Socialism and ways of solving the problems of modern man. Socialism and ways to solve the problems of modern man Position on the social issue ways of solution

The role of the state in the economy - liberalism

• The main value is freedom

• The ideal is a market economy

• The state should not interfere in the economy

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

Position on the social question - liberalism

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

• All people are equal, everyone has equal opportunities

Ways to solve social problems - liberalism

• Government reforms

Limits of freedom - liberalism

• From birth, a person has inalienable rights: to life, freedom, etc.

• “Everything that is not prohibited by law is allowed” - complete freedom in everything.

• Only those who can be responsible for their decisions can be free, i.e. whether the owners are an educated person.

The role of the state in the economy - conservatism

• The goal is to preserve traditions, religion and order

• The state has the right to intervene in the economy if it is necessary to preserve traditions

• The power of the state is not limited by anyone and nothing

• Ideal - absolute monarchy

Position on the social question - conservatism

• Saving the old estate layer

• Do not believe in the possibility of social equality

Ways to solve social problems - conservatism

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

• Reforms as a last resort to prevent social explosions

Limits of freedom - Conservatism

• The state subjugates the individual

• Freedom is expressed in the observance of traditions, religious humility

The role of the state in the economy - Socialism

• Destruction of private property, free market and competition

• The state completely controls the economy, helps the poor

• MARXISM - form of government - DICTATORY OF THE PROLETARIAT (workers' power)

• ANARCHISM - the state must be destroyed

Position on the social question - socialism

• All people should have equal rights and benefits

• The state itself decides all social issues, ensuring workers their rights

Ways to solve social problems - socialism

• socialist revolution

• Destruction of inequality and the class of owners

Limits of freedom - socialism

• Freedom is achieved by the provision of all goods and is limited by the state

• Work is compulsory for all

• Entrepreneurship and private property are prohibited

At the turn of the third millennium, mankind will have to lay the fundamental foundations for the optimal solution of a number of vital problems that are of decisive importance for its future historical destinies.

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

The program documents and theoretical concepts of the leading political parties of modern Western capitalist countries differ from each other in the way they see and propose to solve precisely these problems. In this regard, in a somewhat generalized form, one can speak of conservative, liberal and social democratic theoretical and political models for their solution. Of course, specific models of each of these political directions in certain countries have their own specific features and can, within their general, fundamental settings, differ significantly from each other, but in their subsequent comparison we will proceed from the most general features that characterize the nature of one or in a different direction in general.

In the context of the increased influence of conservative politics and ideology in the industrialized countries of Western Europe and the United States in the last decade, neoconservative views on the place and role of the economy, the state, society and the human person in life are of particular importance for understanding the main current and possible trends in their socio-political development. modern capitalist world.

The range of programmatic guidelines and ideological ideas of the conservative bourgeois parties is unusually wide and variegated today. However, with all their diversity and differences, some general and fundamental provisions can be distinguished. First of all, the point of view is common, according to which the market economy based on private property is proclaimed as the unchanging and unshakable foundation of political democracy, the antipode of the socialist socialization of the means of production and uncontrolled economic forms of the liberal persuasion. It, according to neoconservatives, provides people with personal freedom, welfare growth and even social progress better than all other systems.

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

However, the causes of these contemporary problems American and European neoconservatives define it incorrectly. Even the most shrewd of them, the former liberals D. Bell and S. M. Lipset, do not dream of questioning the very economic system of capitalism. Calling for a return to the classical forms of free enterprise and to a market economy not patronized by the state, neoconservatives forget that the shortcomings of modern Western society they criticize are the necessary and inevitable result of the development of the capitalist economic system, the realization of its internal potentialities, and the implementation of the principle of "freely competing egoisms". They are unable to take a critical view of the economic system, for the revival of the original forms of which they advocate, to fully realize that the capitalist society of economic growth and mass consumption cannot exist without the consumer enthusiasm of potential buyers. Therefore, they bring down all their criticism on the “bureaucratic welfare state” and the tendency towards “equalization” and leveling produced by it. As I. Fetcher notes on this occasion, a return to the “good old days” by limiting state intervention in the economy, nullifying the vertical and horizontal mobility of workers and employees in order to strengthen the traditional family and communal ties is nothing more than a reactionary utopia, incompatible with the progress of an industrial society in a democracy.

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

The sharp turn of bourgeois policy and ideology in the FRG to the right alarms many West German social scientists. They recognize the danger of such shifts in political life, causing inevitable historical associations with the times of the Weimar Republic, which prepared the rise of the Nazis to power. And yet, most of them suggest that these tendencies manifest themselves only in a craving for a strong state power that can ensure stable order in the country and guarantee the unlimited development of a market economy. So, for example, according to the well-known researcher of neoconservatism R. Saage, a model of commonality with the features of the Bismarckian bureaucratic state, in which the stability of social institutions is maintained and citizens are brought up in the spirit of traditional virtues and moral principles, is more likely. According to the idea of ​​the neoconservatives, we are talking about such conditions of social life guaranteed by the state, in which, within certain boundaries and limits, it will be possible to ensure the unhindered further development of the capitalist economy.

