home State The position on the social issue is a solution. Socialism and solutions to the problems of modern man

The position on the social issue is a solution. Socialism and solutions to the problems of modern man

History in the 8th grade on the topic "Liberals, Conservatives and Socialists: What should be the society and the state"

Lesson Objectives:

Educational:

give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe main directions of social thought of the XIX century.

Developing:

develop students' ability to comprehend theoretical material, working with a textbook and additional sources;

systematize it, highlighting the main thing, evaluate and compare the views of representatives of different ideological and political directions, compiling tables.

Educational:

education in the spirit of tolerance and the formation of the ability to interact with classmates when working in a group.

Key concepts:

liberalism,

neoliberalism

conservatism,

neoconservatism

socialism,

utopian socialism

marxism,

Lesson Equipment: SD

During the classes

1. Introductory part. Introduction by the teacher. Statement of the general problem.

Teacher: A lesson devoted to acquaintance with the ideological and political teachings of the 19th century is quite complicated, since it applies not only to history, but also to philosophy. Philosophers - thinkers of the XIX century, as well as philosophers in previous centuries, were worried about the questions: how is society developing? Which is preferable - revolution or reform? Where is the story going? What should be the relationship between the state and the individual, the individual and the church, between the new classes - the bourgeoisie and the hired workers? I hope that we will cope with this difficult task today in the lesson, because we already have knowledge on this topic: you got the task to get acquainted with the teachings of liberalism, conservatism and socialism - they will serve as the basis for the assimilation of new material.

What goals does each of you set in class today? (guys answers)

2. The study of new material.

The class is divided into 3 groups. Work in groups.

Each group receives tasks: choose one of the socio-political movements, get acquainted with the main provisions of these movements, fill out a table and make a presentation. (additional information - Appendix 1)

On the table are laid out expressions characterizing the main provisions of the exercises:

state activity is limited by law

there are three branches of government

free market

free competition

private enterprise freedom

the state does not intervene in the economy

the person is responsible for his own well-being

the path of change - reform

complete freedom and responsibility of the individual

state power is not limited

preservation of old traditions and foundations

the state regulates the economy, but does not encroach on property

denied “equality and fraternity”

the state subjugates the personality

personal freedom

adherence to traditions

unlimited state power in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat

destruction of private property

elimination of competition

free market destruction

the state fully controls the economy

all people have equal rights and benefits

social transformation - revolution

the destruction of classes and classes

elimination of property inequality

the state solves social problems

personal freedom is limited by the state

work is obligatory for all

prohibited entrepreneurship

private property prohibited

private property serves all members of the community or is replaced by public

there is no strong state power

the state regulates human life

money canceled.

3. Each group analyzes its doctrine.

4. General conversation.

Teacher: What do liberals and conservatives have in common? What are the differences? What is the main difference between socialists, on the one hand, and liberals and conservatives, on the other? (in relation to the revolution and private property). What sections of the population will support liberals, conservatives, socialists? What modern needs to know young man main ideas of conservatism, liberalism, socialism?

5. Summarizing. Summation of approaches and points of view.

What role do you agree to give to the state?

What ways to solve social problems do you see?

How do you imagine the limits of individual human freedom?

What is the conclusion of the lesson you can formulate?

Conclusion: None of the socio-political teachings can claim that it is "the only truly correct." You must be critical of any teaching.

Appendix 1

Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists

1. The radical direction of liberalism.

After the Vienna Congress, the map of Europe acquired the new kind. The territories of many states were divided into separate regions, principalities, and kingdoms, which were then divided among themselves by large and influential powers. In most European countries, the monarchy was restored. The Holy Alliance made every effort to maintain order and eradicate any revolutionary movement. However, contrary to the wishes of politicians in Europe, capitalist relations continued to develop, which came into conflict with the laws of the old political system. At the same time, the problems caused by economic development were supplemented by difficulties associated with issues of infringement of national interests in various states. All this led to the appearance in the 19th century. in Europe, new political directions, organizations and movements, as well as numerous revolutionary actions. In the 1830s, the national liberation and revolutionary movement swept France and England, Belgium and Ireland, Italy and Poland.

In the first half of the 19th century in Europe, two main socio-political trends formed: conservatism and liberalism. The word liberalism comes from the Latin “Liberum” (liberum), that is, referring to freedom. The ideas of liberalism were expressed as early as the 18th century. during the Enlightenment by Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire. However, this term was widely used in the 2nd decade of the 19th century, although its meaning at that time was extremely vague. In a complete system of political views, liberalism began to take shape in France during the Restoration period.

Proponents of liberalism believed that humanity can move along the path of progress and achieve social harmony only if the principle of private property is based on the life of society. The common good, in their opinion, consists of the successful achievement by citizens of their personal goals. Therefore, it is necessary with the help of laws to provide people with freedom of action both in the economic sphere and in other spheres of activity. The boundaries of this freedom, as indicated in the Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights, should also be determined by laws. That is, the motto of the liberals was the phrase that later became famous: "All that is not prohibited by law is permitted." At the same time, liberals believed that only a person who is able to answer for his actions can be free. To the category of people who are able to answer for their actions, they included only educated owners. State action should also be limited by law. The liberals believed that the power in the state should be divided into legislative, executive and judicial.

In the economic field, liberalism advocated a free market and free competition between entrepreneurs. In this case, the state, in their opinion, had no right to interfere in market relations, but was obliged to play the role of a “guardian” of private property. Only in the last third of the 19th century. the so-called “new liberals” began to say that the state should support the poor as well, restrain the growth of interclass contradictions and achieve universal prosperity.

Liberals have always been convinced that transformations in the state should be carried out with the help of reforms, but in no case in the course of revolutions. Unlike many other movements, liberalism assumed that there is a place in the state for those who do not support the existing government, who think and speak differently than most citizens, and even differently than the liberals themselves. That is, supporters of liberal views were convinced that the opposition had the right to a legitimate existence and even to express their views. She categorically prohibited only one thing: revolutionary actions aimed at changing the form of government.

In the 19th century liberalism has become the ideology of many political parties, uniting supporters of the parliamentary system, bourgeois freedoms and freedom of capitalist entrepreneurship. Moreover, there were various forms of liberalism. Moderate liberals considered the constitutional monarchy to be the ideal state system. Radical liberals, who sought to establish a republic, had a different opinion.

2. Conservatives.

Conservatives opposed the liberals. The name “conservatism” comes from the Latin word “conservatio” (conservation), which means “protect” or “save”. The wider liberal and revolutionary ideas spread in society, the stronger became the need to preserve traditional values: religion, monarchy, national culture, family and order. Conservatives sought to create a state that, on the one hand, would recognize the sacred right of ownership, and on the other, would be able to protect familiar values. At the same time, according to conservatives, the authorities have the right to intervene in the economy and regulate its development, and citizens must obey the requirements of state power. Conservatives did not believe in the possibility of universal equality. They said: "All people have equal rights, but not the same benefits." They saw the freedom of the individual in the opportunity to preserve and maintain traditions. The conservatives regarded social reforms as a last resort in the face of revolutionary danger. However, with the growing popularity of liberalism and the threat of losing their votes in parliamentary elections, conservatives should gradually recognize the need for social transformation, as well as adopt the principle of state non-interference in the economy. Therefore, as a result, almost all social legislation in the 19th century. was taken at the initiative of the conservatives.

3. Socialism.

In addition to conservatism and liberalism in the 19th century. The ideas of socialism are widely spread. This term comes from the Latin word “socialis” (socialis), that is, “public”. Socialist thinkers saw the brunt of the lives of bankrupt artisans, factory workers, and factory workers. They dreamed of a society in which poverty and enmity between citizens would disappear forever, and each person’s life would be protected and untouchable. Representatives of this direction saw the main problem of contemporary society in private ownership. The socialist Count Henri Saint-Simon believed that all citizens of the state are divided into "industrialists" engaged in useful creative work and "owners" appropriating the income of another's labor. However, he did not consider it necessary to deprive the latter of private property. He hoped that by appealing to Christian morality, it would be possible to convince the owners to voluntarily share their income with the "younger brothers" - the workers. Another supporter of the socialist views of François Fourier also believed that classes, private property and unearned income should be preserved in an ideal state. All problems must be resolved by increasing labor productivity to a level where wealth will be provided for all citizens. State revenues will have to be distributed among the inhabitants of the country, depending on the contribution made by each of them. The English thinker Robert Owen had a different opinion on the issue of private property. He thought that only public property should exist in the state, and money should be abolished altogether. According to Owen, with the help of machines, society can produce a sufficient amount of material wealth, you just need to distribute them fairly among all its members. And Saint-Simon, and Fourier, and Owen were convinced that an ideal society awaits humanity in the future. Moreover, the path to it should be extremely peaceful. Socialists relied on persuasion, development and education of people.

The ideas of the socialists were further developed in the works of the German philosopher Karl Marx and his friend and associate Friedrich Engels. The new doctrine they created was called "Marxism." Unlike their predecessors, Marx and Engels believed that in an ideal society there is no place for private property. Such a society began to be called communist. The revolution must lead humanity to a new system. In their opinion, this will happen as follows. With the development of capitalism, the impoverishment of the masses will intensify, and the wealth of the bourgeoisie will increase. The class struggle will become more widespread. It will be led by the Social Democratic parties. The result of the struggle will be a revolution in which the power of the workers or the dictatorship of the proletariat is established, private property is abolished, and the resistance of the bourgeoisie is finally broken. In the new society, political freedoms and the equality of all citizens in rights will not only be established, but also respected. Workers will take an active part in the management of enterprises, and the state will have to control the economy and regulate the processes taking place in it in the interests of all citizens. At the same time, each person will receive all the opportunities for comprehensive and harmonious development. However, later Marx and Engels came to the conclusion that the socialist revolution is not the only way to resolve social and political contradictions.

4. Revisionism.

In the 90s. XIX century great changes took place in the life of states, peoples, political and social movements. The world has entered a new period of development - the era of imperialism. This required a theoretical understanding. Students already know about changes in the economic life of society and its social structure. Revolutions are a thing of the past, socialist thought was in deep crisis, and the socialist movement was split.

The criticism of classical Marxism was made by the German Social Democrat E. Bernstein. The essence of the theory of E. Bernstein can be reduced to the following provisions:

1. He proved that a growing concentration of production does not lead to a decrease in the number of owners, that the development of joint-stock ownership increases their number, and that along with monopolistic associations, medium and small enterprises are preserved.

2. He pointed out that the class structure of society is becoming more complicated: there are middle strata of the population — employees and officials, whose number as a percentage increases faster than the number of wage workers.

3. He showed the growing heterogeneity of the working class, the existence in it of highly paid strata of skilled and unskilled workers, whose labor was paid extremely low.

4. He wrote that at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. the workers did not yet constitute the majority of the population and were not ready to take over the independent management of society. From this he concluded that the conditions for the socialist revolution had not yet ripened.

All of the above was shaken by E. Bernstein’s confidence that the development of society can only take a revolutionary path. It became obvious that the reorganization of society can be achieved through economic and social reforms carried out through popularly and democratically elected authorities. Socialism can triumph not as a result of revolution, but in conditions of expansion of electoral rights. E. Bernstein and his supporters believed that the main thing is not a revolution, but a struggle for democracy and the adoption of laws that ensure the rights of workers. So the doctrine of reformist socialism arose.

