home Diagnosis and diseases Social progress. Social progress

Social progress. Social progress

History shows that no society stands still, but is constantly changing . Social change is the transition of social systems, communities, institutions and organizations from one state to another. The process of social development is carried out on the basis of changes. The concept of “social development” specifies the concept of “social change”. Social development– irreversible, directed change in social systems. Development involves a transition from simple to complex, from lower to higher, etc. In turn, the concept of “social development” is clarified by such qualitative characteristics as “social progress” and “social regression”

Social progress- this is the direction of development human society, which is characterized by an irreversible change in humanity, resulting in a transition from lower to higher, from a less perfect state to a more perfect one. If the sum of the positive consequences of large-scale changes in society exceeds the sum of the negative ones, then we speak of progress. Otherwise, regression occurs.

Regression– a type of development characterized by a transition from higher to lower.

Thus, progress is both local and global. Regression is only local.

Usually, social progress does not mean these or those progressive changes in individual social communities, layers and groups or individuals, but the upward development of the entire society as an integrity, the movement towards the perfection of all mankind.

Mechanism social progress in all systems consists of the emergence of new needs in various spheres of social life and the search for opportunities to satisfy them. New needs arise as a result of human production activity; they are associated with the search and invention of new means of labor, communication, organization of social life, with the expansion and deepening of the scope of scientific knowledge, and the complication of the structure of human creative and consumer activity.

Very often, the emergence and satisfaction of social needs is carried out on the basis of an open conflict of interests of various social communities and social groups, as well as the subordination of the interests of some social communities and groups to others. In this case, social violence turns out to be an inevitable accompaniment of social progress. Social progress, as a consistent ascent to more complex forms social life, is carried out as a result of the resolution of contradictions that unfold in the previous stages and phases of social development.

The source, the root cause of social progress, which determines the desires and actions of millions of people, are their own interests and needs. What are the human needs that determine social development? All needs are divided into two groups: natural and historical. Natural human needs are all social needs, the satisfaction of which is necessary for the preservation and reproduction of human life as a natural biological being. Natural human needs are limited biological structure person. The historical needs of man are all social and spiritual needs, the satisfaction of which is necessary for the reproduction and development of man as a social being. None of the groups of needs can be satisfied outside of society, outside of the development of social material and spiritual production. In contrast to natural needs, human historical needs are generated by the course of social progress, are unlimited in development, due to which social and intellectual progress is unlimited.

However, social progress is not only an objective, but also a relative form of development. Where there are no opportunities for the development of new needs and their satisfaction, the line of social progress stops, periods of decline and stagnation arise. In the past, cases of social regression and the death of previously established cultures and civilization were often observed. Consequently, as practice shows, social progress in world history occurs in a zigzag manner.

The entire experience of the twentieth century refuted the one-factor approach to the development of modern society. The formation of a particular social structure is influenced by many factors: the progress of science and technology, the state of economic relations, the structure of the political system, the type of ideology, the level of spiritual culture, national character, the international environment or the existing world order and the role of the individual.

There are two types of social progress: gradual (reformist) and spasmodic (revolutionary).

Reform- partial improvement in any area of life, a series of gradual transformations that do not affect the foundations of the existing social system.

Revolution- a complex abrupt change in all or most aspects of social life, affecting the foundations of the existing system and representing a transition of society from one qualitative state to another.

The difference between reform and revolution is usually seen in the fact that reform is a change implemented on the basis of existing values in society. Revolution is a radical rejection of existing values in the name of reorientation to others.

One of the tools for the movement of society along the path of social progress based on a combination of reforms and revolution in modern Western sociology is recognized modernization. Translated from English, “modernization” means modernization. The essence of modernization is associated with the spread of social relations and the values of capitalism throughout the globe. Modernization- this is a revolutionary transition from pre-industrial to industrial or capitalist society, carried out through comprehensive reforms, it implies a fundamental change in social institutions and people's lifestyles, covering all spheres of society.

Sociologists distinguish two types of modernization: organic and inorganic. Organic modernization is the moment of the country’s own development and is prepared by the entire course of previous development. It occurs as a natural process of progressive development of social life during the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Such modernization begins with a change in public consciousness.

Inorganic modernization occurs as a response to an external challenge from more developed countries. It is a method of “catching up” development undertaken by the ruling circles of a particular country in order to overcome historical backwardness and avoid foreign dependence. Inorganic modernization begins with economics and politics. It is accomplished by borrowing foreign experience, acquiring advanced equipment and technology, inviting specialists, studying abroad, restructuring forms of government and norms of cultural life on the model of advanced countries.

In the history of social thought, three models of social change have been proposed: movement along a descending line, from peak to decline; movement in a closed circle - cycles; movement from higher to lower - progress. These three options have always been present in all theories of social change.

The simplest type of social change is linear, when the amount of change occurring is constant at any given time. The linear theory of social progress is based on the progress of the productive forces. The events of the last quarter of the twentieth century have shown that we will have to give up the idea that changes in productive forces and production relations are taken as the key and, in essence, the only source of development. The rise of productive forces does not guarantee progress. Life shows that limitless increase material resources life, taken as a blessing, turns out to have disastrous consequences for a person. For a long period, the understanding of social progress was associated with industrial development, with high rates of economic growth and the creation of a large machine industry. Conditions and forms of education economic, political and social life subordinated to the development of technical and economic parameters, the achievement of industrial technology. But in the last third of the twentieth century, the euphoria of industrial-technical optimism began to wane. Industrial development not only created a threat to social and cultural values, but also undermined its own foundation. In the West they started talking about the crisis of industrialism, the signs of which were the destruction environment and exhaustion natural resources. The discrepancy between the level of scientific, technical and economic development level of satisfaction of human needs. The very concept of social progress has changed. Its main criterion is to bring the social structure into conformity not so much with the requirements of technological development, but, first of all, with the natural nature of man.

Cyclic changes are characterized by a sequential progression of stages. According to this theory, social development does not proceed in a straight line, but rather in a circle. If in a directed process each subsequent phase differs from any other that preceded it in time, then in a cyclic process the state of the changing system at a later time will be the same as it was earlier, i.e. will be repeated exactly, but at a higher level.

In everyday social life, a lot is organized cyclically: for example, agricultural life - and in general the entire life of agrarian societies - is seasonal, cyclical in nature, since it is determined by natural cycles. Spring is sowing time, summer, autumn is harvest time, winter is pause, lack of work. The next year everything repeats itself. A clear example of the cyclical nature of social change is the change of generations of people. Each generation is born, goes through a period of social maturation, then a period of active activity, followed by a period of old age and natural completion. life cycle. Each generation is formed in specific social conditions Therefore, it is not similar to previous generations and brings into life, into politics, economics, and culture something of its own, new, which has not yet been seen in social life.

Sociologists of different directions record the fact that many social institutions, communities, classes and even entire societies change according to a cyclical pattern - emergence, growth, flourishing, crisis and decline, the emergence of a new phenomenon. Long-term cyclical changes are associated with the rise and fall of historically specific civilizations. This is what Spengler and Toynbee mean when they talk about civilizational cycles.

About the development of cyclical ideas in the biblical book of Ecclesiastes it is said: “What was, that will be; and what has been done will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.”

In the records of Herodotus (5th century BC) a scheme is given for applying the cycle to political regimes: monarchy - tyranny - oligarchy - democracy - ochlocracy. In the works of Polybius (200-118 BC), a similar idea is made that all states go through inevitable cycles of growth - zenith - decline.

Social processes can proceed in a spiral, where successive states, although fundamentally similar, are not identical. An upward spiral means repetition of a process at a relatively higher level, a downward spiral means repetition at a relatively lower level.

