The main strata of capitalist society. Social evolution and development of capitalism. Intelligentsia and employees

Under capitalism they act both as capitalists and as workers, and consequently do not correspond to the tendency of separation of capital and labor. It turns out that “these are producers whose production is not subordinated to the capitalist mode of production”.

But the matter is not so simple, notes K. Marx. After all “The independent peasant or craftsman is subject to bifurcation. As owner of the means of production he is a capitalist, as a worker he is his own wage-worker. He, therefore, as a capitalist, pays his own wages and derives profit from his capital, that is, he exploits himself as a wage-worker and, in the form of surplus value, pays to himself the tribute that labor is forced to pay to capital. .

In other words, says K. Marx, in this independent, independent peasant or merchant, the most important relationship between capital and labor inherent in capitalism is again naturally manifested. “And therefore, separation is taken as a basis as a definite relationship, even where different functions are combined in one person” .

This is what Marxist dialectics means! In the outwardly seemingly independent peasant or artisan, the functions of capitalist and worker were combined in one person, and the inexorable regularity of the separation of capital and worker in capitalist society also manifested itself.

The inconsistency inherent in such a petty bourgeois also determines certain trends in its development under capitalism. “The law is that in the process of economic development these functions are divided among different persons and that the artisan - or peasant - who produces with his own means of production, either gradually turns into a small capitalist, already exploiting the labor of others, or is deprived of his means. production (most often the latter ...) and turns into a wage worker " .

With the disintegration of the petty bourgeois of town and countryside into capitalists and workers, the majority of them fall into the ranks of the proletariat, and only a minority into the ranks of the capitalists of town and countryside.

The decomposition of the petty bourgeoisie of town and countryside into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat does not mean at all that it must disappear altogether with the development of capitalism. Capitalism itself, to a certain extent, needs small-scale production, it itself gives rise to the combination in one person of the functions of capitalist and worker. Part of the bourgeoisie in town and country is born precisely from small-scale production. At the same time, the ruined capitalists fall into the ranks of the petty bourgeoisie of town and country, who in turn merge into the proletariat. And vice versa, with the development of capitalism, a part of the workers become petty bourgeois artisans, owners of workshops, etc. Here a complex dialectical process takes place, which continues throughout the entire period of capitalist development. And “It would be a profound mistake to think that a ‘complete’ proletarianization of the majority of the population is necessary…» .

The petty bourgeoisie, embodying the middle type of owner-worker, transitional between capital and labor, constitutes the first large part of the middle strata of capitalist society. It is a middle, intermediate stratum (precisely from the point of view of the capitalist mode of production) because, on the one hand, the representative of this stratum is not only a capitalist or only a wage worker, but simultaneously both capitalist and worker rolled into one.

The petty bourgeois is such an owner of the means of production who himself is directly connected with them, works with their help, and whose source of income is wholly or mainly his independent labor. The petty bourgeois combines the traits of the capitalist class and the working class, and is in the gap between them.

The petty bourgeoisie under capitalism is public class insofar as it is characterized by a very specific attitude towards the means of production, different from the attitude towards them of the capitalists and the working class.

V. I. Lenin wrote that classes in general (and not just the main ones) “in a capitalist and semi-capitalist society, we know only three: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie (the peasantry as its main representative) and the proletariat”. He spoke about the presence in Russia "the class of our petty bourgeoisie, petty merchants, small artisans, etc. - this class, which everywhere in Western Europe has played its role in the democratic movement ..." .

The petty bourgeoisie is characterized by the totality of basic and derived class characteristics. At the same time, the petty bourgeoisie is a minor, intermediate, middle class in capitalist society.

According to its internal composition, the petty bourgeoisie breaks up into groups depending on whether in what way and under what conditions it combines the functions of capitalist and worker. It depends on whether the petty bourgeois is in the city or the countryside, how he is connected with industry, specifically with capital and specifically with labor, and so on.

The basic social division of the petty bourgeois class is between the petty bourgeoisie of the city and the petty bourgeoisie of the countryside. This division also reveals the extent to which different groups of the petty bourgeois are connected with industry, with different forms of capital, means of production, with different forms of labor (industrial, agricultural, commercial, etc.).

The composition of the urban petty bourgeoisie primarily includes commodity producers in the industrial area - artisans and handicraftsmen, owners of small workshops and small entrepreneurs working independently or with the involvement of approximately one to four to five workers. All these individuals live more on the value they themselves create than on the surplus value extracted from the labor of hired workers.

Further, these are small merchants and shopkeepers who work in their establishments only with family members or at the same time using about 1-3 employees, as well as owners of small enterprises in the service sector (hairdressers, eateries, etc.).

It is known that merchants are not producers and their income is only a part of the surplus value created in the sphere of production, which they appropriate in the form of commercial profit. The difference between a small trader and a medium and large one lies in the fact that he does not live by exploiting the labor of others as a capitalist trader. The capitalist trader appropriates to himself a part of the total social surplus-value through the labor of his servants, while the petty trader receives it above all through his own labor.

Finally, petty rentiers must also be included among the urban petty bourgeoisie. Petty rentiers are mainly former artisans and small merchants who, having accumulated a small capital and savings through their own labor, trust them to the state or private entrepreneurs and live off the interest on them. Petty rentiers are constantly ruined under the influence of crises and inflations, and today their number in the capitalist countries is very, very small. Even in France, that classical land of rentiers, their numbers are very small.

In general, the so-called urban petty bourgeoisie, that is, artisans, small traders, differs from the bourgeoisie in that it does not exploit the labor of others; at the same time, unlike the workers, she is the owner of some tools of labor. This explains the dual nature of this category and the intermediate economic position it occupies.

The rural petty bourgeoisie also includes the above-mentioned groups of artisans and handicraftsmen, merchants and shopkeepers, owners of small enterprises in the service sector, rentiers, but its main, dominant mass is the petty bourgeoisie in agriculture, which includes small and medium peasants in capitalist countries. with rural farming, small and medium farmers in farming countries. These are the owners of small and medium-sized plots of land and a few agricultural implements of production, who live entirely (small peasants and farmers) or mainly (middle peasants and farmers) at the expense of independent labor.

In the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, the term "peasantry" is used in various meanings, at least in four:

1) Peasantry as a collective concept of a class that has passed from feudal society. In this case, it includes all sections of the peasantry, starting with the agricultural proletariat and ending with the big peasantry (rural bourgeoisie, kulaks).

2) The working and exploited peasantry. It includes the agricultural proletariat, semi-proletarians or small-scale peasants, and small peasants who do not resort to hiring labor power.

3) In addition to the above three categories, the concept of the working peasantry also includes the middle peasants. Working farmers mean small and medium farmers.

4) The peasantry, as the petty bourgeoisie, i.e., as that fairly distinct social group which has been transformed by capitalism and is developing on the basis of the capitalist mode of production, is an aggregate of small agricultural producers who are at the same time landowners and workers, who live wholly or mainly on account of his work. It includes small and medium peasants and farmers. It is in this sense that we speak of the peasantry under capitalism.

In general, the internal composition of the intermediate class of the petty bourgeoisie is as follows:

Intelligentsia and employees

An even more complex dialectic lies in the class position of the intelligentsia and office workers—that other large part of the middle strata of capitalist society, distinct from the petty bourgeoisie.

An intellectual and an employee is not an owner-worker, like a petty bourgeois. (With those exceptions, when an intellectual, for example a doctor, also possesses certain means of labor, which, like the petty bourgeois, make him an independent worker, an independent professional.) This is precisely a worker, a worker, and in the overwhelming mass - a hired worker.

