22nd of May 1957. At a meeting of representatives of collective farmers, Khrushchev put forward the famous slogan “ Catch up and overtake America!” for the production of meat and dairy products. The speech was the beginning of the policy of "jumping forward", putting forward impossible goals.

During the period 1957 - 1959. were held administrative reforms, most of which were not successful.

AT 1957. a law was adopted on the restructuring of industry management, according to which, instead of ministries, councils were created in the country National economy — economic councils. The country has created 105 economic regions based on existing administrative division. All industrial enterprises and construction sites located on their territory were transferred to the jurisdiction of the economic councils. But the transition to a territorial management system did not bring the expected economic results.

AT agriculture two administrative reforms were carried out, the purpose of which was to increase the efficiency of agriculture. First was to eliminate MTS and the transfer of equipment (tractors and agricultural machines) to the ownership of collective farms, which assumed its better use. From an economic point of view, this measure undoubtedly enabled many collective farms to improve their organization and raise labor productivity; however, for others, equipment rental was more beneficial. At the same time, the reform forced all collective farms to immediately buy out the MTS fleet, which many collective farms could not afford. A negative consequence of this reform was the departure of a large number of technical specialists to the cities.

Second reform consisted in new consolidation of collective farms(83,000 in 1955, 68,000 in 1957, 45,000 in 1960), which was to lead to the formation of powerful "collective-farm unions" capable of becoming the beginning of the industrialization of agriculture. This project, which revived the idea of ​​agro-towns and its underlying desire to accelerate the social transformation of the countryside through the development of “socialist” aspects of lifestyle, required large investments in which the collective farms were not able to participate due to a lack of funds caused by the buyout of the MTS. This was the reason for the failure of the first serious attempt to achieve a real integration of collective farm agriculture.

At the end of the 50s. a line was drawn to curtailment of personal subsidiary plots, to reduce the personal livestock, a campaign began against the "parasites" and "speculators".

After the visit of N.S. Khrushchev in the USA ( 1959) all farms were forced to switch to sowing corn. A clear example of the catastrophic consequences of adherence to voluntaristic methods of coercion associated with the “chase for records” was “ Ryazan disaster". The impetus for it was a speech delivered in Leningrad on May 22, 1957, in which Khrushchev proposed to triple meat production in the country in three years. At the end of 1958, an order was sent to the regional party committees to take “decisive measures” to increase meat production in 1959. The first secretary of the Ryazan regional committee, A. Larionov, made an ambitious statement, promising to triple the state procurement of meat in the region in one year, and on January 9 In 1959, these promises were published in Pravda. The “challenge” was answered by several other areas. The Ryazan region had not yet had time to start implementing its grandiose program, as awards rained down on it. In February 1959, she received the Order of Lenin, and Larionov himself became a Hero of Socialist Labor a few months later. To keep the promise, the regional committee of the party ordered to slaughter the entire offspring of 1959, as well as most of the dairy cattle raised by the collective farmers on their farms. Livestock purchases were organized in neighboring regions at the expense of public funds intended for the purchase of machines, the construction of schools, etc. On December 16, local authorities solemnly reported on the 100% fulfillment of the plan: the region “sold” 150,000 tons of meat to the state, three times the supply of the previous year; obligations for 1960 were taken even higher - 180 thousand tons! However, in 1960, procurement did not exceed 30 thousand tons: after the mass slaughter of the previous year, the livestock decreased by 65%. By the end of 1960, it became impossible to hide the catastrophe, and Larionov committed suicide. Thus ended the “competition” with America.

The desire to achieve the most significant successes in the economy was also reflected in the situation with the 6th five-year plan, when a year after the start of its implementation, it was urgently revised, a transition plan for 1-2 years was drawn up, and then was adopted. seven year plan" for a period of 1959 - 1965.

The obvious, obvious mistakes made by Khrushchev during the reforms were largely due to personality of the reformer himself. Khrushchev made numerous attempts at all kinds of reorganizations, looking for a way out of many problems left by the past. However, while remaining a political figure who came out of the "Stalinist era", brought up by this time, he remained a firm adherent of authoritarian methods of leadership. Hence and voluntarism, and intolerance to everything that did not understand and could not understand.