The topic is closely related to the problems of social change social progress.

One of the first scientific concepts social development as consistent advancement of societies through ascending levels of progress, which is determined increase in knowledge, belongs to A. Saint-Simon.

His ideas were developed by the founder O. Comte. Comte's law of intellectual evolution of mankind directly points to the direction and criterion of social progress - the degree of advancement to the highest in his concept, the scientific (positive) stage of development. G. Spencer, sharing the idea of the nonlinear nature of evolution, assumed measure social progress by the achieved degree of complexity of societies. Social evolution is similar to biological evolution and gradually leads to the fact that the world is getting better. In the theory of K. Marx, the issue of social progress was resolved almost unambiguously. Achieving the highest stage of human development - the construction of a classless communist society, where the free labor of free people will reign - is inevitable, although distant in time.

If O. Comte, G. Spencer and E. Durkheim designed concept of progress as a two-way process of differentiation and integration regardless of its beneficial consequences, then L. Ward, N. Mikhailovsky and others believed that progress is about increasing human happiness or reducing human suffering. In one of his first works P. Sorokin indicated that both of these currents are insufficient and they need to be synthesized. Otherwise, the theory of progress risks giving a formula of stagnation instead of a formula for progress.

Most supporters social evolutionism convinced of availability of intellectual and technical progress, however regarding moral progress, opinions differ. Those who believe that moral progress exists belong to the school of evolutionary ethics . They proceed from the fact that the very presence of morality as the basis for interaction and mutual assistance between people is already the most important factor in the survival of society. Moral evolution does not cancel struggle for existence, but humanizes her, forcing her to find ever softer ways to fight.

Among evolutionists for a long time The prevailing idea was the unidirectionality of evolution for all societies, when each of them goes through successively identical stages of development on the path to progress. In the 20th century this view was found untenable on the basis of anthropological research. It turned out that not only non-Western, but also many European countries developed not according to one, but according to different scenarios, including different quantity and the sequence of stages.

On new basis The evolutionary approach has been revived in last years: evolution is not unidirectional, but can go in many directions. According to the theory of evolutionary change by the structural functionalist T. Parsons, societies tend to become increasingly differentiated in their structures and functions, with new structures expected to be more functionally adapted than previous ones.

The position of supporters of cyclical development is significantly different. and periodic economic crises have raised doubts about the overall progressive development of mankind. Thus, the German scientist Oswald Spengler in his book “The Decline of Europe” (1918) substantiated the periodization of the development and decline of cultures by analogy with the stages of the human life cycle, including decline and death. In his opinion, each of the eight cultures he studied existed for about 1000 years. Therefore, if we assume that Western European culture originated about 900 years ago, then its end is already near.

The English historian Arnold Toynbee also believed that the development of civilizations occurs along one path, improving and moving towards decline in similar stages. Arising as a response to any challenge from natural or human factors, civilization flourishes as long as its elite is able to counter this challenge. Otherwise, there is a split and disintegration of civilization and, due to the increase in internal conflicts, a movement towards decline.

Cyclic theories should also include the sociocultural dynamics of P. Sorokin, which contains a very pessimistic assessment of the prospects for the development of modern Western society.

Another example of cyclical theories is the concept of “world-economy” by I. Wallerstein, according to which Third world countries will not be able to repeat the path, passed by states - leaders modern economy; capitalist world-economy, which originated more than 500 years ago, in 1967-1973. entered into the inevitable the final phase of the life cycle - crisis phase.

Social progress and forecasting in philosophy

Modern is carried out within the framework of scientific and technological progress, which in turn acts as a party social progress.

Issues of social progress were paid attention to by D. Vico, I.G. Herder, A. Turgot, J. Condorsse, O. Comte, K. Marx, F. Engels and others.

Social progress- this is an objective trend of the upward development of humanity, expressed in the improvement of the forms of human life, needs, abilities to satisfy them, in the development of science, technology, technology, the media, medicine, etc.

The question of the criteria for social progress is debatable. Some researchers in as a criterion of social progress call the level of development of the method of production, others in this capacity highlight the level of development of the productive forces of society, others reduce it to labor productivity. It seems that we can accept as the most representative point of view, according to which the level of development of productive forces, expressed in labor productivity, can be accepted as a criterion of social progress.

In the philosophical explanation of the social process two points of view have been fighting for a long time - evolutionary And revolutionary.

Some philosophers preferred evolutionary development of society, while others saw great attraction in revolutionary changes in social life. Obviously, we should be thoughtful about the ways and means of social progress. The course of the latter does not exclude a combination of revolutionary and evolutionary transformations of social life. When carrying out progressive changes and reforms, one should be guided by the fact that their implementation does not result in a decline in the economy, a decrease in the level of development of productive forces and a reduction, but, on the contrary, an increase in the economic wealth of society based on an increase in the level of development of productive forces and labor productivity.

Anticipating the future in various forms has always played an important role in the life of society. The importance of foresight especially increased during turning points in history, during periods of acute social conflicts. This is especially characteristic of the modern era, when it becomes obvious that both the distant and immediate future of humanity will be radically different from its present and recent past.

Foresight- this is knowledge about the future, i.e. about what does not yet exist in reality, but what is potentially contained in the present in the form of objective and subjective prerequisites for the expected course of development. Scientific foresight and social forecasting must contain an answer not only to the question of what can happen in the future, but also answers to questions such as when this should be expected, what forms the future will take and what is the measure of probability of this forecast.

There are three main methods of social forecasting:

extrapolation;
modeling;
expertise.

The most reliable method of social forecasting is expertise. Any social forecast combines scientific and ideological purposes. There are four types of forecasts: search; normative; analytical; forecast-warning. Anticipating the future is an interdisciplinary study, and it is fruitful only in the process of integrating humanities, natural sciences and technical knowledge.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND YOUTH POLICY OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

KYRGYZ-RUSSIAN SLAVIC UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Economics

by subject "Philosophy"

"Criteria of social progress".

Completed Art. gr. M1-06: Khashimov N. R.

Teacher: Denisova O. G.

Bishkek - 2007

Introduction. …………………………………………………………………………………3

1. Social progress. Progress and regression. ……………..4

2. Social progress - idea and reality……………...8

3. Progress criteria.

Criteria for social progress………………………..12

Conclusion………………………………………………………..20

List of references…………………………….22

Introduction

The idea of social progress is a product of the New Age. This means that it was at this time that the idea of the progressive, upward development of society took root in people’s minds and began to shape their worldview. There was no such idea in antiquity. The ancient worldview, as is known, was cosmocentric in nature. This means that the man of antiquity was coordinated in relation to nature and the cosmos. Hellenic philosophy seemed to fit man into the cosmos, and the cosmos, in the minds of ancient thinkers, was something permanent, eternal and beautiful in its orderliness. And man had to find his place in this eternal cosmos, and not in history. The ancient worldview was also characterized by the idea of an eternal cycle - a movement in which something, being created and destroyed, invariably returns to itself. The idea of eternal recurrence is deeply rooted in ancient philosophy; we find it in Heraclitus, Empedocles, and the Stoics. In general, movement in a circle was considered in antiquity as ideally correct and perfect. It seemed perfect to ancient thinkers because it has no beginning and end and occurs in the same place, representing, as it were, immobility and eternity.