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

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

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

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

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

According to one of the former leaders of the Swedish young liberals, P. Garton, the following options for the relationship between these two systems are possible:

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

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

3) political power acts "in concert" with the economic system, i.e., it is more or less introduced into the economic system, planning production with the participation of the leaders of the economic system;

4) political power is subordinated to the economic system, as is the case in "supercapitalist" states, for example, in the Federal Republic of Germany or the USA.

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

Garton's scheme of various options for the correlation of political power and the economic system as a whole correctly reflects some of the common features of the bourgeois-reformist projects for optimizing the activities of the capitalist system. But it is purely formal and abstract in nature, since it considers the economic system and political power as impersonal and autonomous social institutions, whose activities are determined by interests and attitudes, as it were, immanent for these systems and independent of each other. This scheme not only abstracts from the real class and socio-political nature of the economy and political power, but also proceeds from an untenable premise that suggests some objective interest of these two systems in an optimal organization of social life that is favorable for the whole society, all its classes and social groups. The abstract nature of these models reveals itself especially clearly when it comes to the domination of political power over the means of production in states of the socialist type, since it does not take into account the qualitative difference between the socialist state and the bourgeois state, and above all the fundamentally important circumstance that the subject of the economic system and political power in a socialist state is the people, consisting of friendly classes and social groups, placed in an equal position in relation to the means of production, driven by common interests and goals.

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

The reforms planned and partially carried out by Western European socialists and social democrats relate primarily to the social aspects of capitalist reality. They involve ensuring full employment, raising wages, developing social security, expanding access to various types of education for working youth, etc. Some reforms are also envisaged in the field of public relations. Such are the various projects for the participation of the working people in the economic life of a capitalist society, for the provision of a "new quality of life." The problem of complicity is supposed to be solved in one case in line with the development of "industrial democracy" (Sweden), in other cases in connection with the implementation of "economic democracy" (France, Denmark). workers in the ownership of a share of the fixed capital of an enterprise, which, in their opinion, will lead in the future to participation in the management of this enterprise. Among the Austrian and West German Social Democrats, participation applies not only to production, but also to the sphere of social life. Thus, it is supposed to promote the development of democracy in a capitalist society.

The models of social structure of a number of Western socialist and social democratic parties provide for a kind of mixed economic system in which, along with the public sector, private small and medium-sized enterprises in agriculture, industry and trade will exist for a long time. As essential elements of this model, limited planning and management of the economy with a view to concentrating investments in decisive areas of economic development are cited. We're talking about these forms. government controlled which allow avoiding centralism, which subordinates the economy to the state. In the same spirit, it is planned to carry out the correction and appropriate direction of the remaining market economy.

However, the experience of government activity of socialists and social democrats in the Western European countries of the last two decades shows that the reforms they carried out did not introduce any noticeable structural changes in capitalist society. Sharp criticism on this issue, voiced at a number of party conferences and congresses, gave rise to a twofold reaction. On the one hand, demands were formulated for a radical reorganization of society based on the socialization of the main means of production. On the other hand, theories and concepts have appeared that give rise to illusions about the possible overcoming of capitalist structures without significant changes in private property social relations. According to this point of view, the question of property is not of decisive importance, but the main task is to limit the power of the capitalists with the help of legislative parliamentary reforms that exclude the revolutionary path of social reorganization. But, as K. Chernets, a prominent figure in the Austrian Social Democracy, rightly noted on this occasion, nowhere has it been possible to make the capitalists be content with dividends from their shares, and the managers run the economy in the interests of social justice, on the basis of democratically developed plans.

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

Western non-Marxist philosophy, together with criticism of the enlightenment-progressive and speculative-metaphysical concepts of the past that did not justify themselves, came to deny the possibility of rational knowledge of the objective laws of historical development, treating any such attempt, and above all the Marxist theory of socio-historical development, as allegedly scientifically untenable and utopian in to its essence. The right to overcome the barriers separating the present from the future, a breakthrough into the future, this philosophy gave only the prophets and poets. Referring to the specifics of the future as an object of knowledge, which also includes what is not yet in reality, what is not yet a present object, philosophers of the neopositivist persuasion declared the knowledge of the future and its objectivity to be mutually exclusive things. An attempt to know what cannot be verified using narrowly empirical neo-positivist criteria of scientific character was declared devoid of scientific and objective significance, and from the point of view of Western religious philosophy, a sacrilegious and blasphemous attempt on what is in the hand of God.

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

However, such a position of Western social philosophy in the context of the ongoing crisis of the capitalist system, exacerbated by the severe need for timely resolution of vital internal and global problems, has shown its extreme insufficiency, since the solution of these problems and the tasks of ideological integration of the broad masses that concern the bourgeoisie increasingly require the development and promotion of some kind of integral views on the world, on the ways and forms of further social and cultural development of mankind. In the most diverse political and philosophical regions of the Western world, calls for a philosophical understanding of the modern life problems of mankind, for the development of philosophical projects that reflect the real trends of historical development and its possible prospects, began to acquire more and more sound.

