K. Marx presented world history as a natural-historical, natural process of changing socio-economic formations. Using as the main criterion of progress - economic - the type of production relations (first of all, the form of ownership of the means of production), Marx identifies five main economic formations in history: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, bourgeois and communist.

The primitive communal system is the first non-antagonistic socio-economic formation through which all peoples without exception passed. As a result of its decomposition, a transition is made to class, antagonistic formations. Among the early stages of class society, some scientists, in addition to the slave and feudal modes of production, distinguish a special Asian mode of production and the formation corresponding to it. This question remains debatable, open in social science even now.

"Bourgeois relations of production," wrote Karl Marx, "are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production... The prehistory of human society ends with the bourgeois social formation." As K. Marx and F. Engels foresaw, it naturally comes to be replaced by a communist formation that opens a truly human history.

A socio-economic formation is a historical type of society, an integral social system that develops and functions on the basis of its characteristic method of material wealth. Of the two main elements of the production method ( productive forces and production relations) in Marxism, the leading is considered - production relations, they determine the type of mode of production and, accordingly, the type of formation. The totality of the dominant economic relations of production is Basis society. Above the base rises political, legal superstructure . These two elements give an idea of ​​the systemic nature of social relations; serve as a methodological basis in studying the formation structure ( see: scheme 37).

The successive change of socio-economic formations is driven by the contradiction between the new, developed productive forces and the obsolete production relations, which at a certain stage are transformed from forms of development into fetters of the productive forces. On the basis of the analysis of this contradiction, Marx formulated two main regularities for the change of formations.

1. Not a single socio-economic formation perishes before all the productive forces have developed, for which it gives enough scope, and new, higher production relations never appear before the material conditions for their existence have matured in the bosom of the old society.

2. The transition from one formation to another is carried out through a social revolution, which resolves the contradiction in the mode of production ( between productive forces and production relations) and as a result, the whole system of social relations changes.

The theory of socio-economic formation is a method of comprehending world history in its unity and diversity. The successive change of formations forms the main line of human progress, forming its unity. At the same time, the development of individual countries and peoples is characterized by significant diversity, which is manifested in:

- in the fact that not every particular society goes through all the stages ( for example, the Slavic peoples passed the stage of slavery);

· - in the existence of regional features, cultural and historical specifics of the manifestation of common patterns;

- in the presence of various transitional forms from one formation to another; during the transitional period in society, as a rule, various socio-economic structures coexist, representing both the remnants of the old and the embryos of the new formation.

Analyzing the new historical process, K. Marx also identified three main stages ( so-called tripartite:

The theory of socio-economic formation is the methodological basis of modern historical science ( on its basis, a global periodization of the historical process is made) and social science in general.

Dialectics of social development Fedor Konstantinov

1. Socio-economic formation

(The category “socio-economic formation” is the cornerstone of the materialistic rise of history as a natural-historical process of the development of society according to objective laws. Without understanding the deep content of this category, it is impossible to know the essence of human society and its development along the path of progress.

Developing historical materialism as a philosophical science and a general sociological theory, the founders of Marxism-Leninism showed that it is necessary to take as a starting point for the study of society not the individual individuals that make it up, but those social relations that develop between people in the process of their production activity, i.e. before all industrial relations.

For the sake of producing the material goods necessary for life, people inevitably enter into production relations that do not depend on their will, which in turn determine all other - socio-political, ideological, moral, etc. - relations, as well as the development of the person himself as a person. V. I. Lenin noted that “a materialist sociologist who makes certain social relations of people the subject of his study, thereby already studies real personalities, from the actions of which these relations are composed.

Scientific materialistic knowledge of society was developed in the struggle against bourgeois sociology. Bourgeois philosophers and subjectivist sociologists operated with the concepts of "man in general", "society in general". They proceeded not from a generalization of the real activities of people and their interaction, relationships, not from social relations that develop on the basis of their practical activities, but from an abstract "model of society" completed in accordance with the subjective idea of ​​a scientist and supposedly corresponding to human nature. It is natural that such an idealistic concept of society, cut off from the immediate life of people and their real relations, is opposed to its materialistic interpretation.