The idea of social progress was established during the Enlightenment. This era raises the shield of reason, knowledge, science, human freedom and from this angle evaluates history, contrasting itself with previous eras, where, in the opinion of the enlighteners, ignorance and despotism prevailed. The Enlightenmentists in a certain way understood the era of their time (as the era of “enlightenment”), its role and significance for man, and through the prism of so-understood modernity they viewed the past of mankind. The contrast between modernity, interpreted as the advent of the era of reason, and the past of humanity contained, of course, a gap between the present and the past, but as soon as an attempt was made to restore the historical connection between them on the basis of reason and knowledge, the idea of an upward movement in history immediately arose, about progress. The development and dissemination of knowledge was considered as a gradual and cumulative process. The accumulation of scientific knowledge that occurred in modern times served as an indisputable model for such a reconstruction of the historical process for the enlighteners. The mental formation and development of an individual, an individual, also served as a model for them: when transferred to humanity as a whole, it gave the historical progress of the human mind. Thus, Condorcet in his “Sketch of a historical picture of the progress of the human mind” says that “this progress is subject to the same general laws that are observed in the development of our individual abilities...”.

The idea of social progress is the idea of history, more precisely - world history humanity*. This idea is meant to tie the story together, give it direction and meaning. But many Enlightenment thinkers, substantiating the idea of progress, sought to consider it as a natural law, blurring to one degree or another the line between society and nature. The naturalistic interpretation of progress was their way of imparting an objective character to progress...

1. SOCIAL PROGRESS

Progress (from lat. progressus- movement forward) is a direction of development that is characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. The credit for putting forward the idea and developing the theory of social progress belongs to the philosophers of the second half of the XVIII century, and the socio-economic basis for the very emergence of the idea of social progress was the formation of capitalism and the maturation of European bourgeois revolutions. By the way, both creators of the initial concepts of social progress - Turgot and Condorcet - were active public figures in pre-revolutionary and revolutionary France. And this is quite understandable: the idea of social progress, the recognition of the fact that humanity as a whole, in the main, is moving forward, is an expression of historical optimism characteristic of advanced social forces.
Three characteristic features distinguished the original progressivist concepts.

Firstly, this is idealism, i.e. an attempt to find the reasons for the progressive development of history in the spiritual beginning - in the endless ability to improve the human intellect (the same Turgot and Condorcet) or in the spontaneous self-development of the absolute spirit (Hegel). Accordingly, the criterion of progress was also seen in phenomena of a spiritual order, in the level of development of one or another form of social consciousness: science, morality, law, religion. By the way, progress was noticed primarily in the field of scientific knowledge (F. Bacon, R. Descartes), and then the corresponding idea was extended to social relations in general.

Secondly, a significant shortcoming of many early concepts of social progress was the non-dialectical consideration of social life. In such cases, social progress is understood as a smooth evolutionary development, without revolutionary leaps, without backward movements, as a continuous ascent in a straight line (O. Comte, G. Spencer).

Thirdly, upward development in form was limited to the achievement of any one favored social system. This rejection of the idea of unlimited progress was very clearly reflected in Hegel’s statements. He proclaimed the Christian-German world, which affirmed freedom and equality in their traditional interpretation, as the pinnacle and completion of world progress.

These shortcomings were largely overcome in the Marxist understanding of the essence of social progress, which includes the recognition of its inconsistency and, in particular, the fact that the same phenomenon and even the stage of historical development as a whole can be simultaneously progressive in one respect and regressive , reactionary in another. This is precisely, as we have seen, one of the possible options for the state’s influence on economic development.

Consequently, when speaking about the progressive development of mankind, we mean the main, main direction of the historical process as a whole, its resultant in relation to the main stages of development. Primitive communal system, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, the era of socialized social relations in the formational cross-section of history; primitive pre-civilization, agricultural, industrial and information-computer waves in its civilizational cross-section act as the main “blocks” of historical progress, although in some of its specific parameters the subsequent formation and stage of civilization may be inferior to the previous ones. Thus, in a number of areas of spiritual culture, feudal society was inferior to slave society, which served as the basis for the enlighteners of the 18th century. look at the Middle Ages as a mere “break” in the course of history, without paying attention to the great strides made during the Middle Ages: the expansion of the cultural area of Europe, the formation there of great viable nations in proximity to each other, and finally, the enormous technical successes of the 14th century. XV centuries and the creation of prerequisites for the emergence of experimental natural science.

If you try in general view define causes social progress, then they will be the needs of man, which are the generation and expression of his nature as a living and no less as a social being. As already noted in Chapter Two, these needs are diverse in nature, character, duration of action, but in any case they determine the motives of human activity. In everyday life for thousands of years, people did not at all set as their conscious goal to ensure social progress, and social progress itself is by no means some kind of idea (“program”) initially laid down in the course of history, the implementation of which constitutes its innermost meaning. In the process of real life, people are driven by needs generated by their biological and social nature; and in the course of realizing their vital needs, people change the conditions of their existence and themselves, for each satisfied need gives rise to a new one, and its satisfaction, in turn, requires new actions, the consequence of which is the development of society.

As you know, society is in constant flux. Thinkers have long pondered the question: in what direction is it moving? Can this movement be likened, for example, to cyclical changes in nature: after summer comes autumn, then winter, spring and summer again? And so it goes for thousands and thousands of years. Or maybe the life of society is similar to the life of a living being: an organism that is born grows up, becomes mature, then grows old and dies? Does the direction of development of society depend on the conscious activity of people?

Progress and regression

The direction of development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect, is called in science progress(a word of Latin origin meaning literally moving forward). The concept of progress is opposite to the concept regression. Regression is characterized by movement from higher to lower, processes of degradation, and a return to obsolete forms and structures.

Which path is society taking: the path of progress or regression? People’s idea of the future depends on what the answer to this question is: does it bring better life or does it not bode well?

Ancient Greek poet Hesiod(VIII-VII centuries BC) wrote about five stages in the life of mankind. The first stage was the “golden age”, when people lived easily and carelessly, the second was the “silver age”, when the decline of morality and piety began. So, sinking lower and lower, people found themselves in the “Iron Age”, when evil and violence reign everywhere, and justice is trampled under foot. It is probably not difficult for you to determine how Hesiod saw the path of humanity: progressive or regressive?

Unlike Hesiod, the ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle viewed history as a cyclical cycle, repeating the same stages.

The development of the idea of historical progress is associated with the achievements of science, crafts, arts, and the revitalization of public life during the Renaissance. One of the first to put forward the theory of social progress was the French philosopher Anne Robert Turgot(1727-1781). His contemporary, French philosopher-enlightenment Jacques Antoine Condorcet(1743-1794) wrote that history presents a picture of continuous change, a picture of the progress of the human mind. Observation of this historical picture shows in the modifications of the human race, in its continuous renewal, in the infinity of centuries, the path it followed, the steps it took, striving for truth or happiness. Observations of what man was and of

what he has now become will help us, wrote Condorcet, to find means to ensure and accelerate the new successes for which his nature allows him to hope.

So, Condorcet sees the historical process as a path of social progress, at the center of which is the upward development of the human mind. Hegel considered progress not only a principle of reason, but also a principle of world events. This belief in progress was also adopted by K-Marx, who believed that humanity was moving toward greater mastery of nature, the development of production and man himself.

XIX and XX centuries were marked by turbulent events that gave new “information for thought” about progress and regression in the life of society. In the 20th century sociological theories appeared that abandoned the optimistic view of the development of society characteristic of the ideas of progress. Instead, theories of cyclical circulation, pessimistic ideas of the “end of history”, global environmental, energy and nuclear catastrophes are proposed. One of the points of view on the issue of progress was put forward by the philosopher and sociologist Karl Popper(b. 1902), who wrote: “If we think that history is progressing or that we are forced to progress, then we are making the same mistake as those who believe that history has the meaning that it may have open, not attached to it. After all, to progress means to move towards a certain goal that exists for us as human beings. This is impossible for history. Only we, human individuals, can progress, and we can do this by protecting and strengthening those democratic institutions on which freedom, and with it progress, depends. We will achieve greater success in this if we become more deeply aware of the fact that progress depends on us, on our vigilance, on our efforts, on the clarity of our concept regarding our goals and the realistic choice of such goals."

