The concepts of “socialism”, “the limits of individual freedom and universal equality” for people who had the “fortune” to become acquainted with this in practice, acquired a completely different meaning and were replaced by the term “ideology”. What was prescribed as a benefit for all segments of the population, not just a single country, but the world community, turned out to be a nightmare for millions of people, gave rise to merciless terror, bloody tyrants, and became a complete contradiction of its basic principles.
The birth of socialism as the basis of world order
The limits of individual freedom of socialism of the 19th century formulated by French ideologists were reflected in the works of Karl Marx, Pyotr Alekseevich Kropotkin, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and many others. But neither in later times, nor in the 1830s, when this movement was just emerging, did its ideologists have a common opinion, there was no single basis or any clear idea of transforming socialism into a political system. The only thing that all theorists agreed on was the collective construction of a fair and equal society with individual freedom for each of its members. This became the basic concept of socialism.
The roots of socialism: from antiquity to the Renaissance
The term itself - socialism, the limits of individual freedom - became innovative in the 19th century, but its structure was discussed thousands of years before that. The oppressed masses have always been drawn to personal freedom, but only a few understood that freedom and equality are possible only by building a public (social) structure on the principle of democracy, which did not have complete freedom. Plato was the first to express the idea of building; he clearly formulated it in the dialogue “State”. Aristophanes also repeated these theses, putting his ideas into comic form in his “Legislators.” In Europe, which was being revived after Medieval savagery, the socialist ideas of ancient authors were taken up by the utopian enlightener Thomas More, but all this “heresy” was harshly suppressed by the Catholic Church.
The main ideas of socialism formulated in the 20th century
The limits of individual freedom of socialism were not immediately formulated. The table of main points looks something like this:
| Systemic measure | Living work. |
| New property is created | Living labor. |
| The final product of production in the form of consumer goods belongs to | To the worker by virtue of exchange. |
| The worker receives for living labor | Consumer goods and services for free or through Soviet trade in the full amount of labor invested. |
| The owner of the means of production receives | Nothing. There is no profit. |
| Investments in production development | The worker invests part of his labor by subscribing to a government loan. |
| Production management and property management | The workers, through the Soviets, appoint a manager. |
| Inheritance rights to production assets | Only the right to repay the government loan is inherited, the right to reinvestment is not inherited. |
However, the following can be added to the presented theses:
1. The abolition and complete eradication of all exploitation that makes slaves of the oppressed class.
2. Abolition and destruction of class division as such and inequality in general.
3. Complete abolition of the privileges of the ruling class, equalization of rights and freedoms for everyone.
4. Complete or partial abolition of old orders and their replacement with new ones, designed to serve the common good.
5. Proclamation of the subordination of the church to the interests of the state and society.
6. Building a new, progressive society on the principle of social equality and justice.
7. Affirmation of respect for each member of society, his work, property and freedom.
8. Promoting socially disadvantaged groups to prosperity and turning them into the elite.
9. Introducing collectivist values into the broad masses to dominate individualistic consciousness.
10. Establishment of proletarian internationalism, guaranteeing freedom, equality and brotherhood of all nations.
These are the main theses of what socialism offered. The limits of individual freedom in many of them were not taken into account or contradicted their own main principles.
Socialist basis: transition from theory to practice
Perhaps the French ideologists of socialism of the mid-19th century, such as Saint-Simon, Blanqui, Fourier, Desami and others, themselves believed in what they wrote and proclaimed. But the broad masses learned only in practice, at the beginning of the 20th century, how the limits of individual freedom are considered under socialism. The French socialists awakened the slumbering monster. But the wave of revolutions and popular uprisings that swept across Europe in 1848-1849 did not achieve their goals. Humanity was able to assess the limits of individual freedom, equality, fraternity and everything that socialism proclaimed only after the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia. And the same people who extolled the “honest and just system” were horrified by what they saw and called it “red infection.” For us, these are already relics, but we still have the opportunity to see socialism, the limits of individual freedom in all their glory using the example of Cuba and North Korea.
History in 8th grade on the topic "Liberals, conservatives and socialists: what should society and the state be like"
Lesson objectives:
Educational:
give an idea of the main directions of social thought of the 19th century.
Educational:
develop students’ ability to comprehend theoretical material by working with the textbook and additional sources;
systematize it, highlighting the main thing, evaluate and compare the views of representatives of different ideological and political directions, compiling tables.
Educational:
education in the spirit of tolerance and the formation of the ability to interact with classmates when working in a group.
Basic concepts:
liberalism,
neoliberalism,
conservatism,
neoconservatism,
socialism,
utopian socialism,
Marxism,
Lesson equipment: CD
Lesson progress
1. Introductory part. Teacher's opening speech. Statement of a general problem.
Teacher: The lesson dedicated to getting to know the ideological and political teachings of the 19th century is quite complex, since it relates not only to history, but also to philosophy. Philosophers - thinkers of the 19th century, like philosophers in previous centuries, were concerned with the questions: how does society develop? What is preferable - revolution or reform? Where is history going? What should the relationship be like? between states om and the individual, the individual and the church, between the new classes - bourgeoisie and hired workers? I hope that we will cope with this difficult task in today’s lesson, because we already have knowledge on this topic: you have been given the task to get acquainted with the teachings of liberalism, conservatism and socialism - they will serve as the basis for mastering new material.
What goals does each of you set for today's lesson? (guys' answers)
2. Studying new material.
The class is divided into 3 groups. Work in groups.
Each group receives tasks: choose one of the socio-political movements, get acquainted with the main provisions of these movements, fill out a table and prepare a presentation. (additional information – Appendix 1)
Expressions characterizing the main provisions of the teachings are laid out on the table:
government activities are limited by law
there are three branches of government
free market
free competition
freedom of private enterprise
the state does not interfere in the economy
the individual is responsible for his own well-being
path of change - reform
complete freedom and responsibility of the individual
the power of the state is not limited
preservation of old traditions and foundations
the state regulates the economy, but does not encroach on property
denied “equality and brotherhood”
the state subjugates the individual
personal freedom
respect for traditions
unlimited power of the state in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat
destruction of private property
destruction of competition
destruction of the free market
the state has complete control over the economy
all people have equal rights and benefits
transformation of society - revolution
destruction of estates and classes
eliminating wealth inequality
the state solves social problems
personal freedom is limited by the state
work is obligatory for everyone
business is prohibited
private property prohibited
private property serves all members of society or is replaced by public property
there is no strong state power
the state regulates human life
money has been cancelled.
3. Each group analyzes its teaching.
4. General conversation.
Teacher: What do liberals and conservatives have in common? What are the differences? What is the main difference between socialists, on the one hand, and liberals and conservatives, on the other? (in relation to revolution and private property). Which segments of the population will support liberals, conservatives, socialists? Why does a modern young person need to know the basic ideas of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism?