It is no coincidence that the objects of his ignorant criticism were artists, writers, filmmakers. At the same time, it was thanks to the easing of censorship during the Khrushchev thaw that the previously banned works of Remarque and Hemingway were published; the story of A.I. Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" - the first description of Stalin's camps in legal literature; the Sovremennik Theater was opened; began to criticize the regime and gained immense popularity magazine " New world” edited by A.T. Tvardovsky.

The course towards democratization included humanization of social policy, its turn to the needs and needs of the people. Since summer 1953. The Soviet state began to implement a whole range of measures aimed at improving the well-being of the people. By the mid 50s. they covered the streamlining of the system and an increase in wages, tax cuts, a radical improvement in pensions, a reduction in the working week, an increase in the production of consumer goods and an improvement in consumer services for the population, the beginning of a radical solution to the housing problem, etc. the regulation of wages in industry, construction, transport and communication organizations was completed. The country has introduced a system of rates and salaries linked to industries, industries and categories of working personnel.

By the end of 1960, all workers and employees switched to a seven to six hour working day. The average working week was about 40 hours. the foundation was laid for the establishment of a pension system for workers and employees.

An important task was to establish state system social security of collective farmers.

Among the most acute social problems faced by the country in the 1950s was housing issue.

As a result of military destruction, 25 million people were left homeless. The scope of new construction has become significant. If in 1951 - 1955. in cities and towns, on average, a total living area of ​​30.4 million square meters was introduced per year. meters, then in 1957 52 million square meters were introduced. meters. Tens of millions of people moved into their own rooms, and those with many children moved into separate two- or three-room apartments.

Positive results have been achieved during this period Soviet science especially in the field of applied knowledge. Evidence of high scientific and technical level became launch of the first artificial satellite Lands in 1957., the first manned flight into space in 1961 (Yu.A. Gagarin).

At the same time, contradictions arose in science, which, constantly growing and aggravating, served as one of the main reasons for lagging behind those profound structural shifts in technology, quality and efficiency that occurred in the production of developed capitalist countries. The eminent Soviet scientist P.L. Kapitsa in his letters about science to N.S. Khrushchev in 1953-1958.

And yet, in the 1950s, despite the objective and subjective difficulties, mistakes and miscalculations of management, it was possible to make significant progress in solving global problems : notable shifts have taken place in social policy; in science and technology; greatly increased the country's defense power. Of course, many contradictions not only remained, but also grew. However, the high dynamism of development gave rise to great hopes for the future, especially since in those years it was mainly about meeting the most pressing, urgent problems.

The transformations of this period were the first and most significant attempt to reform Soviet society. But the reforms carried out did not bring the expected effect.

In the early 60s. the number of Khrushchev's opponents inexorably increased. Krepla opposition in the ranks of the party-state apparatus. Unrealistic plans, incompetence, a crisis in agricultural policy, reorganizations in industry, a complication of the foreign policy situation - all this caused discontent both in the center and on the periphery.

AT October 1964 when Khrushchev was resting on the Black Sea, the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU prepared him bias. Suslov presented to the Presidium a whole list of accusations against the first secretary, who was forced to agree to leave for health reasons.

After the displacement of N.S. Khrushchev, L.I. was put at the head of the party and state leadership of the country. Brezhnev.

The concept of social revolution. Revolutions and reforms

A social revolution is a qualitative leap in the development of society, which is accompanied by the transfer of state power into the hands of a revolutionary class or classes and profound changes in all spheres of public life.

According to Marx, social revolutions are an expression of the essence of the natural-historical process of the development of society. They have a universal natural character and represent the most important fundamental changes taking place in the history of mankind. The law of social revolution discovered by Marxism points to the objective need to replace one socio-economic formation with another, more progressive one.

Non-Marxist and anti-Marxist concepts on the whole deny the regularity of social revolutions. Thus, H. Spencer compared social revolutions with famine, disasters, epidemic diseases, manifestations of disobedience, and “agitation that grew to revolutionary meetings”, open uprisings, which he called “social changes of an abnormal nature.”2 K. Popper identified revolution with violence . The social revolution, according to him, destroys the traditional structure of society and its institutions... But... if they (people - I.Sh.) destroy the tradition, then civilization disappears along with it... They return to the animal state.1