2. Social progress - idea and reality

The degree of satisfaction with the social order can be considered the most important sociological characteristic. But real customers are not interested in this characteristic of our society.

What kind of social structure do citizens need? This is where we have, especially lately, unusual ambiguity.

The search for stable criteria for matching the social order with the aspirations of people, step by step, narrows the range of possible solutions. The only reductionist option left is to find a natural scientific basis for deriving criteria for assessing the social structure.

Social self-organization is the result of the behavior of reasonable people. And people's muscles are controlled by their brain. The most plausible model of brain function today is the idea of a behavior-optimizing brain. The human brain selects the best next step from a set of possible options based on the prediction of the consequences.

The quality of predicting consequences distinguishes reasonable behavior from unreasonable behavior - human unreasonable or animal. The depth and scope of cause-and-effect relationships taken into account by humans are incommensurate with the capabilities of animals. How this separation occurred is a separate question. Moreover, in the field of public relations the accuracy of forecasts is poor.

From the idea of biological species as self-organizing systems, competing in conditions of limited resources and being in a random flow of destructive external influences, the range of powers of which is unlimited, and the frequency of occurrence decreases with increasing power, it follows that the target function of the optimization problem solved by the brain is to maximize the mass of matter, organized into structures specific to a particular biological species. If biological species enter into competition, then other equal conditions the one whose brain deviates from maximizing the mass of the species will lose.

Man survived biological competition, which means that the human brain initially maximized the mass of the “human” species.

The ability to predict the development of the situation led to a change in the objective function. A certain functional is maximized depending on the number and the degree of protection from destructive external influences, the value of which increases with the growth of each of the arguments. Let's call this functionality the potential of humanity.

The reliability of the forecast, which decreases with increasing depth in time, is not controlled by humans, which often leads to obvious losses. This gives rise to two extreme positions regarding the admissibility and usefulness of using a forecast in choosing the best next step. According to these positions, there are always two currents, two parties in human society - “rationalists” and “traditionalists”. “Rationalists” believe that (to put it mildly) it is permissible to act based on one’s own forecast. “Traditionalists” argue that interference with the “natural” (read “traditional”) order is harmful. Convinced supporters of both positions can cite a sufficient number of historical facts to support their case.

The noted feature of human psychology gives rise to a specific wave process at the level of human society, the “saw of social development.”

As the starting point of our consideration, let us take the socio-political crisis - a well-known state of human society.

The main goal achieved by uniting people into social structures is to gain in the degree of protection from destructive external influences by socializing part of their resources. Therefore, the main function of public structures is to ensure the effective use of socialized resources. The organization of society must be adequate to the chosen method of using resources.

A socio-political crisis develops when a discrepancy between the organization of society and the preferred method of using socialized resources is discovered.

Over the past ten years Russian society is on the downward section of the “saw of social development”. The efficiency of using socialized resources is low. There is an open competition of ideas. "What to do?" - the main question. The social weight of “rationalists” is increasing. There is no clear choice for society yet. And if none of the ideas receives a decisive advantage, then people will entrust control to a specific person - a leader, a leader. This is an emergency exit, fascism, protection from chaos, a hopeless war of everyone with everyone.

If any of the proposals manages to gain sufficient mass support, a crawl out of the crisis along the chosen path will begin. At this point, the idea that has received support is based on a close and, most likely, accurate forecast of the development of the situation. For some time, it is possible to solve the inevitable minor problems that arise. Confidence in the correctness of the chosen path increases. The steering wheel becomes more and more firmly fixed. The permanence of his position is defended by many people. Social structures are becoming better suited to the chosen movement. Dissidents are not treated on ceremony. Society finds itself on the ascending section of the saw.

As we move away from the crisis point of choosing an idea, the natural inaccuracy of the forecast begins to appear. Further more. And the steering wheel is fixed. By this time, at the helm are no longer those practical “rationalists” who took the risk, deciding to commit the sin of implementing what they had dreamed up, but officials whose position in society rests on the unchanging path.

Crisis phenomena are growing in society. This is the top of the saw tooth. The efficiency of using socialized resources is falling. "Stop experimenting on us!" - this is how public opinion becomes. This is where “traditionalists” enter the political scene. They convincingly prove that the chosen path was wrong from the very beginning. Everything would be fine if people did not listen to these adventurers - “rationalists”. We need to go back. But for some reason, not to the cave state, but one “saw” step. “Traditionalists”, with mass support, form the social structures of the transition period. "Rationalists" are rejected. And the crisis continues to grow, because “traditionalists” count on the natural “recovery” of society, without reasonable intervention.

Society again finds itself on the downward part of the “saw of social development.” Time passes. The acuteness of emotions caused by the revelations of the actions of the “rationalists” is erased. People are again faced with the question: “What to do?” The cycle repeats.

The proposed qualitative model describes the processes of social self-organization in societies of different numbers of people. The specific dynamics of structures can be traced in the history of countries, corporations, and small groups. The fundamental reasons for structural changes may be different, but the implementation of changes is always mediated by the rational behavior of people. This mediation disrupts the mechanical correspondence between the base and the superstructure. In the degree of satisfaction with the social order, the most important role is played by people's assessment of the effectiveness of the use of socialized resources. This estimate depends on many factors, and sudden changes can occur without actual significant changes in the effectiveness itself.

The initiators of competing variants of social order often declare their comparative “progressiveness.” This quality, without having a clear definition, influences public opinion.

The ability to compare options for a social structure according to their “progressiveness” presupposes a certain ordering of these options with the formation of a certain trajectory of the progressive movement of humanity towards a bright future. Despite historical experience, scientific forecasts, prospects drawn by world religions, the idea of world progress generated by the technological achievements of the late 19th - mid-20th centuries occupies an important place in the everyday consciousness of people and influences their assessments.

As a real filler for the concept of “progress,” we can take the growth of humanity’s potential (functional based on the number of people and the degree of their protection from destructive external influences) as a result of human activity. At the same time, two processes are going on in parallel: the growth of humanity’s potential and the growing likelihood of encountering increasingly powerful (and rarer) external influences of various natures. This competition with time is reflected in people's minds as a contradiction between the assessment of the achieved potential and the idea of the required level of potential.

In relation to the social order, the definition of the quality of “progressiveness” is not applicable. Here there is only a basis for assessing the adequacy of the social structure to the chosen path of capacity building and the technological level of the economy. And this adequacy does not at all imply a one-to-one correspondence.

The social structure must ensure (at least not inhibit) people's capacity-building activities. People's assessment of its satisfaction may be based on this requirement.

3. Progress criteria

mind. moral Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling(1775-1854) wrote that the solution to the question of historical progress is complicated by the fact that supporters and opponents of the belief in the perfectibility of mankind are completely entangled in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field morality, others are about progress science and technology, legal device.

Another point of view on social progress belongs to G. Hegel. He saw the criterion of progress in consciousnessfreedom.

In our time, philosophers also hold different views on the criterion of social progress. Let's look at some of them.

