the line separating the Western and Eastern models, but the October Revolution again alienated Russia from the West.

3.Russia is the bearer of a distinctive Slavic civilization. Historians and scientists of this trend, called “Slavophiles”, such as N. Kireevsky, S. Khomyakov, K. Aksakov, Yu. Samarin, in the 40s. In the 19th century, when Russia stood on the threshold of reforms, they defended the originality and “Slavic character” of the Russian people. Slavophiles considered Orthodoxy, communal life, and the collectivist nature of labor to be features of Russian history. As a result,

During the migration of peoples at the beginning of the new era, the Eastern Slavs found themselves on virgin, untouched land, unlike their relatives in the Aryan branch - the Franks and Germans, who settled in the former provinces of the Roman Empire and laid the foundation for the history of Western Europe. Thus, the Russian state develops from itself. These primary living conditions of the Russian Slavs, according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, determined the comparative slowness of their development and the comparative simplicity of their social composition, as well as the significant originality of both this development and this composition.

4. Russia is an example of a special Eurasian civilization. Supporters of this theory, which was in circulation in the 50s. XX century, were based on the geographical position of Russia, its multinational character and many common features of both Eastern and Western civilizations manifested in Russian society.

The choice of development path, adherence to the Western or Eastern model of social structure is of particular importance for modern Russia. He will determine the path out of the crisis in which our country finds itself.

To assess Russia’s place in the world civilizational process, it is necessary to trace the historical path that the Russian state has traversed.

Self-control tasks

1. Problematic issues:

a) try to justify and separate the concepts of “history”, “historical process”, “historical progress”;

In the 19th century arose formational And civilizational approaches to studying history:

Formational Founders Karl Macrs and Friedrich Engels. They created the end-to-end history of humanity from the earliest days to modern times. Every society goes through the same stages of development of a socio-economic formation, each of which must be completed entirely, through a social revolution, and not by jumping from one to another. Formations: primitive communal system, slaveholding, feudalism, capitalism and imperialism, communism.

Civilization Founders N.Ya. Danilevsky, A. Toynbee. Each society is a separate civilization, which has unique, non-transmissible and non-repeating cultural characteristics. Each has its own life cycles. Danilevsky identified civilizations: Ancient, Chinese, Indian-Buddhist, Arab-Muslim, Roman-Germanic, (Russian).

Most modern historians strive for a reasonable calculation of both approaches in their research, rather than pitting them against each other for productive results.

Theories:

Staged– laws and stages of development of society, common and uniform for all mankind, come to the fore, through which all nations pass sooner or later

Local Civilizations- attention is drawn to the individual development of countries and peoples, to the diversity of the historical process, its originality and uniqueness in the historical movement and cultural manifestation of specific peoples and civilizations.

4. Russia's place in the world historical process.

Discussion on this issue in Russian society began in the 30s and 40s. XIX century The main debates are around two models. The main dispute is the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles, which began after the reforms.

Westerners(T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin) considered Russia to be part of Western civilization, and it developed like Western Europe, lagging behind by 50-80 years. Supporters of formations adhered to the same point of view and believed that Russia consistently moved from one formation to another with its own characteristics.

By the beginning of the 20th century. Russia's lag in general terms was overcome and it entered the highest stage of capitalism - imperialism, then, overtaking other European countries, it began to build socialism - the first stage of the highest communist formation. According to some opinions, the attempt to build socialism disrupted the natural development of Russia and led to the establishment of totalitarianism, characteristic of Eastern societies. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia returned to the Western model.

Slavophiles(A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov) believed that Russia has its own unique path of development, the main element of which is multinationality. The size of Russia forces us to resort to an authoritarian model of power.

Toynbee: “In case of mortal danger, Russian civilization wins by withdrawing for a while, after which it expands, taking with it the center of the danger and turning its danger into a part of itself.”

The mentality of the Russian people is based on Christian values, which distinguishes Russian civilization from eastern civilizations.

