home Diagnosis and diseases The Civil War is a national tragedy in Russia. Essay: War as a tragedy of the people based on works about the Great Patriotic War

The Civil War is a national tragedy in Russia. Essay: War as a tragedy of the people based on works about the Great Patriotic War

Why and for what do we fight every day? What could our online battles and verbal skirmishes lead to? What needs to be changed so that the tragedy of June 22, 1941 never happens again? Andrey Zaitsev reflects.

June 22, 1941 began in the history of our country. Every Soviet family paid for their freedom and for the mistakes of politicians. The war crippled the destinies of people, changed our consciousness, and to this day many people repeat the phrase like a spell: “If only there was no war.”

IN Lately this terrible word has become firmly entrenched in our lives.

On the Internet, they strive to defeat their opponents in verbal battles, well-known politicians resort to military rhetoric and say that Russia will repel any enemy; politics also has its own battles and destroys opponents.

Concession, the ability to compromise, is perceived as a sign of weakness even for Christians. The Church is increasingly seen as an army led by a brave general. He has self-proclaimed volunteer assistants who want to shoot traitors somewhere behind the headquarters. These Orthodox commissars want to send a missionary expedition to Mars and condemn those who take their children to the Darwin Museum.

Fortunately, true Christianity has little in common with this militarized Orthodox “lightning,” but the very fact that Christians have such views makes us think and talk about very important things.

On the one hand, a believer cannot be viewed as a weak-willed person who is unable to protect his interests, his country or his Church. On the other hand, violence and insult to other people cannot be justified by the Gospel commandments. You cannot throw water or much worse liquids on people, even if they are defending sin. You cannot fight evil with aggression.

A wonderful eastern parable speaks about this. The student came to the mentor and asked him to let him go home, where a cruel tyrant had come to power. The teacher forbade the novice to do this and said the following words: “If you are right and expose the ruler who has lost his human form, you can die, but he will not change, and your death will be in vain. If there is still a conscience in a person’s soul, and you attack him with abuse and accusations, then you can needlessly insult him and harden his heart. In any case, your leaving will not do any good.”

Nevertheless, war as a process remains attractive; there are more and more people who want to feel the taste of victory over an opponent, but fewer people capable of concluding peace agreements. The development of technology is partly to blame for this - you can kill other people physically or verbally from a distance.

I pressed a button on the computer - slander and insults appeared on the Internet, causing irreparable damage to the interlocutor, sending him into deep trouble. He lightly pressed another key, and a rocket flew out, a bomb fell, and there was an explosion. People died, and you look at the picture on the monitor and believe that it was not you who killed, but a bomb.

Some countries are killing others, some countries are going to supply weapons to fighters so that “their own” can win. The war has turned from a tragedy into a show, into an economic factor, into a way to sell killing machines. Politicians, sitting in their chairs, conclude agreements, and at the same time people continue to die.

There will always be a need in the world for soldiers and tanks, planes and ships. It's unavoidable. Boys will run around with toy guns, adults will play paintball. Since ancient times, battle or jousting has been perceived as a matter of brave men and brave women. It is important that war does not become commonplace, the only way achieving goals and resolving conflicts.

Politicians will always divide society into friends and foes and promise to grind their opponents into powder. These are features of rhetoric, but they are very dangerous. A crowd of supporters lifts a person to the top of power or a barricade, makes him a hero, and now shots are heard on the streets of your country, and some citizens kill or maim others. Over the past hundred years, Russia has repeatedly tried to solve its problems on the streets, with the help of blood, and we all need to make serious efforts so that the tragedy does not happen again.

For all of us. Regardless of faith, political leanings, attitude towards the Church or the future of our country.

Only then is there hope that the tragedy of June 22, 1941 will never happen again, and that our grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not give their lives in vain.

Civil war as a tragedy of the people

Civil War, in my opinion, is the most cruel and bloody war, because sometimes close people fight in it, who once lived in one whole, united country, believed in one God and adhered to the same ideals. How it happens that relatives stand on opposite sides of the barricades and how such wars end, we can trace on the pages of the novel - M. A. Sholokhov’s epic “Quiet Don”.

In his novel, the author tells us how the Cossacks lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. Their families lived by their labor, in prosperity and respect. The cheerful, joyful life of the Cossacks, full of work and pleasant worries, is interrupted by the revolution. And people were faced with a hitherto unfamiliar problem of choice: whose side to take, who to believe - the Reds, who promise equality in everything, but deny faith in the Lord God; or whites, those whom their grandfathers and great-grandfathers served faithfully. But do the people need this revolution and war? Knowing what sacrifices would need to be made, what difficulties to overcome, the people would probably answer in the negative. It seems to me that no revolutionary necessity justifies all the victims, broken lives, destroyed families. And so, as Sholokhov writes, “in a fight to the death, brother goes against brother, son against father.” Even Grigory Melekhov, main character The novel, previously opposed to bloodshed, easily decides the fate of others. Of course, the first murder of a person affects him deeply and painfully, causing him to spend many sleepless nights, but war makes him cruel. “I’ve become scary to myself... Look into my soul, and there’s blackness there, like in an empty well,” admits Grigory. Everyone became cruel, even women. Just remember the scene when Daria Melekhova kills Kotlyarov without hesitation, considering him the murderer of her husband Peter. However, not everyone thinks about why blood is shed, what is the meaning of war. Is it really “for the needs of the rich that they drive them to death”? Or to defend rights that are common to everyone, the meaning of which is not very clear to the people. A simple Cossack can only see that this war is becoming meaningless, because you can’t fight for those who rob and kill, rape women and set fire to houses. And such cases occurred both from the whites and from the reds. “They are all the same... they are all a yoke on the neck of the Cossacks,” says the main character.