5. Summing up. Summarizing approaches and points of view.
What role do you agree to assign to the state?
What ways do you see to solve social problems?
How do you imagine the limits of individual human freedom?
What conclusion can you formulate based on the lesson?
Conclusion: None of the socio-political teachings can claim to be “the only truly correct one.” It is necessary to take a critical approach to any teaching.
Appendix 1
Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists
1. Radical direction of liberalism.
After the end of the Congress of Vienna, the map of Europe took on a new look. The territories of many states were divided into separate regions, principalities and kingdoms, which were then divided among themselves by large and influential powers. The monarchy was restored in most European countries. The Holy Alliance made every effort to maintain order and eradicate any revolutionary movement. However, contrary to the wishes of politicians, capitalist relations continued to develop in Europe, which conflicted with the laws of the old political system. At the same time, to the problems caused by economic development, there were added difficulties associated with issues of infringement of national interests in various states. All this led to the appearance in the 19th century. in Europe, new political directions, organizations and movements, as well as numerous revolutionary uprisings. In the 1830s, the national liberation and revolutionary movement swept France and England, Belgium and Ireland, Italy and Poland.
In the first half of the 19th century. In Europe, two main socio-political movements emerged: conservatism and liberalism. The word liberalism comes from the Latin “Liberum”, i.e. relating to freedom. The ideas of liberalism were expressed back in the 18th century. in the Age of Enlightenment by Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire. However, this term became widespread in the 2nd decade of the 19th century, although its meaning at that time was extremely vague. Liberalism began to take shape into a complete system of political views in France during the Restoration period.
Supporters of liberalism believed that humanity would be able to move along the path of progress and achieve social harmony only if the principle of private property was the basis for the life of society. The common good, in their opinion, consists of the successful achievement by citizens of their personal goals. Therefore, it is necessary, with the help of laws, to provide people with freedom of action both in the economic sphere and in other areas of activity. The boundaries of this freedom, as stated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, must also be determined by laws. That is, the motto of the liberals was the phrase that later became famous: “everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted.” At the same time, liberals believed that only those people who are able to be responsible for their actions can be free. They included only educated property owners in the category of people who are capable of being responsible for their actions. State actions must also be limited by laws. Liberals believed that power in the state should be divided into legislative, executive and judicial.
In the economic field, liberalism advocated free markets and free competition among entrepreneurs. At the same time, in their opinion, the state did not have the right to interfere in market relations, but was obliged to play the role of a “guardian” of private property. Only in the last third of the 19th century. the so-called “new liberals” began to say that the state should support the poor, curb the growth of inter-class contradictions and achieve general welfare.
Liberals have always been convinced that transformations in the state should be carried out through reforms, but in no case through revolutions. Unlike many other movements, liberalism assumed that there is a place in the state for those who do not support the existing government, who think and speak differently than the majority of citizens, and even differently than the liberals themselves. That is, supporters of liberal views were convinced that the opposition had the right to legal existence and even to express its views. She was categorically forbidden only one thing: revolutionary actions aimed at changing the form of government.
In the 19th century Liberalism has become the ideology of many political parties, uniting supporters of the parliamentary system, bourgeois freedoms and freedom of capitalist entrepreneurship. At the same time, there were various forms of liberalism. Moderate liberals considered a constitutional monarchy to be the ideal government system. Radical liberals who sought to establish a republic held a different opinion.
2. Conservatives.
Liberals were opposed by conservatives. The name “conservatism” comes from the Latin word “conservatio” ( conservation), which means “to guard” or “to preserve.” The more liberal and revolutionary ideas spread in society, the stronger became the need to preserve traditional values: religion, monarchy, national culture, family and order. Conservatives sought to create a state that, on the one hand, would recognize the sacred ownership, and on the other hand, it would be able to protect customary values. At the same time, according to conservatives, authorities have the right to intervene in the economy and regulate its development, and citizens must obey the instructions of government authorities. Conservatives did not believe in the possibility of universal equality. They said: “All people have equal rights, but not the same benefits.” They saw personal freedom in the opportunity to preserve and maintain traditions. Conservatives considered social reforms as a last resort in conditions of revolutionary danger. However, with the development of the popularity of liberalism and the emergence of the threat of losing votes in parliamentary elections, conservatives had to gradually recognize the need for social reforms, as well as accept the principle of state non-interference in the economy. Therefore, as a result, almost all social legislation in the 19th century. was adopted on the initiative of the Conservatives.
3. Socialism.
In addition to conservatism and liberalism in the 19th century. The ideas of socialism are becoming widespread. This term comes from the Latin word “socialis” (socialis), i.e. “social”. Socialist thinkers saw the full hardship of life for ruined artisans, factory workers and factory workers. They dreamed of a society in which poverty and hostility between citizens would disappear forever, and the life of every person would be protected and inviolable. Representatives of this trend saw private property as the main problem of their contemporary society. The socialist Count Henri Saint-Simon believed that all citizens of the state are divided into “industrialists” engaged in useful creative work and “owners” who appropriate the income of other people’s labor. However, he did not consider it necessary to deprive the latter of private property. He hoped that by appealing to Christian morality, it would be possible to convince owners to voluntarily share their income with their “younger brothers” - the workers. Another supporter of socialist views, Francois Fourier, also believed that in an ideal state classes, private property and unearned income should be preserved. All problems must be solved by increasing labor productivity to a level where wealth is ensured for all citizens. State revenues will have to be distributed among the residents of the country depending on the contribution made by each of them. The English thinker Robert Owen had a different opinion on the issue of private property. He thought that only public property should exist in the state, and money should be abolished altogether. According to Owen, with the help of machines, society can produce a sufficient amount of material wealth, it only needs to distribute it fairly among all its members. Both Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen were convinced that an ideal society awaits humanity in the future. Moreover, the path to it must be exclusively peaceful. Socialists relied on persuasion, development and education of people.
The ideas of the socialists were further developed in the works of the German philosopher Karl Marx and his friend and comrade-in-arms Friedrich Engels. The new doctrine they created was called “Marxism”. Unlike their predecessors, Marx and Engels believed that there is no place for private property in an ideal society. Such a society began to be called communist. Revolution must lead humanity to a new system. In their opinion, this should happen in the following way. With the development of capitalism, the impoverishment of the masses will intensify, and the wealth of the bourgeoisie will increase. The class struggle will become more widespread. It will be led by social democratic parties. The result of the struggle will be a revolution, during which the power of the workers or the dictatorship of the proletariat will be established, private property will be abolished, and the resistance of the bourgeoisie will be completely broken. In the new society, political freedoms and equality of rights for all citizens will not only be established, but also respected. Workers will take an active part in the management of enterprises, and the state will have to control the economy and regulate the processes occurring in it in the interests of all citizens. Each person will receive every opportunity for comprehensive and harmonious development. However, later Marx and Engels came to the conclusion that the socialist revolution is not the only way to resolve social and political contradictions.