One of the current points of view is that the highest and universal objective criterion of social progress is development of productive forces, includingdevelopment of man himself. It is argued that the direction of the historical process is determined by the growth and improvement of the productive forces of society, including the means of labor, the degree of man’s mastery of the forces of nature, and the possibility of using them as the basis of human life. The origins of all human life activities lie in social production. According to this criterion, those social relations are recognized as progressive, which correspond to the level of productive forces and open up the greatest scope for their development, for the growth of labor productivity, for human development. Man is here considered as the main thing in the productive forces, therefore their development is understood from this point of view as the development of the wealth of human nature.

This position has been criticized from another point of view. Just as it is impossible to find a universal criterion of progress only in social consciousness (in the development of reason, morality, consciousness of freedom), so it cannot be found only in the sphere of material production (technology, economic relations). History has provided examples of countries where high level material production was combined with the degradation of spiritual culture. In order to overcome the one-sidedness of criteria that reflect the state of only one sphere of social life, it is necessary to find a concept that would characterize the essence of human life and activity. In this capacity, philosophers propose the concept freedom.

Freedom, as you already know, is characterized not only by knowledge (the absence of which makes a person subjectively unfree), but also by the presence of conditions for its implementation. A decision made on the basis of free choice is also necessary. Finally, funds are also required, as well as actions aimed at implementing the decision made. Let us also recall that the freedom of one person should not be achieved by infringing on the freedom of another person. This restriction of freedom is of a social and moral nature.

The meaning of human life lies in self-realization, self-realization of the individual. So, Liberty acts as a necessary condition for self-realization. In fact, self-realization is possible if a person has knowledge about his abilities, the opportunities that society gives him, about the methods of activity in which he can realize himself. The wider the opportunities created by society, the freer a person is, the more options for activities in which his potential will be revealed. But in the process of multifaceted activity, the multilateral development of the person himself also occurs, and the spiritual wealth of the individual grows.

So, according to this point of view, criterion of socialprogress is the measure of freedom that society is able toto provide the individual with a degree guaranteed by societyindividual freedom. disclosure his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. This statement brings us to consider another perspective on social progress.

As we have seen, we cannot limit ourselves to characterizing man as an active being. He is also a rational and social being. Only with this in mind can we talk about the human in man, about humanity. But the development of human qualities depends on people's living conditions. The more fully a person’s various needs for food, clothing, housing, transport services, and his needs in the spiritual field are satisfied, the more moral the relations between people become, the more accessible to a person the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities become. The more favorable the conditions for the development of a person’s physical, intellectual, mental strength, his moral principles, the wider the scope for the development of individual qualities inherent in each individual person. In short, the more humane the living conditions, the greater the opportunities for human development: reason, morality, creative powers.

Humanity, the recognition of man as the highest value, is expressed by the word “humanism”. From the above we can conclude about the universal criterion of social progress: aboutWhat is progressive is that which contributes to the rise of humanism.

Criteria for social progress.

In the extensive literature devoted to social progress, there is currently no single answer to the main question: what is the general sociological criterion of social progress?

A relatively small number of authors argue that the very posing of the question of a single criterion for social progress is meaningless, since human society is a complex organism, the development of which takes place along different lines, which makes it impossible to formulate a single criterion. Most authors consider it possible to formulate a single general sociological criterion of social progress. However, even with the very formulation of such a criterion, there are significant discrepancies.

Condorcet (like other French educators) considered development to be the criterion of progress mind. Utopian socialists put forward moral criterion of progress. Saint-Simon believed, for example, that society should adopt a form of organization that would lead to the implementation of the moral principle: all people should treat each other as brothers. Contemporary of the utopian socialists, German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling(1775-1854) wrote that the solution to the question of historical progress is complicated by the fact that supporters and opponents of the belief in the perfectibility of mankind are completely entangled in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field morality, others are about progress science and technology, which, as Schelling wrote, from a historical point of view is rather a regression, and proposed his solution to the problem: the criterion in establishing the historical progress of the human race can only be a gradual approach to legal device. Another point of view on social progress belongs to G. Hegel. He saw the criterion of progress in consciousness of freedom. As the consciousness of freedom grows, society develops progressively.

As we see, the question of the criterion of progress occupied the great minds of modern times, but they did not find a solution. The disadvantage of all attempts to overcome this task was that in all cases only one line (or one side, or one sphere) of social development was considered as a criterion. Reason, morality, science, technology, legal order, and the consciousness of freedom - all these are very important indicators, but not universal, not covering human life and society as a whole.

The prevailing idea of limitless progress inevitably led to what seemed to be the only possible solution to the problem; the main, if not the only, criterion of social progress can only be the development of material production, which ultimately predetermines changes in all other aspects and spheres of social life. Among Marxists, V.I. Lenin more than once insisted on this conclusion, who back in 1908 called for considering the interests of the development of productive forces as the highest criterion of progress. After October, Lenin returned to this definition and emphasized that the state of the productive forces is the main criterion for all social development, since each subsequent socio-economic formation finally defeated the previous one precisely because it opened up more scope for the development of productive forces and achieved higher productivity of social labor .

A serious argument in favor of this position is that the history of mankind itself begins with the manufacture of tools and exists thanks to the continuity in the development of productive forces.

It is noteworthy that the conclusion about the state and level of development of the productive forces as the general criterion of progress was shared by opponents of Marxism - technicalists, on the one hand, and scientists, on the other. A legitimate question arises: how could the concepts of Marxism (i.e., materialism) and scientism (i.e., idealism) converge at one point? The logic of this convergence is as follows. The scientist discovers social progress, first of all, in the development of scientific knowledge, but scientific knowledge acquires its highest meaning only when it is realized in practice, and above all in material production.

If we take the development of production forces as a criterion of progress; assessing them in dynamics, this presupposes a comparison no longer from the point of view of greater or lesser development of production forces, but from the point of view of the course and speed of their development. But in this case the question arises, what period should be taken for comparison.

Some philosophers believe that all difficulties will be overcome if we take the method of production of material goods as a general sociological criterion of social progress. A strong argument in favor of this position is that the foundation of social progress is the development of a method
production as a whole, that by taking into account the state and growth of production forces, as well as the nature of production relations, it is possible to show much more fully the progressive nature of one formation in relation to another.

Without denying that the transition from one mode of production to another, more progressive one, underlies progress in a number of other areas, opponents of this point of view almost always note that the main question remains unresolved: how to determine the very progressiveness of this new production method.

Fairly considering that human society is, first of all, a developing community of people, another group of philosophers puts forward the development of man himself as a general sociological criterion for social progress. It is indisputable that the course of human history really testifies to the development of the people who make up human society, their social and individual strengths, abilities, and inclinations. The advantage of this approach is that it allows us to measure social progress by the progressive development of the subjects of historical creativity themselves - people.

The most important criterion for progress is the level of humanism of society, i.e. the position of the individual in it: the degree of his economic, political and social liberation; the level of satisfaction of her material and spiritual needs; the state of her psychophysical and social health. According to this point of view, the criterion of social progress is the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to the individual, the degree of individual freedom guaranteed by society. The free development of man in a free society also means disclosure his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. The development of human qualities depends on people's living conditions. The more fully a person’s various needs for food, clothing, housing, transport services, and his requests in the spiritual field are satisfied, the more moral the relations between people become, the more accessible to a person the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities become. The more favorable the conditions for the development of a person’s physical, intellectual, mental strength, his moral principles, the wider the scope for the development of individual qualities inherent in each individual person. In short, the more humane the living conditions, the greater the opportunities for human development: reason, morality, creative powers.