In my opinion, Sholokhov sees the main reason for the tragedy of the Russian people, which affected literally everyone in those days, in the dramatic transition from the old way of life, which had been formed over centuries, to a new way of life. Two worlds collide: everything that was previously an integral part of people’s lives, the basis of their existence, suddenly collapses, and the new still needs to be accepted and accustomed to.

A civil war is a violent armed struggle for power between different social groups. A civil war is always a tragedy, turmoil, the decomposition of a social organism that has not found the strength to cope with the disease that has struck it, the collapse of statehood, a social catastrophe. The beginning of the war in the spring - summer of 1917, considering the July events in Petrograd and the “Kornilovism” as its first acts; others are inclined to associate it with the October Revolution and the rise to power of the Bolsheviks.

There are four stages of the war:

Summer-autumn 1918 (stage of escalation: rebellion of the White Czechs, Entente landings in the North and Japan, England, USA - in the Far East, formation of anti-Soviet centers in the Volga region, the Urals, Siberia, the North Caucasus, Don, execution of the latter’s family Russian Tsar, declaration of the Soviet Republic as a single military camp);

Autumn 1918 - spring 1919 (stage of increased foreign military intervention: annulment of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, intensification of the Red and White Terror);

Spring 1919 - spring 1920 (stage of military confrontation between the regular Red and White armies: campaigns of the troops of A.V. Kolchak, A.I. Denikin, N.N. Yudenich and their reflection, from the second half of 1919 - decisive successes of the Red Army Army);

Summer-autumn 1920 (the stage of the military defeat of the Whites: the war with Poland, the defeat of P. Wrangel).

Causes of the Civil War

Representatives white movement The blame was placed on the Bolsheviks, who tried to forcefully destroy the centuries-old institutions of private property, overcome the natural inequality of people, and impose a dangerous utopia on society. The Bolsheviks and their supporters considered the overthrown exploiting classes guilty of the Civil War, who, in order to preserve their privileges and wealth, unleashed a bloody massacre against the working people.

Many admit that Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. needed deep reforms, but the authorities and society showed their inability to solve them in a timely and fair manner. The authorities did not want to listen to society; society treated the authorities with contempt. Calls for struggle prevailed, drowning out timid voices in support of cooperation. The guilt of the main political parties in this sense seems obvious: they preferred division and unrest to agreement.

There are two main camps - red and white. In the latter, a very peculiar place was occupied by the so-called third force - “counter-revolutionary democracy”, or “democratic revolution”, which from the end of 1918 declared the need to fight both the Bolsheviks and the generals’ dictatorship. The Red Movement relied on the support of the bulk of the working class and the poorest peasantry. The social basis of the white movement was the officers, bureaucrats, nobility, bourgeoisie, and individual representatives of workers and peasants.

The party that expressed the position of the Reds were the Bolsheviks. The party composition of the white movement is heterogeneous: Black Hundred-monarchist, liberal, socialist parties. The program goals of the red movement: the preservation and establishment of Soviet power throughout Russia, the suppression of anti-Soviet forces, the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a condition for building a socialist society. The programmatic goals of the white movement were not as clearly formulated.

There was a sharp struggle over issues of the future state structure (republic or monarchy), about land (restoration of landownership or recognition of the results of land redistribution). In general, the white movement advocated the overthrow of Soviet power, the power of the Bolsheviks, the restoration of a united and indivisible Russia, the convening of a national assembly on the basis of universal suffrage to determine the future of the country, the recognition of private property rights, the implementation of land reform, and the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.

Why did the Bolsheviks win the Civil War? On the one hand, serious mistakes made by the leaders of the white movement played a role (they failed to avoid moral degeneration, overcome internal disunity, create an effective power structure, offer an attractive agrarian program, convince the national outskirts that the slogan of a united and indivisible Russia does not contradict their interests, etc.).

Population losses amounted to 25 million hours, taking into account the population decline:

Secondly, if we consider that of the 1.5-2 million emigrants, a significant part were the intelligentsia, => the civil war caused a deterioration in the country’s gene pool.

Thirdly, the deepest social consequence was the liquidation of entire classes of Russian society - landowners, large and middle bourgeoisie and wealthy peasants.

Fourthly, economic devastation led to an acute shortage of food products.

Fifthly, the rationing of food supplies, as well as essential industrial goods, consolidated the egalitarian justice generated by communal traditions. The slowdown in the country's development was caused by equalizing efficiency.

There is nothing more terrible in the history of a people than a fratricidal war. Nothing can compensate for the loss of people - the most valuable thing a state can have. As a result of victory in the civil war, the Bolsheviks managed to preserve statehood, sovereignty and territorial integrity Russia. With the formation of the USSR in 1922, the Russian civilizationally heterogeneous conglomerate with obvious imperial characteristics was practically recreated. The victory of the Bolsheviks in the civil war led to the curtailment of democracy, the dominance of the one-party system, when the party ruled on behalf of the people, on behalf of the party, the Central Committee, the Politburo and, in fact, the Secretary General or his entourage.