The concept of social revolution and its types has in contemporary literature ambiguous interpretation. The term "revolution" entered social science less than three centuries ago, and in its modern meaning used relatively recently. In general, as is known, the term “social revolution” is used, firstly, to denote the transition from one socio-economic formation to another, i.e. social revolution is understood as an epoch of transition from one type of production to another over a long period of time; this epoch, with logical necessity, completes the process of resolving the contradiction that arises at a certain stage in the development of production between the productive forces and production relations, and the conflict between the latter aggravates all social contradictions and naturally leads to a class struggle in which the oppressed class must deprive the exploiters of political power; Secondly, to ensure a similar transition within a separate social organism; thirdly, to denote a relatively fleeting political upheaval; fourthly, to designate a revolution in the social sphere of public life;2 fifthly, to designate the method of historical action as opposed to another method - reformist, etc. (the term "revolution" is often understood as an extremely broad scientific revolution, technical, commercial , financial, agricultural, environmental and sexual). one

Within the framework of the nation state in which a social revolution is taking place, three most important structural elements can be distinguished in it: 1) a political coup (political revolution);

2) qualitative transformations of economic relations (economic revolution); 3) cultural and ideological transformations (cultural revolution). We emphasize that even Marx developed two concepts of revolution: social and political. The process of approach to understanding the essence of the social revolution was also complex in Marxism. At first, its founders contrasted the concepts of “political revolution” and “social revolution”, understanding the former as bourgeois revolutions, and the latter as proletarian revolutions. Only after some time did Marx come to the conclusion: “Every revolution destroys the old society, and to that extent it is social. Each revolution overthrows the old power, and to the extent that it has a political character.”2 In this regard, the point of view of M.A. class in the socio-economic and political field through conscious and violent actions and which are inextricably linked with each other in space and time, it would be more accurate to call socio-political revolutions.”3

While the political revolution aims to put the mechanism of state power at the service of the new class, i.e. make it politically dominant, then the economic revolution must ensure the dominance of production relations that correspond to the nature of the productive forces and the interests of the progressive class. Revolutionary economic transformations end only with the victory of a new mode of production. Similarly, a radical change in the formation of a new consciousness, in the creation of a new spiritual culture occurs only in the course of the cultural revolution, as the corresponding economic, political, educational, cultural and ideological prerequisites are created.2

With all the ambiguity of approaches to the essence of the social revolution, we can agree that there are its general patterns: 1) the existence of the causes of the social revolution (expansion and aggravation of contradictions); 2) the maturity of objective conditions and the subjective factor and their interaction as a law of social revolution; 3) social revolution as progress (combination of evolutionary and spasmodic changes); 4) solution of the fundamental issue (about power).

The Marxist theory of social revolution claims that the main cause of the social revolution is the deepening conflict between the growth of the productive forces of society and the outdated, conservative system of production relations, which manifests itself in the aggravation of social antagonisms, in the intensification of the struggle between the ruling class, interested in maintaining the existing system, and the oppressed classes. . Classes and social strata, which, by their objective position in the system of production relations, are interested in the overthrow of the existing system and are capable of participating in the struggle for the victory of a more progressive system, act as the driving forces of the social revolution. A revolution is never the fruit of a conspiracy of individuals or the arbitrary actions of a minority isolated from the masses. It can arise only as a result of objective changes that set mass forces in motion and create revolutionary situation 1. Thus, social revolutions are not just random outbreaks of discontent, rebellions or upheavals. They are “not made to order, not timed to this or that moment, but ripen in the process. historical development and break out at the moment, due to a complex of a number of internal and external causes.

Cardinal changes in the reality of our days and in the public and individual consciousness undoubtedly require a new understanding of the problem of social reorganization along the path of progress. This comprehension, first of all, is connected with the elucidation of the relationship between evolution and revolution, reform and revolution.

As already mentioned, evolution is usually understood as a whole as quantitative changes, and revolution - as qualitative changes. Wherein reform is also identified with quantitative changes and is accordingly opposed to revolution.

Evolution is a continuous series of qualitative changes following one after another, as a result of which the nature of non-root, insignificant aspects for a given quality changes. Taken together, these gradual changes prepare the leap as a fundamental, qualitative change. Revolution is a change in the internal structure of the system, which becomes a link between two evolutionary stages in the development of the system. Reform- this is a part of evolution, its one-time moment, an act.