Russia combines the features and characteristics of both the West and the East. Due to its unique geographic location, it experienced influence from one or another civilizational center in different historical periods. At turning points in its history, Russia experienced a “pendulum effect” - “shifting” either towards the Western type of development, or towards the East. This is a multinational state in which peoples of different ethnic groups, religions are united, and there is cultural diversity.

Human life is amazing: people are so similar to each other and so different. We go through the same stages and periods: we are born, grow up, enter adulthood, create a couple and have offspring, raise children, instilling our values ​​in them, grow old, die. And our children and grandchildren, their children and grandchildren support this endless cycle of events. What is the meaning for each individual person in this cycle, why should he participate in it?

How is it that settlements developed from a primitive community, from which cities and states developed? Why do civilizations perish and how is their experience woven into the lives of subsequent generations?

Why do we think that if we know what happened before, we can better arrange our future? Is there someone or something that controls history and can influence it? Finally, the most important question is what is all this for, what are all these stages for, do they have an ultimate goal?

It must be said that these questions have arisen in one form or another throughout the history of mankind, and each thinker has sought his own answers to them. But these answers, harmonious concepts, were suitable for explanation only for a while, and then their obvious inconsistency forced us to look for a new explanation.

“History is a great question that has not yet received a solution, which will be solved not by thought, but only by reality itself; this question boils down to whether history in its impulse is only a moment, an intermediate link between non-historical existences, or is it a breakthrough of deep possibilities, which even in the form of limitless misfortunes, exposed to dangers and constant collapses, generally lead to the fact that being will be discovered by man , and he himself, in an unforeseen takeoff, will find his hitherto unknown possibilities,” wrote the German philosopher Karl Jaspers in his book “The Origins of History and Its Purpose” back in 1948.

Needless to say, since then philosophical thought has made no progress in solving this problem.

Philosophy of History: A Brief Essay

The first concepts of the historical process appeared in Ancient Greece. The question that philosophers of that time asked themselves thousands of years ago is still relevant today: is it possible to foresee the future by building a cause-and-effect relationship from the past through the present? Does the history of peoples have a single universal meaning?

“This world order, identical for everyone, was not created by any gods or people, but it always was, is and will be an eternally living fire, flaring up in measures and extinguishing in measures,”

This one of the first explanations of the world historical process belongs to Heraclitus (VI-V centuries BC). Around the same time, the Pythagoreans defined the historical process as an ideal geometric figure - a circle; they imagined the world as harmonious, complete, and therefore they saw in history a cycle of events, ideas, souls.

According to the approach of the Russian philosopher and religious thinker A.F. Losev, the ancient philosophy of history is the philosophy of eternal formation, eternal return, periodic world fires (Heraclitus), transmigration of souls (Pythagoreans, Plato). This approach to history made it somewhat meaningless and merciless to man: there was no meaning in it, no controlling force with which man could interact. Even those philosophers who recognized that the world and people were created by gods were inclined to believe that the gods do not care about their creations and everything on earth flows by itself, obeying pre-established laws, for non-fulfillment of which, however, punishment is imposed.

Medieval philosophy and Christian theology made adjustments to this concept, placing the birth of Christ as the beginning of history, and the expected apocalypse as its end. Thus, history in the works of Christian philosophers acquired completeness and meaning. The presence of a higher goal in historical development was directly associated here with the idea of ​​providentialism (Augustine the Blessed), in which history is the systematic implementation of God's management plan.

The philosophers of the Renaissance and the educators who followed them, trying to find a rational explanation for this problem, put the concepts of progress and the natural law of history in the place of Divine Providence governing history. Combining circular and linear concepts, enlightenment philosophers (Herder) suggested that the process proceeds in a spiral; history in this case is the “natural development of culture.” These ideas were in some way continued by Hegel, who explained history as the natural development of the absolute idea in the Spirit, as the development of freedom - that is, the historical process is progressive and endless, but at the same time, history loses its timeless meaning here.