As a result of the civil war, not only were the foundations of a new society laid and its model tested, but also the tendencies that led Russia to the Western path of civilizational development were largely swept away;

The defeat of all anti-Soviet, anti-Bolshevik forces, the defeat of the White Army and intervention troops;

Preservation, including by force of arms, of a significant part of the territory of the former Russian Empire, suppression of attempts by a number of national regions to secede from the Republic of Soviets;

The victory in the Civil War created geopolitical, social and ideologically political conditions for the further strengthening of the Bolshevik regime. It meant the victory of communist ideology, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the state form of ownership.

Stalin's version of modernization. The formation and development of the bureaucratic and command-administrative system

The Stalinist system of economic management was a means of further modernizing the economy of our state, which was conceived as the creation of a powerful military-industrial complex and a modern technological core consisting of heavy industry enterprises. We find the basic elements of the Stalinist system even under the tsarist regime. Command-administrative system in heavy and especially military industry, regulation of prices for basic goods, centralized planning of technological breakthroughs.

For example, the GOELRO plan was nothing more than a modified imperial plan for the electrification of Russia. Low relative prices for energy resources and other raw materials were already in tsarist times a way to stimulate industry, compensating for an unfavorable climate. In particular, it was low oil prices that made the rapid transition from manual labor and horse-drawn traction to the mechanization of agriculture more profitable.

The task of modernization could only be solved by importing modern technology from the West. The need for a forced breakthrough was due to the growing threat of war.

State the authorities opened up to the Bolsheviks in principle new way planned industrialization. Knowing the parameters of the main technological pyramids based on Western experience, it was possible to transfer them to Soviet soil, carrying out complex centralized purchases of technologies abroad. It was the catching-up nature of industrialization, repeating, in general, the most successful technological solutions already tested in the West, that determined the success of large-scale planning in physical terms.

The import of technology could be financed either through foreign lending, or by limiting the consumption of the population and selling released export goods on the foreign market. The possibility of foreign lending was significantly limited by the refusal of the Soviet government to pay the tsarist debts. In addition, foreign lending significantly narrowed the field of investment maneuver. Great Depression, which made it difficult to export many consumer goods.

The forced concentration on the export of bread and raw materials led to a significant destruction of industries in the consumer sector: from agricultural production to the consumer goods industry. At the same time, a very fast and dynamic process of modernization of the country began. It was based on the intensive labor of the vast majority of the population, even officials worked for days. A sharp decrease in the share of consumption in the total product made it possible in a short historical period to accumulate huge capital and produce something unprecedented - to make a technological leap and practically catch up with the West in key parameters of technological development.

Not everything went smoothly during the years of industrialization. Due to carelessness, criminal negligence and sabotage, unique technological equipment was often lost. To improve the quality of work, on December 9, 1933, criminal liability was introduced for the production of substandard products. The country's unpreparedness for immediate adoption of new technologies was largely caused by both personnel shortages and the human factor. It is impossible to learn new routines right away. It often turned out that the imported technology was unsuitable in Russian conditions and required improvement, for which there was a lack of qualifications and funds.

Summing up the results of the first five-year plan (1929-1932), Stalin said: “We did not have ferrous metallurgy, the basis of the industrialization of the country. We have it now. We did not have a tractor industry. We have it now. We did not have an automobile industry.” industry. We have it now. We didn’t have machine tools. We have it now.”

Further, the chemical, aviation industries, and the production of agricultural machinery are also referred to in the same way. In a word, Soviet leaders understood where wealth comes from, how to achieve growth in labor productivity, and always tried to snatch out key links among the technologies used. The thirties were a time of industrial breakthrough that cannot be denied. Russia very quickly became one of the largest industrial powers in the world. Many technological breakthroughs were made at that time.

The Stalinist economy at one time found ways to ensure a colossal influx of labor into priority production.

It turned out that for this it is enough to carry out the following economic measures:

1) limit consumption in the village to a half-starved level, without reducing agricultural production;

2) concentrate and mechanize agriculture;

3) free up a colossal number of workers due to the concentration of agricultural production and its mechanization;

4) create a huge supply of women’s labor in industry by influencing the traditional intra-family work structure and creating social conditions(by the way, in Russian agriculture female labor has always been used);

5) ensure downward pressure on city wages and consumption in the city due to an increase in the supply of labor;

6) use the released funds to increase the savings rate; 7) increase the efficiency of investment by improving the management of the planned economy.

The next most important factor that determined the rapid development of the country's economy was the clear focus of the leadership on the rapid development of technology, but not just declarations about the need to master new technologies or double GDP, but the hard work of the leadership to master the most advanced that was in the world economy.

And if at first technological development was carried out through the import of technologies, then by the end of the 30s, due to the priority development of education and science, the organization of design bureaus, etc., conditions were created for the start of creating their own technologies. Thus, the task of modernizing Russia, which was 50-100 years behind the West in its industrial development, was solved. The whole country began to quickly master new, increasingly productive labor skills and abilities that had not previously been updated for decades.

At the same time, the Stalinist leadership realized that prerequisite The success of modernization projects is mobilization development under the strict stimulating influence of the state. In particular, it was necessary to abandon the hope of investing only through the voluntary accumulation of part of their income by citizens; it was necessary to make investments at public expense, increasing fiscal pressure with a clear targeted use of the collected funds.