Historical materialism, when analyzing the category of socio-economic formation, operates with the scientific concept of society. It is used in the analysis of the relationship between society and nature, when the need to maintain an ecological balance between them is considered. It is impossible to do without it when considering both human society as a whole and any specific historical type and stage of its development. Finally, this concept is organically woven into the definition of the subject of historical materialism as the science of the most general laws of the development of society and its driving forces. V. I. Lenin wrote that K. Marx abandoned empty talk about society in general and took up the study of one specific, capitalist formation. However, this does not mean at all that K. Marx will reject the very concept of society. As V. I. Razin notes, he “only spoke out against empty arguments about society in general, beyond which bourgeois sociologists did not go.”

It is impossible to discard the concept of society or oppose it to the concept of "socio-economic formation". This would be contrary to the most important principle of approach to the definition of scientific concepts. This principle, as you know, consists in the fact that the concept being defined must be brought under another, broader in scope, which is generic in relation to the concept being defined. This is a logical rule for defining any concepts. It is quite applicable to the definition of the concepts of society and socio-economic formation. In this case, the generic concept is "society", considered regardless of its specific form and historical stage of development. This was repeatedly noted by K. Marx. “What is society, whatever its form? - K. Marx asked and answered: - The product of the interaction of people. Society "expresses the sum of those connections and relations in which ... individuals are to each other" . Society is "man himself in his social relations".

Being generic in relation to the concept of "socio-economic formation", the concept of "society" reflects the qualitative certainty of the social form of the movement of matter, in contrast to other forms. The category "socio-economic formation" expresses the qualitative certainty of the types and historical stages of the development of society.

Since society is a system of social relations that make up a certain structural integrity, insofar as its knowledge consists in the study of these relations. Criticizing the subjective method of N. Mikhailovsky and other Russian populists, V. I. Lenin wrote: “Where will you get the concept of society and progress in general, when you ... have not even managed to approach a serious factual study, an objective analysis of any kind of social relationship?"

As you know, K. Marx began his analysis of the concept and structure of the socio-economic formation from the study of social relations, primarily production ones. Having singled out from the totality of social relations the main, determining, i.e., material, production relations on which the development of other social relations depends, K. Marx found an objective criterion of repetition in the development of society, which was denied by the subjectivists. The analysis of “material social relations,” noted V. I. Lenin, “immediately made it possible to notice the repetition and correctness and generalize the orders of different countries into one basic concept social formation." The isolation of the general, repeated in the history of different countries and peoples, made it possible to single out qualitatively certain types of society, to present social development as a natural-historical process of the natural progressive movement of society from lower to higher levels.

The category of socio-economic formation simultaneously reflects both the concept of the type of society and the stage of its historical development. In the preface to the work "On the Critique of Political Economy", K. Marx singled out the Asian, ancient, feudal and bourgeois modes of production as progressive epochs of the economic social formation. The bourgeois social formation "completes the prehistory of human society", it is naturally replaced by a communist social economic formation, which opens the true history of mankind. In subsequent works, the founders of Marxism also singled out the primitive communal formation as the first in the history of mankind, which all peoples go through.

This typification of socio-economic formations, created by K. Marx in the 50s of the 19th century, still provided for the presence in history of a specific Asian mode of production and, consequently, the Asian formation that existed on its basis, which took place in the countries of the Ancient East. However, already in the early 80s of the XIX century, when K. Marx and F. Engels developed a definition of the primitive communal and slave-owning formation, they did not use the term "Asiatic mode of production", abandoning this concept itself. In the subsequent works of K. Marx and F. Engels we are talking only about ... five socio-economic ones. formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist.

The construction of a typology of socio-economic formations was based on the brilliant knowledge of K. Marx and F. Engels of historical, economic and other social sciences, because it is impossible to resolve the issue of the number of formations and the order in which they follow without taking into account the achievements of history, economics, politics, law, archeology, etc. . P.