4. Revisionism.
In the 90s XIX century There have been great changes in the life of states, peoples, political and social movements. The world has entered a new period of development - the era of imperialism. This required theoretical understanding. Students already know about changes in the economic life of society and its social structure. Revolutions were a thing of the past, socialist thought was experiencing a deep crisis, and the socialist movement was in schism.
The German social democrat E. Bernstein criticized classical Marxism. The essence of E. Bernstein’s theory can be reduced to the following provisions:
1. He proved that growing concentration of production does not lead to a decrease in the number of owners, that the development of the joint-stock form of ownership increases their number, that, along with monopolistic associations, medium and small enterprises are preserved.
2. He pointed out that the class structure of society was becoming more complex: middle strata of the population appeared - employees and officials, the number of which was growing in percentage terms faster than the number of hired workers.
3. He showed the increasing heterogeneity of the working class, the existence in it of highly paid layers of skilled workers and unskilled workers, whose work was paid extremely low.
4. He wrote that at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. workers did not yet constitute the majority of the population and were not ready to take on independent management of society. From this he concluded that the conditions for a socialist revolution were not yet ripe.
All of the above shook E. Bernstein’s confidence that the development of society can only proceed along a revolutionary path. It became obvious that the reconstruction of society could be achieved through economic and social reforms carried out through popularly and democratically elected authorities. Socialism can win not as a result of revolution, but in conditions of expansion of voting rights. E. Bernstein and his supporters believed that the main thing was not revolution, but the struggle for democracy and the adoption of laws that ensured the rights of workers. This is how the doctrine of reformist socialism arose.
Bernstein did not consider development towards socialism as the only possible one. Whether development will follow this path depends on whether the majority of people want it, and on whether socialists can lead people to the desired goal.
5. Anarchism.
Criticism of Marxism was also published from the other side. Anarchists opposed him. These were followers of anarchism (from the Greek anarchia - anarchy) - a political movement that proclaimed its goal the destruction of the state. The ideas of anarchism were developed in modern times by the English writer W. Godwin, who in his book “An Inquiry into Political Justice” (1793) proclaimed the slogan “Society without a state!” A variety of teachings were classified as anarchist - both “left” and “right”, a variety of actions - from rebellious and terrorist to the cooperator movement. But all the numerous teachings and speeches of anarchists had one thing in common - the denial of the need for a state.
set before his followers only the task of destruction, “clearing the ground for future construction.” For the sake of this “clearing”, he called on the masses to perform and carry out terrorist acts against representatives of the oppressor class. Bakunin did not know what the future anarchist society would look like and did not work on this problem, believing that the “work of creation” belongs to the future. In the meantime, a revolution was needed, after the victory of which the state should first be destroyed. Bakunin also did not recognize the participation of workers in parliamentary elections or in the work of any representative organizations.
In the last third of the 19th century. The development of the theory of anarchism is associated with the name of the most prominent theorist of this political doctrine, Peter Aleksandrovich Kropotkin (1842-1921). In 1876, he fled Russia abroad and began publishing in Geneva the magazine "La Revolte", which became the main printed organ of anarchism. Kropotkin's teachings are called "communist" anarchism. He sought to prove that anarchism is historically inevitable and is a mandatory step in the development of society. Kropotkin believed that state laws interfere with the development of natural human rights, mutual support and equality, and therefore give rise to all sorts of abuses. He formulated the so-called “biosociological law of mutual assistance,” which supposedly determines the desire of people to cooperate rather than fight each other. He considered the ideal of organizing society to be a federation: a federation of clans and tribes, a federation of free cities, villages and communities in the Middle Ages, and modern state federations. What should cement a society in which there is no state mechanism? It was here that Kropotkin applied his “law of mutual assistance,” indicating that the role of a unifying force would be played by mutual assistance, justice and morality, feelings inherent in human nature.
Kropotkin explained the creation of the state by the emergence of land ownership. Therefore, in his opinion, it was possible to move to a federation of free communes only through the revolutionary destruction of what separates people - state power and private property.
Kropotkin considered man a kind and perfect being, and yet anarchists increasingly used terrorist methods, explosions occurred in Europe and the USA, and people died.
Questions and tasks:
Fill out the table: “The main ideas of socio-political doctrines of the 19th century.”
Comparison Questions | Liberalism | Conservatism | Socialism (Marxism) | Revisionism | Anarchism |
Role of the state in economic life | |||||
Position on a social issue and ways to solve social problems | |||||
Limits of individual freedom |
Liberalism:
the role of the state in economic life: the activities of the state are limited by law. There are three branches of government. The economy has a free market and free competition. The state interferes little in the economy; position on social issues and ways to solve problems: the individual is free. The path of transforming society through reforms. New liberals came to the conclusion that social reforms were necessary
limits of individual freedom: complete personal freedom: “Everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted.” But personal freedom is given to those who are responsible for their decisions.
Conservatism:
the role of the state in economic life: the power of the state is practically unlimited and is aimed at preserving old traditional values. In economics: the state can regulate the economy, but without encroaching on private property
position on social issues and ways to solve problems: they fought for the preservation of the old order. They denied the possibility of equality and brotherhood. But the new conservatives were forced to agree to some democratization of society.
limits of individual freedom: the state subjugates the individual. Individual freedom is expressed in its observance of traditions.
Socialism (Marxism):
the role of the state in economic life: unlimited activity of the state in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In economics: the destruction of private property, free markets and competition. The state completely regulates the economy.
position on a social issue and ways to solve problems: everyone should have equal rights and equal benefits. Solving a social problem through social revolution
limits of individual freedom: the state itself decides all social issues. Individual freedom is limited by the state dictatorship of the proletariat. Labor is required. Private enterprise and private property are prohibited.
Comparison line | Liberalism | Conservatism | Socialism |
Main principles | Providing individual rights and freedoms, maintaining private property, developing market relations, separation of powers | Preservation of strict order, traditional values, private property and strong government power | Destruction of private property, establishment of property equality, rights and freedoms |
The role of the state in economic life | The state does not interfere in the economic sphere | State regulation of the economy |
|
Attitude to social issues | The state does not interfere in the social sphere | Preservation of estate and class differences | The state ensures the provision of social rights to all citizens |
Ways to solve social issues | Denial of revolution, the path of transformation is reform | Denial of revolution, reform as a last resort | The path of transformation is revolution |
One goal - two approaches (liberalism and socialism about freedom and equality)
V. M. Mezhuev
(fragment of an article by V. M. Mezhuev “Socialism is a space of culture (once again about the socialist idea)”, published in the magazine “Knowledge. Understanding. Skill” 2006. No. 3)
The dispute between liberalism and socialism is essentially the main ideological dispute of modern times. Both of them share the idea of freedom as the highest value, although they interpret it differently. For liberalism, it is exhausted by the freedom of man as a private individual; for socialism, it is identical to his individual freedom, which goes far beyond the limits of private life.