Where is its place in the class structure of capitalist society? Is it in the composition of labor, hired workers, the proletariat? Is it part of capital, of the bourgeoisie? Or between these two poles, in the middle, between capital and labour, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat? If yes, why?

Let us recall that labor by itself is by no means a sufficient criterion for assigning a person to the class of workers. “There are no workers at all, or workers at all…”. “... The concept of “producer” unites the proletarian with the semi-proletarian and with the small commodity producer, thus retreating ... from the basic requirement to accurately distinguish between classes”. Not only the proletarian, semi-proletarian and petty bourgeois are working. Some capitalists, engaged in mental, managerial work, also conduct certain activities. Therefore, the now popular term “working people”, which in its meaning is even much broader than the concept of “producer” criticized by Lenin, should also be treated with great caution. The concept of “working people” includes all employees in general (i.e. both employees and the intelligentsia), and even the petty and even middle bourgeoisie, who also work - they themselves participate in production and / or manage it.

The main requirement, the main criterion for class differences, emphasized V. I. Lenin, not labor, not the division of labor, but relation to the means of production, the form of ownership with which the worker is associated. But these property relations, relations to the means of production, again must not be taken in isolation, not in isolation from the social division of labour. The unity of property relations (as basic) with the social division of labor- this is the Marxist-Leninist methodological principle of distinguishing classes in the class structure of capitalist society.

At the same time, it is important to remember that both questions of property and questions of labor are considered in Marxism not in general, not in the abstract, but strictly specific.

There is no labor at all and no property at all. There is physical and mental labor, performing and organizational (management), free and not free, creative and non-creative, etc. In the same way, there is no property in general and the absence of property in general.

The Marxist criterion of attitude towards the means of production is by no means exhausted by the monosyllabic answer "does" or "does not own" this or that group of people the means of production. The very "possession" and "non-ownership" of the means of production differs among different groups of people, for example, "ownership" among the capitalists and the petty bourgeoisie, "non-ownership" among the proletarians and the technical intelligentsia, among workers and state, trade and clerical employees.

It was in this unity of concrete relations of property and the social division of labor that the founders of Marxism-Leninism considered social groups. Proletarians, K. Marx pointed out, are not just people of labor, and not only persons deprived of ownership of the means of production. It is at the same time labor, as something excluding property. In turn, capitalists are not just owners of the means of production. It is capital, as something excluding labor.

K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin determined the place of the intelligentsia and employees in the social structure of capitalism by the ratio of specific elements of property and labor, by the nature of the very connection of these two moments - property relations and the social division of labor.

The concepts of "intelligentsia" and "employees" in themselves are not clear class categories, since they characterize people not from a strictly class position (ultimately, in relation to the means of production), but from other points of view, and different ones.

The concept of "intelligentsia" characterizes people in terms of the nature of their work. These are workers of mental, intellectual labor, such educated representatives of the population, whose "capital" is their mind, mental abilities and who work and live off the work of the head, intellect (engineering and technical and scientific workers, teachers, doctors, art workers, etc.). d.).

The concept of "employees" refers to persons who have assumed the obligation to serve the state or a private entrepreneur for a certain salary. Unlike intellectuals, they are so often called "salaried workers" (in English - salaried workers, salaried employees), as well as "nonmanual workers", "white-collar workers" (white-collar workers ), or simply "white-collars" (white-collars).

Generally speaking, one and the same person can be both an intellectual and an employee, for example, a doctor or a teacher in the public service. Many employees in capitalist society are intellectuals by the nature of their work, and the majority of intellectuals are among the employees because of their position in relation to the state or private entrepreneur.

In this sense, the category of employees is much broader than the category of the intelligentsia: the latter constitutes only a part of the stratum of employees in capitalist society (although a certain proportion of the intelligentsia are not employees). The owners of the means of production, the capitalists, can also be intellectuals and senior officials when they become managers, lawyers, journalists, or occupy certain positions in the state apparatus. This, however, does not at all stop them from being precisely capitalists in their class nature.

Concerning employees, intellectuals, the founders of Marxism-Leninism pointed out three main features that distinguish them from the class of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in capitalist society, placing them in a middle, intermediate position in the class structure of capitalism.

The first main feature concerns the concrete nature of the attitude of intellectuals and employees to capitalist property, the concrete form of their connection with private property.

The attitude of the worker, the proletarian to private property is such that his labor at the same time excludes all property, and hence the possibility of using this property, receiving benefits and privileges from it, and therefore serving, serving it. Although here, as we have seen, this opposition of "labor that excludes property" is not absolute. The top workers find themselves in a position where they feed themselves at the expense of capital, receive crumbs from the table of the magnates of the bourgeoisie, and, consequently, something falls to them from the capitalist surplus value acquired through exploitation.

If the mutual exclusivity of labor and capital turns out to be not absolute even among a certain part of the workers (although it manifests itself to the fullest among the overwhelming majority of the proletariat), then among employees and the intelligentsia there is usually no such mutual exclusivity of labor and private property - due to the peculiarities of their class position.

The proletariat as a direct producer, as a worker engaged in productive labor, pays for itself because he himself reproduces the value of his own labor power (and at the same time produces surplus value for the capitalist). The worker exchanges his labor for the variable part of capital, that is, for that part of it which returns to him in the form of wages as the value of his labour-power. The capitalist gets the rest - surplus value, profit. These two parts: wages and profit (with its internal subdivisions) are the only things created by productive labor and on which one can live in a capitalist society. According to K. Marx, “In general, there are only two points of departure: the capitalist and the worker. Third parties of all categories either have to receive money from these two classes for some service, or, since they receive money without rendering any service, they are co-owners of surplus-value in the form of rent, interest, etc.”.

The class feature of a very significant part of the employees (primarily those not engaged in actual mental labor) is that they does not pay itself, as workers, but receives payment either from the owner of the profit, i.e., from the capitalist, or exchanges his labor for a part of the wages that the proletarians have. This is due to the fact that this largest part of the employees is employed unproductive labor, i.e., one that does not reproduce their labor force and does not produce surplus value - in general, capital.

In capitalist society, K. Marx classified government officials, the military, the clergy, judges, lawyers, etc. as unproductive workers living on income. This is a very significant part of the employees and the intelligentsia. These unproductive workers "may be paid only from the wages of productive workers or from the profits of their employers (and partners in the division of these profits)". Their labor is exchanged not for capital, but directly on income, that is, on wages or profits (and, of course, also on those various rubrics that exist at the expense of the profit of the capitalist, what are interest and rent) ”.

This does not mean, of course, that all such employees receive money for free. No, they receive income for their labor, but this labor seems to be unproductive from point of view capitalist production. “These unproductive workers,” continues K. Marx, “do not receive their share of income (wages and profits) free of charge, their share in the goods created by productive labor, they must buy it, but they have no relations" .

This fact that the unproductive workers "have to buy" their share of the income, and to buy it primarily from the owners of the profit, of capitalist property, plays a very significant role. Capitalism turns office workers and many other knowledge workers into direct wage laborers. But these are hired workers, as it were special kind different from wage-workers-proletarians. The proletarian through productive labor earns "his share" of all the income he creates, without which the capitalist will not receive "his" share. The unproductive worker, on the other hand, does not take away his share of the income "owing" to him, like a worker, but buys it from the proletarian or capitalist, mainly from the latter, rendering him some kind of service, and thereby becomes dependent on the capitalist, serves him.

The state official, clerk, soldier, lawyer, judge, ideological worker, etc., receive their share of the income in the form of a salary or directly from the owner of an enterprise, a bank, or from a bourgeois state controlled by the same capital.