Reform- this is a special form of the revolutionary process, if we understand the revolution as the resolution of the contradiction, primarily between the productive forces (content) and production relations (form). Reform can be seen as both a destructive and a constructive process. The destructive nature of the reforms is manifested in the fact that, from the point of view of the revolutionary forces, concessions in the form of reforms carried out by the ruling class "undermine" the positions of the latter. And this, as you know, can push the ruling class to violent actions in order to maintain its dominance unchanged (and the revolutionary forces to retaliate). As a result, the preparation of qualitative changes in the social organism is conserved, and even interrupted.

The creative nature of the reforms is manifested in the fact that they prepare new qualitative changes, contribute to a peaceful transition to a new qualitative state of society, a peaceful form of the revolutionary process - revolution. By underestimating the importance of reforms in the progressive transformation of society, we downplay the role of form in the development of content, which in itself is not dialectical. Consequently, revolution and reform are necessary components of a concrete historical stage of development. human society, forming a contradictory unity. But reforms as such still do not change the foundation of the old social order.

There is no doubt that in the revolutionary processes modern history the importance of constructive goals invariably increases to the detriment of destructive ones. The reforms are transformed from a subordinate and auxiliary moment of the revolution into a peculiar form of its expression. Thus, opportunities arise for mutual penetration and, obviously, mutual transition, mutual influence of reform and revolution.

From the foregoing, it follows that from now on, it is necessary to consider revolutionary not that which goes beyond the scope of reform, but that which allows expanding these frameworks to the level and requirements of the tasks of a radical transformation of existing social relations. The point is not to oppose the "movement" and the "final goal", but to link them in such a way that the "final goal" can be realized in the course and result of the "movement". "Revolutionary reformism" rejects as untenable the alternative: revolution or reform. If we do not believe in the evolutionary possibilities of our own civilization and again tend only to revolutions and upheavals, then reforms are out of the question.

Thus, based on an analysis of world history and the main historical types of social revolutions in general, it can be argued that social revolutions are necessary and natural, because, ultimately, they marked the movement of mankind along the path of progressive socio-historical development. But the revolutionary process (as well as the evolutionary process) is not a one-time act. In the course of this process, there is a refinement and deepening of the tasks originally set by the subjects of the revolution, a fundamental assertion, and the materialization of ideas. Revolutions, in the words of Marx, "constantly criticize themselves ... return to what seems already accomplished in order to start it over again, with merciless thoroughness ridicule the half-heartedness, weaknesses and worthlessness of their first attempts" .

P. Sztompka calls revolutions the “peak” of social change.

Revolutions differ from other forms of social change in five ways:

1. complexity: they capture all spheres and levels of public life;

2. radicalism: revolutionary changes are fundamental, permeate the foundations of the social order;

3. speed: revolutionary changes happen very quickly;

4. exclusivity: revolutions remain indelibly in the memory of people;

5. emotionality: revolutions cause an upsurge of mass feelings, unusual reactions and expectations, utopian enthusiasm.

The definitions of revolution focus on the scope and depth of the transformations being made (revolutions are opposed to reforms in this), on the elements of violence and struggle, as well as on the combination of these factors. Here are examples of synthetic definitions:

- “Fast, fundamental violent internal changes in the values ​​and myths that dominate in societies, in its political institutions, social structure, leadership and government policy” (S. Huntington).

- "Fast, basic transformations of the social and class structures of society through revolutions from below" (T. Skokpol).

- “The seizure of state power by violent methods by the leaders of mass movements and its subsequent use to carry out large-scale social reforms” (E. Giddens).

Thus, the main distinctive features revolutions - the complexity and fundamental nature of the ongoing transformations and the involvement of the broad masses of the people. The use of violence does not necessarily accompany revolutionary transformations: for example, the socio-economic transformations of the last decade in Eastern Europe have been virtually bloodless and non-violent.

According to Edwards and Brinton, social revolutions usually go through the following stages:

1) the accumulation of deep social anxiety and dissatisfaction over a number of years;

2) the inability of intellectuals to successfully criticize the status quo so that the bulk of the population would help them;

3) motivation for active actions, uprising, for social. a myth or belief system that justifies this impulse;

4) a revolutionary explosion caused by the vacillation and weakness of the ruling elite;

5) the period of moderate rule, which soon comes down to attempts to control various groups of revolutionaries or to concessions in order to extinguish the outbursts of passions among the people;

6) access to the active positions of extremists and radicals who seize power and destroy any opposition;

7) the period of the terror regime;

8) a return to a calm state, stable power, and to some patterns of the former pre-revolutionary life.