It is necessary, as already mentioned, to distinguish the private from the individual. A private trader - a partial worker or private owner - is a person, an equal part, a product of the social division of labor and property. As an individual, a person is equal not to a part, but to the whole, as it is represented in all the wealth of human culture. The creators of culture - thinkers, artists, poets, people of science and art - cannot be called private traders. In their work they appear not as individuals, but as authors with their own unique individual personality. Only because of this are they able to rise to the heights of true universality, i.e. to create something that, despite all its individual uniqueness, acquires the meaning of universal value. If civilization, with its division of labor, divides a person and equates him to a part, then culture sets as its goal the preservation and self-realization of his integral individuality, albeit only in a spiritual form. That is why civilization and culture have so far moved, as it were, in different orbits and have not connected with each other.
For liberalism, the civilization that was born in Europe and ensured the victory of the private individual in all spheres of life became the highest achievement and the final stage of world history; for socialism it is only a step in general historical evolution, far from the last. Liberalism arose as a justification and justification for this civilization, socialism - as its criticism, sometimes turning into a utopia. The last word of liberalism was the prophecy about the “end of history”; for socialism, history, if we understand by it actually human history, the history of man himself, is just beginning.
Of all the freedoms, liberalism especially highlights and values the freedom of private enterprise. Political freedom for him is only a means to economic freedom as an end. His ideal is a society of equal rights and opportunities, where everyone, if hardworking and lucky enough, can achieve success in life and social recognition. Such freedom is ensured by the human right to private property protected by liberalism. According to the classic neoliberalism Milton Friedman, “the essence of capitalism is private property and it is the source of human freedom.” .
The identification of freedom with private property, however, turns out to be in contradiction with the principle of actual equality of people: after all, not everyone has this property in equal measure. The liberal requirement of legal equality can only be realized on the market, through competition, which ultimately turns into actual inequality in the same property relations. Such inequality is, as it were, encoded in the very market mechanism for realizing equal rights. Everyone has the right to property, but not everyone actually owns it, not to mention the fact that the property of individual individuals varies greatly from each other. Here, as it were, everyone is free and endowed with the same rights, but no one is equal to each other. Even if we assume that the most worthy ones win in the competition on the market (which, of course, is extremely doubtful), then even then there is a violation of the principle of social equality.
This is where the original socialist opposition to liberalism was born. If liberalism sees private property as a source of freedom, then the first and still immature concepts of socialism, making their goal the achievement of actual equality, see the path to it in the transfer of property from private hands to common ones, i.e. in its transformation into the common property of all. The common - that which belongs to everyone together and to no one individually - is identified here with the public, is thought of as a synonym for public. Equality, understood as general, as bringing everyone to a common denominator, is the utopia of egalitarian socialism. Here, everyone seems to be equal, but no one is free. And today many associate these still completely primitive ideas about equality with socialism.
It is generally accepted that liberalism defends freedom as opposed to equality, socialism - equality, often at the expense of freedom. Such socialism, as Hayek put it, is “the path to slavery.” In it, everything is decided by the opinion of the majority or by the actions of a centralized and bureaucratic state. “What belongs to everyone,” Friedman rightly believes, “does not belong to anyone.” . The problem, however, is that both are struggling with ideas about socialism that have nothing in common with either Marx's views or the more mature versions of the socialist idea. By contrasting the particular with the general, they create a false appearance of the possibility of the existence of freedom without equality (the liberal utopia of freedom) and equality without freedom (the socialist utopia of equality). This appearance still dominates the minds of many liberals and socialists, pitting them in irreconcilable struggle.
Such appearance, upon closer examination, turns out to be imaginary. There is no freedom without equality, just as there is no equality without freedom. Both liberal and socialist theorists understand this in their own way. If the former are trying to solve this problem by creating a new theory of justice that combines law and morality, then the latter, starting with Marx, are looking for a model of socialism other than the egalitarian-distributive one. Obviously, we should start with Marx.
Undoubtedly, fundamental to socialism is the principle public property. You can endow socialism with various qualities - humanism, social justice, equality, freedom, but these are only words until the main thing is clarified - what public property is. In interpreting it, the most important thing is to avoid the widespread reduction of the social to the general, to that which equates everyone in some kind of abstract identity. At the social level, such a reduction means the identification of society with a community, with any form of human collectivity, as evidenced by the concepts of “primitive society”, “medieval society”, “bourgeois society”, etc. widely used in scientific language. All historically existing forms of human society and communication is subsumed here under the concept of “society”. But then the private is synonymous with the public, since it also exists in society. In what sense is the public the antithesis of the private? This terminological difficulty can be avoided if we understand by social not the general, but individual, which combines the particular and the general. Such a general is no longer abstractly general, but concretely general. But what does this mean in relation to property? The answer to this question is Marx’s doctrine of social property.
One has to be surprised when one hears that public property is when everything is common and belongs to everyone. It is enough to unite any means of production in the hands of many to consider such property to be social. But what then prevents the establishment of public property at any stage of history? Why did theory prohibit the socialization of everything - the plow, the hoe, the tools of the craft, the means of individual and simply divided labor, although this was done without regard to any theory?
In Soviet economics, the prevailing opinion was that public property under socialism exists in two main forms - state (also known as national property) and collective farm-cooperative property. The first is a more mature form of public ownership compared to the second. Today, some Soviet-trained economists, while continuing to defend the idea of public property, have swapped only the signs of their preference: now they give preference to the “property of labor collectives,” or cooperative property, calling it directly public property, while they value state property as indirect public property. However, neither one nor the other has anything to do with social property as understood by Marx.
Marx, firstly, never identified public property with state property. Any reference to Marx does not work here. Such an identification is a purely Russian invention. The merit of liberalism, as is known, was the separation of society from the state (“political emancipation of society”), which served as the basis for the emergence of civil society. Marx did not even think of abandoning this achievement of liberalism. True, the separation of society from the state became the reason for the rapid development of the capitalist system of relations. The right to private property was declared the most important human right, which led, as already mentioned, to acute class polarization of society and social inequality. An attempt to overcome this inequality through the concentration of property in the hands of the state, Marx in the Philosophical and Economic Manuscripts called “crude communism” - taking to its logical conclusion the principle of private property, turning the entire working population of the country into proletarians, hired workers in the service of the state. A little later, Engels identified the state as the owner of social wealth with the associated, or abstract, capitalist. This is what happened under Stalin. The state socialism he created should not be confused with state capitalism, the possibility of which Lenin allowed during the transition to socialism. But Lenin, like Marx, did not identify socialism with the state (if only because of the conviction he shared with Marx in the withering away of the state under socialism).