In other words, the mass of employees receive payment for their wage labor directly or indirectly from the capitalists, and hence this mass of employees turns out to be tied to the interests of private property placed in the service of this property.

If the labor of the proletarian excludes private property (the proletarian is in no way connected with it, is not interested in its development), then the labor of the hired servant, paid for by capital, thereby turns out to be connected in a certain way with private property, presupposing it, depending on it, and therefore serving in some degree of her interests.

Such a concrete relation of the labor of the mass of employees to capitalist private property is objectively formed despite the fact that the very capitalist profit, from which they receive income in exchange for their labor and on which they thereby depend, is created by the same workers, proletarians. “... All productive workers, firstly, deliver funds to pay unproductive workers, and secondly, deliver products consumed by those who doesn't do any work» ; "... productive workers create a material basis for the subsistence of unproductive workers and, consequently, for the existence of these latter"- wrote K. Marx. Therein lie the paradoxes, the internal inconsistency of the capitalist mode of production and distribution: employees depend not on who produced for them, but on who they receive from. At the same time, this inconsistency also contains the possibility that the combination of the labor of employees with private property (profit), from which they receive their income, will be replaced to an increasing extent by the combination of labor of employees with the labor of proletarians.

A special social relationship, a special form of social connection with private property exists also among that part of the intelligentsia and employees who are employed productive labor in the material or spiritual realm.

This is typical, on the one hand, for those mental workers who are employed in the sphere of spiritual production. Capitalism inexorably turns these figures into its hired workers. “The bourgeoisie has deprived of the sacred halo all kinds of activity, which until then were considered honorable and which were looked at with reverent awe.- wrote K. Marx and F. Engels in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party".- She turned a doctor, a lawyer, a priest, a poet, a man of science into her paid employees.. Their labor is largely productive in nature, but this labor is of a special kind, it is not adequate to the productive labor of the proletarians in the material sphere. “In spiritual production, another type of labor acts as productive”- wrote K. Marx. The peculiarity of intellectual production, paid for by capital in its own private interests, makes these mental workers materially dependent on capital, on private property. V. I. Lenin wrote that “educated people, in general, the “intelligentsia” cannot but rebel against the wild police oppression of absolutism, poisoning thought and knowledge, but the material interests of this intelligentsia tie it to absolutism, to the bourgeoisie, force it to be inconsistent, make compromises, sell its revolutionary and oppositional ardor for government salary or for participation in profits or dividends".

Here, V. I. Lenin's pointing is very important about the dependence of the material interests of the intelligentsia, intellectual workers on the bourgeoisie, that part of the intelligentsia participates in the profits or dividends received by the bourgeoisie. This again follows from the fact that although the labor of many intellectuals is productive, it is productive in a different way than the labor of the proletarians, and therefore the share of income received by these intellectuals depends primarily on the class of capitalists, owners of property, and thus these groups of intelligentsia become tied indirectly to private property.

Even more clearly attachment to private property, dependence on it, is manifested in productive mental workers employed in material production.

According to K. Marx, among the productive workers “belongs, of course, to all those who, in one way or another, participate in the production of goods, starting with the worker in the proper sense of the word and ending with the director, engineer (as opposed to the capitalist)”. The overseer, the engineer, the clerk, the manager are all hired workers engaged in productive labor, but nevertheless their attitude towards private capitalist property is completely different from that of the workers.

K. Marx emphasized that the work of engineering and technical workers in management and supervision has a dual nature. It - "Productive labor, which must be performed in every combined mode of production." At the same time, it performs "specific functions arising from the opposition between the government and the masses of the people". In this part "the labor of supervision and administration... arises from the antagonistic character of society..." .

Hence, the work of engineering and technical personnel is paid differently. Part of the capitalist profit “acts in the form of keeping the manager in such types of enterprises, the size, etc. of which allow such a significant division of labor that it is possible to establish a special salary for the manager”. This is a very important remark by K. Marx. It turns out, K. Marx concludes, that “the wage-worker is compelled to produce his own wages and, moreover, his wages for supervision, compensation for the labor of managing and supervising him…” .

And this shows how different the concrete attitude to property, to capital is between the worker and the technical intellectual, the manager. The worker is a hired worker, and he is completely fenced off from private property, he does not receive anything from it, on the contrary, the capitalists withdraw from him the surplus value created by him. An engineer, a manager, an overseer is also a hired worker, but for the performance of his “specific function” of management he receives from the capitalist a “special wage” in the form of a part of the capitalist profit; although the manager receives this part of the wages from the capitalist, in fact he takes it from the worker who made this "surveillance fee" itself.

This is the concrete and very essential difference in the connection between the labor of the worker, the proletarian, and the labor of the intellectual, the manager, with private capitalist property, with capital.

K. Marx, analyzing the trends in the development of engineering, technical, managerial personnel, noted that with the development of capitalism, the payment for supervision with the emergence of numerous industrial and commercial managers "sank, like any wage for skilled labor, in proportion to the general development, which lowered the cost of producing a specially trained labor force". This is the tendency, extremely accurately noticed and explained by K. Marx, of lowering the wages of engineering, technical and managerial personnel, bringing them closer to the wages of just an employee, just a hired worker.

An analysis of the relationship between capital and labor, made by Soviet economists in the middle of the 20th century, showed that already average managers (industrial officers) - directors of industrial enterprises, as a rule, have a salary that includes payment for both their necessary labor and surplus. This puts such managers not only formally (in terms of standard of living), but also in essence on the same footing with the middle bourgeoisie.

As for top managers, their colossal remunerations do not fit into any reasonable criteria of "payment for a certain kind of skillful work" and consist in a significant, and sometimes overwhelming part, of surplus value created by others (along with payment for their actual managerial labor).

A couple of very recent and more than illustrative examples:

On September 23, 2014, in the State Duma, Deputy V.F. Rashkin publicly announced the salaries of top management of leading Russian state-owned companies:
- the salary of I. Sechin in the company "Rosneft" - 4.5 million rubles a day,
- A. Miller's salary at Gazprom is 2.2 million rubles a day,
-Salary of V. Yakunin in the Russian Railways company - 1.3 million rubles a day.
Modest, isn't it?

And here is another example - the Russian court just recently recognized as legal the crazy payments upon dismissal of the ex-president of Rostelecom A. Provotorov (the so-called "golden parachute"), which amounted to more than 200 million rubles. Although even the shareholders of the company were outraged by such colossal figures.

So, the main features of the class position of employees and the intelligentsia, which distinguish them from the working class, are:

The first main feature is employees and intelligentsia, in contrast to the working class, which is directly opposed to capital, are in a certain dependence on private property, receiving from the capitalist (or through him) either the means of subsistence in the form of income, or directly part of the capitalist profit, increased, “special wages payment” - in other words, they find themselves in the social position of those interested in private property, orienting themselves to it, linking themselves with it, serving capital. To the extent that, in the course of capitalist development, civil servants and intellectuals weaken and break these ties and dependencies on private property, on capital, they pass over to the position of wage-workers of the proletarian type.

Second main feature The social position of the stratum of employees and the intelligentsia, which distinguishes it from the working class, no longer lies in the realm of property, but in the realm of labour. It lies in the fact that intellectuals and employees are socially attached to a completely different type of labor than workers, namely, to non-physical, mental labor, while the proletariat, the working class, is socially attached mainly to physical labor.

As long as labor is individual, K. Marx noted, it combines three functions: mental and physical, managerial and performing labor. Subsequently, they are separated and come to a hostile opposite. “The separation of the intellectual forces of the process of production from physical labor and their transformation into the power of capital over labor is completed, as already indicated before, in large-scale industry built on the basis of machines” .