In the 20th century The materialist concept of history (Marx) acquired completeness: according to it, society in its development passes through primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist formations. The criterion for development is the level of productivity of social labor. With this “anti-spiritual” approach (after all, a person is essentially lost among the non-subjective factors of production), Marxists identified the meaning of history in maximum social development, which makes every person more and more free.

However, all these concepts were repeatedly criticized, and harmonious systems collapsed. For example, China and India did not fit into Marx’s classification of formations, therefore in the 20th century. the idea of ​​developing local societies (Spengler, Toynbee, Sorokin), cultures and civilizations appeared. For example, Spengler identified eight cultural organisms (Egyptian, Indian, Western European, Chinese, etc.), which, having degenerated, became civilizations. The meaning of their existence is culture.

Toynbee saw the progress of society in the spiritual improvement of humanity on the basis of the main values ​​- truth, beauty, goodness and their unity - benefit, and the meaning of history - in the realization of moral and creative dignity in man.

However, these concepts, supported by many facts and historical examples, only confused researchers. Disputes constantly arose about whether history could be considered unified. It was not clear how to reconcile two opposing trends - the movement towards unity and the movement towards diversity, whether it was possible to find out the laws by which history exists, whether it even has a direction and meaning.

For Russia, which experienced the collapse of state ideology and to this day tries on other people's values ​​and worldviews, the question of historical meaning, historical period, prospects, and development features is especially acute.

The absence of a coherent concept of history that would cover both man and society, and the development of productive forces, which would be suitable for every state, for every nation, is not just a concern for the sophisticated mind of book historians. This is truly an urgent need, not only for Russia, but for the whole world.

We have crossed the threshold of the 20th century, but the answer to the question: “What is all this for?” - still not. Maybe it’s worth backing down and saying: “Everything is useless - human existence has no meaning, civilization on the planet has no meaning.” You can declare this, you can even make another disaster film about it, but it is impossible to LIVE with this feeling!

A person is designed in such a way that he cannot live with a question that traumatizes him. Some people push this question into the depths and diligently cover it up with worries about their daily bread, but the mind of the researcher has always been valued for its tirelessness. And it was these “tiring whys” that created science.

History - the view of Kabbalists

In this situation, it is worth paying attention to the concept of history, unique in its comprehensiveness, based on the development of desires. It is outlined in his works by Doctor of Philosophy Michael Laitman with reference to his teacher, Kabbalist scholar Baruch Ashlag.

In general terms, the essence of this concept is as follows.

All nature develops in stages: inanimate, plant, animal, human. However, these are not only stages of biological evolution, but a kind of hierarchy of desires (from smallest to largest). The desire to receive (egoistic desire) appears here not in our usual moral and ethical context, but as a driving force, as the basis for the existence of the world.

What desire to receive, what egoism can a stone have? Kabbalah scholars suggest taking this desire as a unit; in plant nature it already grows to 2, in animal nature - to 3, in man - to 4. Thus, we get a scheme into which the structure of nature, and the development scheme of society, and each person individually, easily fit.

For example, at the level of nature the scheme works like this. Inanimate nature - stones: they do not move themselves, they do not reveal their aspirations in any way - in general it is not clear whether they have desires. Plants are already turning towards the sun, demanding soil, care and external conditions; however, plants of the same species - although they differ in appearance from each other, are still similar in their qualities. Animals are even more distinguished by their individuality: their behavior clearly shows features that distinguish one individual from another; they can move, adapt to new conditions and seize territories.

Man is an amazing creature; he includes all the previous stages - both at the physical, social, and even at the personal ideological levels. Its main difference from animals is the presence of thinking, a thirst for knowledge.

At the human level, the gradation of levels of desire is as follows.

Inanimate level: satisfying the physiological needs of the body (food, sex, comfort, peace, desire to start a family).

Plant level: desire for wealth.

Animal level: desire for power, fame, honor.

Human level: desire for knowledge.

“Humanity, in accordance with egoism increasing from generation to generation, strives to be filled with what it desires,” writes Michael Laitman in the article “The Essence of the Science of Kabbalah.” “And this determines our progress, changes in the political system, social relations, lifestyle, technological equipment, cultural development, etc.”