Bernstein did not consider development towards socialism as the only possible one. Whether development follows this path depends on whether most people want this, and on whether the socialists can lead people to their desired goal.

5. Anarchism.

Criticism of Marxism was published on the other hand. Anarchists opposed him. These were the followers of anarchism (from the Greek anarchia - anarchy) - a political movement that proclaimed the destruction of the state as its goal. The ideas of anarchism were developed in modern times by the English writer W. Godwin, who in his book "A Study on Political Justice" (1793) proclaimed the slogan "Society without a state!" The anarchist group included a variety of teachings - both “left” and “right”, a variety of speeches - from rebellious and terrorist to the movement of cooperators. But all the numerous teachings and speeches of the anarchists had one thing in common - the denial of the need for the state.

set before his followers only the task of destruction, "clearing the soil for future construction." For the sake of this "clearing" he called on the masses to speak out and carry out terrorist acts against representatives of the oppressor class. Bakunin did not know what the future anarchist society would look like, and did not work on this problem, believing that the "work of creation" belongs to the future. In the meantime, a revolution was needed, after the victory of which the state should first be destroyed. Bakunin also did not recognize the participation of workers in the parliamentary elections, in the work of any representative organizations.

In the last third of the XIX century. the development of the theory of anarchism is associated with the name of the most prominent theorist of this political doctrine, Peter Alexandrovich Kropotkin (1842-1921). In 1876 he fled from Russia abroad and began to publish the magazine La Revolte in Geneva, which became the main printed organ of anarchism. Kropotkin’s teachings are called “communist” anarchism. He sought to prove that anarchism is historically inevitable and is an obligatory step in the development of society. Kropotkin believed that state laws hinder the development of natural human rights, mutual support and equality, and therefore cause all kinds of abuses. He formulated the so-called “biosociological law of mutual assistance”, which allegedly defines the desire of people to cooperate, and not to fight with each other. He considered the ideal of organizing society to be a federation: a federation of clans and tribes, a federation of free cities, villages and communities in the Middle Ages, and modern state federations. What should cement a society in which there is no state mechanism? It was here that Kropotkin applied his “law of mutual assistance”, indicating that mutual aid, justice and morality, feelings inherent in human nature will play the role of unifying force.

Kropotkin explained the creation of the state by the emergence of land ownership. Therefore, in his opinion, it was possible to go to the federation of free communes only through the revolutionary destruction of what separates people - state power and private property.

Kropotkin considered a man to be a good and perfect being, and meanwhile, anarchists increasingly used terrorist methods, explosions thundered in Europe and the USA, people died.

Questions and Tasks:

Fill in the table: "The main ideas of socio-political teachings of the XIX century."

Questions to compare	Liberalism	Conservatism	Socialism (Marxism)	Revisionism	Anarchism
State role in economic life
Position on the social issue and ways to solve social problems
The limits of individual freedom

How did the representatives of liberalism see the development of society? What provisions of their teaching seem relevant to modern society? How did the representatives of conservatism see the development of society? Do you think their teachings are still relevant today? What caused the appearance of socialist teachings? Are there conditions for the development of socialist teaching in the 21st century? On the basis of the teachings you know, try to create your own project of possible ways for the development of society in our time. What role do you agree to give to the state? What ways of solving social problems do you see? How do you imagine the limits of individual human freedom?

Liberalism:

the role of the state in economic life: state activity is limited by law. There are three branches of government. The economy has a free market and free competition. The state intervenes little in the economy position on the social issue and ways to solve problems: the person is free. The way to transform society through reform. New liberals conclude the need for social reform

limits of individual freedom: total freedom of the individual: "All that is not prohibited by law is permitted." But personal freedom is granted to those who are responsible for their decisions.

Conservatism:

the role of the state in economic life: the power of the state is practically unlimited and is aimed at preserving old traditional values. In the economy: the state can regulate the economy, but without an attempt on private property

position on the social issue and ways to solve problems: fought for maintaining the old order. Denied the possibility of equality and fraternity. But the new conservatives were forced to accept some democratization of society.

limits of individual freedom: the state subjugates the personality. The freedom of the individual is expressed in its observance of traditions.

Socialism (Marxism):

the role of the state in economic life: unlimited state activity in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the economy: the destruction of private property, free market and competition. The state fully regulates the economy.

position on the social issue and ways to solve problems: everyone should have equal rights and equal benefits. Solving a social problem through a social revolution

limits of individual freedom: the state itself solves all social issues. Personal freedom is limited by the state dictatorship of the proletariat. Labor is required. Private enterprise and private property are prohibited.

Comparison line	Liberalism	Conservatism	Socialism
Main principles	Granting a person rights and freedoms, maintaining private property, developing market relations, separation of powers	Maintaining strict order, traditional values, private property and strong state power	Destruction of private property, establishment of property equality, rights and freedoms
The role of the state in economic life	The state does not interfere in the economic sphere		State regulation of the economy
Attitude to social issues	The state does not interfere in the social sphere	Preserving class and class differences	The state ensures the provision of social rights to all citizens
Ways to solve social issues	Denial of revolution, path of transformation - reform	Denial of revolution, reform as a last resort	Transformation Path - Revolution

The role of the state in the economy - liberalism

The main value is freedom
The ideal is a market economy
The state should not interfere in the economy
The principle of separation of powers: legislative, executive, judicial

Social Position - Liberalism

The person is free and is responsible for his own well-being.
All people are equal, everyone has equal opportunities

Ways to solve social problems - liberalism

Power Reforms

The Limits of Freedom - Liberalism

A man from birth has inalienable rights: to life, freedom, etc.
“All that is not prohibited by law is permitted” - complete freedom in everything.
Only one who can be responsible for his decisions, i.e. whether the owners are an educated person.

The role of the state in the economy - conservatism

The goal is to preserve traditions, religion and order
The state has the right to intervene in the economy, if necessary to preserve traditions
The power of the state is not limited by anyone or anything
The ideal is an absolute monarchy

Social Position - Conservatism

Preservation of the old estate
Do not believe in the possibility of social equality

Ways to solve social problems - conservatism

The people must obey, the state can use violence against revolutions
Reforms - as a last resort to prevent social explosions

The Limits of Freedom - Conservatism

The state subjugates the personality
Freedom is expressed in observance of traditions, religious humility

The role of the state in the economy - Socialism

Destruction of private property, free market and competition
The state fully controls the economy, helps the poor
MARXISM - a form of government - DICTATURE OF THE PROLETARIAT (workers' power)
ANARCHISM - the state must be destroyed

Social Position - Socialism

All people should have equal rights and benefits.
The state itself resolves all social issues, providing workers with their rights

Ways to solve social problems - socialism

Socialist revolution
Eliminating Inequality and Owner Class

The Limits of Freedom - Socialism

Freedom is achieved by ensuring all benefits and is limited by the state.
Work is obligatory for everyone
Entrepreneurship and private property prohibited

Date: 09/28/2015

Lesson:history

Grade:8

Topic:“Liberals, conservatives and socialists: what should be the society and state?”

Objectives: introduce students to the basic ideological methods of implementing the ideas of liberals, conservatives, socialists, Marxists; find out the interests of which sections of society reflected these teachings; develop the ability to analyze, compare, draw a conclusion, work with a historical source;

Equipment: computer, presentation, materials for checking homework

Download:

Preview:

Date: 09/28/2015

Lesson: History

Grade: 8

Topic: “Liberals, conservatives and socialists: what should be the society and state?”

Objectives: introduce students to the basic ideological methods of implementing the ideas of liberals, conservatives, socialists, Marxists; find out the interests of which sections of society reflected these teachings; develop the ability to analyze, compare, draw a conclusion, work with a historical source;

Equipment: computer, presentation, materials for checking homework

During the classes

Organizational start of the lesson.

Checking homework:

Testing of knowledge on the topic: "Culture of the XIX century"

Assignment: according to the description of the picture or artwork, try to guess what is at stake and who is its author?

1. The action in this novel takes place in Paris, engulfed in popular phenomena. The strength of the rebels, their courage and spiritual beauty is revealed in the images of the gentle and dreamy Esmiralda, the good and noble Quasimodo.

What is the name of this novel and who is its author?

2. Ballerinas in this picture are shown in close-up. Professional refinement of their movements, grace and ease, a special musical rhythm create the illusion of rotation. Smooth and precise lines, subtle nuances of blue color envelop the bodies of the dancers, giving them a poetic charm.

___________________________________________________________________

3. A dramatic tale of a horseman racing with a sick child through an evil fairy forest. This music draws the listener a gloomy, mysterious thicket, the frantic rhythm of a race, leading to a tragic ending. What is a piece of music and its author.

___________________________________________________________________

4. The political situation sends the hero of this work in search of a new life. Together with the heroes, the author mourns the fate of Greece, which is enslaved by the Turks, admires the courage of the Spaniards fighting the Napoleonic forces. Who is the author of this work and what is it called?

___________________________________________________________________

5. The youth and beauty of this actress captivated not only the artist who painted her portrait, but also many admirers of her art. Before us is a personality: a talented actress, witty and brilliant conversationalist. What is the name of this picture and who wrote it?

___________________________________________________________________

6. The book of this author is dedicated to stories about distant India, where he lived for many years. Who does not remember the wonderful little hippopotamus, or the fascinating story of how a hump or trunk of an elephant appeared on a camel? BUT the most amazing thing is the adventure of a human cub fed by wolves. What book are we talking about and who is its author?

___________________________________________________________________

7. The plot of the French writer Prosper Merimee lies at the heart of this opera. The main character of the opera - the simple-minded village guy Jose is in the city where he carries military service. Suddenly, a violent gypsy bursts into his life, for the sake of which he commits insane acts, becomes a smuggler, leads a free and dangerous life. What kind of opera are you talking about and who wrote this music?

___________________________________________________________________

8. The picture of this artist depicts rows of endless benches on which deputies are located, called to do justice, disgusting freaks - a symbol of inertia of the July monarchy. Name the artist and the name of the painting.

___________________________________________________________________

9. Once, taking off traffic, this person was distracted for a moment and stopped turning the handle of the camera. During this time, the place of one object took another. When viewing the tape, they saw a miracle: one subject "turned" into another. What phenomenon are we talking about and who is this person who made this “discovery”?

___________________________________________________________________

10. This canvas depicts the doctor who treated our hero. When the artist presented him with a picture of gratitude, the doctor hid it in the attic. Then he covered the courtyard on the street. And only a case helped to appreciate this picture. What picture are you talking about? Who is its author?

___________________________________________________________________

Key to the task:

	"Notre Dame Cathedral". V. Hugo
	"Blue Dancers" E. Degas
	"Forest King" F. Schubert.
	The Childe Harold Pilgrimage by D. Byron
	"Jeanne of Samaria" O. Renoir
	The Jungle Book R. Kipling
	"Carmen" by J. Bizet
	The Legislative Womb by O. Daumier
	The advent of a cinematic stunt. J. Méliès
	"Portrait of Dr. Ray" by Vincent Van Gogh.

Post topics and goals of the lesson.

(slide) Lesson objectives: Consider the specific features of the intellectual life of Europe in the 19th century; Describe the main directions of European politics of the XIX century.

Learning new material.

teacher story:

(slide) Philosophers-thinkers of the 19th century were worried about the following questions:

1) How is society developing?

2) Which is preferable: reform or revolution?

3) Where is the story going?