Let us note, by the way, that within this indicator, which is complex in its structure, it is possible and necessary to single out one that essentially combines all the others. This, in my opinion, is the average life expectancy. And if in a given country it is 10-12 years less than in the group of developed countries, and besides, it shows a tendency to further decrease, the question of the degree of progressiveness of this country must be decided accordingly. For, as one of the famous poets said, “all progress is reactionary if man collapses.”

The level of humanism of a society as an integrative criterion (i.e., passing through and absorbing changes in literally all spheres of society’s life) criterion incorporates the criteria discussed above. Each subsequent formational and civilizational stage is more progressive in personal terms - it expands the range of rights and freedoms of the individual, entails the development of his needs and the improvement of his abilities. It is enough to compare in this regard the status of slave and serf, serf and wage worker under capitalism. At first, it may seem that the slaveholding formation, which marked the beginning of the era of exploitation of man by man, stands apart in this regard. But, as F. Engels explained, even for a slave, not to mention free people, slavery was progress in personal terms: if before a prisoner was killed or eaten, now he was left to live.

So, the content of social progress was, is and will be the “humanization of man,” achieved through the contradictory development of his natural and social forces, i.e., productive forces and the entire gamut of social relations. From the above we can conclude about the universal criterion of social progress: Progressive is that which contributes to the rise of humanism.

CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL PROGRESS

The world community's thoughts about the “limits of growth” have significantly updated the problem of criteria for social progress. Indeed, if in the social world around us not everything is as simple as it seemed and seems to progressists, then what are the most significant signs that can be used to judge the progress of social development as a whole, the progressiveness, conservatism or reactionary nature of certain phenomena?

Let us note right away that the question “how to measure” social progress has never received an unambiguous answer in the philosophical and sociological literature. This situation is largely explained by the complexity of society as a subject and object of progress, its diversity and quality. Hence the search for our own, local criterion for each sphere of public life. But at the same time, society is an integral organism and, as such, the main criterion of social progress must correspond to it. People, as G. V. Plekhanov noted, make not several stories, but one story of their own relationships. Our thinking is capable and must reflect this single historical practice in its integrity.

And yet, the prevailing idea of limitless progress inevitably led to what seemed to be the only possible solution to the problem; the main, if not the only, criterion of social progress can only be the development of material production, which ultimately predetermines changes in all other aspects and spheres of social life. Among Marxists, V.I. Lenin more than once insisted on this conclusion, who back in 1908 called for considering the interests of the development of productive forces as the highest criterion of progress. After October, Lenin returned to this definition and emphasized that the state of the productive forces is the main criterion for all social development, since each subsequent socio-economic formation finally defeated the previous one precisely because it opened up more scope for the development of productive forces and achieved higher productivity of social labor .

It is noteworthy that the conclusion about the state and level of development of the productive forces as the general criterion of progress was shared by opponents of Marxism - technicalists, on the one hand, and scientists, on the other. The position of the latter obviously needs some comments, because a legitimate question arises: how could the concepts of Marxism (i.e., materialism) and scientism (i.e., idealism) converge at one point? The logic of this convergence is as follows. The scientist discovers social progress primarily in the development of scientific knowledge, but scientific knowledge acquires its highest meaning only when it is realized in practice, and above all in material production.

In the process of the ideological confrontation between the two systems, which was just receding into the past, technologists used the thesis of productive forces as the general criterion of social progress to prove the superiority of the West, which was and is ahead in this indicator. Then their opponents made a significant amendment to their own concept: this highest general sociological criterion cannot be taken in isolation from the nature of the production relations prevailing in a given society. After all, it is important not only the total amount of material goods produced in the country, but also how evenly and fairly they are distributed among the population, how this social organization promotes or inhibits the rational use of productive forces and their further development. And although the amendment is truly significant, it does not take the criterion accepted as the main one beyond the limits of one - economic - sphere of social reality, does not make it truly integrative, that is, passing through and absorbing changes in literally all spheres of life society.

Such an integrative, and therefore the most important, criterion of progress is the level of humanization of society, that is, the position of the individual in it: the degree of his economic, political and social liberation; the level of satisfaction of her material and spiritual needs; the state of her psychophysical and social health. Let us note, by the way, that within this indicator, which is complex in its structure, it is possible and necessary to single out one that essentially combines all the others. This, in our opinion, is the average life expectancy. And if in a given country it is 10-12 years less than in the group of developed countries, and besides, it shows a tendency to further decrease, the question of the degree of progressiveness of this country must be decided accordingly. For, as one of the famous poets said, “all progress is reactionary if man collapses.”

The level of humanization of society as an integrative criterion absorbs the criteria discussed above in a subtracted form. Each subsequent formational and civilizational stage is more progressive in personal terms - it expands the range of rights and freedoms of the individual, entails the development of his needs and the improvement of his abilities. It is enough to compare in this regard the status of slave and serf, serf and wage worker under capitalism. At first, it may seem that the slaveholding formation, which marked the beginning of the era of exploitation of man by man, stands apart in this regard. But, as F. Engels explained, even for a slave, not to mention free people, slavery was progress in personal terms: if before a prisoner was killed or eaten, now he was left to live.

Conclusion

1). Society is a complex organism in which different “bodies” function (enterprises, associations of people, government institutions, etc.), various processes (economic, political, spiritual, etc.) occur simultaneously, and various human activities unfold. All these parts of one social organism, all these processes, different kinds activities are interconnected and at the same time may not coincide in their development. Moreover, individual processes and changes occurring in different areas of society can be multidirectional, that is, progress in one area may be accompanied by regression in another. Thus, it is impossible to find any general criterion by which one could judge the progress of a particular society. Like many processes in our lives, social progress, based on various criteria, can be characterized in different ways. Therefore, in my opinion, there is simply no general criterion.

2). Despite the inconsistency and ambiguity of many provisions of Aristotle’s socio-political concept, the approaches he proposed to the analysis of the state, the method of political science and its vocabulary (including the history of the issue, statement of the problem, arguments for and against, etc.), highlighting what is the subject of political thought and reasoning still have a fairly noticeable influence on political research today. A reference to Aristotle is still a fairly weighty scientific argument confirming the truth of conclusions about political processes and phenomena.

The concept of progress, as stated above, is based on some kind of value or set of values. But the concept of progress has become so firmly entrenched in modern mass consciousness that we are faced with a situation where the very idea of progress - progress as such - acts as a value. Progress in this way, by itself, regardless of any values, tries to fill life and history with meaning, and verdicts are passed in its name. Progress can be thought of either as a desire for some goal, or as limitless movement and unfolding. It is obvious that progress without a basis in any other value that would serve as its goal is possible only as an endless ascent. Its paradox lies in the fact that movement without a goal, movement to nowhere, is, generally speaking, meaningless.

List of used literature:

1. Gubin V.D., Sidorina T.Yu., Philosophy, Moscow Gardarina 2005

2. Volchek E.Z., Philosophy, Minsk 1995.

3. Frolov N.V., Introduction to Philosophy, Moscow 1989.

4. Article “The Concept of Social Progress in Social Philosophy”

It is very important to understand the direction in which our society is moving, constantly changing and developing. This article is dedicated to this purpose. We will try to determine the criteria for social progress and answer a number of other questions. First of all, let's figure out what progress and regression are.

Consideration of concepts

Social progress is a direction of development that is characterized by a progressive movement from simple and lower forms of organization of society to more complex, higher ones. The opposite of this term is the concept of “regression”, that is, the reverse movement - a return to outdated relationships and structures, degradation, the direction of development from higher to lower.