The formational stage that a particular country or region goes through is primarily due to the production relations that dominate in them, which determine the nature of social, political and spiritual relations at this stage of development and the corresponding social institutions. Therefore, V. I. Lenin defined the socio-economic formation as a set of production relations. But of course, he did not reduce the formation only to the totality of production relations, but pointed out the need for a comprehensive analysis of its structure and the interconnections of all aspects of the latter. Noting that the study of the capitalist formation in K. Marx's "Capital" is based on the study of the production relations of capitalism, V. I. Lenin at the same time emphasized that this is only the skeleton of "Capital". He wrote:

“The whole point, however, is that Marx was not satisfied with this skeleton ... that - explaining the structure and development of this social formation exclusively relations of production - nevertheless, everywhere and constantly traced the superstructures corresponding to these relations of production, clothed the skeleton with flesh and blood. "Capital" showed "the reader the entire capitalist social formation as a living one - with its everyday aspects, with the actual social manifestation of class antagonism inherent in production relations, with a bourgeois political superstructure that protects the domination of the capitalist class, with bourgeois ideas of freedom, equality, etc., with bourgeois family relations."

A socio-economic formation is a qualitatively defined type of society at a given stage of its historical development, which represents a system of social relations and phenomena determined by the mode of production and subject to both general and its own specific laws of functioning and development. The category of socio-economic formation, as the most general in historical materialism, reflects all the diversity of aspects of social life at a certain stage of its historical development. The structure of each formation includes both general, characteristic of all formations, and peculiar elements characteristic of a particular formation. At the same time, the decisive role in the development and interaction of all structural elements is played by the mode of production, its inherent production relations, which determine the nature and type of all elements of the formation.

In addition to the mode of production, the most important structural elements of all socio-economic formations are the corresponding economic basis and the superstructure towering above it. In historical materialism, the concepts of base and superstructure serve to distinguish between material (primary) and ideological (secondary) social relations. The basis is a set of production relations, the economic structure of society. This concept expresses the social function of production relations as the economic basis of society, which develops between people, regardless of their consciousness, in the process of production of material goods.

The superstructure is formed on the basis of the economic basis, develops and changes under the influence of the transformations taking place in it, and is its reflection. The superstructure includes the ideas, theories and views of society and the institutions, institutions and organizations that put them into practice, as well as the ideological relations between people, social groups, classes. A feature of ideological relations, in contrast to material ones, is that they pass through the consciousness of people, that is, they are built consciously, in accordance with the ideas, views, needs and interests that guide people.

The most common elements that characterize the structure of all formations should include, in our opinion, the way of life. As K. Marx and F. Engels showed, a way of life is “a certain way of activity of these individuals, a certain type of their life activity”, which is formed under the influence of a mode of production. Representing a set of types of life of people, social groups in the labor, socio-political, family and household, etc. spheres, the way of life is formed on the basis of this mode of production, under the influence of production relations and in accordance with the value orientations and ideals prevailing in society . Reflecting human life activity, the lifestyle category reveals the individual and social groups, primarily as subjects of social relations.

The dominant social relations are inseparable from the way of life. For example, the collectivist way of life in a socialist society is fundamentally opposed to the individualistic way of life under capitalism, which is determined by the opposition of the social relations prevailing in these societies. However, it does not follow from this that the way of life and social relations can be identified, as was sometimes allowed in the works of some sociologists. Such an identification led to the loss of the specificity of the way of life as one of the elements of social formation, to its identification with the formation, replaced this most general concept of historical materialism, reducing its methodological significance for understanding the development of society. The 26th Congress of the CPSU, in determining the paths for the further development of the socialist way of life, noted the need for practical strengthening of its material and spiritual foundations. This should be expressed primarily in the transformation and development of such spheres of life as labor, cultural and living conditions, medical care, trade, public education, physical culture, sports, etc., which contribute to the comprehensive development of the individual.

The mode of production, the basis and superstructure, the way of life are the basic elements of the structure of all formations, but their content is specific to each of them. In any formation, these structural elements have a qualitative certainty, due primarily to the type of production relations that prevail in society, the features of the emergence and development of these elements during the transition to a more progressive formation. Thus, in the conditions of exploiting societies, the structural elements and the relations determined by them have a contradictory, antagonistic character. These elements are already emerging in the bowels of the previous formation, and the social revolution, which marks the transition to a more progressive formation, eliminating obsolete production relations and the superstructure that expressed them (primarily the old state machine), gives room for the development of new relations and phenomena characteristic of the formation that is being established. Thus, the social revolution brings the outdated production relations into line with the productive forces that have grown up in the depths of the old system, which ensures the further development of production and social relations.