They looked for answers to the problems that arose with the birth of an industrial society:

1) what should be the relationship between the state and the individual?

2) how to build relationships between the individual and the church?

3) what is the relationship between the new classes - the industrial bourgeoisie and wage workers?

Almost until the end of the 19th century, European states did not fight poverty, did not carry out social reforms, and the lower classes did not have their representatives in parliament.

(slide) In the 19th century, three main socio-political trends took shape in Western Europe:

1) liberalism

2) conservatism

3) socialism

Studying new material, we will need to fill out this table(slide)

Comparison line	Liberalism	Conservatism	Socialism
Main principles
The role of the state in economic life

(slide) - consider the basic principles of liberalism.

from latin - liberum - relating to freedom. Liberalism got its development in the 19th century, both in theory and in practice.

Let's make an assumption, what principles will they proclaim?

Principles:

The human right to life, freedom, property, equality before the law.
The right to freedom of speech, press assembly.
The right to participate in public affairs

Considering the importance of individual freedom, the liberals had to define its boundaries. And this boundary was determined by the words:“Allowed is not prohibited by law”

And how do you think up which of the two ways of the development of society they choose: reform or revolution? Justify your answer(slide)

(slide) The requirements that the liberals put forward:

Restriction of state activity by law.
Proclaim the principle of separation of powers.
Market freedom, competition, free trade.
Introduce social insurance for unemployment, disability, pensions for the elderly.
Guaranteed minimum wage, limit the length of the working day

In the last third of the 19th century, new liberalism appeared, which stated that the state should carry out reforms, defend the least significant sectors, prevent revolutionary explosions, destroy hostility between classes, and achieve universal welfare.

(slide) The new liberals demanded:

Introduce unemployment and disability insurance

Introduce retirement benefits for the elderly

The state must guarantee a minimum salary

Destroy monopolies and restore free competition

(slide) The English Whig Chamber put forward from its midst the most striking figure of British liberalism - William Gladstone, who carried out a number of reforms: electoral, school, self-government, etc. We will talk more about them when we study the history of England.

(slide) - But still, conservatism was a more influential ideology.

from latin. conservatio - protect, save.

Conservatism - a doctrine that arose in the 18th century, which sought to justify the need to maintain the old order and traditional values

(slide) - Conservatism began to increase in society as opposed to the spread of the ideas of liberalism. His chiefprinciple - Preserve traditional values: religion, monarchy, national culture, family and order.

Unlike liberals, conservativesrecognized:

The right of the state to strong power.
The right to regulate the economy.

(slide) - since society has already experienced many revolutionary upheavals that threatened the preservation of the traditional order, the conservatives recognized the possibility of

“Protective” social reforms only as the last resort.

(slide) Fearing the intensification of "novoliberalism," the conservatives agreed that

1) society should become more democratic,

2) it is necessary to expand the voting rights,

3) the state should not interfere in the economy

(slide) As a result, the leaders of the British (Benjamin Dizraeli) and German (Otto von Bismarck) conservative parties became social reformers - they had no other choice amid the growing popularity of liberalism.

(slide) Along with liberalism and conservatism in the 19th century, socialist ideas about the need to abolish private property and protect public interests and the idea of \u200b\u200begalitarian communism became popular in Western Europe.

Social and political system,principles which are:

1) the establishment of political freedoms;

2) equality of rights;

3) the participation of workers in the management of enterprises in which they work.

4) the obligation of the state to regulate the economy.

(slide) “The golden age of mankind is not behind us, but ahead” - these words belong to Count Henri Sen - Simon. In his books, he outlined plans for rebuilding society.

He believed that society consists of two classes - idle owners and working industrialists.

Let's determine who could belong to the first group, and who to the second?

The first group includes: large landowners, rentier capitalists, military and large officials.

The second group (96% of the population) includes all people engaged in useful activities: peasants, wage workers, artisans, manufacturers, merchants, bankers, scientists, artists.

(slide) Charles Fourier proposed transforming society through a union of workers - the phalanx, which combined industrial and agricultural. They will not have wages and wage labor. All incomes are distributed in accordance with the amount of “talent and labor” invested by each. In the phalanx, property inequality will persist. Everyone is guaranteed a living minimum. The phalanx provides its members with schools, theaters, libraries, and organizes holidays.

(slide) Robert Owen went further in his work, reading the need to replace private property with public property and the abolition of money.

textbook work

(slide)

teacher story:

(slide) Revisionism - Ideological directions proclaiming the need to revise any established theory or doctrine.

The man who revised the teachings of K. Marx for its conformity real life society in the last third of the 19th century, became Edward Bernstein

(slide) Edward Bernstein saw that

1) the development of joint-stock ownership increases the number of owners, along with monopolistic associations, medium and small owners are retained;

2) the class structure of society is becoming more complicated, new layers appear

3) the heterogeneity of the working class is intensifying - there are skilled and unskilled workers with different pay levels.

4) workers are not yet ready to take on the independent management of society.

He concluded:

The reorganization of societies can be achieved through economic and social reforms carried out through popularly and democratically elected authorities.

(slide) Anarchism (- from the Greek. Anarcia) - anarchy.

Within anarchism, there were a variety of left and right movements: rebellious (terrorist acts) and cooperators.

What features characterized anarchism?

(slide) 1. Faith in the good aspects of human nature.

2. Faith in the possibility of communication between people based on love.

3. It is necessary to destroy the power of violence against the individual.

(slide) prominent representatives of anarchism

Lesson summary:

(slide)

(slide) Homework:

Paragraph 9-10, entries, table, questions 8.10 in writing.

Application:

In the course of explaining the new material, the following table should be obtained:

Comparison line	Liberalism	Conservatism	Socialism
Main principles
			State regulation of the economy
Attitude to social issues
Ways to solve social issues

Appendix 1

Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists

1. The radical direction of liberalism.

After the Vienna Congress, the map of Europe acquired a new look. The territories of many states were divided into separate regions, principalities, and kingdoms, which were then divided among themselves by large and influential powers. In most European countries, the monarchy was restored. The Holy Alliance made every effort to maintain order and eradicate any revolutionary movement. However, contrary to the wishes of politicians in Europe, capitalist relations continued to develop, which came into conflict with the laws of the old political system. At the same time, the problems caused by economic development were supplemented by difficulties associated with issues of infringement of national interests in various states. All this led to the appearance in the 19th century. in Europe, new political directions, organizations and movements, as well as numerous revolutionary actions. In the 1830s, the national liberation and revolutionary movement swept France and England, Belgium and Ireland, Italy and Poland.

In the first half of the 19th century in Europe, two main socio-political trends formed: conservatism and liberalism. The word liberalism comes from the Latin “Liberum” (liberum), i.e. relating to freedom. The ideas of liberalism were expressed as early as the 18th century. during the Enlightenment by Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire. However, this term was widely used in the 2nd decade of the 19th century, although its meaning at that time was extremely vague. In a complete system of political views, liberalism began to take shape in France during the Restoration period.

Proponents of liberalism believed that humanity could move along the path of progress and achieve social harmony only if the principle of private property was the basis of society. The common good, in their opinion, consists of the successful achievement by citizens of their personal goals. Therefore, it is necessary with the help of laws to provide people with freedom of action both in the economic sphere and in other fields of activity. The boundaries of this freedom, as indicated in the Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights, should also be determined by laws. Those. the liberals' motto was the phrase that later became famous: "All that is not prohibited by law is permitted." At the same time, liberals believed that only that person who has the power to be responsible for his actions can be free. To the category of people who are able to answer for their actions, they included only educated owners. State action should also be limited by law. The liberals believed that the power in the state should be divided into legislative, executive and judicial.

In the economic field, liberalism advocated a free market and free competition between entrepreneurs. In this case, the state, in their opinion, had no right to interfere in market relations, but was obliged to play the role of a “guardian” of private property. Only in the last third of the 19th century. the so-called "new liberals" began to say that the state should support the poor as well, restrain the growth of interclass contradictions and achieve universal prosperity.

Liberals have always been convinced that transformations in the state should be carried out with the help of reforms, but in no case in the course of revolutions. Unlike many other movements, liberalism assumed that there is a place in the state for those who do not support the existing government, who think and speak differently than most citizens, and even differently than the liberals themselves. Those. proponents of liberal views were convinced that the opposition had the right to a legitimate existence and even to express their views. She strictly prohibited only one thing: revolutionary actions aimed at changing the form of government.

2. Conservatives.

Conservatives opposed the liberals. The name “conservatism” comes from the Latin word “conservatio” (conservation), which means “protect” or “save”. The wider liberal and revolutionary ideas spread in society, the stronger became the need to preserve traditional values: religion, monarchy, national culture, family and order. Conservatives sought to create a state that, on the one hand, would recognize the sacred right of ownership, and on the other, would be able to protect familiar values. At the same time, according to conservatives, the authorities have the right to intervene in the economy and regulate its development, and citizens must obey the requirements of state power. Conservatives did not believe in the possibility of universal equality. They said: "All people have equal rights, but not the same benefits." They saw the freedom of the individual in the opportunity to preserve and maintain traditions. Conservatives viewed social reforms as a last resort in the face of revolutionary danger. However, with the growing popularity of liberalism and the threat of losing their votes in parliamentary elections, conservatives should gradually recognize the need for social transformation, as well as adopt the principle of state non-interference in the economy. Therefore, as a result, almost all social legislation in the 19th century. was taken at the initiative of the conservatives.

3. Socialism.

In addition to conservatism and liberalism in the 19th century. The ideas of socialism are widely spread. This term comes from the Latin word “socialis” (socialis), i.e. "public". Socialist thinkers saw the brunt of the lives of bankrupt artisans, factory workers, and factory workers. They dreamed of a society in which poverty and enmity between citizens would disappear forever, and the life of every person would be protected and untouchable. Representatives of this direction saw the main problem of contemporary society in private ownership. The socialist Count Henri Saint-Simon believed that all citizens of the state are divided into "industrialists" engaged in useful creative work and "owners" appropriating the income of another's labor. However, he did not consider it necessary to deprive the latter of private property. He hoped that by appealing to Christian morality, it would be possible to convince the owners to voluntarily share their income with the "younger brothers" - the workers. Another supporter of the socialist views of François Fourier also believed that classes, private property and unearned income should be preserved in an ideal state. All problems must be resolved by increasing labor productivity to a level where wealth will be provided for all citizens. State revenues will have to be distributed among the inhabitants of the country, depending on the contribution made by each of them. The English thinker Robert Owen had a different opinion on the issue of private property. He thought that only public property should exist in the state, and money should be abolished altogether. According to Owen, with the help of machines, society can produce a sufficient amount of material wealth, you just need to distribute them fairly among all its members. And Saint-Simon, and Fourier, and Owen were convinced that an ideal society awaits humanity in the future. Moreover, the path to it should be extremely peaceful. Socialists relied on persuasion, development and education of people.

4. Revisionism.

In the 90s. XIX century big changes took place in the life of states, peoples, political and social movements. The world has entered a new period of development - the era of imperialism. This required a theoretical understanding. Students already know about changes in the economic life of society and its social structure. Revolutions are a thing of the past, socialist thought was in deep crisis, and the socialist movement was split.

The criticism of classical Marxism was made by the German Social Democrat E. Bernstein. The essence of the theory of E. Bernstein can be reduced to the following provisions:

3. He showed the growing heterogeneity of the working class, the existence in it of highly paid strata of skilled and unskilled workers, whose labor was paid extremely low.