The so-called political economy of socialism was built largely on Stalinist dogmas. It was she who elevated the Stalinist myth of state ownership as a synonym for socialism to the rank of science. The Bolsheviks generally preferred to talk more about power than about property, arguing according to the scheme - whoever rules controls all the wealth. No one at that time seriously thought about the nature of public property and everything connected with it. Such a myth is not Marxist, but rather Stalinist dogma, its roots are in the traditional Russian mentality of the Russian bureaucrat.
The question of the state's attitude to property is one of the key ones in the works of the late Marx. Its production itself was caused by Marx’s heightened interest in the countries of the East, in particular in Russia, during that period. In the historical science of that time it was believed that the so-called “Oriental despotism” owes its origin to state ownership of land. The state in the East, from this point of view, is the supreme owner of the land. At first, Marx thought so too, on which his concept of the Asian mode of production was based. However, after he became acquainted with Kovalevsky’s book on communal land ownership and a number of other works, he came to a slightly different conclusion: the economic basis for the existence of the state in the East is not its ownership of land, but the tax it forcibly collects from the population (hence the well-known word Engels his desire to rewrite the chapter on diphrent in the third volume of Capital, which, unfortunately, he did not have time to do). The main obstacle to the formation of private land ownership is not the state, as E. Gaidar wrote about in the book “State and Evolution,” but the community. For the state, which exists on taxes, private property is even more profitable than communal land ownership, and therefore, as in the time of Stolypin, it is trying to reform it, encountering stubborn resistance from the community. The state as an independent economic subject, as the owner of all social wealth, is an idea very far from the views of the late Marx.
Now about cooperative property, a type of which is the property of labor collectives. Marx, indeed, wrote that in the future plants and factories would be managed under ownership rights by associated producers. But managing and being an owner are two different things. The conductor manages the orchestra, but is not its owner. The management function is preserved under any form of ownership, but still does not say anything about who really owns it. And what did Marx understand by associated producers - an association on the scale of the entire society or only within the framework of a separate enterprise, a specific work collective?
Socialization of property within the framework of a separate enterprise is legally, of course, quite possible, but in no way constitutes a transition to public ownership. Such socialization also takes place under capitalism. Private property can also be collective, for example, in a number of production and marketing cooperatives, in joint-stock companies, etc. Private property is characterized not by the number of subjects (if one, then a private owner, and if many, then no longer a private owner), but by the partiality of what is in their disposal of wealth, the presence of a boundary between one’s own and someone else’s: (what belongs to one or more persons does not belong to other persons). The principle of private property is therefore division ownership into parts, into unequal shares, and the proportion in which it is divided constantly fluctuates depending on market conditions.
But if public property cannot be reduced to state or group property, what exactly is it? Remaining within the framework of economic thinking, it is impossible to answer this question. In the process of transition to public ownership, it is not the subject that changes, but object property, which presupposes a certain level of development of productive forces. The transfer of property from private to public hands in itself does not change anything in the nature of property. Such a transfer, at best, has the character of a formal socialization, but not a real one, excluding the division of property into parts.
The kingdom of division is the true kingdom of private property. It gave birth to the dream of equal sharing in early socialist utopias. When everything becomes common, everyone can count on the same share of the social pie as others. The principle of division is preserved here, but is interpreted as egalitarian, extending, first of all, to the sphere of distribution of material goods. Equality of wealth is the most sublime dream of such socialism. It can also be called equality in satiety, which is quite natural to dream of in countries where the majority of the population is chronically poor.
Is it worth talking specifically about the illusory nature of this dream? All conceivable forms of division will not lead to equality, if only because people are different, and therefore have different needs and demands. Even distribution “according to work,” in which many see the highest form of social justice, is a remnant, a “relic” of the unequal (bourgeois) right protected by liberalism, which allows everyone to have at their disposal only that part of social wealth that he earned with his own labor. Again, part, not all, of the wealth. Sharing here remains the basic principle of distribution. For Marx, the principle of “to each according to his work,” although preserved at the lowest stage of communism, is in no way adequate to social property.
But maybe the dream of equality is a chimera, an empty phrase, an unrealistic and false expectation? It’s the easiest way to think, but this will lead to a number of consequences, the main one of which is the renunciation of freedom, because there is no freedom without equality. The solution to the problem is, apparently, not a rejection of equality, but an understanding of it that would exclude any division. Such equality should not be sought in the right of everyone to do something have(albeit “by labor”), but in his right be who nature, God, or himself made him, i.e. the right to live “according to one’s abilities.” Of course, if not complete abundance, then a certain amount of prosperity is needed by any person, which in itself does not guarantee him either freedom or equality. In pursuit of material well-being, people often sacrifice both. They become equal when they relate themselves not to a part, but to the whole; they exist, as Marx said, by the standard of not just one species (like animals), but any species, i.e. universal. When everyone is equal to the whole and not the part, everyone is equal to each other.
Mezhuev Vadim Mikhailovich
Date: 09/28/2015
Lesson: story
Class: 8
Subject:“Liberals, conservatives and socialists: what should society and the state be like?”
Goals: introduce students to the basic ideological methods of implementing the ideas of liberals, conservatives, socialists, and Marxists; find out which segments of society’s interests were reflected by these teachings; develop the ability to analyze, compare, draw conclusions, and work with historical sources;
Equipment: computer, presentation, materials for checking homework
Download:
Preview:
Date: 09/28/2015
Lesson: history
Grade: 8
Subject: “Liberals, conservatives and socialists: what should society and the state be like?”