The history of the formation of ideas about the measures of progress

The problem of criteria for social progress has long worried thinkers. The idea that changes in society are precisely a progressive process appeared in ancient times, but finally took shape in the works of M. Condorcet, A. Turgot and other French enlighteners. These thinkers saw the criteria for social progress in the development of reason and the spread of education. This optimistic view of the historical process gave way in the 19th century to other, more complex concepts. For example, Marxism sees progress in changing socio-economic formations from lower to higher. Some thinkers believed that the consequence of moving forward is the growing heterogeneity of society and the complication of its structure.

In modern science, historical progress is usually associated with a process such as modernization, that is, the transition of society from agrarian to industrial and further to post-industrial.

Scientists who do not share the idea of progress

Not everyone accepts the idea of progress. Some thinkers reject it in relation to social development - either predicting the “end of history”, or saying that societies develop independently of each other, multilinearly, in parallel (O. Spengler, N.Ya. Danilevsky, A. Toynbee), or considering history as a cycle with a series of recessions and ascents (G. Vico).

For example, Arthur Toynbee identified 21 civilizations, each of which has distinct phases of formation: emergence, growth, breakdown, decline and, finally, decay. Thus, he abandoned the thesis about the unity of the historical process.

O. Spengler wrote about the “decline of Europe.” “Anti-progressism” is especially vivid in the works of K. Popper. In his view, progress is movement towards a specific goal, which is possible only for specific person, but not for the story as a whole. The latter can be considered both as a movement forward and as a regression.

Progress and regression are not mutually exclusive concepts

The progressive development of society, obviously, in certain periods does not exclude regression, return movements, civilizational dead ends, even breakdowns. And it is hardly possible to talk about an unambiguously linear development of humanity, since both leaps forward and setbacks are clearly observed. Progress in a certain area, in addition, can be the cause of decline and regression in another. Thus, the development of technology, technology, and tools is a clear indication of progress in the economy, but it was precisely this that brought our world to the brink of a global environmental catastrophe, depleting the Earth’s natural reserves.

Society today is also accused of a family crisis, a decline in morality, and lack of spirituality. The price of progress is high: for example, the conveniences of city life are accompanied by various “urbanization diseases.” Sometimes the negative consequences of progress are so obvious that a natural question arises as to whether it can even be said that humanity is moving forward.

Criteria for social progress: history

The question of the measures of social development is also relevant. There is also no agreement in the scientific world here. French enlighteners saw such a criterion in the development of reason, in increasing the degree of rationality public organization. Some other thinkers and scientists (for example, A. Saint-Simon) believed that the highest criterion of social progress is the state of morality in society, approaching early Christian ideals.

G. Hegel had a different opinion. He connected progress with freedom - the degree of its awareness by people. Marxism also proposed its own criterion of development: according to supporters of this concept, it consists in the growth of productive forces.

K. Marx, seeing the essence of development in man's increasing subordination of the forces of nature, reduced progress in general to a more specific one - in the production sphere. He considered only those social relations to be conducive to development, which at a given stage correspond to the level of productive forces, and also open up space for the improvement of the person himself (acting as an instrument of production).

Criteria for social development: modernity

Philosophy has subjected the criteria of social progress to careful analysis and revision. In modern social science, the applicability of many of them is disputed. The state of the economic foundation does not at all determine the nature of the development of other spheres of social life.

The goal, and not just a means of social progress, is considered to be the creation of the necessary conditions for the harmonious and comprehensive development of the individual. Consequently, the criterion of social progress is precisely the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to a person to maximize his potential. Based on the conditions created in society to satisfy the totality of the needs of the individual and his free development, the degree of progressiveness of a given system and the criteria of social progress should be assessed.

Let's summarize the information. The table below will help you understand the main criteria for social progress.

The table can be expanded to include the views of other thinkers.

There are two forms of progress in society. Let's look at them below.

Revolution

A revolution is a comprehensive or complete change in most or all aspects of society, affecting the foundations of the existing system. Until quite recently, it was regarded as a universal universal “law of transition” from one socio-economic formation to another. However, scientists could not detect any signs of a social revolution during the transition to a class system from a primitive communal one. Therefore, it was necessary to expand the concept so that it could be applied to any transition between formations, but this led to the destruction of the original semantic content of the term. And the mechanism of a real revolution could only be discovered in phenomena dating back to the era of modern times (that is, during the transition to capitalism from feudalism).

Revolution from the point of view of Marxism

Following the Marxist methodology, we can say that a social revolution means a radical social revolution that changes the structure of society and means a qualitative leap in progressive development. The deepest and most general reason for the emergence of a social revolution is the otherwise insoluble conflict between the productive forces, which are growing, and the system of social institutions and relations, which remain unchanged. The aggravation of political, economic and other contradictions in society against this background ultimately leads to revolution.

The latter is always an active political action on the part of the people; its main goal is the transfer of control of society into the hands of a new social class. The difference between revolution and evolution is that the first is considered concentrated in time, that is, it happens quickly, and the masses become its direct participants.

The dialectic of such concepts as revolution and reform seems very complex. The first, as a deeper action, most often absorbs the latter, thus the action “from below” is complemented by the activity “from above”.

Many modern scientists urge us to abandon the excessive exaggeration of the significance of social revolution in history, the idea that it is an inevitable pattern in solving historical problems, because it has not always been the dominant form determining social progress. Much more often, changes in the life of society occurred as a result of action “from above,” that is, reforms.

Reform

This is a reorganization, transformation, change in some aspect of social life, which does not destroy the existing foundations of the social structure, retains power in the hands of ruling class. Thus, the understood path of step-by-step transformation of relations is contrasted with a revolution that completely sweeps away the old system and order. Marxism regarded the evolutionary process, which preserved the remnants of the past for a long time, as too painful and unacceptable for the people. Adherents of this concept believed that since reforms are carried out exclusively “from above” by forces that have power and do not want to give up it, their result will always be lower than expected: reforms are characterized by inconsistency and half-heartedness.

Underestimation of reforms

It was explained by the famous position formulated by V.I. Lenin, that reforms are “a by-product of the revolution.” Let us note: K. Marx already believed that reforms are never a consequence of the weakness of the strong, since they are brought to life precisely by the strength of the weak.

His Russian follower strengthened his denial of the possibility that the “tops” have their own incentives when starting reforms. IN AND. Lenin believed that reforms are a by-product of revolution because they represent unsuccessful attempts to dampen and weaken the revolutionary struggle. Even in cases where reforms were clearly not the result of popular protests, Soviet historians still explained them by the desire of the authorities to prevent encroachments on the existing system.

The “reform-revolution” relationship in modern social science

Over time, Russian scientists gradually freed themselves from the existing nihilism in relation to transformations through evolution, first recognizing the equivalence of revolutions and reforms, and then criticizing revolutions as a bloody, extremely ineffective path full of costs and leading to an inevitable dictatorship.

Now great reforms (that is, revolutions “from above”) are considered the same social anomalies as great revolutions. What they have in common is that these methods of resolving contradictions are opposed to the healthy, normal practice of gradual, continuous reform in a self-regulating society.

The “revolution-reform” dilemma is replaced by clarifying the relationship between reform and permanent regulation. In this context, both revolution and changes “from above” “treat” an advanced disease (the first with “surgical intervention”, the second with “therapeutic methods”), while early and constant prevention is perhaps necessary in order to ensure social progress.

Therefore, in social science today the emphasis is shifting from the “revolution-reform” antinomy to “innovation-reform”. Innovation means a one-time ordinary improvement associated with an increase in the adaptive capabilities of society in specific conditions. It is precisely this that can ensure the greatest social progress in the future.

The criteria for social progress discussed above are not unconditional. Modern science recognizes the priority of the humanitarian over others. However, a general criterion for social progress has not yet been established.