The socialist basis, superstructure and way of life cannot arise in the depths of the capitalist formation, since they are based only on socialist relations of production, which in turn are formed only on the basis of socialist ownership of the means of production. As is known, socialist property is established only after the victory of the socialist revolution and the nationalization of bourgeois ownership of the means of production, as well as as a result of the production co-operation of the economy of handicraftsmen and working peasants.

In addition to the noted elements, the structure of the formation includes other social phenomena that affect its development. Among these phenomena, such as family, life, are inherent in all formations and such historical communities of people as clan, tribe, nationality, nation, class, are characteristic only of certain formations.

As mentioned, each formation is a complex set of qualitatively defined social relations, phenomena and processes. They are formed in various spheres of human activity and together make up the structure of the formation. What many of these phenomena have in common is that they cannot be wholly attributed only to the basis or only to the superstructure. Such, for example, are the family, way of life, class, nation, the system of which includes basic - material, economic - relations, as well as ideological relations of a superstructural nature. In order to determine their role in the system of social relations of a given formation, it is necessary to take into account the nature of the social needs that gave rise to these phenomena, to identify the nature of their connections with production relations, and to reveal their social functions. Only such a comprehensive analysis allows one to correctly determine the structure of the formation and the patterns of its development.

To reveal the concept of a socio-economic formation as a stage in the natural historical development of society, the concept of "world historical era" is important. This concept reflects a whole period in the development of society, when, on the basis of a social revolution, a transition is made from one formation to another, more progressive one. During the period of revolution, a qualitative transformation of the mode of production, the basis and superstructure, as well as the way of life and other components of the structure of the formation takes place, the formation of a qualitatively new social organism is carried out, accompanied by the resolution of urgent contradictions in the development of the economic basis and superstructure. “... The development of the contradictions of a known historical form of production is the only historical way of its decomposition and the formation of a new one,” K. Marx noted in Capital.

In the dialectic of the formation and change of socio-economic formations, the unity and diversity of the historical development of mankind finds its expression. The general regularity of the history of mankind is that, in general, all peoples and countries go from the lowest formations in terms of the organization of social life to the highest, forming the main line of the progressive development of society along the path of progress. However, this general regularity manifests itself specifically in the development of individual countries and peoples. This is explained by the uneven pace of development, which arises not only from the peculiarity of economic development, but also "thanks to the infinitely diverse empirical circumstances, natural conditions, racial relations, historical influences acting from outside, etc."

The diversity of historical development is inherent in both individual countries and peoples, and formations. It is manifested in the existence of varieties of individual formations (for example, serfdom is a kind of feudalism); in the peculiarity of the transition from one formation to another (for example, the transition from capitalism to socialism involves a whole transitional period, during which a socialist society is created);

in the possibility for individual countries and peoples to bypass certain formations (for example, in Russia there was no slave-owning formation, and Mongolia and some developing countries passed the era of capitalism).

The experience of history shows that in transitional historical epochs a new socio-economic formation is first established in individual countries or groups of countries. So, after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the world split into two systems, the formation of the communist formation in Russia began. Following our country, a number of countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa embarked on the path of transition from capitalism to socialism. V. I. Lenin's prediction that "the destruction of capitalism and its traces, the introduction of the foundations of the communist order is the content of the new era of world history that has now begun" was fully confirmed. The main content of the modern era is the transition from capitalism to socialism and communism on a worldwide scale. The countries of the socialist community are today the leading force and determine the main direction of the social progress of all mankind. At the forefront of the socialist countries is the Soviet Union, which, having built a developed socialist society, has entered "a necessary, regular and historically long period in the formation of the communist formation." The stage of a developed socialist society is the pinnacle of social progress in our time.

Communism is a classless society of complete social equality and social homogeneity, which ensures a harmonious combination of public and personal interests and the all-round development of the individual as the highest goal of this society. Its implementation will be in the interests of all mankind. The communist formation is the last form of the human race, but not because the development of history stops there. In its essence, its development excludes the socio-political revolution. Under communism, the contradictions between the productive forces and production relations will remain, but they will be resolved by society without leading to the need for a social revolution, the overthrow of the old system and its replacement by a new one. Revealing and resolving emerging contradictions in a timely manner, communism as a formation will develop indefinitely.