Kabbalists in their books tell us that the history of mankind begins with the appearance in man of an egoistic desire to receive. At first, a very small desire arises: in it a person feels an impulse only for bodily pleasures, such as those that animals have (family, sex, food, etc.). Humanity has been developing in this desire for thousands of years. Then, as the desire to enjoy develops, the time for its realization decreases. Today in our lives we see how everything is changing at tremendous speed, while 100 years ago the same changes would have required tens of times more time.

A natural question arises: what next? Is the meaning of human existence really in improving science and accumulating knowledge? But no, human development is not limited to these four stages. Kabbalists talk about the existence of a special desire in a person - for the spiritual. It has a property that cannot be identified by us based only on the available means of knowing the world - reason and feelings.

Thus, the gradation of desires in man presented above is incomplete; This is what it actually looks like:

1 - inanimate level; 2 - vegetable; 3 - animal; 4 - human; 5 - spiritual level.

Each next level completely includes the previous one. The spiritual level is basic and gives the entire Kabbalistic concept of history a special meaning. On the one hand, the spiritual level of development of man and society as a whole destroys our usual ideas about the historical process; it turns out that history is not based on material things - the development of culture, the improvement of technology, the accumulation of knowledge. On the other hand, this fifth level rebuilds the entire history of mankind, introducing spiritual meaning into it.

“From here the logic in the development of desire is also clear: why is the desire for knowledge the greatest among earthly desires and precedes the desire for the highest? Because it leads to the desire to understand the Upper World, showing a person that it is impossible to survive otherwise, explains M. Laitman. - After all, knowledge of the nature and laws of the higher world, its functioning will allow humanity to get acquainted with the forces of nature affecting us, about which we know nothing today. And if we can enter homeostasis with them, we will find the best form of human existence.”

Following logic, we can explain the existence of historical formations: the primitive communal system corresponds to the inanimate level of development of desire, the slave system corresponds to the plant level, the feudal system corresponds to the animal level, and the capitalist system corresponds to the human level. True, given the realities of the Soviet Union, the historical experiment with communism should be classified as an oddity of the capitalist formation. Analogies can be drawn further - in culture, art, the development of science and technology, etc.

But what is the desire for the spiritual? How should society develop at this level? Here is how Kabbalist M. Laitman answers this question:

“The book “Zohar” (2nd century AD) says that humanity, at the end of its development, will come to the decision that the Upper World is the area where we must exist... Why did we earlier couldn’t come to this decision, but only now are we starting to feel such a desire? Such an opportunity to develop, starting from the initial egoistic desire, existed long before the writing of the book “Zohar”, in the era of ancient philosophers - in the X-VII centuries. BC. and so on. But for a number of reasons, the science of Kabbalah was unable to show the ancient peoples the need to correct egoism at every moment of its growth.

Likewise, the philosophers of antiquity, although they studied the science of Kabbalah, did not accept it as a method of practical correction of human nature, and the world continued to develop only by the power of its uncorrected egoistic desire. And in the book “Zohar” it was already clearly stated that this book is hidden from humanity until the end of the 20th century, when human egoism will reach such a development that a person will be convinced of its evil for himself. On the other hand, a person will not find anything in our world that would fill his egoism. Both of these sensations will force a person to listen to the advice of the science of Kabbalah."

So we live in very important times.

“Today we are going through a stage,” writes Michael Laitman, “about which Kabbalists have been talking since the very beginning of the birth of the science of Kabbalah, that from 1995 onwards an internal urge to higher fulfillment arises in humanity, since man has basically already exhausted all his previous desires, in his successive cycles of lives he has gone through all the periods of development of his egoism, and, in general, although all previous desires exist in a mixture in him, the desire for the highest prevails over all others: a person begins to feel that he does not receive satisfaction from being filled with everything other pleasures."

Kabbalah also makes it possible to explain the reason for the suffering of humanity endured throughout the history of its existence: the whole problem lies in the inconsistency of man with the higher law that gives rise to these phenomena. Deliverance from suffering is achieved by bringing a person to resemble a higher power in properties.