Thus, under capitalism mental labor is socially separated from the working class and turns into the power of capital over labor, confronts the workers as an alien and dominating force. The division of mental and physical labor acts as a social opposite of mental and physical labor.

As a result, the following situation emerges: firstly, the worker and the intellectual, the employee, each individually relate to capital as a hired worker; secondly, they are class separated from each other, opposed to each other, representing mental or physical labor; thirdly, all this does not prevent them from being in the production process (and not in the social sphere) members of one production team - and in this specific sense (only in this, and not in the sense of their class identity, as is often interpreted) - total workers.

In the field of labor and in the social field, mental labor turns out to be opposed to the physical labor of the workers, although intellectuals and workers work together (the “collective worker”) and each separately is a wage worker. But the social and physical labor of the proletariat turns out to be subordinated to capital, both directly and through the intellectual labor of the intelligentsia, which is used by the latter. In that root class opposition of mental and physical labor, and this leads to the fact that even engineering and technical personnel who control machines, and not people, act as “a higher, partly scientifically educated” layer, “standing outside the circle of factory workers, simply attached to it”.

The working class under capitalism is opposed not only by the intellectual class, but by the whole non-physical labor- that is, labor and the intelligentsia (actually mental) and employees (of an unproductive nature). “... The division of labor turns unproductive labor into an exclusive function of one part of the workers, and productive labor into an exclusive function of another part” .

It is clear that this isolation, which is conditioned by the capitalist mode of production, the separation of non-physical labor from physical labor, which leads to essential class differences between employees and the intelligentsia, on the one hand, and the working class, on the other, can be weakened, eroded as the physical labor of the proletariat due to economic reasons (capitalism does not create and does not seek to create social conditions for this), it is filled with elements of mental labor.

Third main feature which characterizes the class position of the intelligentsia and employees as different from the class position of the working class, is that a significant part of the intelligentsia and employees are socially secured to managerial (organizational) work, while the entire proletariat is socially attached to performing work.

As K. Marx noted, work on supervision and management necessarily arises wherever the direct process of production has the form of a socially combined process. Managerial labor acts as a specific type of mental labor, as mental labor associated with management, with managerial activity.

Like mental labor, managerial labor “comes” from the owner of the property (in any antagonistic formation), in the sense that if at first mental and managerial labor was the privilege of exploiters, then later it is shifted to a special social category of mental workers, managerial workers. The capitalist is first freed from physical labor and then transfers “the functions of direct and constant supervision of individual workers and groups of workers of a special category of employees.

Just as an army needs its officers and non-commissioned officers, so the mass of workers, united by joint labor under the command of the same capital, needs industrial officers (managers,managers) and non-commissioned officers (overseers,foremen, observers, contre— Maitres), disposing during the process of labor on behalf of capital. The work of supervision is fixed as their exclusive function" .

Managerial work is carried out in the name of capital and, moreover, having a dual character, is paid for by special wages, which include part of the capitalist profit. For all these reasons, the managerial work of a part of the intelligentsia and employees class opposes performing labor of the working class, thereby distinguishing the intelligentsia and employees from the proletariat.

The above three main features of the class position of the intelligentsia and employees characterize in unity their specific relationship to private capitalist property and their specific place in the social division of labor. This is what makes this social stratum of hired workers, working people, essentially different in terms of class from both the working class and the bourgeois class. For all their attachment to capital in matters of property and the nature of the work performed, with all aspects of receiving higher wages or part of the profit from capital, the intelligentsia and employees remain a collection of wage workers deprived of their own means of social production.

Because of this, K. Marx, F. Engels and V. I. Lenin attributed employees and the intelligentsia to intermediate social stratum (interclass stratum) located in the class structure of capitalism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Speaking about the development under capitalism of employees, or persons employed in unproductive labor and living on income, K. Marx reproached D. Ricardo: “What he forgets to note is that the constant increase in the middle classes, standing in the middle between the workers, on the one hand, the capitalists and landowners, on the other, the middle classes, which in an ever-increasing volume are fed for the most part directly at the expense of income, are becoming difficult a burden on the workers who form the backbone of society, and increase the social stability and strength of the top ten thousand.". V. I. Lenin conditionally attributed the intelligentsia, the middle class, the petty bourgeoisie to one social group.

At the same time, V. I. Lenin pointed out a significant difference between the two parts of the middle strata of capitalist society, namely, that the petty bourgeoisie actually represents the old part middle strata, and the intelligentsia and employees - her new part born precisely by a more developed stage of capitalism. According to him, “in all European countries, including Russia, the “crushing” and decline of the petty bourgeoisie is steadily advancing ... And along with this “crushing” of the petty bourgeoisie in agriculture and industry, there is the birth and development of a “new middle class”, as the Germans say , a new layer of the petty bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, for whom it is also becoming increasingly difficult to live in capitalist society and which for the most part looks at this society from the point of view of a small producer» .

In its internal composition, the stratum of the intelligentsia and employees is characterized by the fact that it is socially heterogeneous, contradictory, actually consists of socially different and opposing strata adjoining different classes of capitalist society.

Since there are three such classes in capitalist society (bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat), the main division of the intelligentsia and employees, in terms of their attachment, attachment to different classes, is the division into three parts, into three layers: two decisive, basic - bourgeois intelligentsia and proletarian intelligentsia, and the third wavering, transitional - petty-bourgeois intelligentsia.

Here we must take into account the fact that the petty bourgeoisie itself is an intermediate, middle class in capitalist society, that it is constantly being eroded into a part that is included in the bourgeoisie and a part that is included in the proletariat. Hence, that part of the intelligentsia and office workers who adjoin the class of the petty bourgeoisie, like the petty bourgeoisie, tends to be more and more divided into those who merge into the bourgeois intelligentsia and office workers, and those who merge into the proletarian intelligentsia and office workers, although this does not naturally mean that this whole third, vacillating part of the intelligentsia and employees should disappear altogether, be blurred.

V. I. Lenin, referring to the intelligentsia and employees in pre-revolutionary Russia, wrote that “the composition of the “intelligentsia” is outlined as clearly as the composition of society engaged in the production of material values: if the capitalist reigns and rules in the latter, then in the former the ever-growing horde of careerists and mercenaries of the bourgeoisie sets the tone, the “intelligentsia” is satisfied and calm, alien to any nonsense and knowing well what she wants ... naive claims shame bourgeois intelligentsia for its bourgeoisness ... are ridiculous ... Beyond these limits, the liberal and radical "intelligentsia" begins ... "Then follows the" socialist intelligentsia "adjacent to the proletariat" .

Five main features can be singled out that determine and reveal attachment, attachment of parts of the intelligentsia and employees to one class or another.

Firstly, material attachment, expressed in the receipt by employees of a part of the capitalist profit, a special "surcharge" for managerial work, increased wages, various privileges, or the absence of such material attachment. Such privileges, for example, for clerical and commercial employees under capitalism include, for example, admission to the “state”, the opportunity to dine in another canteen and receive a salary, and not wages (even if the salary is lower than wages), the ability to come to work later, fostering snobbery and caste prejudices, etc. .

Secondly, attachment by the nature of the work performed (labor attachment), when a specific type of mental, non-physical, managerial labor is more attached, approaches the activities of the bourgeoisie, proletariat or petty bourgeoisie.

Thirdly, everyday attachment, attachment according to living conditions, linking the standard of living and the way of life of parts of the intelligentsia and employees with one or another class.

Fourth, a bond of origin that leaves an imprint on groups of intellectuals and employees, depending on whether they came from the propertied classes, from the proletariat or the petty bourgeoisie.