In conditions of painfully manifesting itself in Western countries orientation crisis, bourgeois philosophy, of course, is not satisfied with just calls for a holistic understanding of contemporary world development, but makes various attempts at a philosophical study of our time, identifying the ways in which crisis phenomena can be overcome and some general principles of activity, spiritual identity of various social groups and society as a whole. Such attempts have been made in the past and have been especially active in the last decade. Despite the significant differences between modern conservative, liberal and social democratic concepts of the future, advocating the strengthening and revival of traditional forms of bourgeois culture and social life or for their evolutionary improvement, transformation and even overcoming of the capitalist system, carried out with the help of reforms, Western philosophy as a whole is united both in rejecting the realities and ideals of modern socialist society, and in preserving the fundamental foundations of capitalist civilization, in its belief in the wide possibilities of its self-improvement. At the same time, in a number of left-liberal and social-democratic projects of the future, demands are formulated for reaching a qualitatively new level of social and cultural life in the developed capitalist countries and in the world as a whole.

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

Therefore, any alternative concept of the future in relation to the existing capitalist civilization, if it is not just a new version of a social utopia, must clearly define its origins in the real conditions and prerequisites of modern social life, and above all, its attitude to modern socialist reality, objectively evaluate those new forms of socio-economic structures, culture, international and interpersonal relations that it called into being.

Many millions of people on our planet, of various races and nationalities, beliefs and religions, realize today the need to adopt a number of common democratic and fair principles of domestic and international coexistence and cooperation, without which humanity will not be able to survive, solve the basic life problems of its modern existence and thereby ensure the necessary conditions further development and social progress. It is also obvious that these principles can be recognized and assert themselves in the life of peoples only on the paths of ever-increasing mutual understanding and accord, and the improvement of domestic and international life.

Of course, these qualitatively new forms of social life and international relations of the future will take shape and must take shape on the basis of all that is best and advanced that is born of the culture of every people, small and large. In this sense, they will be the result of the progressive development of mankind as a whole. But at the same time, out of all the diversity now existing forms socio-political life, it is necessary to single out that which, by its already established nature, in its most general and fundamental features, can be characterized as the main source and bearer of future forms of social and interpersonal relations. These are the fundamental socio-political institutions and cultural values ​​of the countries of real socialism, the ideals and principles of the socialist worldview, in various forms ah and to varying degrees asserting themselves in the minds of the majority of the peoples of the world. It is this last circumstance that Weizsacker had in mind when he said that the socialist demands of solidarity and justice are closer to the worldview of the future than those proclaimed in various versions of modern bourgeois-liberal ideology.

However, recognizing the merits of the socialist worldview, Weizsäcker puts real socialism and capitalism on the same level, considering them as two systems equally removed from the social ideal of the future. Of course, modern real socialism does not embody a complete and perfect model of the future society. There are no special revelations in stating this circumstance, it only fixes the natural and quite understandable difference between what really exists and what should be in the future, in accordance with its theoretical ideal. But there is no doubt that even today real socialism possesses qualitatively new, progressive forms of social life, radically different from capitalist ones and representing the first stage of the communist social formation.

Communism and its first, socialist phase, despite their qualitative difference from the historically preceding social formations, as we have already noted, do not interrupt the general course of the historical process, but are a qualitatively new stage in its development, its natural result. Communism is also not a happy ending of history, understood in the manner of religious-eschatological teachings about the "city on high", about the other world or about the earthly paradise. The communist ideal, by virtue of its scientific and concrete historical nature, presupposes the creation of a society free from the social vices and imperfections of capitalism and other forms of the class antagonistic society of the past, from the exploitation of man by man, a society that does not complete the history of mankind, but continues it, opening up a wide expanse for the further development of a qualitative renewal of its social forms.

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

Experience in the formation and development of the global socialist system indicates that this or that degree of presence of cultural elements inherited from the past most directly affects the level of functioning of the new society. Of course, the material prerequisites prepared by capitalism, which consist primarily in the level of development of production and technology, are a primary and important condition for the development of society in its qualitatively new, socialist form. But the optimal life of a socialist society, the realization of its real potentials and advantages, is possible only if there are many other elements of cultural tradition, especially those on which the level of development and active activity of a person depends - the key force of production, the subject of knowledge and socio-historical creativity. . The richness of a person's creative possibilities is determined not only by his production skills and education, but also by the general cultural development as an integral being. The culture of work and life of a person, his political activity, emotional and spiritual and moral life, interpersonal communication, way of life and thinking, aesthetic worldview, personal behavior - all this and much more is the real content of human and social life, on which the effective functioning of any social organization including the socialist one.