Let's go back to the source.

“Historically, as we develop, i.e., as the level of egoistic desire increases from zero to its fourth stage, we increasingly oppose the Higher Law of Bestowal. While we are at the zero, first, second levels of egoism, we are not extremely opposite to it. But, reaching the third and fourth stages of the development of egoism, as is happening in our time, we enter into complete opposition to the Higher Power and endure greater suffering than in the past, and suffering of a higher order - depression, disorientation, confusion, fears of annihilation. This opposition to the Higher Power affects all areas of human life and society: family breakdown, drugs and alcoholism, depression, lack of educational methods, disorientation in the economy, politics - we are at a high level of development, corresponding to the fourth stage, and we come into strong contradiction with the environment By the highest light. It turns out that development itself leads us to a situation in which we need to begin to change not our perception of reality within ourselves, but ourselves in relation to external reality.”

In their articles, modern scientists note a dead end in all areas of science. At such a time, as stated in the book “Zohar”, there will be a need for the science of Kabbalah, which will have to become the common science of all mankind, since it is a method of revealing the Supreme Sipa that governs the universe.

Thus, in this explanation of the historical process we see both the meaning of the development of humanity (merging in properties with the Higher governing force) and the path (studying the laws of the universe and following them). Man plays a central role in this concept: only in this life, only from his egoism can he comprehend the laws of the world, can he find answers to his questions.

The universality of the concept of history, which we tried to outline in this article, makes it clear that before us is only the tip of the iceberg, which conceals a lot of unknowns. Indeed, it should be noted that M. Laitman in his works touches on the topic of historical development only in passing; most of his books are devoted to issues of epistemology and ontology, questions of the structure of the universe, the place of man in the world, the characteristics and stages of his development. The study of these issues can raise a person to a fundamentally new level of understanding the laws of history, help to understand the ways of control and influence on the course of history.

How can one identify, classify and describe the patterns of the historical process, the very thing that G.Yu. Lyubarsky well called “ morphology of history"? Just like any morphology - with m vegetables comparative method. Thus, phylogeneticists identify sequences of stages that form aromorphic changes in organization (during the transition from diapsid reptiles to birds, from synapsid reptiles to mammals), analyzing bundles of parallel developmental lines that go through the same stages in independent phylogenetic branches. This process is called the mammalization of theriodonts, ornithization of sauropod dinosaurs (angiospermization of gymnosperms, for example) and is a rule of macroevolutionary changes.

Something similar (of the same type?) is found in history. Instead of unique events and unique changes in history, we see a series of similar development processes that are decisive the same problem in several different countries located nearby and/or typologically similar (similar in the natural appearance of the problem resolved by a given development process).

The emerging procedural homology is striking - against the backdrop of sharp cultural, linguistic, civilizational, etc. differences between countries changing in parallel in different “lines” of one “bundle of stories”. A good example: the parallel development of Bolshevik Russia and Menshevik Georgia, going through the same stages of establishing a one-party dictatorship, ousting revolutionaries first by specialists then by bureaucrats, etc.

This is how he describes it Theodor Shanin the process of political transformation in Georgia, which Menshevik leader Noah Jordania considered his socialist revolution and defended as fiercely as the Bolsheviks defended theirs ( Revolution as a moment of truth, M.: Ves Mir, 1997).

During 1917, Jordania increasingly attacked the Menshevik policies in Petrograd. TO September 1917 he demanded an end to the government coalition with the Cadets and spoke in favor of an “active struggle” for peace and “deepening the Revolution” as the only way to respond to the Bolshevik challenge.

When news came of anotherrevolution, the Transcaucasian authorities refused to recognize the new Bolshevik regime and created their own government - Transcaucasian Commissariat and Parliament, with the goal of maintaining control “until the Constitutional Assembly receives full power over all of Russia.” The Commissariat and the Soviet Regional Center faced a series of splits and many conflicting forces.