4. He wrote that at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. the workers did not yet constitute the majority of the population and were not ready to take over the independent management of society. From this, he concluded that the conditions for the socialist revolution had not yet ripened.

All of the above was shaken by E. Bernstein’s confidence that the development of society can only take a revolutionary path. It became obvious that the reorganization of society can be achieved through economic and social reforms carried out through popularly and democratically elected authorities. Socialism can triumph not as a result of revolution, but in conditions of expansion of electoral rights. E. Bernstein and his supporters believed that the main thing is not a revolution, but the struggle for democracy and the adoption of laws that ensure the rights of workers. So the doctrine of reformist socialism arose.

5. Anarchism.

MA Bakunin set before his followers only the task of destruction, "clearing the soil for future construction." For the sake of this "clearing" he called on the masses to speak out and carry out terrorist acts against representatives of the oppressor class. Bakunin did not know what the future anarchist society would look like, and did not work on this problem, believing that the "work of creation" belongs to the future. In the meantime, a revolution was needed, after the victory of which the state should first be destroyed. Bakunin also did not recognize the participation of workers in the parliamentary elections, in the work of any representative organizations.

In the last third of the XIX century. the development of the theory of anarchism is associated with the name of the most prominent theorist of this political teaching Peter A. Kropotkin (1842-1921). In 1876 he fled from Russia abroad and began to publish the magazine La Revolte in Geneva, which became the main printed organ of anarchism. Kropotkin’s doctrine is called "communist" anarchism. He sought to prove that anarchism is historically inevitable and is an obligatory step in the development of society. Kropotkin believed that state laws hinder the development of natural human rights, mutual support and equality, and therefore cause all kinds of abuses. He formulated the so-called “biosociological law of mutual assistance”, which allegedly defines the desire of people to cooperate, and not to fight with each other. He considered the ideal of organizing society to be a federation: a federation of clans and tribes, a federation of free cities, villages and communities in the Middle Ages, and modern state federations. What should cement a society in which there is no state mechanism? It was here that Kropotkin applied his “law of mutual assistance”, indicating that mutual aid, justice and morality, feelings inherent in human nature will play the role of unifying force.

Kropotkin explained the creation of the state by the emergence of land ownership. Therefore, in his opinion, the federation of free communes could only be reached through the revolutionary destruction of what separates people - state power and private property.

Kropotkin considered a man to be a good and perfect being, and meanwhile, anarchists increasingly used terrorist methods, explosions thundered in Europe and the USA, people died.

Questions and Tasks:

Fill in the table: "The main ideas of socio-political teachings of the XIX century."

Questions to compare	Liberalism	Conservatism	Socialism (Marxism)	Revisionism	Anarchism
State role in economic life
Position on the social issue and ways to solve social problems
The limits of individual freedom

How did the representatives of liberalism see the development of society? What provisions of their teaching seem relevant to modern society?
How did the representatives of conservatism see the development of society? Do you think their teachings are still relevant today?
What caused the emergence of socialist teachings? Are there conditions for the development of socialist teaching in the 21st century?
On the basis of the teachings you know, try to create your own project of possible ways for the development of society in our time. What role do you agree to give to the state? What ways of solving social problems do you see? How do you imagine the limits of individual human freedom?

Liberalism:

limits of individual freedom: total freedom of the individual: "All that is not prohibited by law is permitted." But personal freedom is granted to those who are responsible for their decisions.

Conservatism:

limits of individual freedom: the state subjugates the personality. The freedom of the individual is expressed in its observance of traditions.

Socialism (Marxism):

position on the social issue and ways to solve problems: everyone should have equal rights and equal benefits. Solving a social problem through a social revolution

Comparison line	Liberalism	Conservatism	Socialism
Main principles	Granting a person rights and freedoms, maintaining private property, developing market relations, separation of powers	Maintaining strict order, traditional values, private property and strong state power	Destruction of private property, establishment of property equality, rights and freedoms
The role of the state in economic life	The state does not interfere in the economic sphere	State regulation of the economy	State regulation of the economy
Attitude to social issues	The state does not interfere in the social sphere	Preserving class and class differences	The state ensures the provision of social rights to all citizens
Ways to solve social issues	Denial of revolution, path of transformation - reform	Denial of revolution, reform as a last resort	Transformation Path - Revolution

Subject: HISTORY

Romanova Natalya Viktorovna

Teacher of history

Achinsk cadet corps

Methodology of the lesson.

Grade: 8

Course Name: New History

Topic title: Liberals, conservatives and socialists: what should be society and state.

Lesson Objectives:

Introduce social movements: liberalism, conservatism, socialism;

To determine how they influenced the development of society and what role they identified for the state in public life;

To develop speech, logical thinking;

To form the ability to select the necessary information and write it down briefly;

Develop cognitive interest among students.

Software:

MicrosofPowerPoint, MicrosoftWord.

Cyril and Methodius LLC and the library of electronic visual aids "New History Grade 8"

Technical support:

Multimedia projector and screen, scanner, printer.

Lesson plan:

1. Learning a new topic:

Actualization of a new topic;

Conversation;

Work with text;

Work on the table;

A scene on the topic;

3. Summarizing.

4. Creative homework .

During the classes:

Learning a new topic.

Actualization of a new topic.

Teacher:

How is society developing? Which is preferable - revolution or reform? What is the role of the state in society? What rights does each of us have? These questions have excited the minds of philosopher-thinkers for many centuries.

In the middle XIX century in Europe there was a surge of new ideas, which led to a startling leap in science, prompted Europeans to question the entire state and social system.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that "the human mind can itself find the answer to any questions."

What do you think he wanted to say?

Society in this period ceases to feel like a mass. The prevailing opinion is that each person is endowed with personal rights and no one, even the state, has the right to impose his will on him.

Questions were raised not only about the place of man in the world, but also about the new system of society management created by the industrial class of the West.

Therefore, the problem arose of how to build relations between society and the state.

Trying to solve this problem people of mental labor, inXIX century in Western Europe defined in three main socio-political teachings.

The theme of our lesson is “Liberals, Conservatives and Socialists: What a Society and the State Should Be”

From lead 1: the theme of the lesson.

What do you think we will need to know when studying this topic?

We will have to get acquainted with the main socio-political teachings, to trace how they influenced the development of society, and what role the state has identified in public life.

This is a serious topic, it is very important to understand it, since the material studied today will be useful to you in the 9th grade.

Conversation, work with text.

Slide 2: working with terms

Questions:

Think what these terms mean?

Using the dictionary in the textbook, write out the definitions in a notebook?

Work on the table, work with text.

Teacher:

Let us examine the basic principles of each movement from the point of view of the role played by the state in economic life, how it was proposed to solve social problems and what personal freedoms a person could have (fill out a table divided by rows while working with the textbook text).

Assignment: 1. Socialism (72-74 pp. - “Why did the socialist teachings appear?”, “The Golden Age of humanity is not behind us, but ahead”)

2. conservatism (p. 72 - “Preserve traditional values”)

3. liberalism (pp. 70-72 - “All that is not prohibited is permitted”)

Slide 3: table.

Questions in the process of filling out the table:

Conservatives: what was the way of development of society seen by representatives of conservatism ?; Do you think their teachings are still relevant today?

Liberals: what was the way of development of society seen by representatives of liberalism ?; What provisions of their teachings seem relevant to you in today's society?

Socialists: what caused the emergence of social learning?

We have traced the basic principles of conservative, liberal and socialist teachings.

Scene on the topic.

Teacher:

Imagine that we witnessed a conversation of three passers-by on a London street inXIX century.

Scene:

– Hello William! You and I haven't seen each other for a long time! How are you?

I am fine! Here I go from the Mass. Have you heard what things are happening in the world? God bless our king!

– And I recently came from France and you know, at the next parliamentary meeting, I will raise the issue of protecting the rights of the poor in order to prevent revolutionary sentiments in the country! It seems to me that the government should choose the course of social reforms - this can smooth out class discontent!

I doubt it. It would be better if everything remained as before! What do you think, Ben?

– I also think that this will not solve our problems! However, there was no sense in leaving everything as it was. I believe that all evil is from private property, it must be abolished! Then there will be neither the poor nor the rich, and, consequently, the class struggle will cease. That is my opinion!

Assignment: Based on the conversation of the arguing, determine who belongs to which current. Argument your answer.

There is an opinion that not one of the socio-political teachings can claim that it is the "only" truly correct. Therefore, as an opposition to each other, there are several teachings. And today we met the most popular.

Securing the studied material.

Assignment: mark the ideas that belong to conservatism, liberalism, socialism.

The development of society can lead to the loss of fundamental traditions and values.

The state of capitalists will be replaced by the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Free market, competition, entrepreneurship, preservation of private property.

A commitment to the test of time.

Allowed is not prohibited by law.

Man himself is responsible for his own well-being.

Reforms distract the working people from the main goal - the world revolution.

The liquidation of private property will lead to the disappearance of exploitation and classes.

The state has the right to intervene in the economic sphere, but private property is retained.

Summarizing.

Questions:

What socio-political teachings have you met today?

What was the impact of these teachings on the development of society?

(Answer: people became politically active, they themselves began to assert their rights.)

Those socio-political processes that began inXIX century, led to education duringII half XX centuries of modern legal European states.

We all admire the standard of living, the state of the rights of Europeans. And as we see this is the result of a long social struggle.

Slide: lesson summary.

Creative homework.

On the basis of the teachings you have studied, try to create your own project of possible ways for the development of society in our time.

At the turn of the third millennium, humanity will have to lay the fundamental foundations for the optimal solution of a number of vital problems, which are crucial for its further historical destinies.

Along with problem number one, the problem of preserving peace and ensuring international security, it is necessary to highlight another, general, although differently raised in the industrialized capitalist and socialist countries problem of centralism and amateur forms of economic and social life, planned and directed by the state public economy and a market economy, management and self-government, modern forms of collectivism and individual human being. In the very general view it can be reduced to the problem of the relationship between the subjective and objective factors of social life, to the classical problem of society and the human person in the specific form in which it arises today, primarily in capitalist and socialist socio-political systems. This problem is relevant both for the internal development of these systems, and for their external relations in the economic, political and ideological fields.

The program documents and theoretical concepts of the leading political parties of modern Western capitalist countries differ from each other in how these problems are seen and intended to be addressed. In this regard, in a somewhat generalized form, we can talk about conservative, liberal and social democratic theoretical and political models their decisions. Of course, the specific models of each of these political directions in certain countries have their own specific features and may, within the limits of their general, fundamental principles, differ significantly from each other, but in their subsequent comparison we will proceed from the most general features characterizing the nature of this or that other direction in general.

In the context of the increased influence of conservative politics and ideology in the industrially developed countries of Western Europe and the USA over the past decade, neoconservative views on the place and role of the economy, the state, society, and the human person in life acquire special significance in understanding the main current and possible trends in their socio-political development. modern capitalist world.

The spectrum of program installations and ideological representations of conservative bourgeois parties is unusually wide and motley today. However, for all their diversity and difference, some general and fundamental principles can be distinguished. The general point is, first of all, the point of view according to which the market economy based on private property is proclaimed as an invariable and unshakable foundation of political democracy, the antipode of socialist socialization of the means of production and uncontrolled economic forms of a liberal sense. She, according to neoconservatives, better than all other systems provides people with personal freedom, increased prosperity and even social progress.