The most difficult problem in the theory of progress is the question of the main objective criterion. Is there really an accurate measure of the level of social progress? What are the indicators that generally reflect the main source of social progress? When determining the main criterion of social progress, the interests of different classes collide. Each social class strives to justify a criterion that would meet the interests of this class.

For example, some modern foreign philosophers and sociologists oppose the objective nature of the criterion of social progress. They seek to prove that the solution to the question of progress in the history of society is subjective, since it depends on the choice of the criterion of social progress. And the choice of this criterion is determined by the scale of values chosen by the one who judges progress. Moreover, he does this in accordance with his personal views, sympathies, ideals, etc. With one criterion one can recognize the presence of progress in history, with another one can deny it. All points of view here are equal, since they are all equally subjective.

Thus, A.D. Todd in the book “Theories of Social Progress” writes: “Progress is human concept. So human that everyone thinks about it in their own way." The French philosophical dictionary edited by A. Lalande says that progress "is an essentially relative concept, since it depends on what scale of values the one who speaks about progress adheres to."

Materialism rejects the subjectivist and relativist position of philosophers and sociologists about social progress. The study shows that progress in society is an objective law, accessible strictly scientific research. Therefore, the main criterion of social progress must be objective. According to him, it is the productive forces that are the determining reason for the progressive development of the entire history of mankind and therefore serve as an objective indicator of the level of resolution of contradictions between society and nature.

Thus, The main objective criterion of social progress is the development of productive forces. It is this that forms the basis of unity and connection in world history, and represents that continuous line of ascent that runs through all social processes. Ultimately, all human activity is focused in changes in productive forces, no matter in what sphere of the social organism it is carried out. This criterion is of a general historical (general sociological) nature and applies to all social formations that have existed in history. It makes it possible to determine for each formation its historical place in the forward movement of humanity.

As the study shows, the question of the main objective criterion of social progress comes down to finding out what is the beginning of the progressive development of society, or what element of the social organism changes first? Indeed, those objective criteria by which one can determine whether a given phenomenon is progressive or reactionary and to what extent depend on the level and nature of the development of the productive forces. Whatever the productive forces are, such is ultimately the whole society. It is also necessary to emphasize that socio-economic formations “situated” in history precisely in accordance with the level and nature of the development of the productive forces.

Consequently, the social system (socio-economic system, politics, ideology, morality, etc.), which most stimulates the development of productive forces, creates the greatest scope for them, is the most progressive. Therefore, everything that is in production relations, in the content of ideas, views, theories, moral norms, etc. promotes the further development of productive forces, works for the idea of progress. And on the contrary, everything that slows down this development is associated with regression. Another thing is that there is no automatic dependence.

Progress in the field of production does not always directly affect progress in spiritual life, for example, in art or morality. Relationship between development various phenomena The spiritual life of society, on the one hand, and the needs of the development of productive forces, on the other, are mediated by the diversity and complexity of social relations, and it is sometimes very difficult to establish this connection. In the history of exploitative formations there are many facts when the progress of the productive forces was ensured by cruel and violent methods associated with the violation of elementary norms of humanity. According to K. Marx, this kind of progress was likened to “a disgusting pagan idol, which did not want to drink nectar except from the skulls of the murdered.”

Modern foreign sociologists quite often absolutize the role of technology, especially computers, in the development of society and consider it the main criterion of their own progress. However, this is not true. Technology, computers, and means of production in general are just one of the elements of the productive forces. Their other element is people, the direct producers of material and spiritual goods. Moreover, the working masses are the main element in the productive forces of society. Therefore, the most important indicator of the progressiveness of a socio-economic system is the opportunities that it creates for the comprehensive development of the abilities and creative activity of workers, and the satisfaction of their material and spiritual needs.

Therefore, when determining the superiority of a particular social system, it is necessary to compare, first of all, the opportunities that it provides for the development of the productive forces as a whole. These opportunities are usually realized in higher rates of development of social production, the widespread dissemination of culture among the masses of workers, their full involvement in managing the affairs of society, etc.

With all the complexity of social development, its main line is forward movement, and the process of ascent from lower to higher not only continues steadily, but accelerates from formation to formation. This can be seen already from the very duration of the existence of the formations: the primitive communal system is 40–50 thousand years, and the entire written history is a little more than 5 thousand years. Of these: slavery – 3–3.5 thousand years; feudalism - 1.5 thousand years; capitalism – several centuries; socialism - several decades.

The most general indicator of the development of productive forces, or an objective criterion of social progress, is the growth rate of labor productivity. Labor productivity itself reflects only the level of development of the productive forces of society. And the growth rate of labor productivity also reflects the nature of the productive forces, i.e. the specifics of the relationship between direct producers and the means of production.

Any new socio-economic formation has higher rates of growth in labor productivity compared to the previous one. For example, labor productivity under capitalism develops 20–40 thousand times faster than under the primitive communal system, 100–150 times faster than in a slave society, 50–60 times faster than in the era of feudalism.

It is also necessary to keep in mind that here we cannot limit ourselves to a simple comparison of the levels of production development achieved in this moment countries with different social systems. After all, many countries in which a democratic system is being established have had or are having to overcome technical and economic backwardness inherited from the past, as well as difficulties caused by the resistance of reactionary forces, imposed wars, etc. That is why it takes some time for them to catch up with countries that industrialized and computerized much earlier. After all, progress usually appears as the cumulative result of the upward development of all aspects of social life. It is measured by a whole system of criteria, each of which has its place and purpose in determining the level of progressive development of society. In this system there is a hierarchy and subordination. There are basic and non-basic criteria, defining and conditional.

In the hierarchy of criteria for social progress, the development of productive forces is of decisive importance. Other criteria operating in the sphere of morality, science, philosophy, etc., only reflect phenomena that arise on the basis of a certain level and nature of the development of productive forces. For example, the criterion of moral progress is the growth of individual freedom, the criterion of progress in science can be the process of transforming science into a direct productive force, the criterion of progress in philosophy is the formation of a democratic worldview, etc.

Social progress is a multifaceted phenomenon. It includes progressive development in all spheres of the social organism. The stage of progressively developing human history generally corresponds to a certain socio-economic formation. While maintaining its qualitative state, the formation, like a living, developing organism, goes through the stages of origin, development and decay. The division between the ascending and descending stages of formation is formed by a violation of the correspondence of the parties to social production and its influence on the entire system of social relations.

However, historical development occurs continuously. In the depths of the old socio-economic formation, the prerequisites for another, higher formation arise (in the form of new productive forces, changes in the socio-economic structure, etc.). The old social system prevents the full disclosure of these preconditions. A leap in the forward movement of society means a revolutionary transition to a new, higher socio-economic formation.

Each new formation is born, formed and replaces the old one only on the “shoulders” of this latter, on the basis of its achievements. K. Marx wrote: “Not a single social formation will perish before all the productive forces for which it provides sufficient scope have developed, and new higher production relations never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the depths of the old society itself.” . As long as a given formation develops in an ascending line, everything that contributes to its strengthening is progressive. When a formation enters a period of stagnation and decay, then what breaks its foundations is progressive, and all possible attempts to slow down this process are regressive.

The progressive nature of social development cannot be understood in a simplified way. The history of human society is complex and contradictory. Social progress is its general line, its general orientation. And within the framework of historical progress, there were eras of restoration, and tragic catastrophes, sometimes leading to the death of entire civilizations, and the deepest errors of human thought.

Marx K., Engels F. Op. T. 23. P. 731. Note.
Marx K., Engels F. Op. T. 13. P. 7.

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z