Not only human activity, but the entire history of mankind is measured and evaluated in accordance with the level of development and involvement of all these parameters. The Soviet Socialist Republic in some respects received a very modest legacy from the past, and in the new conditions it had to make up for what was lost and insufficiently developed in the pre-revolutionary period. The mass enthusiasm of the builders of the new society and the high cultural level of the party and state leadership of the country contributed to the successful solution of this complex task. Assessing the cultural and intellectual merits of the first Soviet government headed by Lenin and the highest echelon of the Leninist guard, some Western journalists of that time were forced to recognize their exceptionally high and unique in all respects. political history humanity level. Indeed, in the first years of Soviet power, the Leninist guard set for the subsequent activities of the socialist state and society as a whole an extremely high scale of ideological conviction, intellectual culture and spirituality, the maintenance of which served to the success of the further construction of a socialist society. And today, in outlining new plans and prospects for the development of socialist society in the 12th Five-Year Plan and for the period up to the year 2000, the Party and the Soviet state emphasize the importance at all levels of continuity and innovative creativity, the subjective-human factor for the successful implementation of the outlined plans.

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

The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of socialism as the first stage of communist society is being developed, refined and enriched on the basis of theoretical generalization and comprehension of the experience of the entire world revolutionary process, and above all of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. This experience confirmed and clarified the general assumption expressed by the founders of Marxism and Lenin that, along with the fundamental laws of the construction and functioning of socialism, significant differences will be revealed, due to specific specific national and historical features, in the development of each socialist country. “... About the whole, the period of transition from capitalism to socialism,” wrote Lenin, “the teachers of socialism did not speak in vain and emphasized not in vain the“ long pangs of childbirth ”of the new society, and this new society is again an abstraction that cannot be realized otherwise than through a series of varied, imperfect concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state.

On the unexplored paths of building socialism, in difficult internal and external conditions, the Soviet people, under the leadership of the Communist Party, overcoming colossal difficulties, have done tremendous and fruitful work in creating new forms of social life. The progressive development of Soviet society, despite the difficulties and mistakes of an objective and subjective order, continued steadily and led by the end of the 30s to the victory of the socialist way of life in all major spheres of public life. During a short historical period, spanning a little over two decades, the Soviet country carried out enormous social transformations that led to the creation of the foundations of a socialist society. The nationalization of the means of production, the establishment and approval of various forms of public socialist property, the industrialization of the country, and the collectivization of agriculture created a powerful socio-economic foundation for the new society. The Cultural Revolution eliminated illiteracy, opened wide scope for the spiritual growth of the people, and formed a socialist intelligentsia. Huge conquest of the young Soviet Republic was the solution in its basic parameters of the national question. All forms of national oppression and national inequality were put an end to, a single multinational Soviet state of free and equal peoples was formed on a voluntary basis, favorable conditions were created for the economic and cultural progress of the former national outskirts.

The solution of the national question in the first socialist country, unique in its merits and fruitful results, was forced to be recognized by many representatives of the social thought of the Western world. A prominent English bourgeois historian and social philosopher A. Toynbee, in one of his letters to the Soviet academician N. I. Conrad, made a very interesting and remarkable confession. “Your country,” he wrote, “consists of so many peoples, speaking so many different languages ​​and inheriting so many different cultures, that it is a model of the world as a whole; and by combining these cultural and linguistic varieties, and by economic, social and political unity on a federal basis, you demonstrated in the Soviet Union how it could be in the world at large and how it will, I hope, be realized in the future.

The Soviet Union withstood the rigors of the Great Patriotic War and post-war period. He made a decisive contribution to the defeat of German fascism, the liberation of the peoples of Europe from Nazi slavery, and after the end of the war, he quickly healed the severe wounds inflicted by the war, restored the destroyed cities and villages, the country's economy, strengthened and raised the economic, scientific and technical and defense capability. The international positions of the Soviet Union were strengthened. historical experience our country clearly demonstrated the advantage of the new social system. He showed the whole world that under socialism it is possible to create a modern, developed society incomparably faster and at lower direct and indirect costs. industrial production and agriculture, to carry out cultural transformations hitherto unprecedented in scope and results, to raise an economically underdeveloped country to the level of modern powerful capitalist industrial powers. for several decades. And this self-evident circumstance alone was an important factor that influenced the political decision and choice of many peoples. The peoples of other socialist countries have taken this path, and the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America are also choosing it and are drawn to it.

The advantages of the socialist social system in the post-war decades were already confirmed at the international level by the successful experience of the countries of the socialist community, which managed in the shortest historical time, under the constant economic pressure of Western imperialist circles, their ideological sabotage and counter-revolutionary actions, to create developed socio-economic and cultural structures. new society. Bearing in mind these significant achievements of the socialist countries, the 1969 Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties came to the justified conclusion that the socialist world had entered a stage of development "when it becomes possible to make fuller use of the mighty reserves laid down in the new system. This is facilitated by the development and introduction of more advanced economic and political forms that meet the needs of a mature socialist society, the development of which is already based on a new social structure.