Fifth, ideological and political attachment, expressing the connection of groups of intelligentsia and employees with classes in terms of their views, political orientation, political position and actions, participation in the struggle on the side of certain classes.

Along with the division into social strata according to attachment, attachment to one class or another, the intelligentsia and employees are subdivided into social strata and groups depending on their place in the social division of labor.

All intellectuals and employees are workers non-physical labor(or service labor) and this socially distinguishes them from workers. At the same time, some of them are workers of mental labor proper, and some of them are specific non-physical labor (which has not yet become mental, intellectual in the exact sense of the word), service labor.

Therefore, if we characterize intellectuals and employees from the same criteria, and not different ones, namely, according to the nature of work, then in this case intelligentsia unites knowledge workers, employees - workers of specific non-physical labor, service labor.

As part of the mental workers - the intelligentsia - there is a managerial intelligentsia, which is assisted by managerial employees who themselves are not engaged in actual mental work and managerial work, but help with their labor of service to managerial workers. Together, the managerial intelligentsia and managerial employees make up administrative staff, layer officials, bureaucracy. V. I. Lenin spoke about the concept "officialdom, bureaucracy, as a special layer of people who specialized in management ..."

Finally, the intelligentsia and employees are divided into urban and rural intelligentsia and employees. Belonging to a city or village leaves a socio-economic imprint on different parts of the employees and the intelligentsia.

In general, the composition of the intelligentsia and employees is as follows.

This division of the intelligentsia and employees into social strata is not final. Within mental labor, service labor and managerial labor, there are subdivisions. Moreover, these are not just professional differences in employment. Just as different groups of workers employed in various fields of activity express varying degrees of connection with industry, so different groups of intellectuals and employees employed in various fields of activity express varying degrees of connection with industry and, in general, with material and spiritual production.

In the composition of the intelligentsia, intellectual workers, many of whom are also engaged in managerial activities, there are quite a few such divisions and groups.

The techno-economic intelligentsia, representing the totality of intellectual workers - technical specialists, economists, statisticians, many of whom are engaged in managerial work. Its constituent parts are the engineering, technical and managerial intelligentsia in the economic field (managers). These groups include, first of all, those directors, managers, engineers, technicians and other technical specialists who carry out mental work in production, and also perform a significant part of the management and management functions directly at enterprises. This includes, further, employees of the administrative apparatus of industry, financial and agricultural companies, dealing with general issues of management, management and planning in the economic field. This also includes economists, planners, statisticians and similar workers with technical and economic education. In general, this is approximately the category of people that is now called in bourgeois literature technocracy, management and economic bureaucracy.

Freelancers - scientists, doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, writers, artists, musicians, etc. - are mental workers employed outside the sphere of material production and producing certain spiritual values. Some of them also perform management functions.

Managerial employees of the state apparatus (primarily officials) represent intellectual workers, managerial intelligentsia in the state field (political, economic, military, police and other administration), and not in the field of private entrepreneurship. In practical work, they are associated with civil servants.

Similar features of mental labor are characteristic of workers in the ideological apparatus (newspapers, magazines, radio, television, etc.) associated with the bourgeois state, but for the most part not engaged in managerial activity.

The intelligentsia under capitalism also includes clergy and clergy.

The following groups are distinguished in the composition of employees, service workers:

office workers in industry, banks and other institutions related to the economy, which are represented by accountants, cashiers and similar employees who perform accounting and calculation functions. They are not engaged in production, like workers, and do not produce surplus value, capital. Therefore, that part of the capital which goes to accountants, clerks, etc., is diverted from the process of production and belongs to the costs of circulation, to deductions from the total proceeds.

Trade employees are hired workers in trade, bringing profit to commercial capitalists. But they, like office workers, do not directly produce surplus-value. Employees in trade and banks are in fact used by the capitalists for the appropriation and redistribution of profits, and therefore their direct identification with the proletarians is not entirely correct.

There are also employees of transport, communications and public utilities. These are conductors, telephone operators, telegraph operators, watchmen and similar workers.

A large group is made up of civil servants- a huge mass of officials of the state civil apparatus, employees of the police, army, tax authorities, etc., working under the guidance of state officials and administrative workers. Their function is not mental labor as such, which creates values, but the performance of certain activities, the performance of certain duties (policeman, tax collector, etc.). Employees of the state apparatus and the army under capitalism, K. Marx noted, are among those workers who "who themselves do not produce anything - neither in the field of spiritual, nor in the field of material production - and only due to the shortcomings of the social structure turn out to be useful and necessary, being due to the presence of social evils" .

Such are those specific categories of people, united by the concepts of intelligentsia and employees, who, by their specific position in the system of material relations and the social division of labor, occupy an intermediate position between the bourgeoisie and the working class.

About the concept of "middle class"

It can be seen from the analysis that the concept of the middle social strata of capitalist society, from the Marxist point of view, has a collective, generalizing meaning. The middle strata do not represent economically, socially and politically homogeneous whole like social classes. The groups included in them occupy a different place in the system of material relations, and, consequently, are characterized by a different place in the system of social division of labor, in the process of production and in the sphere of distribution.

Each of the classes and strata included in the middle strata occupies a specific intermediate position in the class structure of capitalist society between its two poles. For this reason, Marxist science, while recognizing the legitimacy of the collective concept of the middle or intermediate strata, when analyzing the class structure of capitalist society, puts forward a concrete analysis of the socio-economic situation and the resulting political role of each class and stratum included in the middle strata.

Naturally, in class societies, with the change of two socially opposite poles, the composition of the middle strata, located in the gap between them, also changed. In slave-owning society, an intermediate position between the main, opposite classes of slaves and slave-owners was occupied by small proprietors who lived by their labor (artisans and peasants), the lumpen proletariat, formed from ruined artisans and peasants. Under feudalism, an intermediate position between the classes of feudal lords and peasants was occupied by the emerging layers of the industrial, financial and commercial bourgeoisie (guild masters, merchants, usurers, etc.), small artisans, apprentices and the urban poor - the core of the future proletariat, a group of employees and intelligentsia, not related by their social position to the main classes of feudal society. Under capitalism, the composition of the middle strata is determined by two main parts: the old part, the petty bourgeois class, and the new part, the social stratum of the intelligentsia and employees.

The middle social strata of capitalist society represent a complex network of social strata, different in nature and origin, where each stratum forms a single and relatively homogeneous group. Therefore, neither from an economic, nor from a socio-political point of view, it is impossible to determine the intermediate position of the middle strata as a whole. There is no general economic basis for this. Each of these "classes" is "middle" in its own sense, which is suitable only for it alone.

For this reason, the concept of middle strata must be used with great caution, as it is highly ambiguous. As a result of its limitations, the concept of the middle strata never allows a general assessment of the position, role and prospects of this "intermediate" part of society; resting on different foundations, being in different social relations, the middle social strata are set in motion by different economic interests, which must be studied in detail in order to understand their role in the social struggle. However, despite its ambiguity, the concept of the middle strata of capitalist society cannot be discarded, since underneath it lies a social fact, the existence of which is indisputable. It points to the existence of an "intermediate zone" in the class structure of capitalism, shows that not only the two great antagonists of modernity are taking part in the class struggle.

The petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia with employees actually exhaust the composition of the middle strata of capitalist society, conditioned by the capitalist mode of production.

The material was prepared by G.I. Gagina, October 30, 2014.
Basic

According to the Marxist concept, each society successively goes through several stages in its development - socio-economic formations: primitive-communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, socialist and communist.

The logic behind the formation of society and progressive transformations is:

labor development industrial social

Divisive Force Relationship Evolution

An objective change in production relations is the content of social progress, and their specificity is an estimated indicator of the quality of the social system.