The following types of social revolutions are distinguished: anti-imperialist (national liberation, anti-colonial), bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic, people's, people's democratic and socialist.

Anti-imperialist - revolutions that took place in the colonies and dependent countries and aimed at achieving national independence (they were directed against the economic and military-political domination of foreign capital and the comprador or bureaucratic bourgeoisie supporting it, feudal clans, etc.)

The main task of bourgeois revolutions is the elimination of the feudal system and the formation of capitalist production relations, the overthrow of absolute monarchies and the rule of the landed aristocracy, the establishment of private property, the political domination of the bourgeoisie. driving forces bourgeois revolutions - the industrial, financial, commercial bourgeoisie, the mass base - the peasantry, urban strata (for example - the Great French Revolution).

The bourgeois-democratic revolution is a kind of bourgeois revolution. Its course is decisively influenced by the active participation in it of the broad masses of the people who have risen to fight for their interests and rights (the European revolutions of 1848-1849, the Russian revolution of 1905).

The socialist revolution was interpreted (according to the Marxist-Leninist concept) as the highest type of social revolution, during which the transition from capitalism to socialism and communism takes place.

People's revolution is a broad and mass movement as opposed to "top", "palace", military or political coups. They may have different socio-economic and political content.

The people's democratic revolution is an anti-fascist, democratic, national liberation revolution that unfolded in a large group of Eastern European countries during the struggle against fascism during the Second World War. In the course of this struggle, a broad alliance of national and patriotic forces was formed.

"Gentle" (velvet) revolution - the democratic revolution of the end of 1989 in Czechoslovakia. In the course of the revolution, as a result of powerful social uprisings, the state and political structures of "real socialism" that had existed before were liquidated peacefully and the Communist Party was removed from power. Close to the "gentle" revolution were the revolutionary processes that took place a little earlier or simultaneously with it in other countries of Eastern Europe.

Progress (from Latin - forward movement, success) means development with an upward trend, movement from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. It leads to positive changes in society and manifests itself, for example:

in the improvement of the means of production and labor force;

in the development of the social division of labor and the growth of its productivity;

in new achievements of science;

in improving the living conditions of the people.

Progress criteria are announced

1. Complicated social organizations of society (G. Spencer),

2. Changes in the system of social relations and the type of regulation of social relations (F. Tönnies),

3. Changes in the nature of production and consumption (W. Rostow, D. Bell),

4. The degree of mastery by society of the elemental forces of nature, expressed in the growth of labor productivity, the degree of liberation of people from the yoke of the elemental forces of social development (K. Marx).

Scientists consider the growing tendency towards the liberation of man - ᴛ.ᴇ, to be an important sign of social progress. release:

1. from suppression by the state;

2. from the dictates of the collective;

3. from any exploitation;

4. from the isolation of the living space;

5. from fear for their safety and future.

Regression (from Latin - reverse movement), on the contrary, involves development with a downward trend, backward movement, a transition from higher to lower, which leads to negative consequences. It can manifest itself, say, in a decrease in the efficiency of production and in the equalization of people's well-being, in the spread of smoking, drunkenness, drug addiction in society, the deterioration of public health, an increase in mortality, a drop in the level of spirituality and morality of people, etc.

Progress and regress are often inextricably intertwined.

When they fundamentally change the entire social structure as a whole, a social revolution takes place, ᴛ.ᴇ. when there is a need to carry out not one, two or three reforms, but a much larger number of them in such a way as to fundamentally change the nature of society, some party or association of people, for example, the military elite, carry out a social revolution. Revolution - ϶ᴛᴏ set a large number or a set of reforms carried out simultaneously to change the foundations of the social order.

In addition to evolution, revolution, the main form of social development of society is reform - it is a set of measures aimed at transforming, changing, reorganizing certain aspects of public life.

Reforms are called social if they relate to transformations in those areas of society or those aspects of public life that are directly related to people, are reflected in their level and lifestyle, health, participation in public life, access to social benefits. Changing the rules for using long-distance telephones, rail transport or metro affects the interests of citizens. But it is unlikely that such reforms are called social. On the contrary, the introduction of universal secondary education, health insurance, unemployment benefits or new form social protection of the population does not just affect our interests. Such reforms affect the social status of numerous segments of the population, limiting or expanding the access of millions to social benefits - education, health care, employment, guarantees.