Stalin did not allow the consumption of that part of the national income that was necessary to accelerate the development of the country and without which the country's security would be in jeopardy in the very near future. At the same time, a course was taken to maximize the development of the country’s natural potential and use its own resources. Thus, Stalin solved the problems of victory in the inevitable the coming war, preserving the integrity of the country and creating a bloc of allied states that further protect this integrity.

WITH formation of new institutions of Russian statehood

For the period from 1992-2000. 6 prime ministers were replaced: E. Gaidar, V. Chernomyrdin, S. Stepashin, S. Kiriyenko, E. Primakov, V. Putin, average duration The minister's work lasted two months.

Formation of a new statehood

Liquidation of Soviet power The events of August 1991 and the liquidation of the USSR put forward the task of forming the foundations of a new statehood. First of all, presidential structures began to be created. Under the President of Russia, the Security Council and the Presidential Council were created, and the post of Secretary of State was introduced. At the local level, the institution of representatives of the President was introduced, who exercised powers bypassing local Soviets. The Government of Russia was formed directly by the President; all appointments were made on the direct orders of B.N. Yeltsin, management was carried out on the basis of decrees.

The changes carried out came into conflict with the provisions of the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1977. It did not provide for the position of president and presidential power structures. It rejected the very idea of separation of powers, saying that all power in the center and locally belonged to the Councils of People's Deputies. The highest authority was the Congress of People's Deputies, and in the intervals between congresses - the Supreme Council of the RSFSR. The government was accountable to the Supreme Council.

With the beginning of reforms and their high price, political opposition to the president’s policies is forming in the country. The Supreme Council becomes the center of the opposition Russian Federation. The contradiction between the Soviets and the President has reached a dead end. Only the Congress of People's Deputies or a national referendum could change the Constitution.
In March 1993, Boris Yeltsin, in an address to Russian citizens, announced the introduction of presidential rule in the country until the adoption of a new Constitution.

However, this statement caused the rallying of all opposition forces. In April 1993, an All-Russian referendum was held, which raised questions about trust in the President and maintaining his course. The majority of referendum participants spoke in favor of trusting the President. Based on the referendum decisions, the President began to develop a new Constitution.

September 21, 1993 B.N. Yeltsin announced the start of a “stage-by-stage constitutional reform.” Presidential Decree No. 1400 announced the dissolution of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council, the liquidation of the entire system of Soviets from top to bottom, and announced the holding of elections to a new legislative body - the Federal Assembly.
The Supreme Council recognized this presidential decree as inconsistent with the Constitution and, in turn, decided to remove the president as having violated the Constitution. A.V. was elected president. Rutskoy. He declared the actions of B.N. unconstitutional. Yeltsin and the Constitutional Court. The political crisis led to an armed clash (October 3-4, 1993) between supporters of the Supreme Council and the President. It ended with the shooting of Parliament and its dissolution.

Having won a military victory, the President issued a Decree on holding elections to the new legislative body - Federal Assembly, consisting of two chambers - the Federation Council and State Duma. According to the decree, half of the deputies were elected from territorial constituencies, half from lists political parties and associations. At the same time, a referendum was held on the new Constitution. According to the Constitution, Russia was a Federal Democratic Republic with a presidential form of government.

The President was the guarantor of the Constitution, the head of state, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. He appointed the government of the country, which was responsible only to the President; the President had the right of suspensive veto, to issue Decrees having the force of Law. The President had the right to dissolve the Duma if it rejected the candidacy of the Prime Minister proposed by the President three times.

The rights of the State Duma were significantly smaller compared to the powers of the dissolved Supreme Council and were limited to the function of passing laws. Deputies lost the right to control the activities of administrative bodies (the right of deputy inquiry). After the Duma has adopted the law, it must be approved by the Federation Council - the second chamber of the Federal Assembly, consisting of heads of local legislative bodies and heads of administration of the constituent entities of the Federation. After this, the law must be approved by the President and only after that it is considered adopted. The Duma was endowed with a number of exclusive rights: to approve the state budget, declare an amnesty and impeachment of the president, approve a candidate for the post of prime minister, but in the event of a three-time rejection, it must be dissolved.

In January 1994, the new Federal Assembly began its work. Realizing that normal activity is impossible in conditions of confrontation, deputies and presidential structures were forced to compromise. In February 1994, the Duma declared an amnesty for participants in the August (1991) and October (1993) events. Everyone who committed illegal actions, both on one side and on the other, was amnestied. In April-June 1994, a memorandum on civil peace and social harmony was adopted, signed by all Duma factions, the majority of political parties and movements in Russia. The signing of these documents contributed to the end of civil strife in society.

64!! The current stage of human development involves colossal changes and unification processes in the world economy. At the end of the twentieth century, it became fashionable in economic literature to call these processes globalization. But they began much earlier - in the second half of the nineteenth century. The basic laws of the process, which is now commonly called the globalization of the economy, were studied by many scientists at the end of the 21st and beginning of the 20th centuries.

Then this process had a more suitable name for it - the formation of imperialism as a monopoly stage in the development of capitalism (the word globalization indicates unification, but obscures the question of how exactly and on what basis it is carried out). In this article, it is not possible to analyze the wealth of factual material on the basis of which one can judge with complete confidence the history of globalization in the twentieth century. The reader will easily recall, for example, two world wars, which resulted in new divisions of the world into zones of economic expansion and other major historical events.