The experience of socialist construction in the Soviet Union and other countries makes it possible to single out two significantly different stages in their economic development. The first is characterized by accelerated rates of industrialization of industry and agriculture, quantitative growth of the economy, carried out by means of rigidly centralized economic management with a predominance of administrative and political methods of influencing the processes of socio-economic development. As is known, these methods of social and economic leadership in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries led to the creation in the shortest possible time of a powerful material and technical base of the new society, ensuring their economic independence from the capitalist world and creating the necessary prerequisites for further social progress. The solution of these problems along the path of extensive economic growth eventually led to the need for a transition to new methods of planning and managing the national economy, more in line with the increased level of productive forces and characterized by a predominant orientation towards intensive factors of economic growth. The tasks of the new stage in the development of the socialist economy of the last two decades required the search for new methods and means to facilitate a more consistent and complete realization of the enormous potentialities of socialism. As the experience of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries testifies to this, these tasks were, as a rule, solved along the lines of economic reforms aimed at raising the scientific level of planning, expanding the independence of enterprises, strengthening material incentives for production, and strengthening cost accounting.

The successful implementation of the tasks set and urgent reforms required the adoption and timely implementation of effective measures in various areas of social life. Along with famous achievements In the 1970s and early 1980s, certain unfavorable trends and difficulties took place in the development of our country in solving these urgent problems. As noted in the new edition of the Program of the CPSU, they were largely due to the fact that “the changes in the economic situation were not timely and properly assessed, the need for profound changes in all spheres of life, and due perseverance was not shown in their implementation. This hindered the fuller use of the possibilities and advantages of the socialist system, and hindered progress.

AT modern conditions internal and international development, there is an urgent need to study and comprehend not only the specific shortcomings in the development of the country in the last five years, but also those serious economic and social shifts of an objective nature that have occurred over the past quarter century. On the basis of such an analysis of a significant period in the development of our country, program documents of the party and the state were developed, outlining the strategic course for the accelerated socio-economic development of the country.

The Political Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 27th Party Congress and the program documents of the Party adopted at the Congress define the strategy, nature and pace of development of our country for the 12th Five-Year Plan and the subsequent period, up to the beginning of the third millennium. The task, historical in its scope and significance, of transforming all aspects of Soviet society, achieving a qualitatively new state of it by accelerating socio-economic development on the basis of the achievements of scientific and technological revolutions, the task of more consistent and complete realization of the enormous potentialities of socialism, its fundamental advantages, has been set. Based on a thorough analysis of the shortcomings and omissions that took place in the 1970s and early 1980s, and taking into account the increased creative possibilities of Soviet society, the Congress documents outlined ways and means of solving many of the most important problems of the further development of socialism in our country. In the context of these concrete and substantiated programs for the improvement of various aspects of Soviet society, certain fundamental propositions of the theory of scientific communism are filled with a certain content and appear in a new light.

Of paramount importance is the program of action adopted at the congress in the fundamental sphere of public life - the economy. It sets the task and determines the ways of raising the national economy to a fundamentally new scientific, technical and organizational-economic level, transferring it to the rails of intensive development. The fulfillment of this task presupposes such an improvement of the economic system that would make it possible to realize to the maximum extent the reserves contained in it, and above all the advantages of a socialist economy based on social property, and thus achieve the highest world level of productivity of social labor, product quality, and production efficiency as a whole. .

Turning to the economic aspects of the forthcoming fundamental transformations, one should keep in mind the specific features and possibilities of socialist property relations and, in general, the very function of property as such in the economic life of society, its organic connection and dependence on those specific economic and socio-political forms in which it is realized. potency. Neither private nor public ownership of the means of production, as we know, is some kind of thing, a metaphysical substantial reality, already by its factual presence or legal consolidation predetermining the mode of production, the degree of efficiency of economic and other practices of a particular society. As a socio-economic category and one of the fundamental factors in the life of society, property is a system of social relations determined by a certain form and measure of a person's possession of the means of production and other benefits. Property "is not a thing," Marx emphasized, "but a social relationship between people, mediated by things." This is a social institution that takes shape in the depths of material production and then spreads to the spheres of distribution, exchange and consumption, taking into account that distinctive feature of socialist property relations, which is due to the specific conditions for the formation of a new socio-economic system that does not arise spontaneously in the depths of the old society, but in during its revolutionary transformation, as a result of the conscious and planned activity of the socialist state. Political power here it is the leading factor in the creation of economic mechanisms, in the functioning of which the economic side of social property relations realizes itself.

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

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

One of the important conditions for the successful implementation of the strategic course worked out by the Party for the qualitative transformation of all aspects of the life of Soviet society is the enhancement of the role of the human factor, the creation of objective and subjective prerequisites that promote the development of the creative activity of the masses at the most diverse levels of socialist society, and above all in the economy. In this regard, the establishment of the Soviet person as the true owner and manager of public property, as a key force capable of ensuring a sharp turn towards the intensification of production and qualitative factors of economic growth, presupposes a significant improvement in economic mechanisms and forms of labor organization, which, by the specific position of a person in the production system, means material and moral incentives would support his constant internal responsibility and interest in the qualitative and quantitative growth of the results of collective labor. This is also to be facilitated by the fuller involvement of the working people in the process of managing production, and by increasing the role of labor collectives in the development of plans and the adoption of economic decisions.