Despite the existence of differences between American and Western European neoconservatism, their representatives are united in criticizing the existing social security systems, bureaucracy, attempts by the state to manage the economy, as well as a number of crisis phenomena in modern Western society. Not without reason they complain about the decline of morals, the destruction of traditional values, such as moderation, hard work, trust in each other, self-discipline, decency, decline in authority in school, university, army and church, weaken social ties (communal, family, professional), criticize the psychology of consumerism. Hence the inevitable idealization of the "good old days."

However, the causes of these contemporary problems, the American and European neoconservatives determine incorrectly. Even the most astute of them, former liberals D. Bell and S. M. Lipset, do not think to question the very economic system of capitalism. Calling to return to the classical forms of free enterprise and to a market economy not cherished by the state, neoconservatives forget that the shortcomings they criticize of modern Western society are a necessary and inevitable result of the development of the capitalist economic system, the realization of its internal potentials, and the implementation of the principle of “freely competing egoisms”. They are not in a position to critically regard the economic system that they advocate for the revival of their original forms, to fully realize that a capitalist society of economic growth and mass consumption cannot exist without the consumer enthusiasm of potential buyers. Therefore, they pounce all their criticism on the “bureaucratic welfare state” and its tendency towards “equalization” and leveling. As I. Fetcher notes on this occasion, a return to the “good old days” by limiting state intervention in the economy, nullifying the vertical and horizontal mobility of workers and office workers to strengthen traditional families and communal ties is nothing more than a reactionary utopia, incompatible with the progress of industrial society in a democracy.

Unlike the once influential concepts of technocratic conservatism, which hoped to achieve a stable position in society along the paths of technological progress, today neoconservatism speaks of the uncontrollability of a bourgeois-democratic state and the need to limit the claims of the masses and return to a strong state.

The sharp turn of bourgeois politics and ideology in Germany to the right is alarming for many West German social scientists. They recognize the danger of such shifts in political life, causing inevitable historical associations with the times of the Weimar Republic, which prepared the Nazis' rise to power. Nevertheless, most of them suggest that in these tendencies only a craving for strong state power manifests itself, capable of ensuring a stable order in the country and guaranteeing unlimited development of a market economy. So, for example, according to the famous neoconservatism researcher R. Zaage, a model of community with the features of the Bismarckian bureaucratic state, in which stability of social institutions is maintained and citizens are brought up in the spirit of traditional virtues and moral principles, seems more likely. According to the plan of the neoconservatives, we are talking about such conditions guaranteed by the state of public life in which within certain boundaries and framework it will be possible to ensure unhindered further development of the capitalist economy.

In contrast to neoconservatism, which advocates the revival of traditional capitalist forms and norms of social and cultural life, capable of properly directing the activities of various human communities and individuals and preventing their spontaneous expression, modern liberalism, with all its innovations, remains true to the principle of “economic and political” freedom person to the extent that it is possible in a market economy, competition and property inequality. People are not interested in them in their mass and not in their belonging to a particular social group, but as individuals, as unique and unique creatures of a kind. In other words, modern liberalism remains faithful to the traditional principle of bourgeois individualism, the formal equality of opportunities in free enterprise and in public administration. The role of the state is accordingly reduced to ensuring the right of each individual to conduct their own affairs, the right to equal participation in the life of any community and society as a whole. An important condition for the freedom of the human person, liberals consider the widespread dissemination of private ownership of property, the enrichment of people. In this regard, they oppose the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of the state and the private minority as factors that inevitably lead to the restriction of freedom of other members of society.

Modern liberalism recognizes the need for state intervention in the economy, the essence of which is reduced mainly to the adoption of measures guaranteeing free enterprise and limiting the power of monopolies. Otherwise, he relies on the operation of the competition mechanism.

The neoliberal socio-political models of social development are based on the old position that private property is the main guarantee of individual freedom, and a market economy is more effective method management, rather than an economy regulated by central state authorities. At the same time, neoliberals are increasingly becoming aware of the justification of government actions aimed at limiting the instability of the capitalist system from time to time, balancing opposing forces, smoothing friction between the haves and have-nots, managers and workers, property rights and social necessity. Opposing any form of socialism, against public ownership of the means of production and state planning, neoliberals offer a "third way" of social development between capitalism and socialism, based on the so-called social market economy.

Liberals see and recognize the inevitability of the fundamental contradiction between labor and capital, the process of increasing centralization and concentration of production and capital in the hands of a handful of monopolists, and the intensification of competition and labor exploitation. However, they consider it possible to mitigate these contradictions through a series of measures that modify capitalism, promoting a more equitable distribution of social wealth, the participation of workers in profits and investments, in joint-stock companies, in various kinds of workers' representations in enterprises and other organizational forms of "people's capitalism". They also pin great hopes on establishing the right balance between political power and the economic system, which would eliminate the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a small number of capitalists and related social groups and parties.

Swedish liberals, for example, hope to solve this problem through cooperation between the economic system and the state, representatives of labor and capital. For this purpose, it is planned to create an extensive system of institutions representing the interests of state power and the industrial sector. Harmonious social structure here is understood as the result of a gradual fusion of economic and political power.

According to one of the former leaders of the Swedish young liberals, P. Garton, the following variants of the correlation of these two systems are possible:

1) political power governs the economic system. This means that the political apparatus is in full control of the economy. A typical example is the state of a socialist type, where political power directly dominates the means of production;

2) political power controls the economic system from the outside, which means the impact of political power on the economy from the outside;

3) political power acts “in concert” with the economic system, that is, it is more or less embedded in the economic system, planning production with the participation of the leaders of the economic system;

4) political power is subordinate to the economic system, as is the case in "supercapitalist" states, for example, Germany and the USA.

For Sweden, as we noted, Garton considers it expedient to have a “coordinated,” or “articulated,” relationship between the political and economic systems, in which the political leadership, in any case, manifests itself as an instance interested in the failure-free operation of the economy.

Garton's scheme of various options for correlating political power and the economic system as a whole faithfully reflects some general features of bourgeois reformist projects to optimize the activities of the capitalist system. But it is purely formal and abstract in nature, since it considers the economic system and political power as impersonal and autonomous social institutions, the activity of which is defined as being inherent in these systems and independent of each other's interests and attitudes. This scheme is not only distracted from the real class and socio-political nature of the economy and political power, but also proceeds from an untenable premise suggesting some objective interest of these two systems in the optimal organization of public life, favorable for the whole society, all its classes and social groups. The abstract nature of these models reveals itself especially clearly when it comes to the dominance of political power over the means of production in socialist-type states, since it does not take into account the qualitative difference between a socialist state and a bourgeois, and above all, fundamentally important circumstance, that the subject of the economic system and political power in a socialist state is a people consisting of friendly classes and social groups, placed on an equal footing with respect to the means of production, driven by common interests and goals.

The liberals' policy documents contain a number of provisions bringing them closer to the socialists and social democrats. Both advocate personal and civil freedom, in defense of human dignity and parliamentary democracy. But at the same time, they hold different views on economic policy. Liberals closely associate their projects for improving public relations with the free enterprise system, in which many work to enrich the few, dissociate themselves from socialist ideas, and often sharply criticize some of the fundamental principles of socialist social development projects. Socialist parties, and especially left-wing socialists, oppose the free enterprise system based on human exploitation by man, and are developing various reformist programs to overcome capitalist social relations, socialize capitalist property and even replace it with public property.

Reforms planned and partially implemented by West European socialists and social democrats relate primarily to the social aspects of capitalist reality. They imply full employment, higher wages, the development of social security, increased access to various types of education for working youth, etc. Some reforms are also envisaged in the field of public relations. Such are the various projects of the complicity of the working people in the economic life of a capitalist society, and the provision of a “new quality of life." The problem of complicity is supposed to be solved in one case in line with the development of “industrial democracy” (Sweden), in other cases in connection with the implementation of “economic democracy” (France, Denmark). Like liberals, British Labor and West German Social Democrats, they suggest the participation of mercenaries workers in possession of a share of the fixed capital of an enterprise, which, in their opinion, will lead to further participation in the management of this enterprise. In Austrian and West German Social Democrats, complicity relates not only to production, but also to the sphere of public life. Thus, it is supposed to promote the development of democracy in a capitalist society.

Models of the social structure of a number of Western socialist and social democratic parties provide for some type of mixed economic system in which, along with the public sector, private small and medium enterprises in agriculture, industry and trade will exist for a long time. The essential elements of this model are called limited planning and farm management in order to concentrate investments in critical areas of economic development. We are talking about such forms of government that avoid centralism, which subordinates the economy to the state. In the same spirit, it is supposed to carry out the adjustment and the corresponding direction of the continuing market economy.

However, the experience of government activities of socialists and social democrats in Western European countries over the past two decades shows that their reforms did not introduce any noticeable structural changes in capitalist society. The sharp criticism voiced at a number of party conferences and congresses generated a double reaction. On the one hand, requirements were formulated for a radical reorganization of society on the basis of the socialization of fixed assets. On the other hand, theories and concepts have emerged that give rise to illusions about the possible overcoming of capitalist structures without significant changes in private property relations. According to this point of view, the issue of ownership is not critical, but the main task is to limit the power of the capitalists through legislative parliamentary reforms that exclude the revolutionary path of social reorganization. But, as K. Chernets, a prominent figure in Austrian Social Democracy correctly noted, still nowhere has it been possible to ensure that the capitalists are content with dividends from their shares, and the managers run the economy in the interests of social justice, based on plans developed democratically.

The measures taken in the field of state planning and investment policy, the far-reaching regulation of capitalist profits and the corresponding socio-political development - all this does not lead to harmonious cooperation of labor and capital and not to peaceful social reorganization, but to political confrontation and exacerbation of the class struggle. In the ranks of Western European Social Democracy, there is a growing understanding that the government that represents it cannot be content with the role of a more democratic and fair administration of bourgeois society, but should contribute to the implementation of those programmatic provisions that will lead to overcoming the existing capitalist relations and creating a qualitatively new form of social life.

Western non-Marxist philosophy, together with criticism of enlightened educational-progressive and speculative-metaphysical concepts of the past, has denied the possibility of a rational knowledge of the objective laws of historical development, frustrating any such attempt, and especially the Marxist theory of socio-historical development as supposedly scientifically untenable and utopian its essence. The right to overcome the barriers that separate the present from the future, a breakthrough into the future, this philosophy provided only to the prophets and poets. Referring to the specifics of the future as an object of cognition, which also includes what is not yet in reality, which is not yet an available object, philosophers of a neo-positivist nature recognized the future and its objectivity as mutually exclusive. An attempt to know that which cannot be verified using narrowly empirical neopositivistic criteria of scientificness was declared to be deprived of scientific and objective significance, and from the point of view of Western religious philosophy - a blasphemous and blasphemous attempt on what is in God's hand.

This approach to the problem of scientific and theoretical knowledge of the future in Western philosophy and program documents of the leading bourgeois and social reformist parties as a whole has been preserved to this day. And today, many non-Marxist philosophers and party theorists deny or express serious doubts about the possibility of a large-scale, long-term, philosophical-theoretical and socio-political diagnosis of the modern era and forecasting the content and direction of human development in the future.