During the new elections to the Soviets of Soldiers' Deputies, the Bolsheviks and Left Socialist Revolutionaries received a slight majority. Following this soldiers' councils(in which Russians formed the majority), declared their support for Lenin's government. Red Guard of Tiflis, i.e. Menshevik workers' militia then seized the city arsenal from the soldiers who guarded it and used weapons to establish Menshevik control workers' councils and their leading party over Georgia. In Baku at this time, the conflict escalated into brutal street battles, during which a coalition of Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and Armenian nationalist Dashnaks defeated the Muslim militia, forming a new government body - the Council, which from February 1917 was chaired by Shaumyan, a Bolshevik, whom Lenin appointed Extraordinary Commissioner of Transcaucasia.

Local governments emerged almost daily in various regions of Georgia. The army on the Turkish front was returning home, and trains filled with soldiers moved through Transcaucasia towards Russia, encountering local authorities and armed groups along the way. The Bolsheviks tried to use some of these units to establish control over Georgia, but this did not work out, primarily due to the decisive actions Tiflis Council and its Red Guards.

In an incident that has gone down in history, armed Red Guards were used in February 1918 to suppress a Bolshevik demonstration in Alexander Park in Tiflis - a reversal of the events that took place in Petrograd on the same days.

Against the backdrop of this struggle for power, splits and discord, one of the nightmares of the Georgians and Armenians of Transcaucasia was gradually becoming a reality. The Turkish army went on the offensive, overcoming the little resistance it encountered along the way. Under the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, concluded between the governments of Russia, Ukraine and Germany (Transcaucasia was not represented there), the cities of Kars and Batumi were transferred to Turkey. Negotiations continued, but the Turkish army advanced further and further. The weak detachments of Georgian volunteers who gathered to defend Batum were easily defeated by Turkish troops. Azerbaijani pan-Islamic leaders called on the entire Transcaucasus to completely submit to Turkey. Panic and despondency intensified in the non-Muslim part of Transcaucasia.

In a situation where “everyone is for himself,” Georgian leaders acted more quickly, choosing non-standard solutions. They called for German mediation in their conflict with Turkey. (Germany remained, of course, an ally of Turkey, but both powers pursued different interests). On May 26, 1918, the independence of Georgia was proclaimed and the newly formed Georgian government called on the German army (which was then in Ukraine) to protect the country from further Turkish advances. Over the next few months, the new government of the Georgian Republic, led by Jordania, operated in the country in the presence of the German army, which, however, did not interfere in its internal affairs (which was very different from how the Germans behaved in Ukraine). The Turkish offensive was finally stopped.

After the end of the First World War, the Germans were replaced by British military units. A new armed conflict began, this time between the Georgian Republic and its British allies, on the one hand, and the Russian White Army based in Sochi, for which Georgian independence was a scandalous betrayal, on the other. This conflict did not last long.

In 1919, Britain left Transcaucasia and the whites withdrew from Georgia's borders, but international relations continued to play an extremely important role in its existence. The country was at the center of conflicts and disputes with Turkey, independent Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Russian White Army now in Crimea, the Russian Red Army and many smaller groups. In addition, the territories that Georgia then controlled were inhabited by numerous ethnic and religious “minorities” - Ossetians, Adjarians, Abkhazians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Russians.

Within the country in 1918-1921. The ongoing changes in the political and economic structure of Georgia made it possible to determine the credo of its dominant political party. Jordania proclaimed agrarian reform. It passed immediately and was accompanied by very little resistance from large landowners. As a result of rapid agrarian reform, more than 1 million acres of arable land and 8 million acres of forest and pasture were nationalized. The 4 thousand private estates located on these lands were expropriated without compensation. The maximum amount of land that one peasant farm can have was determined - 15 acres of land for grain or 7.5 for other crops. Some of these lands became the property of the state or regional authorities, but most of the arable land was immediately sold on credit to landless or land-poor sharecroppers. Nothing was done to support the collective economic elements of the agrarian communities.