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

Public property, as we noted, really exists and realizes its advantages in specific forms of production relations, in the relevant economic and management mechanisms, in how effectively the centralized planned organization of social production and economy is carried out on its basis, i.e., the maximum productive relation a person to property and its use both in a specific economic link and on the scale of the state as a whole. In other words, the advantages of social property are and should be manifested in those specific forms of economic activity in which the main task of socialist economic management is most successfully solved - the task of raising labor productivity qualitatively and quantitatively, and in connection with this (and for this) its higher organization.

Economic growth, the constant increase in the contribution of each link of the national economy to the achievement of the common goal of the most complete satisfaction of the needs of society at the lowest cost of all types of resources - this is "an immutable law of socialist economic management, the main criterion for evaluating the activities of industries, associations and enterprises, all production cells." It is also one of the fundamental criteria for assessing the further development and improvement of public property. In this connection, in determining the prospects and goals of such development, one cannot be satisfied with the general proposition on the future rapprochement and merging of the two forms of socialist public property that currently exist - collective-farm-cooperative and public-state - or on their merging into a single public, communist property. These general theoretical models of a more perfect type of social property must be linked with various specific criteria of social, cultural and, above all, economic development and, which seems to us especially important, they must not be limited in advance to only one form of socialist economic organization.

The improvement of socialist property, the fuller realization of its advantages and possibilities, is and can take place not in the process of implementing some abstract model of the sole social property, but along the path of a concrete search for and creation of more effective forms of socialist economy. As the experience of the economic development of the USSR and other socialist countries testifies to this, this search will most likely lead to the establishment of not one single economic mechanism for all economic sectors and regions, but several or many more perfect and efficient, constantly improving, based on social ownership of specific forms of socialist management. Such an assumption also follows from the organizational principle of democratic centralism underlying socialist society, which presupposes both an increase in the efficiency of centralized leadership and a significant expansion of the economic independence and responsibility of associations and enterprises. Developing a centralized principle in management and planning, in solving strategic problems, the new edition of the Program of the CPSU says, the party will actively implement measures to enhance the role of the main production link - associations and enterprises, consistently pursue a policy of expanding their rights and economic independence, strengthening responsibility and interest in achieving high end results. The center of gravity of all operational and economic work should be on the ground - in labor collectives.

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

Public ownership of the means of production determines another significant advantage of the socialist system, namely the possibility and real practice of centralized control from the side of the state by all links of public life. Disposing of the material, financial and labor resources of the country on behalf of the people, it uses them for systematically organized and purposeful management of economic and other processes of social development, makes appropriate decisions, draws up plans and projects, organizes the activities of the working masses for their implementation, regulates and coordinates various interests. and tendencies, manifested and operating in society, carries out accounting and control over the production and distribution of public goods. Management of social processes, numerous facilities, economic and commercial enterprises and institutions, institutions of culture and science, society as a whole is carried out by the subjects of management, state and non-state public bodies and organizations and the leading force of socialist society - communist party, which develops a single political line for the development of society, providing general political leadership for them.

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

The relative independence of the governing bodies, determined by their internal structure, professional specialization, established rules of operation, sometimes leads to their isolation and detachment from the real problems and tasks of subordinate objects, to forgetting their own social purpose, when they begin to function as something self-sufficient, evaluating their activities according to “internal”, formal indicators, by the number of meetings, decisions, by the documentation drawn up, and not by actual, practical results. The reason for such situations is not only the “ossification” and bureaucratization of management organizations, but also the insufficient economic and organizational independence of enterprises, and, accordingly, the lack of feedback coming from them or their own activity, which stimulates the productive reaction of management subjects. With this kind of circumstances in mind, Lenin demanded that enterprises be given the right to independently solve economic problems "with maximum freedom of maneuver, with the strictest verification of actual success in increasing production and break-even, its profitability, with the most serious selection of the most outstanding and skillful administrators ...".

Thus, a significant drawback of management activity in the situation we have described is its one-sidedness, so to speak, its monologue, the absence of a substantive request on the part of the management object that causes a productive response, a reaction to it. Meanwhile, it is precisely the dialogic system of relationships between subjects and objects of management as two relatively independent principles that can ensure the necessary productivity of their creativity, their development and improvement. In an equal dialogic dispute and interaction, the truth and productivity of our thinking and creativity are born.

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

As Marx noted, in the first, socialist phase of communist society, each individual producer receives back from society, after all deductions, exactly as much as he himself gives him, that is, in strict accordance with the quantity and quality of labor. it equal right, which is essentially an unequal right for unequal labor, “recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual talents, and consequently, unequal working capacity as natural privileges”, which are later supplemented by social differences due to the material and cultural conditions for the formation and upbringing of a person within the family and immediate social communities. not taken into account and marital status worker, the presence of children, other relatives who are dependent on him, and, consequently, with equal participation in the public consumer fund, in fact, one receives more than the other, and turns out to be richer than the other. In this case, the right, in order to be equal, must actually be unequal. Such a situation is perfectly just, but this “inequality” must be carried out through public funds and not socially violate the measures of wages in production, because this will be an unjustified restriction and infringement on the operation of the principle that stimulates the necessary increase in the productivity of the socialist economy. Until the onset of the highest phase of communism, V. I. Lenin wrote, the need for "the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption ..." will remain.