Goals: introduce students to the basic ideological methods of implementing the ideas of liberals, conservatives, socialists, and Marxists; find out which segments of society’s interests were reflected by these teachings; develop the ability to analyze, compare, draw conclusions, and work with historical sources;
Equipment: computer, presentation, materials for checking homework
Lesson progress | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Organizational start of the lesson. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Checking homework: Testing knowledge on the topic: “Culture of the 19th century” Assignment: based on the description of a painting or a work of art, try to guess what it is about and who its author is? 1. The action in this novel takes place in Paris, engulfed in popular phenomena. The strength of the rebels, their courage and spiritual beauty are revealed in the images of the gentle and dreamy Esmeralda, the kind and noble Quasimodo. What is the name of this novel and who is its author? 2. The ballerinas in this picture are shown in close-up. The professional precision of their movements, grace and ease, and a special musical rhythm create the illusion of rotation. Smooth and precise lines, the finest nuances of blue color envelop the dancers’ bodies, giving them a poetic charm. ___________________________________________________________________ 3. A dramatic story about a horseman who rushes with a sick child through an evil fairy-tale forest. This music portrays to the listener a dark, mysterious thicket, a frenzied galloping rhythm, leading to a tragic ending. Name the piece of music and its author. ___________________________________________________________________ 4. The political situation sends the hero of this work in search of a new life. Together with the heroes, the author mourns the fate of Greece, which was enslaved by the Turks, and admires the courage of the Spaniards fighting Napoleonic troops. Who is the author of this work and what is it called? ___________________________________________________________________ 5. The youth and beauty of this actress captivated not only the artist who painted her portrait, but also many admirers of her art. Before us is a personality: a talented actress, witty and brilliant conversationalist. What is the name of this painting and who painted it? ___________________________________________________________________ 6. This author’s book is dedicated to stories about distant India, where he lived for many years. Who doesn’t remember the wonderful little hippopotamus, or the exciting story of how a camel got a hump or a baby elephant’s trunk? BUT what amazes the most is the adventure of a human cub, fed by wolves. What book are we talking about and who is its author? ___________________________________________________________________ 7. The basis of this opera is the plot of the French writer Prosper Merimee. The main character of the opera, a simple-minded country boy named Jose, ends up in the city where he performs military service. Suddenly a frantic gypsy woman bursts into his life, for whose sake he commits crazy acts, becomes a smuggler, and leads a free and dangerous life. What opera are we talking about and who wrote this music? ___________________________________________________________________ 8. The painting by this artist depicts rows of endless benches on which are seated deputies called upon to dispense justice, disgusting monsters - a symbol of the inertia of the July Monarchy. Name the artist and the title of the painting. ___________________________________________________________________ 9. One day, while filming street traffic, this man got distracted for a moment and stopped turning the camera handle. During this time, the place of one object was taken by another. While watching the tape, we saw a miracle: one object “turned” into another. What phenomenon are we talking about and who is the person who made this “discovery”? ___________________________________________________________________ 10. This canvas depicts the doctor who treated our hero. When the artist presented him with this painting as a token of gratitude, the doctor hid it in the attic. Then he covered the yard outside. And only chance helped to appreciate this picture. What picture are we talking about? Who is its author? ___________________________________________________________________ Key to the task:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Communicate the topic and objectives of the lesson. (slide) Lesson objectives: Consider the specific features of the intellectual life of Europe in the 19th century; Characterize the main directions of European politics in the 19th century. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Learning new material.
(slide) Philosophers and thinkers of the 19th century were concerned with the following questions: 1) How does society develop? 2) What is preferable: reform or revolution? 3) Where is history going? They were also looking for answers to the problems that arose with the birth of industrial society: 1) what should be the relationship between the state and the individual? 2) how to build relationships between the individual and the church? 3) what is the relationship between the new classes - the industrial bourgeoisie and wage workers? Almost until the end of the 19th century, European states did not fight poverty, did not carry out social reforms, and the lower classes did not have their representatives in parliament. (slide) In the 19th century, 3 main socio-political trends took shape in Western Europe: 1) liberalism 2) conservatism 3) socialism When studying new material, you and I will have to fill out this table(slide)
(slide) - consider the basic principles of liberalism. from Latin – liberum - related to freedom. Liberalism received its development in the 19th century, both in theory and practice. Let's take a guess, what principles will they proclaim? Principles:
Considering individual freedom an important value, liberals had to define its boundaries. And this boundary was defined by the words:"Everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted" How do you figure out which of the two paths of social development they will choose: reform or revolution? Justify your answer(slide) (slide) The demands put forward by the liberals:
In the last third of the 19th century, a new liberalism appeared, which declared that the state should carry out reforms, protect the least significant strata, prevent revolutionary explosions, destroy hostility between classes, and achieve general welfare. (slide) The new liberals demanded: Introduce unemployment and disability insurance Introduce pensions for the elderly The state must guarantee a minimum salary Destroy monopolies and restore free competition (slide) The English House of Whigs brought forward from its midst the most prominent figure of British liberalism - William Gladstone, who carried out a number of reforms: electoral, school, self-government restrictions, etc. We will talk about them in more detail when we study the history of England. (slide) - But still, conservatism was the more influential ideology. from Latin conservatio - protect, preserve. Conservatism - a doctrine that arose in the 18th century, which sought to justify the need to preserve the old order and traditional values (slide) - Conservatism began to strengthen in society as a counterweight to the spread of the ideas of liberalism. Chief of it principle - preserve traditional values: religion, monarchy, national culture, family and order. Unlike liberals, conservatives admitted:
(slide) - since society had already experienced many revolutionary upheavals that threatened the preservation of the traditional order, conservatives recognized the possibility of carrying out “protective” social reforms only as a last resort. (slide) Fearing the rise of “new liberalism,” conservatives agreed that 1) society should become more democratic, 2) it is necessary to expand voting rights, 3) the state should not interfere in the economy (slide) As a result, the leaders of the English (Benjamin Disraeli) and German (Otto von Bismarck) conservative parties became social reformers - they had no other choice in the face of the growing popularity of liberalism. (slide) Along with liberalism and conservatism, socialist ideas about the need to abolish private property and protect public interests and the idea of egalitarian communism became popular in Western Europe in the 19th century. Social and government system, principles which are: 1) establishment of political freedoms; 2) equality in rights; 3) participation of workers in the management of the enterprises where they work. 4) the duty of the state to regulate the economy. (slide) “The Golden Age of humanity is not behind us, but ahead” - these words belong to Count Henri Saint-Simon. In his books, he outlined plans for the reconstruction of society. He believed that society consists of two classes - idle owners and working industrialists. Let's determine who could belong to the first group and who to the second? The first group includes: large landowners, rentier capitalists, military personnel and high-ranking officials. The second group (96% of the population) includes all people engaged in useful activities: peasants, hired workers, artisans, manufacturers, merchants, bankers, scientists, artists. (slide) Charles Fourier proposed transforming society through the unification of workers - phalanxes that would combine industrial and agriculture. There will be no wages or hired labor. All income is distributed in accordance with the amount of “talent and labor” invested by each person. Property inequality will remain in the phalanx. Everyone is guaranteed a living minimum. The phalanx provides its members with schools, theaters, libraries, and organizes holidays. (slide) Robert Owen went further in his works, deeming it necessary to replace private property with public property and the abolition of money. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
work from the textbook (slide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teacher's story: (slide) Revisionism - ideological trends that proclaim the need to revise any established theory or doctrine. The person who revised the teachings of K. Marx for compliance with the real life of society in the last third of the 19th century was Eduard Bernstein (slide) Eduard Bernstein saw that 1) the development of the joint-stock form of ownership increases the number of owners, along with monopolistic associations, medium and small owners remain; 2) the class structure of society becomes more complex, new layers appear 3) the heterogeneity of the working class is increasing - there are skilled and unskilled workers with different wages. 4) workers are not yet ready to take on independent management of society. He came to the conclusion: The reconstruction of societies can be achieved through economic and social reforms carried out through popularly and democratically elected authorities. (slide) Anarchism (from the Greek anarcia) – anarchy. Within anarchism there were a variety of left and right movements: rebellious (terrorist acts) and cooperators. What features characterized anarchism? (slide) 1. Belief in the good sides of human nature. 2. Faith in the possibility of communication between people based on love. 3. It is necessary to destroy the power that carries out violence against the individual. (slide) prominent representatives of anarchism | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summing up the lesson: (slide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(slide) Homework: Paragraph 9-10, records, table, questions 8.10 in writing. |
Application:
When explaining new material, you should get the following table:
Comparison line | Liberalism | Conservatism | Socialism |
Main principles | |||
State regulation of the economy |
|||
Attitude to social issues | |||
Ways to solve social issues |
Appendix 1
Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists
1. Radical direction of liberalism.
After the end of the Congress of Vienna, the map of Europe took on a new look. The territories of many states were divided into separate regions, principalities and kingdoms, which were then divided among themselves by large and influential powers. The monarchy was restored in most European countries. The Holy Alliance made every effort to maintain order and eradicate any revolutionary movement. However, contrary to the wishes of politicians, capitalist relations continued to develop in Europe, which conflicted with the laws of the old political system. At the same time, to the problems caused by economic development, there were added difficulties associated with issues of infringement of national interests in various states. All this led to the appearance in the 19th century. in Europe, new political directions, organizations and movements, as well as numerous revolutionary uprisings. In the 1830s, the national liberation and revolutionary movement swept France and England, Belgium and Ireland, Italy and Poland.
In the first half of the 19th century. In Europe, two main socio-political movements emerged: conservatism and liberalism. The word liberalism comes from the Latin “Liberum” (liberum), i.e. related to freedom. The ideas of liberalism were expressed back in the 18th century. in the Age of Enlightenment by Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire. However, this term became widespread in the 2nd decade of the 19th century, although its meaning at that time was extremely vague. Liberalism began to take shape into a complete system of political views in France during the Restoration period.
Supporters of liberalism believed that humanity would be able to move along the path of progress and achieve social harmony only if the principle of private property was the basis for the life of society. The common good, in their opinion, consists of the successful achievement by citizens of their personal goals. Therefore, it is necessary, with the help of laws, to provide people with freedom of action both in the economic sphere and in other areas of activity. The boundaries of this freedom, as stated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, must also be determined by laws. Those. The motto of the liberals was the phrase that later became famous: “everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted.” At the same time, liberals believed that only those people who are able to be responsible for their actions can be free. They included only educated property owners in the category of people who are capable of being responsible for their actions. State actions must also be limited by laws. Liberals believed that power in the state should be divided into legislative, executive and judicial.
In the economic field, liberalism advocated free markets and free competition among entrepreneurs. At the same time, in their opinion, the state did not have the right to interfere in market relations, but was obliged to play the role of a “guardian” of private property. Only in the last third of the 19th century. the so-called “new liberals” began to say that the state should support the poor, curb the growth of inter-class contradictions and achieve general welfare.
Liberals have always been convinced that transformations in the state should be carried out through reforms, but in no case through revolutions. Unlike many other movements, liberalism assumed that there is a place in the state for those who do not support the existing government, who think and speak differently than the majority of citizens, and even differently than the liberals themselves. Those. supporters of liberal views were convinced that the opposition had the right to legitimate existence and even to express its views. She was categorically forbidden only one thing: revolutionary actions aimed at changing the form of government.
In the 19th century Liberalism has become the ideology of many political parties, uniting supporters of the parliamentary system, bourgeois freedoms and freedom of capitalist entrepreneurship. At the same time, there were various forms of liberalism. Moderate liberals considered a constitutional monarchy to be the ideal government system. Radical liberals who sought to establish a republic held a different opinion.
2. Conservatives.
Liberals were opposed by conservatives. The name “conservatism” comes from the Latin word “conservatio”, which means “to guard” or “to preserve.” The more liberal and revolutionary ideas spread in society, the stronger became the need to preserve traditional values: religion, monarchy, national culture, family and order. Conservatives sought to create a state that, on the one hand, would recognize the sacred right of property, and on the other, would be able to protect customary values. At the same time, according to conservatives, authorities have the right to intervene in the economy and regulate its development, and citizens must obey the instructions of government authorities. Conservatives did not believe in the possibility of universal equality. They said: “All people have equal rights, but not the same benefits.” They saw personal freedom in the opportunity to preserve and maintain traditions. Conservatives considered social reforms as a last resort in conditions of revolutionary danger. However, with the development of the popularity of liberalism and the emergence of the threat of losing votes in parliamentary elections, conservatives had to gradually recognize the need for social reforms, as well as accept the principle of state non-interference in the economy. Therefore, as a result, almost all social legislation in the 19th century. was adopted on the initiative of the Conservatives.
3. Socialism.
In addition to conservatism and liberalism in the 19th century. The ideas of socialism are becoming widespread. This term comes from the Latin word “socialis”, i.e. "public". Socialist thinkers saw the full hardship of life for ruined artisans, factory workers and factory workers. They dreamed of a society in which poverty and hostility between citizens would disappear forever, and the life of every person would be protected and inviolable. Representatives of this trend saw private property as the main problem of their contemporary society. The socialist Count Henri Saint-Simon believed that all citizens of the state are divided into “industrialists” engaged in useful creative work and “owners” who appropriate the income of other people’s labor. However, he did not consider it necessary to deprive the latter of private property. He hoped that by appealing to Christian morality, it would be possible to convince owners to voluntarily share their income with their “younger brothers” - the workers. Another supporter of socialist views, Francois Fourier, also believed that in an ideal state classes, private property and unearned income should be preserved. All problems must be solved by increasing labor productivity to a level where wealth is ensured for all citizens. State revenues will have to be distributed among the residents of the country depending on the contribution made by each of them. The English thinker Robert Owen had a different opinion on the issue of private property. He thought that only public property should exist in the state, and money should be abolished altogether. According to Owen, with the help of machines, society can produce a sufficient amount of material wealth, it only needs to distribute it fairly among all its members. Both Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen were convinced that an ideal society awaits humanity in the future. Moreover, the path to it must be exclusively peaceful. Socialists relied on persuasion, development and education of people.
The ideas of the socialists were further developed in the works of the German philosopher Karl Marx and his friend and comrade-in-arms Friedrich Engels. The new doctrine they created was called “Marxism”. Unlike their predecessors, Marx and Engels believed that there is no place for private property in an ideal society. Such a society began to be called communist. Revolution must lead humanity to a new system. In their opinion, this should happen in the following way. With the development of capitalism, the impoverishment of the masses will intensify, and the wealth of the bourgeoisie will increase. The class struggle will become more widespread. It will be led by social democratic parties. The result of the struggle will be a revolution, during which the power of the workers or the dictatorship of the proletariat will be established, private property will be abolished, and the resistance of the bourgeoisie will be completely broken. In the new society, political freedoms and equality of rights for all citizens will not only be established, but also respected. Workers will take an active part in the management of enterprises, and the state will have to control the economy and regulate the processes occurring in it in the interests of all citizens. Each person will receive every opportunity for comprehensive and harmonious development. However, later Marx and Engels came to the conclusion that the socialist revolution is not the only way to resolve social and political contradictions.