The government also nationalized the mines (whichThese provided the country's main exports), hydroelectric power stations, mineral water sources, ports and railways. By 1920, 52% of all employees worked for the state, 28% worked in municipal or cooperative enterprises or organizations, and only 19% were hired by private owners. Was announced government monopoly on international trade, aimed in particular at controlling the speculative income of Armenian merchants. And in this, as in many other issues of those days, nationalist and socialist goals and rhetoric were combined and mixed.

As for the newly formed authorities, after the February Revolution, democratic elected zemstvos appeared throughout Georgia. The Russian bishop's control over the Georgian church was ended. In order to form a formal representation of ethnic minorities and satisfy their cultural and educational needs, experiments were carried out to create a National Council, which was close to the concept of extraterritorial " cultural autonomy"O. Boyer in Austria. Numerous trade unions and cultural associations arose.

The political influence of the Mensheviks remained throughout the period of Georgian independence, as did the support of the National Front from the workers and peasants who formed the core of the broad multi-class union "In Defense of the Motherland", under the leadership of the orthodox Marxist party. Subsequently, even the most loyal Bolsheviks recognized the fact of the strong support provided by the Georgian workers to the Mensheviks. An interesting point: judging by the election results, the Mensheviks were stronger in rural areas. In the elections of 1919 (which was also a de facto plebiscite on the announced reforms), the Georgian Mensheviks received 72% of the votes in the cities and 82% in the countryside, winning 109 of the 130 seats in the country's parliament. (32 deputies classified as workers, all without exception called themselves Mensheviks.)

The power of the Jordania party was in fact even greater than could be judged by the election results. It completely dominated the trade unions, to a large extent the national economy and most of the country's cultural and social organizations. In addition to the newly created Georgian army, the Red Guard continued to exist, which was later renamed the National. It was largely composed of Menshevik workers who continued to work in the enterprises, and was used as the main armed force of internal control.

When opposition - Bolsheviks and rightists, complained about the "Menshevik dictatorship", they had grounds for this, despite the fact that the ruling party undoubtedly enjoyed the clear support of the majority of the population. Its leaders became increasingly imbued with a sense of self-righteousness and arrogance. They suppressed, often ruthlessly, the opposition of ethnic and political dissidents. Non-Georgians were treated with particular suspicion. The Bolsheviks were not allowed to operate legally for almost the entire period of independence. All this was combined with parliamentary subtleties and some truly democratic procedures.

In fact, there were definitely weaknesses in the process that the Georgian Mensheviks considered the revolutionary transformation of their society, carried out according to their plans and according to the recipes of their teachers in the field of theory. Here, of course, it is necessary to remember difficult circumstances - the economic crisis accompanying the war and the loss of traditional markets and suppliers, pressure at the borders and upset finances. But at least three aspects reflected a special political “line”, a strategy adopted by the ruling party: attitude towards the peasants, the “national question” and the state.

Peasants made up the majority of the electorate of the Georgian Mensheviks and ensured the stability of their rule, but in 1918-1921. in parliament or in party bodies it was hardly possible to find at least one social democrat from the peasantry. Almost nothing was done to mobilize the peasantry politically or militarily.

On the contrary, the privatization of land, built on complete individualism and determined “from above” without the adoption or consideration of any collective and public projects, led to the political demobilization of the peasantry as a social force. In 1918-1921 In the Georgian Republic, nothing similar to Red Guria of 1905-1907 arose. and this had important consequences for the future fate of Georgia.

The peasant majority, who remained loyal to the revolutionary leaders in 1903-1907, was told to stay at home, cultivate their land, go to the polls from time to time, and leave politics to the hegemonic classes of the “bourgeois historical stage.” Anti-government protests by residents of some valleys (for example, in South Ossetia), related both to ethnic conflicts and to the way social, political and economic issues were resolved, were suppressed by force.