The history of the transformation of one or another capital (bank, company, etc., including all mergers and acquisitions), which had a serious impact on the world economy, can only be presented in a separate work dedicated only to this. Moreover, an interested reader can easily find a lot of information that allows him to trace this story. Here I would like to draw attention only to the main stages and trends of the globalization process as a whole and look (also in general outline) how they determine the functioning of the labor market.

Since at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries the process of globalization (the formation of monopoly capitalism) manifested itself only as the unification of production and banking capital into financial capital and the establishment of the expansion of financial capital, scientists of that time mainly paid attention to the analysis of the activities of banks and the influence of the concentration of financial capital on the development of production. The works “Imperialism” by J. A. Hobson, “Financial Capital” by R. Hilferding, “Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism” by V. I. Lenin are considered classic works. These works showed with all scientific rigor that free competition had come to an end.

The main characteristic of the current stage of development of the world economy is the transformation of free competition into monopoly and competition between monopolists. Monopoly becomes superior to free competition. This gives rise to new contradictions.

The monopoly stage of capitalism, according to Lenin, is characterized by the following features:

1) the concentration of production and capital, reaching such a high degree that it gave rise to monopolies playing decisive role in economic life;

2) the merger of banking and industrial capital and the creation on its basis of “financial capital”, a financial oligarchy;

3) the fact that the export of capital, in contrast to the export of goods, acquires special significance; 4) that international monopoly unions of capitalists are being created that divide the world among themselves;

5) completion of the territorial division of the world between the largest capitalist states.

The trends noted by Lenin further deepened and developed. Their development was accompanied by a number of large-scale global crises and new redistributions of the planet. In the second half of the twentieth century, capitalism, which formed as a system of international financial capital, where banking corporations gained control over industrial development, began to transform into a system of industrial capital with international technological chains industrial production. At this stage of development, capital no longer needs colonies in the old (late 19th - early 20th century) sense of the word; most former colonies gained independence (48-60).

This, however, did not change their subordinate position, but only worsened it. For example, most of the formally independent countries of Latin America were brutally exploited and plundered colonies of American (US) capital throughout the twentieth century. Neocolonialism played an extraordinary role in the formation of the modern world labor market.

Transnational companies have entered the arena of global competition and control not only entire industries, but also complexes of related industries. Many industries that do not belong to transnational companies are beginning to play the role of auxiliary, service industries, where the organization of production and the form of exploitation of labor are often at a lower level of development than in the “main” industries.

Thus, the essence of the modern globalization process is the unification of the entire world economy into a single industrial system on the basis of monopoly capitalism. Its main features are the complete loss of independence of national markets and the establishment of expansion of transnational corporations, whose interests determine the public policy of capitalist countries, competition between monopolies (transnational corporations), and the reorientation of the world economy to serve the interests of transnational corporations. Therefore, at this stage of development of the world economy, there is a rapid transfer of production to countries with higher rates of profit, and on the other hand, a deepening of the global division of labor.

At the end of the twentieth century, as a result of the trends described above, the global division of labor deepened enormously and the modern world labor market was created. It is characterized, on the one hand, by the deepening specialization of individual countries and even continents, and on the other, by the openness of borders both for the transfer of production to countries with cheaper labor, and for increasing the flow of labor migration depending on the demand for it in certain countries. other countries. The modern world labor market is a complex unified system, which in turn consists of national markets, but cannot be reduced to them. Changes in the demand and supply of labor in individual national labor markets are a local expression of changes that occur in the structure of the world market, in the global production system.

The globalization of the labor market includes two main trends. The first is the deepening of the specialization of national production of individual countries (continents). This determines the specificity of supply and demand in national labor markets, and through specialization includes national production and the national labor market in world production in a specific, defined way. The second is the rapid transfer of production (this may concern entire industries) to countries where the rate of profit is higher. The second trend is the reason for rapid changes in the structure of national labor markets. This is an increase in demand for labor of appropriate qualifications in the event of a transfer of a certain type of production to the country and, at the same time, a decrease in demand for labor that was employed in enterprises that in this country became unprofitable and were closed or repurposed. In each individual country, these processes have their own characteristics and specifics.

Thousands of jobs are constantly appearing and disappearing around the world, and competition between workers in different countries is becoming fiercer. This is a constant source of unemployment, which means the absence or unsatisfactory amount of means of subsistence for part of humanity.

The problem of training a workforce that could meet the needs of production also makes itself felt. And capital is much more interested in this than in the fate of billions of people who earn their living by their own labor.

On the one hand, the production of labor must be as cheap as possible, and on the other hand, it must satisfy demand, which is constantly changing. Here it is necessary to note the contradiction between these two demands of capitalism. Cheap workforce training is inextricably linked with reducing training costs. This entails a decrease in the quantity and quality of knowledge and reduces it to the necessary minimum to perform one or another production function (lawyer, programmer, mechanic, assembly line worker). At the same time, every change in demand in the labor market requires people who live by selling their labor to quickly retrain. This becomes a huge problem for narrow specialists, and for areas of production where there is not enough labor with the required qualifications. Capitalists are losing money.

In the world, the number of people who are directly employed in the sphere of material production is constantly increasing, but in the so-called developed countries This share is smaller due to the fact that production from these countries is transferred to countries with cheaper labor. The prevailing trend here is towards a constant increase in the number of people working in the service sector, and people who perform work on the redistribution of wealth (bank employees, lawyers, managers, etc.). This trend served as the basis for the creation of myths about the post-industrial and information society. The main mistake of their authors is the failure to understand that the development of social production can no longer be considered on the example of individual (developed) countries, without taking into account the rest of the world, since there are no longer really separate economies.