4. Revisionism.
In the 90s XIX century There have been great changes in the life of states, peoples, political and social movements. The world has entered a new period of development - the era of imperialism. This required theoretical understanding. Students already know about changes in the economic life of society and its social structure. Revolutions were a thing of the past, socialist thought was experiencing a deep crisis, and the socialist movement was in schism.
The German social democrat E. Bernstein criticized classical Marxism. The essence of E. Bernstein’s theory can be reduced to the following provisions:
1. He proved that the growing concentration of production does not lead to a decrease in the number of owners, that the development of the joint-stock form of ownership increases their number, that, along with monopolistic associations, medium and small enterprises remain.
2. He pointed out that the class structure of society was becoming more complex: middle strata of the population appeared - employees and officials, the number of which was growing in percentage terms faster than the number of hired workers.
3. He showed the increasing heterogeneity of the working class, the existence in it of highly paid layers of skilled workers and unskilled workers, whose work was paid extremely low.
4. He wrote that at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. workers did not yet constitute the majority of the population and were not ready to take on independent management of society. From this he concluded that the conditions for a socialist revolution were not yet ripe.
All of the above shook E. Bernstein’s confidence that the development of society can only proceed along a revolutionary path. It became obvious that the reconstruction of society could be achieved through economic and social reforms carried out through popularly and democratically elected authorities. Socialism can win not as a result of revolution, but in conditions of expansion of voting rights. E. Bernstein and his supporters believed that the main thing was not revolution, but the struggle for democracy and the adoption of laws that ensured the rights of workers. This is how the doctrine of reformist socialism arose.
Bernstein did not consider development towards socialism as the only possible one. Whether development will follow this path depends on whether the majority of people want it, and on whether socialists can lead people to the desired goal.
5. Anarchism.
Criticism of Marxism was also published from the other side. Anarchists opposed him. These were followers of anarchism (from the Greek anarchia - anarchy) - a political movement that proclaimed its goal the destruction of the state. The ideas of anarchism were developed in modern times by the English writer W. Godwin, who in his book “An Inquiry into Political Justice” (1793) proclaimed the slogan “Society without a state!” A variety of teachings were classified as anarchist - both “left” and “right”, a variety of actions - from rebellious and terrorist to the cooperator movement. But all the numerous teachings and speeches of anarchists had one thing in common - the denial of the need for a state.
M.A. Bakunin set before his followers only the task of destruction, “clearing the ground for future construction.” For the sake of this “clearing”, he called on the masses to perform and carry out terrorist acts against representatives of the oppressor class. Bakunin did not know what the future anarchist society would look like and did not work on this problem, believing that the “work of creation” belongs to the future. In the meantime, a revolution was needed, after the victory of which the state should first be destroyed. Bakunin also did not recognize the participation of workers in parliamentary elections or in the work of any representative organizations.
In the last third of the 19th century. The development of the theory of anarchism is associated with the name of the most prominent theorist of this political doctrine, Peter Aleksandrovich Kropotkin (1842-1921). In 1876, he fled from Russia abroad and began publishing the magazine “La Revolte” in Geneva, which became the main printed organ of anarchism. Kropotkin's teachings are called "communist" anarchism. He sought to prove that anarchism is historically inevitable and is a mandatory step in the development of society. Kropotkin believed that state laws interfere with the development of natural human rights, mutual support and equality, and therefore give rise to all sorts of abuses. He formulated the so-called “biosociological law of mutual assistance,” which supposedly determines the desire of people to cooperate rather than fight each other. He considered the ideal of organizing society to be a federation: a federation of clans and tribes, a federation of free cities, villages and communities in the Middle Ages, and modern state federations. What should cement a society in which there is no state mechanism? It was here that Kropotkin applied his “law of mutual assistance,” pointing out that the role of a unifying force would be played by mutual assistance, justice and morality, feelings inherent in human nature.
Kropotkin explained the creation of the state by the emergence of land ownership. Therefore, in his opinion, it was possible to move to a federation of free communes only through the revolutionary destruction of what separates people - state power and private property.
Kropotkin considered man a kind and perfect being, and yet anarchists increasingly used terrorist methods, explosions occurred in Europe and the USA, and people died.
Questions and tasks:
- Fill out the table: “The main ideas of socio-political doctrines of the 19th century.”
Comparison Questions | Liberalism | Conservatism | Socialism (Marxism) | Revisionism | Anarchism |
Role of the state in economic life | |||||
Position on a social issue and ways to solve social problems | |||||
Limits of individual freedom |
- How did representatives of liberalism see the path of development of society? What provisions of their teaching seem relevant to modern society to you?
- How did representatives of conservatism see the path of development of society? Do you think their teachings are still relevant today?
- What caused the emergence of socialist teachings? Are there conditions for the development of socialist teaching in the 21st century?
- Based on the teachings you know, try to create your own project of possible ways for the development of society in our time. What role do you agree to assign to the state? What ways do you see to solve social problems? How do you imagine the limits of individual human freedom?
Liberalism:
the role of the state in economic life: the activities of the state are limited by law. There are three branches of government. The economy has a free market and free competition. The state interferes little in the economy; position on social issues and ways to solve problems: the individual is free. The path of transforming society through reforms. New liberals came to the conclusion that social reforms were necessary
limits of individual freedom: complete personal freedom: “Everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted.” But personal freedom is given to those who are responsible for their decisions.
Conservatism:
the role of the state in economic life: the power of the state is practically unlimited and is aimed at preserving old traditional values. In economics: the state can regulate the economy, but without encroaching on private property
position on social issues and ways to solve problems: they fought for the preservation of the old order. They denied the possibility of equality and brotherhood. But the new conservatives were forced to agree to some democratization of society.
limits of individual freedom: the state subjugates the individual. Individual freedom is expressed in its observance of traditions.
Socialism (Marxism):
the role of the state in economic life: unlimited activity of the state in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In economics: the destruction of private property, free markets and competition. The state completely regulates the economy.
position on a social issue and ways to solve problems: everyone should have equal rights and equal benefits. Solving a social problem through social revolution
limits of individual freedom: the state itself decides all social issues. Individual freedom is limited by the state dictatorship of the proletariat. Labor is required. Private enterprise and private property are prohibited.
Comparison line | Liberalism | Conservatism | Socialism |
Main principles | Providing individual rights and freedoms, maintaining private property, developing market relations, separation of powers | Preservation of strict order, traditional values, private property and strong government power | Destruction of private property, establishment of property equality, rights and freedoms |
The role of the state in economic life | The state does not interfere in the economic sphere | State regulation of the economy | State regulation of the economy |
Attitude to social issues | The state does not interfere in the social sphere | Preservation of estate and class differences | The state ensures the provision of social rights to all citizens |
Ways to solve social issues | Denial of revolution, the path of transformation is reform | Denial of revolution, reform as a last resort | The path of transformation is revolution |