Along with social, economic and political reforms are distinguished. The transition of the economy to market prices, privatization, the law on bankruptcy of enterprises, the new tax system are examples of economic reforms. Changing the constitution, the form of voting in elections, the expansion of civil liberties, the transition from a monarchy to a republic are examples of political reforms. The expression "legislative reforms" is also used, but it is wrong to speak of technical reforms. In this case, they write about technical innovations or inventions.

Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, reforms are partial changes affecting not the entire society, but its individual areas or institutions. Reforms are both progressive and regressive. The same can be said about revolutions. The introduction of the practice of censorship in the press is by no means a progressive measure. Reforms, as a rule, do not affect all countries, but each one individually, since this is an internal affair of the state. Reforms always take place “from above”, are carried out by the government, albeit under pressure from the broad masses of the population.

Control questions for self-examination of student knowledge:

1) What is the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary processes in society?

2). Why is the Marxist theory of the development of society attributed to both evolutionary and revolutionary theories?

3) What phases in the development of cultural-historical types are distinguished by N.Ya. Danilevsky?

4) What is an example from modern Russian theory T. Parsons would classify it as a social change of the type “change in balance”?

5) What areas of social life cannot be evaluated from the point of view of progressive development?

6) What are the forms of cooperation and why are these social processes considered one of the most significant in human activity?

7) Why is competition often called the antipode of cooperation? What is the essence of the process of competition?

8) What are the processes of assimilation and amalgamation based on? What can hinder these processes?

1. 1. The concept of social change, their forms. 2. Social change and social stability. 3. The concept of social development. Nonlinear nature of social development and the problem of social progress. 1 Social change is a change in the way we organize... [read more]

In the history of sociology, a variety of mechanisms (models, forms) for the transformation of society have been presented. For example, G. Tarde formulated the law of imitation, according to which it is "imitation" that is the main mechanism of social transformations. However, the most commonly used terms to describe the mechanisms of transformation of society are the concepts of "revolution" and "reform" ("evolution").

Revolution (lat. - turn, coup) - a deep qualitative change in the development of any phenomena of nature, society or knowledge (geological revolution, industrial revolution, scientific and technological revolution, cultural revolution etc.). A revolution means a break in gradualness, a qualitative leap in development. Revolution differs from evolution (the gradual development of a process), as well as from reforms. The concept of revolution is most widely used to characterize social development.

A social revolution is a way of moving from a historically obsolete era to a more progressive one; a radical qualitative revolution in the entire social structure of society. The question of the role of revolutions in social development is the subject of a sharp ideological struggle. Many representatives of the "sociology of revolution" argue that the revolution as a form of social development is inefficient and fruitless, associated with enormous costs and inferior to evolutionary forms of development in all respects. Representatives of Marxism, on the contrary, call social revolutions "the locomotive of history." They insist that social progress takes place only in revolutionary epochs. Thus, in Marxism the progressive role of social revolutions is emphasized in every possible way:

1) social revolutions resolve numerous contradictions that slowly accumulate during the period of evolutionary development, open up more scope for the progress of productive forces and society as a whole;

2) lead to a revolutionary emancipation of the forces of the people, raise the masses of the people to a new level of activity and development;

3) liberate the personality, stimulate its spiritual and moral development, increase the degree of its freedom;

4) they discard the obsolete, keep everything progressive from the old, thus social revolutions are a solid foundation for the successful progressive development of society.

In real development processes, evolution and revolution are equally necessary components and form a contradictory unity. In describing the social revolution, two of the most character traits:

1) social revolution as a break in gradualness, as a qualitative transition to the next stage of development, as a manifestation of the creativity of the masses and revolutionary elites (the Marxist doctrine of social revolution as a qualitative leap in the transition of society to a higher stage of development);

2) social revolution as rapid and large-scale transformations in society (here the revolution is opposed to reforms).

In social life, the term "reform" is added to the concepts of evolution and revolution.

Reform (Latin - transformation) - change, reorganization of any aspect of social life, which does not destroy the foundations of the existing social structure. From a formal point of view, reform means innovation of any content, but in practice, reform is usually understood as a progressive transformation.