It must be taken into account that there are two relatively independent segments in the global labor market. The first of these covers a highly skilled workforce that has relatively constant employment and consistently high wages. This is the elite of the world proletariat (USA, EEC, etc.). The second - much larger segment - mainly covers labor from poor countries, which are in much worse conditions. In the second segment, we can distinguish workers who migrate illegally to rich countries, since in their homeland they cannot find a job that would allow them to have the necessary means of living.

By the way, up to 7 million Ukrainian citizens working in Russia and EU countries fall into this category. Their salaries are usually much lower than those of local workers who do the same work. They are in such a position that they do not require the creation of appropriate working conditions and the provision of social guarantees ( health insurance, compensation in case of temporary or complete loss of ability to work). As a result, illegal labor migrants are displacing local workers. This is good ground for the spread of racist and xenophobic sentiments. Capitalists easily use them to increase discrimination in the labor market based on nationality or citizenship, which makes it possible to lower wages that are already low for this country.

Capital is not interested in how this affects the lives of the people working for it and the lives of their families. The capitalist is forced to constantly look for the labor he needs, which would cost less. After all, otherwise he will lose in competition with other, more successful and cunning capitalists. And the point here is not at all that the capitalist is bad or good. But in essence the system of world capitalism.

Political modernization in Russia: search for an alternative

Contents of political modernization

In political theory modernization is understood as a set of processes of industrialization, bureaucratization, secularization, urbanization, accelerated development of education and science, representative political power, accelerating spatial and social mobility, improving the quality of life, rationalizing social relations, which lead to the formation of a “modern open society” as opposed to a “traditional closed one.”

Political modernization can be defined as the formation, development and spread of modern political institutions, practices, as well as modern political structure. At the same time, under modern political institutions and practices What should be understood is not a copy of the political institutions of countries of developed democracies, but those political institutions and practices that are most capable of ensuring an adequate response and adaptation of the political system to changing conditions and to the challenges of our time. These institutions and practices may correspond to the models of modern democratic institutions or differ to varying degrees: from the rejection of “foreign” models to the adoption of a form when it is filled with content that is initially unusual for it.

At the same time, it is objectively necessary, on the one hand, to maintain political stability as the most important condition social development as a whole, and on the other - to expand the possibilities and forms political participation, the mass base of reforms.

Two main reasons can hinder the process of political modernization (S.A. Lantsov). The first is the lag behind changes in other spheres of society. Such a gap can cause a revolutionary crisis. Another reason is that the level of development of civil society and the political culture of society may not be prepared for the rapidly occurring democratization. In this case, there is also a high probability of a crisis situation fraught with chaos leading to ochlocracy.

Two factors contribute to successful modernization (V.V. Lapkin, V.I. Pantin): the internal readiness of the modernizing society for deep political reforms that limit the power of the bureaucracy and establish adequate “rules of the game” for the main political actors; the desire and ability of the most developed countries of the world to provide this community with effective economic and political assistance, mitigating the severity of the ongoing reforms.

The most important indicator of a country’s progress along the path of political modernization is the role and place legislative branch in the structure of political institutions: parliamentary representation of the interests of all social groups, real impact on government decision-making.

Where the formation of a system of representative institutions occurred without revolutionary upheavals, it, as a rule, was characterized by smoothness and gradualism. An example is the Scandinavian states. In each of them, it took about a hundred years to strengthen parliamentary norms and develop democratic electoral systems. In France, rapid democratization turned out to be too much of a burden that neither people nor state institutions. It took new historical cycles and several severe revolutionary crises before the country completed the process of creating a stable system of parliamentary democracy.

Among researchers actively involved in theoretical problems of political modernization, a special place belongs to S. Huntington, who proposed a theoretical scheme of political modernization, which not only most successfully explains the processes taking place in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America in last decades, but also helps to understand the political history of Russia.

In accordance with the concept of S. Huntington, the social mechanism and dynamics of political modernization are as follows. The incentive to start modernization is a certain combination of internal and external factors that encourage the ruling elite to begin reforms. Transformations may affect economic and social institutions, but not the traditional political system.

Consequently, the fundamental possibility of implementing socio-economic modernization “from above”, within the framework of old political institutions and under the leadership of the traditional elite, is allowed. However, in order for the “transit” to be completed successfully, it is necessary to meet a number of conditions and, above all, to ensure a balance between changes in various spheres of society. The determining condition is the willingness of the ruling elite to carry out not only technical and economic, but also political modernization.

S. Huntington especially notes the importance of the middle class, consisting of entrepreneurs, managers, engineers and technicians, officers, civil servants, lawyers, teachers, and university professors. The most prominent place in the structure of the middle class is occupied by the intelligentsia, which is characterized as potentially the most oppositional force. It is the intelligentsia that is the first to assimilate new political ideas and contribute to their dissemination in society.

As a result, an increasing number of people, entire social groups that were previously outside public life, are changing their attitudes. These subjects begin to realize that politics directly concerns their private interests, that their personal fate depends on the decisions made by the authorities. There is an increasingly conscious desire to participate in politics, to search for mechanisms and ways to influence government decision-making.