However, this position of Western social philosophy in the context of the ongoing crisis of the capitalist system, aggravated by the harsh need for timely resolution of vital domestic and global problems, has found its extreme inadequacy, since the solution of these problems and the problems of ideological integration of the broad masses that bother the bourgeoisie more and more insistently require the development and propaganda of a certain integral views on the world, on the way and forms of further social and cultural development of mankind. In the most diverse political and philosophical regions of the Western world, calls for a philosophical understanding of the modern life problems of mankind, for the development of philosophical projects that reflect the real trends of historical development, its possible prospects, have become increasingly popular.

Under the conditions of an orientational crisis that painfully manifests itself in Western countries, bourgeois philosophy, of course, is not satisfied with calls for a holistic understanding of modern world development, but makes various kinds and levels of attempts to philosophical research of our time, to identify those ways in which crisis phenomena can be overcome and found some general principles of activity, the spiritual identity of various social groups and society as a whole. Such attempts have been undertaken before and have been particularly active in the past decade. Despite the significant differences in modern conservative, liberal and social-democratic concepts of the future, advocating for the strengthening and revival of traditional forms of bourgeois culture and social life, or for their evolutionary, reform-driven improvement, transformation and even overcoming of the capitalist system, Western philosophy as a whole it is united both in the rejection of the realities and ideals of modern socialist society, and in preserving the fundamental foundations of capitalist civilization, in its belief in the wide possibilities for its self-improvement. At the same time, a number of left-liberal and social-democratic projects of the future formulate requirements for reaching a qualitatively new level of social and cultural life in the developed capitalist countries and in the world as a whole.

Thus, the famous West German scientist and philosopher K. F. Weizsacker, considering possible solutions to such problems of modern reality as inflation, poverty, the arms race, defense the environment, class differences, uncontrollability of culture, etc., believes that most of them cannot be solved within the framework of the existing social systems, and therefore humanity is faced with the task of moving to another stage of its development, which can only be achieved as a result of a radical change in modern consciousness. Putting forward the need to create some kind of “ascetic world culture” alternative to existing societies, he acknowledges that the socialist demands of solidarity and justice are closer to the necessary turn of consciousness than the liberal principles of self-affirmation. At the same time, both real socialism and capitalism, in his opinion, are equally removed from the solution of these problems. Weizsacker speaks of the need to establish a new consciousness, such forms of individual, domestic and international life, which the past history did not know. But in his interpretation of the leap of modern mankind into a completely different plane of world perception and life, he unjustifiably neglects the factor of continuity, the continuity of the development of history itself, despite the fundamental qualitative changes at various stages and scales that take place in it at different stages. A qualitatively new stage in history cannot be interpreted in isolation from the social and spiritual premises created by previous formations.

Therefore, any concept of the future, alternative to the existing capitalist civilization, if it is not only a new variant of social utopia, should clearly define its origins in the real conditions and prerequisites of modern social life, and first of all its attitude to modern socialist reality, objectively evaluate those new forms of socio-economic structures, culture, international and interpersonal relations that she brought to life.

Many millions of people of our planet, of different races and nationalities, beliefs and religions, today realize the need to adopt a number of common democratic and fair principles of domestic and international community and cooperation, without which humanity will not be able to survive, solve the basic life problems of its modern existence and thereby ensure necessary conditions for further development and social progress. It is also obvious that these principles can receive their recognition and establish themselves in the life of peoples only along the paths of ever-growing mutual understanding and harmony, and improvement of domestic and international life activities.

Of course, these qualitatively new forms of social life and international relations of the future will take shape and should be formed on the basis of all that is best and progressive that is born of the culture of every nation, small and large. In this sense, they will be the result of the progressive development of humanity as a whole. But at the same time, from the diversity of the existing forms of socio-political life, it is necessary to single out the one that, by its already existing nature, in its most general and fundamental features, can be described as the main source and carrier of future forms of social and interhuman relations. These are the indigenous socio-political institutions and cultural values \u200b\u200bof the countries of real socialism, the ideals and principles of a socialist worldview, in various forms and to various degrees affirming themselves in the minds of most peoples of the world. It was this last circumstance that Weizsacker had in mind when he said that the socialist demands of solidarity and justice are closer to the worldview of the future than those proclaimed in various versions of modern bourgeois-liberal ideology.

However, recognizing the virtues of a socialist worldview, Weizsacker puts real socialism and capitalism on the same level, considering them as two systems that are equally remote from the social ideal of the future. Of course, modern real socialism does not embody a complete and perfect model of a future society. In stating this circumstance, there are no special revelations, it only fixes the natural and understandable difference between the real existing and what should be in the future, in accordance with its theoretical ideal. But it is undoubtedly true that real socialism already has qualitatively new, progressive forms of social life, fundamentally different from capitalist ones and representing the first stage of a communist social formation.

Communism and its first, socialist phase, despite the qualitative difference from the social formations that historically preceded it, as we have already noted, do not interrupt the general course of the historical process, but is a qualitatively new stage in its development, a logical result of it. Communism is also an unsuccessful end to history, understood in the manner of religious and eschatological teachings about the “higher city”, about the otherworldly or earthly paradise. The communist ideal, by virtue of its scientific and concrete historical nature, involves the creation of a society free from social vices and imperfections of capitalism and other forms of class antagonistic society of the past, from exploitation of man by man, a society that does not end the history of mankind, but continues it, opening up wide space for the further development of a qualitative renewal of its social forms.

The international experience of building socialism confirms the validity of the well-known position of the theory of scientific communism about the need for a more or less long one, ”depending on the specific conditions of each country, the transition period during which the capitalist economy is transformed into a socialist one, fundamental changes are carried out in various areas of public life (as in material, So in the spiritual realm). The need for such a transition period is explained, along with other reasons, by the fact that the new socialist economy is not born in the bowels of the capitalist formation, but is created again in the process of conscious and systematic activity of the socialist state, after the victory of the socialist revolution and the expropriation of all the basic means of production on the basis of social ownership of property. This is one of the essential qualitative features of the formation of a new, communist social formation, its first - socialist - phase. However, rightly emphasizing the qualitative difference between the ways of building a socialist society, it should be borne in mind that in this case, continuity as an essential connection of a qualitatively new stage of history with the previous ones, the perception and preservation in their own or transformed form of certain elements of material and spiritual culture remains an important condition successful building a new society. We are talking not only about a specific level of economic development, productive forces, concentration and centralization of production, socialization of labor, leading capitalism to that step of the historical ladder, between which there are no "intermediate steps" between socialism, but also about other significant aspects of the cultural tradition, perceived by the new social system and included in it as its effective elements.

The experience of the formation and development of the world socialist system indicates that one degree or another of the presence of cultural elements inherited from the past directly affects the functioning of the new society. Of course, the material prerequisites prepared by capitalism, which consist primarily in the level of development of production and technology, are the primary and important condition for the development of society in its qualitatively new, socialist form. But the optimal vital activity of a socialist society, the realization of its actual potentials and advantages, are possible only if many other elements of the cultural tradition are brought into effect, especially those on which the level of development and active activity of a person depend - a key power of production, the subject of cognition and socio-historical creativity . The wealth of man’s creative capabilities is determined not only by his production skills and education, but also by the general cultural development as an integral being. The culture of man’s work and life, his political activity, emotional and spiritual-moral life, interhuman communication, lifestyle, thinking, aesthetic perception of the world, personal behavior - all this and much more make up the real content of human and social life, on which effective the functioning of any social organization, including a socialist one.

Not only human life, but the whole history of mankind is measured and evaluated in accordance with the level of development and involvement of all these parameters. The Soviet Socialist Republic in some respects received a very modest legacy from the past, and under the new conditions it had to make up for what was lost and insufficiently developed in the pre-revolutionary era. The successful solution of this complex task was facilitated by the massive enthusiasm of the builders of the new society and the high cultural level of the party and state leadership of the country. Assessing the cultural and intellectual merits of the first Soviet government, headed by Lenin and the highest echelon of the Leninist guard, some Western journalists of that time were forced to recognize their extremely high and unique level in the entire political history of mankind. Indeed, in the first years of Soviet power, the Leninist guard set for the subsequent activities of the socialist state and society as a whole an extremely high scale of ideological conviction, intellectual culture and spirituality, the maintenance of which served to the success of the further construction of a socialist society. And today, outlining new plans and prospects for the development of socialist society in the XII five-year plan and for the period until 2000, the party and the Soviet state emphasize the importance at all levels of continuity and innovative creativity, the subjective-human factor for the successful solution of the plans.

Continuity and qualitative renewal are the most important aspects of the progressive development of social life, history and the communist worldview. “History is nothing but sequential shift individual generations, each of which uses materials, capital, productive forces transferred to it by all previous generations; because of this, this generation, on the one hand, continues the inherited activity under completely changed conditions, and on the other hand, it modifies the old conditions through completely changed activities. ” The embodiment of cultural continuity and quality novelty is Marxist philosophy and its social theory. In Marxism, as Lenin noted, there is nothing like ideological "sectarianism", a closed, ossified teaching that arose "aside from the main road of the development of world civilization." On the contrary, it arose as a direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialist theories of the past. The culture of communism, absorbing and developing all the best that has been created by world culture, will be a new, highest step in the cultural development of mankind, the rightful heir to all progressive, positive cultural achievements and traditions of the past. The organic connection of Marxism with advanced cultural traditions, the creative nature of its philosophy and the theory of scientific communism, their openness to renewal, to new ideas, ideas about the life of society have largely determined the nature of social and political structures real socialism, their ability to continuous development and high-quality self-improvement.

The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of socialism as the first stage of a communist society is developing, refining and enriching itself on the basis of a theoretical generalization and understanding of the experience of the entire world revolutionary process, and above all of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. This experience has confirmed and clarified the general assumption expressed by the founders of Marxism and Lenin that, along with the fundamental laws of the construction and functioning of socialism, significant differences will be revealed due to specific specific national and historical features, the development of each socialist country. “... On the whole, the period of transition from capitalism to socialism,” wrote Lenin, “the teachers of socialism spoke not in vain and did not in vain emphasize the“ long agony of the birth ”of the new society, and this new society is again an abstraction that cannot be realized otherwise, through a series of diverse, imperfect concrete attempts to create a particular socialist state. ”

On the unknown paths of building socialism, in difficult internal and external conditions, the Soviet people, under the leadership of the Communist Party, overcoming colossal difficulties, did a tremendous and fruitful work to create new forms of social life. The progressive development of Soviet society, despite the difficulties and errors of an objective and subjective order, continued steadily and led to the victory of the socialist system in all the main spheres of public life towards the end of the 1930s. During a short historical period spanning a little over two decades, the Soviet country carried out enormous social transformations that led to the creation of the foundations of a socialist society. The nationalization of the means of production, the establishment and approval of various forms of socialist social ownership, the industrialization of the country, and the collectivization of agriculture created a powerful socio-economic foundation for the new society. The cultural revolution eliminated illiteracy, opened up wide scope for the spiritual growth of the people, and formed a socialist intelligentsia. The huge conquest of the young Soviet Republic was the solution in its basic parameters of the national question. All forms of national oppression and national inequality were done away with, on a voluntary basis, a single multinational Soviet state of free and equal peoples was formed, favorable conditions were created for the economic and cultural progress of the former national suburbs.