From this it is quite obvious that the success of socialist construction in present stage is directly dependent on the degree of strict and consistent implementation in production, in the sphere of distribution and consumption of the socialist principle of wages according to work. And this, in turn, requires the creation of the most objective economic criteria and management mechanisms that determine the quantitative and qualitative measure of labor, adequate commodity supply, the wage fund in circulation, consistently democratic forms of distribution of public goods in the sphere of trade and services, in which differences and The advantages of one worker over another would lie only in their various financial possibilities acquired on the basis of the socialist principle of wages according to work. Both in a socialist society and in the distant communist perspective, the provision of equal opportunities to all members of society does not imply the leveling of individual differences, moreover, it is called upon to open up wider scope for an extraordinary richness and diversity of forms of individual existence, individual needs and incentives, forms of social and spiritual activity. Marx and Lenin repeatedly noted the utopian and reactionary nature of the idea of ​​egalitarian communism.

In accordance with the main tasks of the socialist construction of our time, in the real context of the possibilities and problems of socialism with its principle of pay according to work, labor productivity still remains an important criterion of social progress, a measure of the social significance and value of a person. Consistent implementation of labor democracy in all spheres of public life is a determining condition for achieving optimal growth in labor productivity, the necessary abundance of consumer goods, and, ultimately, the spiritual and moral development of a person. Party documents repeatedly emphasized the need to create such economic and organizational conditions under which high-quality productive work, initiative and enterprise would be stimulated, and bad work, inactivity, irresponsibility would properly affect the material reward, official position and moral authority of workers.

Ensuring the optimal functioning of the existing management and economic system, their improvement, the creation of new economic forms and mechanisms, the expansion of the independence of enterprises, opening up new opportunities for mass labor and economic activity, socialist initiative and entrepreneurship, and, finally, the further development of socialist democracy in the broadest sense - these are the ways of development of the country, on which both the necessary material conditions and the spiritual atmosphere of social life will be established, contributing to the formation of a truly moral and harmoniously developed personality.

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

The Marxist position that man is the goal, and material production is the means of social development, applies to the entire communist formation, and its most complete implementation is expected in a distant historical perspective, covering an incomparably longer historical period than that which already existing socialist practice is limited to. . Therefore, the degree of realization of the given theoretical principles of scientific communism must be determined and evaluated in the light of the specific features and possibilities of the specific historical stage in the development of communist society.

Comparison of the Marxist doctrine of man and communist humanism with the reality of modern socialist reality, with its concrete achievements and problems as a whole, confirms the correctness and feasibility of its provisions. The system of social relations that has taken shape in the USSR has created the conditions for the implementation, for the time being, of the general communist humanistic principle at the level of the modern development of socialism. For the first time in the history of mankind, a society has developed in which the activities of all social institutions are subordinated to the task of satisfying the material and spiritual needs of man as much as possible for a given level of development of production. In our country, the right of all citizens to work, education, social security, rest is really ensured, all forms of social inequality have been eliminated; new form democracy.

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

New and more complex tasks arise before each individual person in terms of his self-education. We are talking, of course, about such work of a person in the formation of his own spiritual and moral structure, which does not isolate and does not tear him away from the real processes of social life, but becomes one of the essential factors in its progressive development. In our society everyone big role the ideological and moral attitudes of an individual human personality, the moral and social responsibility of a person, spiritual motives that determine his choice and behavior in a particular life situation begin to play.

The concrete and real character of Marxist humanism by no means means a belittling of the value of universal human norms and requirements of spirituality and morality. On the contrary, universal human norms of morality, ideas about goodness and humanity, about the meaning of life in Marxism acquire their real connection with those concrete historical conditions, opportunities and forces with the help of which they receive their more and more complete and consistent realization in life. Rejecting the abstract speculative understanding of universal human values, Marxism, in its dialectic of the universal human and concrete historical, reveals and shows the real meaning of these spiritual and moral human institutions.

Subject: HISTORY

Romanova Natalya Viktorovna

A history teacher

Achinsk Cadet Corps

Lesson methodology.

Grade: 8

Course Name: "New History"

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

Lesson Objectives:

Introduce social movements: liberalism, conservatism, socialism;

Determine how they influenced the development of society and what role they defined the state in public life;

Develop speech, logical thinking;

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

Develop students' curiosity.

Software:

Microsoftpowerpoint, MicrosoftWord.

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

Technical support:

Multimedia projector and screen, scanner, printer.

Lesson plan:

1. Exploring a new topic:

Updating a new theme;

Conversation;

Work with text;

Work on the table;

Scene on the topic;

3. Summing up.

4. Creative homework .

During the classes:

Exploring a new topic.

Updating a new theme.

Teacher:

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

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

Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that "the human mind is able to find the answer to any questions."

What do you think he meant by that?

Society during this period ceases to feel like a mass. The prevailing opinion is that every person is endowed with personal rights and no one, not even the state, has the right to impose their will on him.