Since traditional institutions do not provide inclusion in public life, awakening to active political activity part of the population, then it applies to them public discontent. There is a struggle between the modernizing elite and the traditional one, which can take various forms: from violent, revolutionary to peaceful. As a result of this struggle, the old system is destroyed, new institutions, legal and political norms are created that can ensure the participation of the masses in political life. The former ruling elite, which was unable to cope with the problems that arose, is being pushed aside by a new elite, more dynamic and open to the trends of the times.

Features of modern Russian political modernization

Researchers consider modernization as the main vector of Russian development over the past centuries, including the Soviet and post-Soviet periods, noting in turn the uniqueness of Russian modernization. However, V.A. Yadov and T.I. Zaslavskaya believe that post-communist transformations and modernization are fundamentally different processes, the study of which requires different paradigms. Although they have common components, the differences are also significant. Thus, transformation is initially accompanied not by creation, but by destruction: a crisis in science and education, the curtailment of high-tech production, the outflow of the best minds abroad, a deterioration in the quality of life, etc. Under these conditions, it is hardly appropriate to identify the content of modern transformations with modernization changes.

However, after achieving stability, the processes in the country can be characterized as modernization. The formation of modern political institutions and practices is carried out in parallel with transformational changes, which indicates the simultaneous development of these processes.

According to a number of researchers (M.V. Ilyin, E.Yu. Meleshkina, V.I. Pantin), the process of political modernization in Russia can generally be attributed to the endogenous-exogenous type. A characteristic feature of this type of modernization is the combination of various own and borrowed institutions and traditions. Due to the weakness of civil society and the exceptional role played by the state in Russia, the modernization of society is constantly being replaced by the modernization of the state - its military-industrial power, bureaucratic apparatus, repressive bodies, the public sector of the economy, etc. As a result, the tasks of accelerated military-industrial modernization of the state and strengthening it as a world power were often solved through anti-modernization, partial archaization and degradation of society.

Reformers, as a rule, cannot count on popular support, since the population for the most part is always conservative and treats any change with caution, because the usual way of life is changing. Only the most active in socially part of society that shares its goals. Therefore, the reform of post-Soviet Russia in the early 1990s. was carried out in conditions of crisis. The “first wave” reformers were unable to create a strong social support for reforms or establish contact with society. The effectiveness of the reforms themselves, their ability to change life for the better, was also overestimated. As a result, the very concept of reform and the values on which they tried to base it were discredited.

The Russian authorities, having sharply limited government intervention in various spheres of social life, expected a sharp increase in the activity of citizens. However, the egalitarian mentality of Russian society, prone to paternalism, did not contribute to the emergence large quantity energetic, initiative people who are able to organize their lives on a new basis. The economic and political activity of people turned out to be insufficient to bring Russian life in line with European standards.

Political modernization in the early 2000s. carried out in more favorable conditions: sustainable economic growth, political stability, gradual increase in living standards. However, for further progress along the path of political modernization, it is necessary not only an awareness of the need for reforms, the political will of the reformer, but also a profound transformation of the mentality of Russian society associated with the assimilation of the experience of modern European civilization.

One of the difficulties in analyzing modern Russian political reality is that the vital activity of civil society is influenced by contradictions that arise in the process of public administration in conditions of a protracted structural crisis.

Crisis development of Russia in the 1990s. identified the following main problems, the lack of progress in solving which can further increase tension in society and the political system:

Development of a medium- and long-term strategy for the development of society, the goal of which will be the sustainable transformation of the existing socio-economic structure and the creation of prerequisites for the organic integration of Russia into the world economy;

Establishing a balance that meets the conditions of modern Russian society between the principles of private initiative and state intervention in the economy when determining and implementing a socio-economic course;

Bringing the professional and intellectual level of the ruling groups into line with the requirements of managing society in the context of its transition to a higher level of socio-economic development, to a political system with a more complex organization;

Qualitative renewal of the main political institutions and the content of their activities, as well as the development of a set of principles and norms of public administration.

A feature of domestic civilizational development is the fact that Russian society has not experienced such fundamental spiritual and intellectual revolutions as the Renaissance, Reformation, and human rights movement experienced in the West, which laid the foundations for rationalistic forms economic activity and the modern system of political representation. In addition, some segments social structure Post-Soviet Russia have specific features that arose as a result of the complex interaction of historical-psychological, ethnic, demographic and cultural-religious factors.

Russian society reacts accordingly to modernization impulses coming from above. Among the main characteristic features One can highlight rejection, passive resistance to innovation, the slow accumulation of contradictions and the potential for discontent, a crisis of self-identification, and popular protest facing the past.

Today's Russia is collapsing traditional society , but no one is sure that the goals, identities and standards of behavior proposed by the political elite correspond to the requirements of modernity. Today we have new, democratic in form, but weak and not yet fully established political and economic institutions. V.V. Lapkin and V.I. Pantin believe that political modernization in Russia will be largely determined by the elections of 2007-2008. and 2011-2012, which will subject the Russian political system to a serious test of strength.