The leading social subject, owning the capital of the productive forces - the means of production and the labor force (its qualifications and scientific thought), determines the relations of production, constructing a socio-economic formation and directing all the most important social instruments in the direction of expressing their interests. The development of productive forces leads to the need for a systemic transformation of society, a change in the leading social subject and production relations.

The first formational transition (from the primitive communal system to slavery) took place on the basis of the emergence of several social components: the market, goods, a little later money and social institutions - primarily economic and political (state and legal legislation), as well as the modern form of the family . It was at the dawn of slavery that the social system adopted its stable elemental configuration, which has survived to this day.

But in addition, the new socio-economic formation is characterized by the emergence of private ownership of the means of production and exploitation. It was these qualitative expressions of the objective development of productive forces that supplemented labor production relations with new content - the struggle for capital and power, that is, for subjective priority in the construction of a personal-social system and its management. This struggle became the basis of social progress and permeated all subsequent history.

The corresponding deep division of social interests was expressed in the fundamental opposition of the most important economic socio-positional groups, the emergence and irreconcilable relations of which are determined by the private form of ownership of the means of production and all capital. “The free man and the slave, the patrician and the plebeian, the landowner and the serf… in short, the oppressor and the oppressed were in eternal antagonism to each other;

The highest stage of the period of social development with a private form of ownership is capitalist society. Although Marx does not note a fundamentally qualitative difference between slavery, feudalism and capitalism. Private ownership of the means of production and capital is the basis that levels out all the differences between these socio-economic formations. It creates its own special method of reproduction of the commodity and the principle of income distribution, characterized by exploitation in the form of ex-propriation of a part of the profit or all profit by the owner of the means of production solely by the right of ownership. “Slavery is the first form of exploitation inherent in the ancient world; it is followed by serfdom in the Middle Ages and wage labor in modern times. These are the three great forms of enslavement characteristic of the great epochs of civilization; open, and more recently disguised slavery always accompanies it. The difference is only in time, conditions and object of operation. In the slave-owning formation, a slave was subjected to exploitation - an absolutely not free person, forcibly chained to his master throughout the whole time. Feudalism and capitalism ex-property the profit created by the wage labor of a formally free person, who, however, objectively driven by his natural needs, still comes to the means of production, and therefore to their owner and is forced to accept all his conditions. The main of which is consent in exchange for labor, the creation of goods and wages, to give profits in favor of the owner of private property and transfer the most precious thing he has - labor power into the composition of someone else's capital.

Thus, the evolutionary development of the period of private ownership of the means of production is determined by the replacement of open and forceful coercion of a person by coercion of labor force - "hidden, voluntary and therefore hypocritical." Only capitalism, unlike feudalism, works in conditions of industrial growth and urbanization due to a powerful breakthrough in the development of productive forces.

The operational stage of human progress for the first time in social history creates a mass phenomenon of social alienation, which under these conditions is based on the fundamental rejection of the tools of creative activity (means of production and labor, as well as the main monetary result of production - profit) from their true owner and creator - labor in the form of a slave or wage worker. This is how the social process of turning labor into a servant of capital takes place, with all the ensuing consequences for the entire social system.

It is obvious that the private form of capital forms socio-positional groups that radically differ from each other in all economic parameters-features and integration status in the economic hierarchy. First of all, by ownership of the means of production and the method of obtaining income, as well as by the income itself. The most active and active of these groups, which are directly related to production, form the classes occupying the two highest positions in the corresponding system of production relations.

Classes are the result of a high level of progressive social development. They concretized the social space, expanded and diversified it, supplemented it with completely new subjects and their communication links. But the main thing is that from the moment of their appearance, taking different forms in the course of social history, it was they who gave it new content, were the organizational engine of social progress, supplementing the quantitative component of labor with the quality of social group antagonism.

Their confrontation served as a source of formation of a special kind of human consciousness - social and humanitarian knowledge and ideological principles, the decisive scientific formulation of which, of course, took place much later - in the 19th century.

Capitalism is the most progressive social structure with a private (personal) form of ownership of the means of production. He forms two classes - the capitalists and the proletariat (who does not own the means of production and sells his labor power, which creates goods and services, is exploited and receives a salary).

The capitalist is the owner of all the constituent parts of capital, including the physical (means of production) and human (the labor force of hired labor). The historical birth and functioning of the capitalist form a fundamental interval of social evolution in terms of the most important properties of capital itself - subject expansion and subjective concentration in the process of capitalist economic competition.

These properties in the vector of development of the productive forces turn a small part of independent craftsmen-individuals into owners of all capital. The further historical movement of capitalist relations brings this formation to an even higher level, where the role of centralization is greatly enhanced: surplus population.

Contemporary capitalism already to K. Marx was characterized by the unification of banking and industrial property in the hands of a single, most active capitalist subject. A capitalist industrialist who has gained strength does not trust his profit, freed from commodity reproduction at a certain stage of its increase, to a third-party bank, but creates his own bank to provide a loan. In turn, the financier-capitalist, who grew up on usury and stock market speculation, begins to buy up shares of industrial enterprises. Naturally, concentrating the main economic instruments and having a part of their personal colossal profit already free from the economy, such capitalists cannot help but influence the formation of political power with further access to universal social control. First of all, to create the most favorable conditions for maintaining and increasing personal capital.

Thus, the objective development of the productive forces in the course of the progress of capitalist relations forms the highest qualitative level of the corresponding social formation - the oligarchic one with its leading social group subject. The absence of an oligarchy indicates either the complete exclusion of private ownership of the means of production from social life, or the underdevelopment (possibly artificial social democratic containment) of capitalism.

The oligarchy is the highest layer of capitalists, objectively born of a personal form of strategic capital based on its basic properties in the process of economic competition, as well as in terms of the most important systemic characteristic - centralization.

A similar procedural logic took place, by the way, in other private property formations - slavery and feudalism. But hidden and less intense. The fundamental difference between capitalism lies in the final break with the tribal component of social history. Its high stage completely “cleanses” the economy from external elements, in particular, of an ethnic nature, filling the concept of class with the exclusively economic content of the system of production relations that determines and governs the entire sociality.

Oligarchic formation under capitalism is natural in the property and mode of existence of any social system - its centralization, which is expressed in the subjective concentration of all necessary social resources, giving the opportunity and the right to monopoly socio-political construction-management. Today, this law is already geopolitics, defining the quality of the entire global social space. The modern process of globalization, based on the expansion and concentration of world private capital and the desire of the world oligarchy to concentrate the corresponding political resources, is the highest form of the objective process of centralization in the conditions of the capitalist formation.

However, one more, no less important property and vital way of existence of systemic sociality - dynamism with its inevitable qualitative changes, moves further social progress without stopping history on the "liberal eternity" of oligarchic power.

The socialist revolution is carried out at a critical moment when the content of capitalist production relations does not correspond to the colossal level of the progressive development of the productive forces: “In less than a hundred years of its class domination, the bourgeoisie has created more numerous and grandiose productive forces than all previous generations combined ... Modern bourgeois society with his ... relations of production and exchange ... is already like a wizard who is no longer able to cope with the underground forces caused by his spells. The formation of a socialist formation can be artificially slowed down for a while, but it cannot be stopped forever.

Expressing a historical necessity, the socialist transformation takes place in the conditions of the growth of the class self-consciousness of the proletariat, thanks to the formation of ideology and scientific knowledge. It is this fundamental feature of modern society that distinguishes the socialist revolution from its earlier predecessors and riots, which mainly took place only as the catastrophic impoverishment of the working people and general pauperization.