Social (public) progress. Most sociological theories of the 19th century were influenced by the concept of social progress. The idea that changes in the world occur in a certain direction arose in ancient times. At the same time, progress was opposed to regress - in the sense that the progressive movement is characterized as a transition from the lower to the higher, from the simple to the complex, from the less perfect to the more perfect. Attempts have been made to find the underlying laws of evolution. G. Spencer and other supporters of social Darwinism considered social evolution as an analogy of biological evolution. At the same time, evolution was interpreted as a unidirectional transition of society from homogeneous and simple structures to increasingly diverse and interdependent ones. Darwin's "struggle for existence" and "survival of the fittest" were considered the basic laws of the development of society. These laws of nature were likened to the laws of free competition.

So social progress means an ascent to a higher complex forms public life. As applied to the topic under discussion, this means the growth of progressive social changes: the improvement of living conditions, the development of science, technology and education, the emergence of more rights and freedoms, etc. However, it is difficult to talk about progress in relation to many social phenomena, since the development of some phenomena of social life is non-linear.

For example, within the framework of art, religion and some other social phenomena, the highest models of development were created already several centuries or even millennia ago. At the same time, with regard to such phenomena as engineering, technology, etc., one can quite unambiguously speak of constantly progressing phenomena. Therefore, social progress is spoken of as a trinity of several tendencies (progressiveness, regressivity, movement in a circle). Everything depends on which of these tendencies (as applied to a particular social phenomenon) prevails. Evaluation of progressivity or regressivity of a phenomenon should be based on objective indicators. This raises the question of the criteria for progress. For example, in Marxism, the level of development of the productive forces and the nature of production relations were taken as a general historical criterion for the progressive development of mankind. In technocratic theories, the level of development of society is measured by the criterion of the development of technology and technology. In a number of other social teachings, the level of development of human thinking, morality in society, religiosity, etc., serve as criteria.

In sociology, several common concepts are used to characterize the development of society.

Modernization. There are several definitions of modernization: dichotomous (modernization as a transition from one state of society - traditional - to another - industrial). Historical (description of the processes through which modernization is carried out: transformations, revolutions, etc.). Instrumental (modernization as a transformation of tools and methods of development and control over the natural and social environment). Mental (definition through a mental shift - a special state of mind, which is characterized by faith in progress, a tendency to economic growth, a willingness to adapt to change). Civilizational (civilization as modernity, i.e. modernization as the spread of a given civilization).

As elements modernization, the following processes are distinguished: industrialization, urbanization, bureaucratization, nation building, commercialization, professionalization, secularization, literacy and mass media, the growth of social and professional mobility, etc.

Modernization acts primarily as the industrialization of society. Historically, the emergence of modern societies is closely linked with the emergence of industry. All characteristics associated with the concept of modernity (modernity) can be correlated with the industrial type of society. Modernization is a continuous and endless process. It can take place over centuries, or it can happen quickly. Since the development of different societies is characterized by irregularity and unevenness, there are always developed and lagging regions. With modernization and industrialization, a noticeable transformation of the respective societies takes place (the types and nature of the social groups included in them are transformed, etc.). Thus, during the transition to a bourgeois society, the former class organization of society gave way to a social class structure, and earlier, consanguineous primitive communities were replaced by castes and slavery. Bureaucratization is the formation of a hierarchical social structure for managing organizations on the principles of rationality, qualification, efficiency and impersonality.

Urbanization is the process of moving the rural population to cities and the concomitant concentration economic activity, administrative and political institutions, communication networks in urban areas. Urbanization is closely related to the decline in the share of the agricultural sector and widespread industry.

In the history of sociology, several typologies of the historical development of society have developed:

a) two-tier: from pre-civilizational to civilizational form of hostel;

b) three-tier: agrarian society - industrial society - post-industrial society;

c) four-link: agrarian society - industrial society - post-industrial society - information (network) society;

d) five-link (Marxist typology): primitive communal society - slave society - feudal society- bourgeois society - communist society. The five-link typology is based on the doctrine of socio-economic

formations. A socio-economic formation is a set of production relations determined by the level of development of the productive forces and determining superstructural phenomena.