The institutional system emerging in Russia does not guarantee the creation of stable democratic political institutions, since without mass support they are not only not democratic, but also not viable. Therefore, the built “power vertical” must be complemented by a “social horizontal” - the interaction of public and political organizations, representing the interests of various layers and groups. This combination of vertical and horizontal connections, accompanied by the social responsibility of officials and business representatives, who, in the words of V.V. Putin, “we must remember that the source of Russia’s well-being and prosperity is the people,” can become the basis for the successful development of political

The civil war, in my opinion, is the most cruel and bloody war, because sometimes close people fight in it, who once lived in one whole, united country, believed in one God and adhered to the same ideals. How it happens that relatives stand on opposite sides of the barricades and how such wars end, we can trace on the pages of the novel - M. A. Sholokhov’s epic “Quiet Don”.
In his novel, the author tells us how the Cossacks lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. Their families lived by their labor, in prosperity and respect. The cheerful, joyful life of the Cossacks, full of work and pleasant worries, is interrupted by the revolution. And people were faced with a hitherto unfamiliar problem of choice: whose side to take, who to believe - the Reds, who promise equality in everything, but deny faith in the Lord God; or whites, those whom their grandfathers and great-grandfathers served faithfully. But do the people need this revolution and war? Knowing what sacrifices would need to be made, what difficulties to overcome, the people would probably answer in the negative. It seems to me that no revolutionary necessity justifies all the victims, broken lives, destroyed families. And so, as Sholokhov writes, “in a fight to the death, brother goes against brother, son against father.” Even Grigory Melekhov, the main character of the novel, who previously opposed bloodshed, easily decides the fate of others. Of course, the first murder of a man
it hits him deeply and painfully, makes him spend many sleepless nights, but the war makes him cruel. “I’ve become scary to myself... Look into my soul, and there’s blackness there, like in an empty well,” admits Grigory. Everyone became cruel, even women. Just remember the scene when Daria Melekhova kills Kotlyarov without hesitation, considering him the murderer of her husband Peter. However, not everyone thinks about why blood is shed, what is the meaning of war. Is it really “for the needs of the rich that they drive them to death”? Or to defend rights that are common to everyone, the meaning of which is not very clear to the people. A simple Cossack can only see that this war is becoming meaningless, because you can’t fight for those who rob and kill, rape women and set fire to houses. And such cases occurred both from the whites and from the reds. “They are all the same... they are all a yoke on the neck of the Cossacks,” says the main character.
In my opinion, Sholokhov sees the main reason for the tragedy of the Russian people, which affected literally everyone in those days, in the dramatic transition from the old way of life, which had been formed over centuries, to a new way of life. Two worlds collide: everything that was previously an integral part of people’s lives, the basis of their existence, suddenly collapses, and the new still needs to be accepted and accustomed to.

M.A. Sholokhov is rightly called a chronicler Soviet era. "Quiet Don" - a novel about the Cossacks. The central character of the novel is Grigory Melekhov, an ordinary Cossack guy. True, maybe too hot. In Gregory's family, large and friendly, the Cossacks are sacredly revered...

If we step back for a while from historical events, we can note that the basis of M. A. Sholokhov’s novel “Quiet Don” is a traditional love triangle. Natalya Melekhova and Aksinya Astakhova love the same Cossack - Grigory Melekhov. He is married...

Many works have been written about forced collectivization and the massacre of the peasantry. The books of S. Zalygin “On the Irtysh”, “Men and Women” by B. Mozhaev, “A Pair of Bays” by V. Tendryakov, “The Roundup” by V. Bykov told us about the tragedy of the Russian peasant...

P.V. Palievsky: “Almost all of us know that in our literature there is a writer of world significance - M.A. Sholokhov. But we are somehow poorly aware of this, despite the achievements of criticism. What is new is not visible that Sholokhov brought to literature, perhaps...

Mikhail Sholokhov's novel "Quiet Don" tells the story of one of the most intense and eventful periods in the history of our country - the time of the First World War. October revolution and the Civil War. The plot is based on the fate of the Don Cossacks...

A civil battle, in my opinion, is the most brutal and bloody battle, because sometimes close people fight in it, who once lived in one whole, united country, believed in one God and adhered to the same ideals. How it happens that relatives stand on opposite sides of the barricades and how such wars end, we can trace on the pages of the novel - M. A. Sholokhov’s epic “Quiet Don”.

In his novel, the author tells us how the Cossacks lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. Their families lived by their labor, in prosperity and respect. The cheerful, joyful life of the Cossacks, full of work and pleasant worries, is interrupted by the revolution. And people were faced with a hitherto unfamiliar problem of choice: whose side to take, who to believe - the Reds, who promise equality in everything, but deny faith in the Lord God; or whites, those whom their grandfathers and great-grandfathers served faithfully. But do the people need this revolution and war? Knowing what sacrifices would need to be made, what difficulties to overcome, the people would probably answer in the negative. It seems to me that no revolutionary necessity justifies all the victims, broken lives, destroyed families. And so, as Sholokhov announces, “in a fight to the death, brother goes against brother, son against father.” Even Grigory Melekhov, the main character of the novel, who previously opposed bloodshed, easily decides the fate of others. Of course, the first murder of a person hits him hard and painfully, causing him to spend many sleepless nights, but the battle makes him cruel. “I’ve become scary to myself... Look into my soul, and there’s blackness there, like in an empty well,” admits Grigory. Everyone became cruel, especially women. Just remember the scene when Daria Melekhova kills Kotlyarov without hesitation, considering him the murderer of her husband Peter. However, not everyone thinks about why blood is shed, what is the meaning of war. Is it really “for the needs of the rich that they drive them to death”? Or to defend rights that are common to everyone, the meaning of which is not very clear to the people. A simple Cossack can only see that this battle is becoming meaningless, because one cannot fight for those who rob and kill, rape women and set fire to houses. And such cases occurred both from the whites and from the reds. “They are all the same... they are all a yoke on the neck of the Cossacks,” says the main character.

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z