Today, knowledge is already capable of “not only explaining the world, but also changing it”, creating a “critical mass” of understanding of alienation and the need for systemic social change.

The entire economic and political logic and its frame in the form of a link between capital - profit - power under socialism acquire a different, qualitatively new owner as ownership of the means of production is nationalized and all capital is transferred into public ownership and disposal.

The nationalization of capital is the neutralization of the antagonistic difference in the system of production relations, the elimination of classes and exploitation. If, under the capitalist mode of reproduction, the profit of the capitalist and the wages of hired labor are economic factors of inverse relationship, then under socialism and the public form of property, wages are an integral part of profit, the distribution of which is related to all workers; in these economic conditions, profit and wages are connected by a direct function. This approach also removes the most important production mechanism of alienation - the antagonistic division of capital and labor, returning social priorities to the latter.

Thus, objective social progress makes the capitalist, once a significant and primary subject of social relations, who played a huge positive role in the organization of production and universal social centralization, a “superfluous” person, a miserable anachronism standing in the way of the further course of social history. It is the perception of this fact by public consciousness that is a consequence of the formation of the ideology and scientific character of social and humanitarian knowledge.

In studying the class structure of slave-owning and feudal societies, in both cases we are dealing with main classes these formations, the mutual connection of which, and the form of appropriation of surplus labor, determine the slave-owning and feudal economy: slave-owners and slaves, landowners and peasants. The main classes are called such classes, the presence of which is due to a given mode of production and which, by their relationships, determine the nature of production relations, the economic structure of a given society..

For a capitalist society, these basic classes are proletariat and bourgeoisie. Without their existence, without their connection in the process of production, without the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, the most capitalist mode of production is inconceivable.

These basic capitalist classes begin to develop even in the depths of feudalism. Feudalism, based on agriculture, gives a place within itself and handicraft production. Simultaneously with the development of guild craft, commercial capital also develops in the depths of feudalism. A capitalist uniting a certain number under one roof hired workers, creates the capitalist form cooperation. This capitalist form of cooperation develops as a contrast to peasant farming and independent handicraft production.

Thus, already in the womb of feudalism, a class of wage-workers and a class of capitalists are created. Capitalism develops predominantly in the cities, as opposed to the remaining feudal countryside. Along with the development of large-scale industry, the bourgeoisie and its antagonist, the proletariat, grow. The bourgeoisie is gaining one economic position after another, pushing the ruling class of medieval society into the background. In this course of historical development, the bourgeoisie made political conquests along with economic ones. At the first stages of its development, the bourgeoisie appears as a special society oppressed by the nobility. estate concentrated mainly in cities. With the development of guild craft, free artisans (as was the case, for example, in Italy and France) created their own urban self-governing communities. This right was achieved or direct war with their feudal lords or that the communities paid off from the feudal lords. During manufacturing production, the bourgeoisie acts as " third estate» in contrast to the nobility and the clergy. The further the manufacturing industry develops, the more the stratification of the third estate takes place. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat stand out more and more clearly from it.

Finally, together with the development of large-scale industry, the bourgeoisie opposes the feudal nobility and overthrows its power. The developed productive forces of capitalist industry and the nascent capitalist relations corresponding to them came into conflict with the old feudal production relations, with the privileges of estates that protected the latter, with feudal law and the state. Therefore, the task of the bourgeoisie was to seize state power and bring it into line with the nascent bourgeois economy.

Having seized power, the bourgeoisie devotes all its attention to ensuring that the working class that has been called into existence does not destroy its rule. Bourgeois revolution replaces the old class of feudal exploiters new class of exploiters- the bourgeoisie. The ruling class, which has come to power again, needs the oppression of the proletariat. To this end, he does not break the old state machine, but only rebuilds it and adapts it to his own interests.

Bourgeois ideologists always depict the bourgeois revolution as a struggle for freedom, equality and brotherhood. In reality, however, the bourgeoisie seeks to abolish only the feudal privileges that hinder its domination. Having seized power into its own hands, the bourgeoisie destroys all feudal and patriarchal relations. “She mercilessly tore the motley feudal threads that connect a person with his hereditary overlords and left no connection between people except naked interest, a heartless purebred. In the cold water of selfish calculation, she drowned the sacred impulse of pious daydreaming, chivalrous enthusiasm and petty-bourgeois sentimentality. She is turned into an exchange value the personal dignity of a person» .

The bourgeoisie recognizes only one privilege, the privilege owner. In an effort to abolish feudal privileges, the bourgeoisie proclaims "equality." But bourgeois equality exists actual inequality in which the haves and the have-nots, the exploiter and the exploited, the bourgeois and the proletarian remain. The bourgeoisie strives to destroy all feudal fetters that hinder the development of trade and industry. The bourgeoisie needs the free development of industry and trade, and therefore the bourgeois ideologists proclaim freedom. But bourgeois freedom means freedom for the wealthy and at the same time enslavement for wage-workers.

In order to overthrow the rule of the feudal lords with the help of the proletariat and peasantry, the bourgeois revolution portrays the special interests of the bourgeoisie as universal interests as the interests of the whole society. The bourgeoisie strives to present matters in such a way that it appears in the revolution not as a separate class with its own interests, but as a representative of the whole people, in contrast to the ruling nobility. The bourgeoisie succeeds in this as long as the proletariat has not developed into an independent class, has not yet grown to the consciousness of its own own interests.

Meanwhile, it is precisely in bourgeois society that the contradictions between the ruling class and the oppressed classes (the proletariat, the poorest and middle peasantry) develop with the greatest acuteness and depth. basis theirs is the contradiction of capitalism—the contradiction between social production and private appropriation.

The owner of the means of production is a relatively small handful of capitalists. The capitalists are opposed by a huge army of hired workers deprived of the means of production. Wage workers can only exist by sell their labor capitalists. They are "free" from all means of production. The continuous growth of the labor force ousted from production by the introduction of technical improvements in the form of a "reserve army of labor", the growth of unemployment, the constant tendency of the capitalist to lower the wages of workers - such are the consequences for the working class of the capitalist principles of freedom, equality, private property and selfish gain.

The working class, in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, goes through various stages development.

In the early period of capitalism, although the working class already exists, it does not yet recognize itself as a separate independent class opposing with their interests other classes. In this early period, the working class exists as a class "in itself" and for others (for the capital that exploits it), but not yet " for myself».

The struggle of the workers against the capitalists begins at the earliest stages. At first, the workers fight the capitalist one by one. Then the workers of an entire factory and even an entire branch of industry or locality come forward. At this stage, the struggle of the workers is directed not so much against the capitalist mode of production itself, but against it. external manifestations. The workers see that the victorious march of developing capitalism causes the introduction of machines, and therefore a change in the old modes of production, the displacement of labor and an increase in unemployment. Therefore, the worker mistakenly believes that all evil depends on the use of machines in production. He turns all his hatred on machines. Workers destroy machines, set fire to factories, destroy competing foreign goods, and in general strive to return to the already obsolete position of the medieval workshop or manufactory worker. The workers still don't understand class entity capitalist mode of production. At this stage of development, the proletariat is a mass scattered and dispersed throughout the country.

But along with the growth of industry, the strength and might of the proletariat grows. Large-scale industry concentrates thousands of workers in one enterprise. The school of collective labor develops in the workers class solidarity. The workers are beginning to realize that they, as a collective whole, have their own special interests opposed to those of capital. The development of railways, the telephone, the telegraph, etc., speed up the means of communication. At the same time, the unification of the workers of the whole country is taking place much more rapidly. The union of workers, which would have taken centuries in the Middle Ages, takes place in a few years. Capitalism is conquering the world market. Together with the goods, workers are transferred from one country to another. The proletariat breaks the bonds of national borders and becomes a class international the proletariat.