Socio-economic formation

Characteristic

Primitive communal. Low level of development of productive forces, primitive forms of labor organization, lack of private property. Social equality and personal freedom. Absence of public power isolated from society.

slaveholding. Private ownership of the means of production, including "talking tools" (slaves). Social inequality and class stratification (slaves and slave owners). The state and the legal regulation of public life appear. Non-economic coercion prevails.

feudal. Large landed property of the feudal lords. The labor of free, but economically (rarely politically) dependent peasants from the feudal lords. The main classes are feudal lords and peasants. Non-economic coercion is supplemented by economic labor incentives.

Capitalist. Highly developed productive forces. The main role of industry in the economy. The class structure of society is based on the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Private ownership of the main means of production. Personal freedom of workers, economic coercion. Formal equality of citizens.

Communist. No private ownership of the means of production. State (public) ownership of the means of production. Lack of exploitative classes. A fair and even distribution of the produced product among all members of society. High level development of productive forces and high organization of labor. The withering away of the state and law.

All of these typologies are common feature- they recognize the steady and progressive nature of the development of society from one stage to another.

Usually, the analysis of the evolution of societies begins with a description of the society of hunters and gatherers. , where the main unit of social organization was the clan and the family. Societies of hunters and gatherers were small (up to fifty people) and led a nomadic lifestyle, moving from place to place as the food supply in a given territory was reduced. These societies were egalitarian in nature; there was no social class stratification, state, law, etc.

Pastoral and horticultural societies emerged about 10-12 thousand years ago as two directions of progressive development and overcoming the past state. The domestication of animals and plants can be called the first social revolution. Food surpluses began to appear, which allowed social groups to come to a social division of labor that stimulated trade, and hence the accumulation of wealth. All this was a prerequisite for the emergence of social inequality in society.

Agrarian societies appeared about 5-6 thousand years ago, when the second social revolution took place, associated with the invention of the plow.

These societies were based on extensive agriculture using draft animals. Agricultural surpluses have become so large that they have led to an intensive increase in social inequality. The concentration of resources and power led to the emergence of the state and law.

Sometimes an agrarian society is called traditional, referring to pre-capitalist, pre-industrial society. According to K. Saint-Simon, such a society is characterized by the following features: an agrarian way of life, a sedentary social structure, tradition as the main way of social regulation, etc. Traditional societies in history have a different social class structure. They may be poorly differentiated, estate, class, etc., but all are based on similar property relations (there is no indivisible private property), there is no individual freedom in them. Sometimes traditional society is designated as pre-industrial, then a three-term model of the development of society is built: pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrial society (D. Bell, A. Touraine, etc.).

Industrial societies emerged as a result of the third social revolution (industrial), which began with the invention and use of the steam engine. A new source of energy (1765 - the first use of a steam engine) led to the replacement of brute human or animal power by machine power. Industrialization and urbanization began.

An industrial society is characterized by such features as a developed industrial production, flexible social structure, social mobility, democracy, etc.

Post-industrial societies emerge at the end of the 20th century. based on the information revolution. New information and telecommunication technologies are becoming the technological basis for a new structure of production and services. Service industries (education, healthcare, management, Scientific research etc.) become dominant in comparison with agriculture and industrial production.

This typology of societies has something in common with other typologies, but it emphasizes the trends in the development of modern society. Pre-industrial society is dominated by Agriculture, church and army; in an industrial society - industry, firms and corporations. In a post-industrial society, the production of knowledge becomes the main sphere of production. Here we have the information basis of society, the new elite (technocracy). Universities are starting to take over. Property as a criterion of social stratification loses its significance and gives way to knowledge and education. There is a transition from a commodity-producing economy to a service economy (the superiority of the service sector over the production sector). For example, in tsarist Russia, agriculture accounted for 97%, while in modern Sweden it is only 7%.

The social composition and social structure of society is changing: class division gives way to professional, generational and other forms of stratification. Planning and control over technical changes is introduced. Social technologies are developing widely. The main social contradiction in such societies is not between labor and capital, but between knowledge and incompetence.

There is also a division of societies into "closed" and "open"(K. Popper's classification). This division of societies is carried out according to the ratio of social control and freedom of the individual. A “closed society” is a dogmatic, authoritarian, rigid society.

An "open society" is a democratic, pluralistic, and easily changing society. It is characterized by individualism and criticism.

Issues for discussion and discussion

1. How do social space and social time differ from physical space and time? Expand the functions of social time.

2. Expand the concept, describe the structure and classify social processes.

3. Describe the main sources and main results of social change.

4. Compare social revolution and social reforms, highlight common and special features.