Unique in its merits and fruitful results, the solution of the national question in the first socialist country was forced to admit by many representatives of social thought in the Western world. The largest English bourgeois historian and social philosopher A. Toynbee in one of his letters to the Soviet academician N. I. Conrad made a very interesting and noteworthy admission. “Your country,” he wrote, “consists of so many peoples who speak so many different languages \u200b\u200band inherit so different cultures that it is a model of the world as a whole; and the combination of these cultural and linguistic varieties, and economic, social and political unity on a federal basis, you demonstrated in the Soviet Union how this could be in the world as a whole and how it will be, I hope, realized in the future. ”

The Soviet Union withstood the harsh trials of World War II and the post-war period. He made a decisive contribution to the defeat of German fascism, the liberation of the peoples of Europe from Nazi slavery, and after the war ended healed the wounds caused by the war in a short time, restored the destroyed cities and villages, the country's economy, strengthened and raised the economic, scientific and technical and defense potential. The international positions of the Soviet Union were strengthened. The historical experience of our country has clearly demonstrated the advantage of the new social system. He showed the whole world that under socialism it is possible to create modern developed industrial production and agriculture incomparably faster and at lower direct and indirect costs, to carry out cultural transformations unprecedented in scale and results, to raise an economically underdeveloped country to the level of modern powerful capitalist industrial powers, The fact that capitalism in its economic development took one and a half to two centuries in the first socialist country was carried out over several decades. And this very self-evident circumstance alone was an important factor that influenced the political decision and choice of many peoples. The peoples of other socialist countries have taken this path, the people of Africa, Asia and Latin America are drawn to it.

The advantages of the socialist social system in the postwar decades were already confirmed at the international level by the successful experience of the countries of the socialist community, which managed to create developed socio-economic and cultural structures under the constant economic pressure of the Western imperialist circles and the ideological sabotage and counter-revolutionary actions carried out by them new society. Bearing in mind these significant achievements of the socialist countries, the Conference of Communist and Workers Parties of 1969 came to the justified conclusion that the socialist world entered such a developmental zone “when it becomes possible to make full use of the powerful reserves laid down in the new system. This is facilitated by the development and implementation of better economic and political forms that meet the needs of a mature socialist society, the development of which is already based on a new social structure. ”

The experience of socialist construction in the Soviet Union and other countries allows us to distinguish two significantly different stages in their economic development. The first is characterized by accelerated rates of industrialization of industry and agriculture, quantitative growth of the economy, carried out by means of tightly centralized economic management with a predominance of administrative and political methods of influencing the processes of socio-economic development. As you know, these methods of social and economic leadership in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries led to the creation of the powerful material and technical base of the new society as soon as possible, ensuring their economic independence from the capitalist world and creating the necessary prerequisites for further social progress. The solution of these problems along the paths of extensive economic growth has led over time to the need for a transition to new methods of planning and managing the national economy, which are more in line with the increased level of productive forces and are characterized by a predominant focus on intensive factors of economic growth. The tasks of a new stage in the development of the socialist economy of the last two decades required the search for new methods and means that would contribute to a more consistent and full realization of the huge potential opportunities of socialism. As the experience of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries testifies to this, these tasks were solved, as a rule, on the paths of economic reforms aimed at increasing the scientific level of planning, expanding the independence of enterprises, strengthening material incentives for production and strengthening economic accounting.

The successful implementation of the tasks and the overdue transformations required the adoption and timely implementation of effective measures in various fields of social life. Along with the well-known achievements in solving these urgent problems in the 70s and early 80s, certain unfavorable trends and difficulties took place in the development of our country. As noted in the new version of the CPSU Program, they were largely related to the fact that “changes in the economic situation, the need for profound changes in all spheres of life were not timely and duly assessed, and due diligence in their implementation was not shown. This prevented a fuller use of the possibilities and advantages of the socialist system, and restrained progress. ”

In the current conditions of internal and international development, there is an urgent need to study and comprehend not only the specific shortcomings in the development of the country over the past five years, but also those serious economic and social shifts of an objective nature that have occurred over the past quarter century. Based on this analysis of a significant period in the development of our country, program documents of the party and the state were developed that outlined the strategic course for the accelerated social and economic development of the country.

The Political Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 27th Congress of the Party and the party’s program documents adopted at the Congress determine the strategy, nature and pace of development of our country for the 12th five-year plan and the subsequent period, up to the beginning of the third millennium. The task of transforming all aspects of Soviet society, achieving a qualitatively new state by accelerating socio-economic development based on the achievements of scientific and technological revolutions, the task of more consistent and full realization of the enormous potentialities of socialism, its fundamental advantages, has been posed, which is historical in scope and significance. Based on a thorough analysis of the shortcomings and omissions that took place in the 70s and early 80s and taking into account the increased creative capabilities of Soviet society in the documents of the congress, ways and means of solving many of the most important problems of the further development of socialism in our country are outlined. In the context of these specific and substantiated programs for improving various aspects of Soviet society, they are filled with a certain content and some new principles of the theory of scientific communism appear in a new light.

Of paramount importance is the program of action adopted at the congress in the fundamental sphere of public life - the economy. The task was set in it and the ways of raising the national economy to a fundamentally new scientific, technical, organizational and economic level, and its transfer to the rails of intensive development were determined. The fulfillment of this task implies such an improvement in the economic system that would make it possible to maximize the reserves contained in it, and above all the advantages of a socialist economy based on public property, and thus achieve the highest world level of productivity of social labor, product quality, production efficiency in general .

Turning to the economic aspects of the upcoming radical transformations, one should bear in mind the specific features and possibilities of socialist property relations and, in general, the very function of property as such in the economic activity of society, its organic connection and dependence on those specific economic and socio-political forms in which it is realized potency. Neither private nor public ownership of the means of production, as is known, is any thing, a metaphysical substantial reality, its mere actual presence or legal fixation predetermining the mode of production, the degree of effectiveness of the economic and other practices of a particular society. As a socio-economic category and one of the fundamental factors of the life of society, property is a system of social relations, determined by a certain form and measure of a person’s possession of the means of production and other benefits. Property "is not a thing," Marx emphasized, "but a social relation between people mediated by things." This is a social institution that takes shape in the bowels of material production and then extends to the areas of distribution, exchange and consumption, taking into account the distinguishing feature of socialist property relations, which is determined by the specific conditions for the formation of a new socio-economic system that does not arise spontaneously in the bowels of the old society, but the course of its revolutionary transformation, as a result of the conscious and systematic activity of the socialist state. Political power here is a leading factor in creating economic mechanisms, in the functioning of which the economic side of social property relations realizes itself.

In the course of the socialist revolution, in the very first years of the existence of the Soviet Republic, the most important legislative acts were adopted on the basis of which the private property of landowners and capitalists was expropriated and public, state ownership of the country's main means of production was proclaimed. The enormous creative significance of public property for the formation and development of a socialist society, its fundamental advantages are associated with the potential for the implementation on its basis of a planned organization of the economy and centralized leadership by the state by all parts of public life, ensuring an equal and real right to property of all members of society, such provisions in the system of social production, in which they are and feel themselves to be the real owners and stewards of this property, vitally interested in its preservation and increase. We emphasize the real, but potential nature of these opportunities as something that is not automatically given in the finished form together with the very act of nationalizing the means of production, but is realized in the process of building for many years new economic, political and administrative structures of a socialist society. Obtaining the right of the owner and becoming the owner - real, wise, zealous - is far from the same thing. The people who have completed the socialist revolution have a long time to master their new position as the supreme and undivided owner of all social wealth - to master both economically and politically, and, if you will, psychologically, developing a collectivist consciousness and behavior.

The task of the fullest possible optimal realization of the advantages of public ownership of property, of the interested, businesslike attitude of each Soviet person to it was solved and is being solved on the paths of improving the existing and creating new forms and mechanisms of the economic, political and administrative systems of Soviet society. During the years of Soviet power, much has been done in this regard. But today, at the stage of improving socialist society, our country has come to a turning point in history, at which there was an urgent need for a qualitative change in the existing productive forces and production relations.

One of the important conditions for the successful implementation of the strategic course worked out by the party for the qualitative transformation of all aspects of the life of Soviet society is the increasing role of the human factor, the creation of objective and subjective prerequisites that promote the development of the creative activity of the masses at various levels of socialist society, and especially in the economy. In this regard, the establishment of Soviet man as a true owner and manager of public property, as a key force capable of providing a sharp turn towards intensification of production and qualitative factors of economic growth, implies a significant improvement in the economic mechanisms and forms of labor organization, which are determined by a person’s specific position in the production system, by means of material and moral stimulation would support his constant internal responsibility and interest in the qualitative and quantitative growth of the results of collective labor. This is also intended to contribute to a more complete involvement of workers in the process of production management, an increase in the role of labor collectives in the development of plans and economic decisions.

If here a Soviet person exercises his right to own public property at a private, grassroots level, directly within a specific enterprise and collective, then on a national scale as a whole he exercises this right indirectly, through his chosen people, deputies of local and state national representations, by means of the Soviet parliamentary democracy. Hence the great importance that the program documents of our party devote to improving not only the economic and administrative mechanisms, but also the activities of the Soviets of People's Deputies as the main links in the socialist self-government of the people. Improving the forms of popular representation, democratic principles of the Soviet electoral system, increasing the role of local Councils in ensuring integrated economic and social development regions, their independence in solving problems of local importance, in coordinating and monitoring the activities of organizations located on their territory, and many other tasks of democratization and intensification of the work of elected bodies of the Soviet state are proclaimed as urgent and relevant for the modern development of our socialist society.

Public property, as we noted, really exists and realizes its advantages in specific forms of production relations, in the corresponding economic and managerial mechanisms, in how efficiently the centralized planned organization of social production and economy is implemented on its basis, i.e., the most productive relationship person to property and its use both in a specific economic link and on the scale of the state as a whole. In other words, the advantages of public ownership are manifested and should be manifested in those certain forms of economic activity in which the main task of socialist management is most successfully solved - the task of a qualitative and quantitative increase in labor productivity, and in connection with this (and for this) its higher organization.

Economic growth, the constant increase in the contribution of each link in the national economy to the common goal of meeting society's needs to the fullest extent possible at the lowest cost of all types of resources — this is the "immutable law of socialist management, the main criterion for evaluating the performance of industries, associations and enterprises, all production cells." It is one of the fundamental criteria for evaluating the further development and improvement of public property. In this regard, determining the prospects and goals of such development, one cannot be satisfied only with the general provision on the future rapprochement and coalescence of the two existing forms of socialist public property - collective-farm-cooperative and national-state - or their merger into a single public, communist property. These general theoretical models of a more perfect type of public ownership must be linked to various specific criteria for social, cultural and, above all, economic development, and, which seems to us especially important, not to limit them in advance to just one form of socialist economic organization.

The improvement of socialist property, the fuller realization of its advantages and opportunities, takes place and can take place not in the process of implementing some abstract model of the only-begotten social property, but on the paths of a concrete search and creation of more effective forms of socialist economy. As the experience of the economic development of the USSR and other socialist countries testifies to this, this search is most likely to lead to the approval of not one, single economic mechanism for all economic sectors and regions, but several or many more advanced and efficient, constantly improved, based on public ownership of specific forms of socialist management. This assumption also follows from the organizational principle of democratic centralism underlying socialist society, which implies both an increase in the effectiveness of centralized leadership and a significant expansion of economic independence and responsibility of associations and enterprises. Developing a centralized beginning in management and planning, in solving strategic tasks, the new version of the CPSU Program says, the party will actively implement measures to increase the role of the main production link - associations and enterprises, consistently draw a line to expand their rights and economic independence, strengthen responsibility and interest in achieving high end results. The center of gravity of all operational and economic work should be in the field — in labor collectives.