Regarding the “national problem”, both intra- and interstate, Zhordania initially called separation from Russia “the main disaster that befell us” and later tried to prevent the collapse of the Transcaucasian Federation. However, mobilization against external dangers was increasingly reflected in a policy of xenophobia towards Georgia's neighbors and local "minorities". Georgian nationalism, embellished with orthodox Marxist terms of “progress,” “class interest,” and “necessary stage,” was gaining strength. Georgia increasingly considered itself defensive rampart of Europe against Asian Russia and Turkey.

Within the country, force was widely used to ethnically “pacify” the mountaineers of Ossetia, landowners of Adjara, Azerbaijani townspeople, etc. (that is, in direct words, ethnic cleansing took place - Wolf Kitces). Ethnic mini-wars continued against Armenia and the Russian White Army for territory. Area Borshalo, where Georgians were a clear minority compared to Armenians and Azerbaijanis, was simply occupied by the Georgian army.

Finally there was "nationalization" of the revolutionary authorities, as a result of which power transferred from the Soviets to government agencies. The role of professional officers, clerks and diplomats, most of them trained by the tsarist bureaucracy and indifferent or even hostile to the plans of the new regime, increased significantly. The political marginalization of the peasant majority, nationalism and the “nationalization” of the Georgian political structure increasingly merged and separated the Menshevik leadership from popular support, a revolutionary past and the ability to resolve even a serious crisis by calling on the mass action of its supporters.

And such a crisis has arrived. By 1920, most of Transcaucasia became part of Soviet Russia. In May 1920, Georgian Bolsheviks rebelled and several Red Army units crossed the border, clearly intending to establish Bolshevik rule in Georgia. Government forces were able to repulse this attack. Between two neighboring states - one huge and the other small - claiming to the same Marxist heritage and representing its only expressions on the territory of the former Russian Empire, a peace treaty was concluded and diplomatic relations were established. But the period of peaceful coexistence did not last long.

In February 1921, a new uprising broke out in the Borshalo region. The rebels organized a Revolutionary Committee, which called for help from the Red Army. Under the command of Zhloba, one of the most famous cavalry commanders during the Civil War, the Red Army crossed the border in significant forces and began to quickly advance towards Tiflis. The Georgian regular army turned out to be ineffective, and its commanders - lacking fighting spirit. There was no attempt on their part to arm civilians. unleash stubborn resistance on the streets of the main cities, start a guerrilla war, or even begin a systematic boycott of the invaders - in a word, use the revolutionary experience and political loyalty of the population. After two weeks, on May 25, Tiflis was taken, and soon after this the document of Georgian surrender was signed.

This did not put an end to the idiosyncrasies of Georgian Marxism. The end of the period of independence led to confrontation within the leadership of the Bolshevik Party and became an important part of Lenin's last political battle in 1923-1924. Lenin's attitude towards this war, the first of its kind between "orthodox" Marxist governments, put him at odds with his closest supporters, which included both Trotsky and Stalin. On May 29, 1921, Lenin ordered Ordzhonikidze (who was sent from Moscow to oversee the Red Army and the political life of Georgia) “to look for an acceptable compromise for a bloc with Jordania or similar Georgian Mensheviks, who even before the uprising were not absolutely hostile to the idea of ​​a Soviet system in Georgia on known conditions." Lenin continued further: “Please remember that both the internal and international conditions of Georgia require Russian communists not to apply the Russian template, but to skillfully and flexiblely create unique tactics.” Ordzhonikidze did not listen.

Opportunity com The promise was rejected by both the Georgian Bolsheviks and the Menshevik government, which chose to emigrate" ( p.420-424).

Another interesting question is where is the homologue of the natural development of the February Revolution (if it had not been stopped by the Kornilov rebellion and the Bolshevization of the Soviets, and if the Bolsheviks had been completely suppressed in July)? I think this is the history of Israel with its semi-socialist structure in one sector and a high degree of religious nationalism in another (the same split in society as in the spring-summer of 1917 in Russia). It was not for nothing that in 1917 the United States looked so closely at “democratic Russia” as a potential ally in eastern Europe (as France had the Little Entente, England had the Baltic limitrophes). Israel became such an ally, and Russia – for a while – got off the hook.