At this stage, the working class conscious its class interests, opposes itself to other classes and, first of all, to its antagonist - the bourgeois class. Acting as a class for himself, he creates his own political party.

To protect their class interests, the workers create trade unions; of the most advanced elements of the working class stands out the political the consignment, the working class is united on an international scale - in International.

Lecture 7(a) _ Capitalist Formation

Capitalism - social.-economic. a formation based on the exploitation of hired labor, private ownership of the means of production (in the absence of any ownership of the bearer of the labor force - a person); capitalism is also characterized by: the predominance of commodity production; formally declared freedom of entrepreneurship; profit as the main goal of production activity.

The difference between capitalism and the antagonistic formations that preceded it is that the main producer (in this word, the wage worker) is formally free, he can leave his workplace at any time, if this does not directly threaten the lives of other citizens. At the same time, the formal nature of this “freedom” becomes obvious as soon as we pay attention to the severe economic dependence under which a hired worker or employee, freed from violent forms of coercion to work, falls. Moreover, it is possible to trace the pattern according to which, the more the worker is emancipated politically, the more the ruling class needs to enslave him in another way, namely by removing him from the products of his own labor, i.e. economically. Public wealth in the form of private property can turn a person into someone else's property both directly (slave, serf) and indirectly (proletarian). If at the individual level each wage worker feels freer than the serf (who could not just leave his master), then at the level of the whole society this dependence manifests its irresistible rigidity. Indeed, an employee is free to quit and not work, but how will he then receive a livelihood? In order to live, a person deprived of ownership of the means of production will be forced to take a job with another capitalist. It is possible that the conditions of exploitation for the new employer will turn out to be milder, but this does not change the most important thing: an individual deprived of the means of production is forced to sell his labor power in order to secure at least one fact of his existence. The alternatives are either starvation or criminal activity, i.e. the alternative is extremely miserable, even the language does not turn to call it "freedom". That is why in the definition of capitalism there is this indication that with a given mode of production, exploitation takes place precisely formally free labor force.

§ 1. The class structure of bourgeois-capitalist society

[the main anthropological types of Bur.-cap. society]

Bourgeoisie - the ruling class of capitalist society, whose representatives own the means of production and live by appropriating surplus value in the form of profit.

Petty bourgeoisie- the lower stratum of the ruling class, whose representatives own the ownership of small means of production and are either self-employed (i.e., they work for themselves without being hired by anyone), or have the opportunity to exploit such a small number of wage workers that they do not allow them to completely get rid of from productive labor. In other words, the petty bourgeoisie represents that section of the bourgeoisie which continues to participate in productive labor.

Capitalists- the highest stratum of the bourgeois class, capable of living solely at the expense of the exploitation of the labor of others.

Officialdom / bureaucracy (state bourgeoisie)– national managers; 1. designation of the layer of employees in large organizations that have arisen in various spheres of society. As a necessary element of management, the bureaucracy turns into a special social stratum, which is characterized by hierarchy, strict regulation, division of labor and responsibility in the implementation of formalized functions that require special education. Bureaucracy tends to turn into a privileged layer, independent of the majority of members of the organization, which is accompanied by an increase in formalism and arbitrariness, authoritarianism and conformity, the subordination of the rules and tasks of the organization's activities mainly to the goals of its strengthening and preservation. 2. a specific form of social organizations in society (political, economic, ideological, etc.), the essence of which lies, firstly, in the separation of the centers of executive power from the will and decisions of the majority of members of this organization, and secondly, in the primacy of form over the content of this activity organizations, thirdly, in subordinating the rules and tasks of the functioning of the organization to the goals of its preservation and strengthening. B. is inherent in a society built on social inequality and exploitation, when power is concentrated in the hands of one or another narrow ruling group. The fundamental feature of B. is the existence and growth of a layer of bureaucrats - a privileged and isolated from the people bureaucratic-administrative caste.

Managers- private managers, a professional group of employees who carry out managerial work within the framework of the enterprise (firm) that hired them.

Proletariat - a subordinate class of capitalist society, whose representatives are deprived of ownership of the means of production and therefore are not able to individually significantly influence the organization of production, and in order to live they are forced to sell their labor power.

Labor aristocracy- a privileged part of the working class, whose representatives possess the most valuable and rare labor skills, a high level of skill and are highly valued by the owners of production. The wages of such workers are noticeably higher than those of most ordinary workers, and in times of crisis they are the last to be fired.

paupers- [lit. "poor"] is the lowest, poorest, exploited

and the disenfranchised stratum of the proletariat.

The bulk of the workers- a large part of the proletariat, which stands out according to the residual principle, by cutting off the upper and lower strata.

Intelligentsia - (from lat. itelliges understanding, thinking, reasonable),

social stratum of people professionally engaged in

mental, mostly complex, creative work,

development and dissemination of culture.

Lumpens - (from German Lumpen - rags) - the totality of all declassed

strata of the population (tramps, homeless people, beggars, criminal elements, etc.).

This social formation, which is characterized by the advantage of commodity-money relations, has become widespread throughout the world in various variations.

Advantages and disadvantages

Capitalism, which gradually replaced feudalism, arose in Western Europe in the 17th century. In Russia, it did not last long, being replaced by the communist system for decades. Unlike other economic systems, capitalism is based on free commerce. The means of production of goods and services are privately owned. Other key features of this socio-economic formation include:

• the desire to maximize income, profit;
• the basis of the economy is the production of goods and services;
• the widening gap between the rich and the poor;
• the ability to adequately respond to changing market conditions;
• freedom of entrepreneurial activity;
• the form of government is basically democracy;
• non-interference in the affairs of other states.

Thanks to the emergence of the capitalist system, people made a breakthrough along the path of technological progress. This economic form is characterized by a number of disadvantages. The main one is that all resources without which a person cannot work are privately owned. Therefore, the population of the country has to work for the capitalists. Other disadvantages of this type of economic system include:

• irrational distribution of labor;
• uneven distribution of wealth in society;
• bulk debt obligations (credits, loans, mortgages);
• big capitalists, proceeding from their interests, influence the government;
• there is no powerful system of opposition to corruption schemes;
• workers receive less than their labor is actually worth;
• increased profits due to monopolies in some industries.

Each system of the economy that society uses has its own strengths and weaknesses. There is no ideal option. There will always be supporters and opponents of capitalism, democracy, socialism, liberalism. The advantage of a capitalist society is that the system forces the population to work for the benefit of society, companies, and the state. Moreover, people always have the opportunity to secure such a level of income that will allow them to live quite comfortably and prosperously.

Peculiarities

The task of capitalism is to use the labor of the population for the efficient distribution and exploitation of resources. The position of a person in society under such a system is not determined only by his social position and religious views. Any person has the right to realize himself, using his abilities and capabilities. Especially now, when globalization and technological progress concern every citizen of a developed and developing country. The size of the middle class is steadily increasing, as well as its importance.

Capitalism in Russia

This economic system took root in the territory of modern Russia gradually, after serfdom was abolished. For several decades, there has been an increase in industrial production and agriculture. During these years, almost no foreign products were imported into the country on a massive scale. Oil, machinery, equipment were exported. This situation developed until the October Revolution of 1917, when capitalism, with its freedom of enterprise and private property, was left in the past.

In 1991, the Government announced the transition to the capitalist market. Hyperinflation, default, the collapse of the national currency, denomination - all these terrible events and radical changes were experienced by Russia in the 90s. last century. The modern country lives under the conditions of a new capitalism, built on the basis of the mistakes of the past.