Much attention is paid to the social sphere. “Our party,” says M. S. Gorbachev, “must have a socially strong policy covering the entire space of a person’s life - from the conditions of his work and life, health and leisure to social class and national relations ... The party considers social policy as a powerful tool accelerating the country's economic development, raising the labor and socio-political activity of the masses as an important factor in the political stability of society, the formation of a new person, and the establishment of a socialist lifestyle. ”

Public ownership of the means of production determines one more significant advantage of the socialist system, namely, the possibility and real practice of centralized management by the state by all links in public life. Disposing the country's material, financial and labor resources on behalf of the people, it uses them for the systematically organized and purposeful management of economic and other processes of social development, makes appropriate decisions, draws up plans and projects, organizes the activities of the working masses for their implementation, regulates and coordinates various interests and the trends that are manifested and operating in society, carries out accounting and control over the production and distribution of public goods. Management of public processes, numerous objects, economic and commercial enterprises and institutions, cultural and scientific institutions, society as a whole is carried out by management entities, state and non-governmental public bodies and organizations and the leading force of a socialist society - the Communist Party, developing a single political line for the development of society, ensuring general political leadership.

In the process of development of a socialist society, the field of state administration and other administrative instances is unusually expanding, encompassing society as a whole, all its main links. This, of course, strengthens their control functions, the ability to curb various negative natural processes and phenomena that arise in society, and to carry out accounting and control over the activities of subordinate enterprises and institutions. At the same time, under certain conditions, there is a tendency to formalize the relationship between subjects and management objects, excessive activity of management bodies, bureaucratic regulation carried out by them and petty custody of the activities of enterprises and production groups controlled by them. This tendency becomes a constraining factor for creative initiative, sometimes even removing or limiting the effect of objective economic and production mechanisms, which greatly reduces the effectiveness of managerial activity itself.

The relative independence of the governing bodies, determined by their internal structure, professional specialization, established rules of operation, sometimes leads to their isolation and separation from the real problems and tasks of subordinate objects, to the oblivion of their own social purpose, when they begin to function as something self-sufficient, evaluating their activities according to “Internal”, formal indicators, by the number of meetings, decisions, by the compiled documentation, and not by actual, practical results. The reason for such situations is not only the "ossification" and bureaucratization of management organizations, but also the insufficient economic and organizational independence of enterprises, and accordingly the inadequacy of the feedback emanating from them or their own activity, stimulating a productive reaction of management entities. Bearing in mind precisely such circumstances, Lenin demanded that enterprises be given the right to independently solve economic problems “with maximum freedom of maneuvering, with the most rigorous verification of actual successes in increasing production and breaking even, its profitability, with the most serious selection of the most outstanding and skillful administrators ...”.

Thus, a significant drawback of managerial activity in the situation described by us is its one-sidedness, so to speak, its monolithic nature, the absence of a substantive request from the control object that causes a productive response, and reaction to it. And meanwhile, it is precisely the dialogical system of relations between subjects and control objects as two relatively independent principles that can provide the necessary productivity of their creativity, their development and improvement. In equal dialogue dialogue and interaction truth and productivity of our thinking and creativity are born.

By socializing the main productive forces of the country, socialism reinforces the formal equality of the working people before the law with their equal attitude to property, that is, to the real material and cultural possibilities of human life and creativity. The bourgeois democracy of capital is being replaced by a democracy of labor, the principle of which is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." This is the only form of universal social justice possible for the modern level of development of the productive forces in our country, which excludes the exploitation of man by man and any other form of social oppression, but does not yet ensure complete, communist equality, assuming the distribution of the basic goods necessary for life in accordance with normal reasonable needs, regardless of the degree of the individual’s creative abilities and measures of his labor contribution to social production.

As Marx noted, in the first, socialist phase of communist society, each individual producer receives exactly as much as he gives back from society, with all the deductions, that is, in strict accordance with the quantity and quality of labor. This equal right, which is essentially an unequal right for unequal work, “does not recognize any class differences, because each is only a worker, like all others; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual giftedness and, consequently, unequal performance by natural privileges, ”which are later supplemented by social differences due to the material and cultural conditions of the formation and upbringing of a person within the family and immediate social communities. The marital status of the worker, the presence of children, other relatives who are dependent on him, and, therefore, with equal participation in the public consumer fund, in fact, one gets more than the other, and turns out to be richer than the other. In this case, the law, in order to be equal, must in fact be unequal. This situation is absolutely true, but this “inequality” should be carried out through public funds and not socialistically violate labor remuneration measures at work, for this would constitute an unjustified restriction and infringement on the principle that stimulates the necessary growth in the productivity of the socialist economy. Until the onset of the highest phase of communism, V. I. Lenin wrote, the need will remain for "strict control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption ...".

Hence it is obvious that the success of socialist construction on modern stage It is directly dependent on the degree of strict and consistent implementation in production, in the distribution and consumption of the socialist principle of payment according to work. And this, in turn, requires the creation of the most objective economic criteria and managerial mechanisms that determine the quantitative and qualitative measure of labor, adequate commodity support, which is in circulation of the wage fund, consistently democratic forms of distribution of public goods in the sphere of trade and services, in which differences and the advantages of one worker over another would lie only in their various monetary possibilities, acquired on the basis of the socialist principle of payment according to work. Both in a socialist society and in the distant communist perspective, the provision of equal opportunities to all members of society does not imply the leveling of individual differences; moreover, it is intended to open up wider scope for the extraordinary wealth and variety of forms of individual existence, individual needs and incentives, social and spiritual forms activity. Marx and Lenin repeatedly noted the utopianism and reactionaryness of the idea of \u200b\u200begalitarian communism.

In accordance with the main tasks of the socialist construction of our time, in the real context of the possibilities and problems of socialism with its principle of payment according to work, labor productivity still remains an important criterion for social progress, a measure of social significance and human value. The consistent implementation of labor democracy in all spheres of public life is a determining condition for achieving optimal growth in labor productivity, the necessary abundance of consumer goods, and, ultimately, the spiritual development of man. Party documents have repeatedly emphasized the need to create such economic and organizational conditions under which high-quality productive labor, initiative and enterprise are stimulated, and poor work, inaction, and irresponsibility duly affected the material remuneration, official position, and moral authority of workers.

Ensuring the optimal functioning of the existing managerial and economic system, improving them, creating new economic forms and mechanisms, expanding the independence of enterprises, opening up new opportunities for mass labor and economic activity, socialist initiative and enterprise, and, finally, the further development of socialist democracy in the broadest sense - such are the development paths of the country, on which the necessary material conditions and the spiritual atmosphere of social life are established, which contribute to the formation of a truly moral and harmoniously developed personality.

In this regard, the formation of a new person under socialism is not understood as a one-time task, limited by the specific time of its final solution. This is a process that involves constant work on communist education, when for each new generation, regardless of the favorable initial conditions, the task of education arises as a new task in a certain sense, solved in accordance with the peculiarities of its specific historical time, with a certain measure of success and costs.

The Marxist position that man is the goal, and material production is the means of social development, refers to the entire communist formation, and its fullest implementation is supposed to be in a distant historical perspective, covering an incomparably longer historical period than the one that limits the existing socialist practice . Therefore, the degree of implementation of the given theoretical principles of scientific communism should be determined and evaluated in the light of the features and capabilities of the concrete historical stage in the development of communist society.

A comparison of the Marxist doctrine of man and communist humanism with the reality of modern socialist reality, with its specific achievements and problems in general, confirms the correctness and feasibility of its provisions. The system of social relations prevailing in the USSR created the conditions for the implementation of the general communist humanist principle at the level of modern development of socialism. For the first time in the history of mankind, a society has developed in which the activities of all social institutions are subordinated to the task of satisfying the material and spiritual needs of a person maximum for a given level of development of production. In our country, the right of all citizens to work, education, social security, leisure is really ensured, all forms of social inequality are destroyed, a fundamentally new form of democracy is being implemented.

The problem of man in a socialist society is solved as a two-pronged problem of improving the socialist forms of economic, sociopolitical and cultural life, the communist education of the individual. With the transformations in public life, the ideological and spiritual-moral development of a person gains ever-increasing importance, because it is from him, the main productive force that drives the entire system of social relations, that the optimal level of functioning of this system, its specific content and meaning, depends.

New and more complex tasks arise for each individual person in terms of his self-education. We are, of course, talking about such a person’s work on the formation of his own spiritual and moral structure, which does not separate and does not separate him from the real processes of social life, but becomes one of the essential factors of its ongoing development. In our society, the ideological and moral attitudes of the individual human being, the moral and social responsibility of man, the spiritual motives that determine his choice and behavior in a particular life situation begin to play an increasingly important role.

The concrete and real nature of Marxist humanism does not at all mean the belittling of the value of universal norms and the requirements of spirituality and morality. On the contrary, universal norms of morality, ideas about good and humanity, about the meaning of life in Marxism find their real connection with those concrete historical conditions, possibilities and forces with which they get their more complete and consistent realization in life. Rejecting the abstractly speculative understanding of universal values, Marxism in its dialectic of universal and concrete historical reveals and shows the real essence of these spiritual and moral human institutions.

Home and life. Psychology. Technics. State. Finance. Health. the Internet

The position on the social issue is a solution. Socialism and solutions to the problems of modern man

The role of the state in the economy - liberalism

The main value is freedom

The ideal is a market economy

The state should not interfere in the economy

The principle of separation of powers: legislative, executive, judicial

Social Position - Liberalism

The person is free and is responsible for his own well-being.

All people are equal, everyone has equal opportunities

Ways to solve social problems - liberalism

Power Reforms

The Limits of Freedom - Liberalism

A man from birth has inalienable rights: to life, freedom, etc.

“All that is not prohibited by law is permitted” - complete freedom in everything.

Only one who can be responsible for his decisions, i.e. whether the owners are an educated person.

The role of the state in the economy - conservatism

The goal is to preserve traditions, religion and order

The state has the right to intervene in the economy, if necessary to preserve traditions

The power of the state is not limited by anyone or anything

The ideal is an absolute monarchy

Social Position - Conservatism

Preservation of the old estate

Do not believe in the possibility of social equality

Ways to solve social problems - conservatism

The people must obey, the state can use violence against revolutions

Reforms - as a last resort to prevent social explosions

The Limits of Freedom - Conservatism

The state subjugates the personality

Freedom is expressed in observance of traditions, religious humility

The role of the state in the economy - Socialism

Destruction of private property, free market and competition

The state fully controls the economy, helps the poor

MARXISM - a form of government - DICTATURE OF THE PROLETARIAT (workers' power)

ANARCHISM - the state must be destroyed

Social Position - Socialism

All people should have equal rights and benefits.

The state itself resolves all social issues, providing workers with their rights

Ways to solve social problems - socialism

Socialist revolution

Eliminating Inequality and Owner Class

The Limits of Freedom - Socialism

Freedom is achieved by ensuring all benefits and is limited by the state.

Work is obligatory for everyone

Entrepreneurship and private property prohibited

Download:

Preview:

Lesson Objectives:

Introduce social movements: liberalism, conservatism, socialism;

To determine how they influenced the development of society and what role they identified for the state in public life;