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

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

Trying to solve this problem, people of mental labor, inXIXcentury in Western Europe were defined in three main socio-political doctrines.

The theme of our lesson is "Liberals, conservatives and socialists: what should society and the state be like"

From slide 1: the topic of the lesson.

What do you think we should learn when studying this topic?

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

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

Conversation, work with text.

Slide 2: work with terms

Questions:

Think about what these terms mean?

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

Work on the table, work with text.

Teacher:

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

Assignment: 1. socialism (pp. 72-74 - “Why did socialist teachings appear?”, “The golden age of mankind is not behind us, but ahead”)

2. conservatism (72pp. - "Keep traditional values")

3. liberalism (70-72pp. - “Everything that is not forbidden is allowed”)

Slide 3: table.

Questions in the process of filling out the table:

Conservatives: how did representatives of conservatism see the path of development of society?; Do you think their teaching is still relevant today?

Liberals: how did representatives of liberalism see the path of development of society?; What points of their teaching do you think are relevant to today's society?

Socialists: what caused the emergence of social doctrine?

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

Scene on the topic.

Teacher:

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

Scene:

– Hello William! We haven't seen you for a long time! How are you doing?

I'm good! Here I go from Mass. Have you heard what's going on in the world? God bless our king!

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

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

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

Assignment: based on the conversation of the disputants, determine who belongs to which trend. Justify your answer.

There is an opinion that none of the socio-political doctrines can claim to be the "only" truly correct one. Therefore, as opposition to each other, there are several teachings. And today we met the most popular ones.

Consolidation of the studied material.

Task: mark the ideas belonging to conservatism, liberalism, socialism.

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

The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat will replace the capitalist state.

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

A commitment to something that has stood the test of time.

Everything that is not prohibited by law is allowed.

Man himself is responsible for his own well-being.

Reforms distract workers from the main goal - the world revolution.

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

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

Summarizing.

Questions:

What social and political doctrines did you get acquainted with today?

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

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

Those socio-political processes that were launched inXIXcentury, led to the formation inII half XXcentury of modern legal European states.

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

Slide: lesson outcomes.

Creative homework.

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

Question 01. Explain the statements in the paragraph: “Everything that is not prohibited by law is allowed”, “Preserve traditional values!”, “The golden age of mankind is not behind us, but ahead”, “Property is theft”.

The phrase “Everything that is not prohibited by law is allowed” literally means that in controversial cases a person has the right to do what to do, if the law does not prohibit it. Man is free to take his own initiative. This statement is typical of liberals, who just welcomed private initiative in all spheres, especially in the economy.

I don't think it's necessary to decipher the call to "Preserve traditional values!" It is typical for conservatives, from radical ones (for example, in Russia), who reacted with hostility to almost any innovation, to moderate ones (for example, in Great Britain), who themselves sometimes proposed reforms, but called for weighing any decisions about changes, opposed reforms for the sake of reforms. .

Since antiquity, people have been looking for a golden age in the past, calling it one or another period of history. But in the 19th century they began to say "The golden age of mankind is not behind us, but ahead." In this way, boundless faith in progress was expressed, in the solution of all problems in the future thanks to progress. This faith was shaken only by World War I, which showed that progress brings not only unprecedented improvements in human life, but also means of destroying people, which they could not even think of before.

One of the principles of the socialists was "Property is theft." This phrase directly belongs to an anarchist named Proudhon, but such convictions were also characteristic of other socialists. Socialists, especially radical ones, believed that only when all resources are under the control of society (in practice it turned out, the state), the distribution of benefits will be fair. Ownership means that someone can own more than they deserve and because of this, others will not have what they need.

Question 02. Describe the main views of liberals on the development of society, the role of the state and human rights.

Answer. Liberals stood for the maximum possible freedom of a person within the framework of the laws of society, but subject to the responsibility of a person for his actions. They especially emphasized the importance of the individual rights of each person. In order for the state not to encroach on the rights of a citizen, it must be based on the principle of separation of powers, have other mechanisms for mutual regulation of parts and control of society over the state. In the economic sphere, in their opinion, freedom should be maximum, only then the economy will develop and regulate itself.

Question 03. List the basic principles of conservatism. Think about the differences between liberals and conservatives on issues of the role of the state in society and human rights.

Answer. While the liberals assigned the state only a minimal role of punishing criminals, the conservatives proceeded from the ancient Roman proverb “Man is a wolf to man” and argued that in order for people not to oppress each other, a strong state is needed, which should regulate relations between people. This was to be achieved, in their opinion, by maintaining the traditional structure of society with inequality of rights, but also duties of different strata of society.

Question 04. Tell us about the basic principles of Marxist teaching.

Answer. Marxism is the doctrine of building communism, in which all property should be concentrated in the hands of the whole society and distributed according to the principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his work. Communism was to be built by the proletariat as the most progressive class, headed by the party of the proletariat, seizing power by force.

Question 05. Fill in the table "The main ideas of socio-political doctrines of the 19th century."