The development of capitalism in Russia and other countries gave rise to the problem of its typology. Modern methodology has expanded this problem into the concept of three echelons. According to this concept, we can talk about three models (echelons) of the development of world capitalism:
1) - echelon of developed, classical capitalism - England, France, USA, Canada, Australia;
2) - the echelon of the formation of bourgeois relations intertwined with other economic structures - Russia, Japan, Austria, the Balkan states;
3) - the echelon of the states of Asia, Africa, partially Latin America, which by the beginning of the 20th century found themselves in the position of colonies and semi-colonies of the great powers.
The countries of the second echelon, including Russia, are characterized by a special type of capitalism, the formation of which is characterized by a much late beginning (XVIII - mid-XIX centuries) with weakly expressed socio-economic, political and legal bourgeois formational prerequisites. The formation of bourgeois structures in Russia took place in a shorter time with the intensive participation of foreign capital. All this led society to great and prolonged social tension, permanent contradictions and conflicts.
Historical science has accumulated vast factual and historiographical material on the history of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but its understanding is still not completely clear. The reason: the crisis state of Russian historical science, which manifested itself in a sharply negative attitude towards non-Marxist historiography, intolerance towards differences in opinions of intra-Marxist historical science, in the desire for unanimity and dogmatism of historical thinking, implanted by the political regime. Many professional historians for a long time turned historical science into a "servant of politics".
History is not mistaken, the one who interprets it at his own discretion is mistaken, creating historical myths and new historical dogmas, passing them off as "the truth of history." Many questions of the Russian history of the era of imperialism and popular revolutions are currently in need of rethinking and more in-depth development. Scientists-historians faced a responsible and difficult task - to seek and find the only historical truth in the conditions of pluralism of opinions and many-sided misconceptions. To study the history of Russia of this time, a systematic approach is important, which includes two points: 1) consideration Russian society late XIX - early XX century. as a system of economic, social, political relations and 2) consideration of Russian history in the context of world history, a history that is united, but multivariate.
The study of the era of imperialism and popular revolutions in the history of our Fatherland is very instructive and difficult, since it was the time of a gigantic social earthquake on 1/6 of the earth's land. Russia is an extraordinarily complex and variegated country in all respects, and especially in economic and national terms. Until the 90s of the 20th century, most historians and other social scientists directed their main efforts not to studying a complex of historical facts and an objective analysis of the most complex economic, social and political processes of the era, but to finding and substantiating the objective and subjective prerequisites for the October Revolution of 1917 .
Thus, a multifactorial approach to history was ignored, which led to a deformation of the image of its real processes. The stereotype of equating and pulling Russia up in terms of capitalist development to the level of highly developed countries of Western Europe and America has taken root. From a country of “medium weak” development of capitalism, it was turned into a country of “an average level of development of capitalism, economically ripe for socialism. All this was done in order to justify the high degree of maturity of the socio-economic preconditions for the October Revolution of 1917.
True, not all historians and social scientists unconditionally shared the above point of view on the level of Russia's economic development at the beginning of the 20th century. Back in 1969, a group of historians (P.V. Volobuev, K.N. Tarnovsky, A.M. Anfimov, I.F. Gindin, M.Ya. Gefter, etc.), thoroughly exploring the fundamental issues of socio-economic development of the country, concluded that pre-revolutionary Russia remained a backward capitalist country that had not completed its formational bourgeois restructuring. They did not consider Russia at that time to be a classical imperialist country, ready in a short period of time through a revolution to take a natural step towards socialism.
Supporters of this so-called "new direction" argued that Russian capitalism was significantly influenced by pre-capitalist socio-economic structures. In Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, according to them, such different socio-economic structures were intricately intertwined: monopoly capitalism, private capitalism, semi-serfdom, small-scale production (most of the peasants selling bread), subsistence and patriarchal forms of economy. There was also a special state structure (the treasury had 140 million acres of land in the European part of Russia, 350 million acres of forests and another 2/3 of the railway network). Corresponding forms of social relations and exploitation were associated with these ways.
Representatives of the “new direction” also distinguish a type of capitalist evolution that is special for Russia, with a peculiar rearrangement of the phases of development: the agrarian-bourgeois revolution remained unfinished, while industrial revolution has been completed. All this testified, in their opinion, only to a very relative maturity of the Russian capitalist mode of production, in which the transition to socialism is theoretically possible. They well mastered the figurative statement on this issue by G. V. Plekhanov: “Russian history has not yet ground the flour from which the wheat pie of socialism will be baked in time.”
The above two views of Soviet historians on the process of capitalist modernization of Russia are evidence of different stages in the study of this cardinal problem in the history of our Fatherland. And if we discard a significant share of ideologization and politicization from the first concept (equating Russia in socio-economic terms with the advanced countries of the West) and partially underestimating the monopolization of the Russian economy at the beginning of the 20th century from the second, then we can roughly imagine the process of the formation of capitalism in Russia.
This process began almost two centuries ago. But a noticeable change was given to him by the reforms of the 60-70s of the XIX century. On the way to capitalism there were many obstacles economic, political and legal order: the long existence of serfdom, the monopoly of the nobility on landed property, increased colonization of the outskirts of the country, contributing to the conservation of feudal relations, numerous wars and, finally, the absence of political and legal prerequisites due to the strong domination of the absolute monarchy.
However, the forces of economic development (internal and external), the formation of the world market, the military-economic and technical backwardness of the country, the imminent crisis at the turn of the 1850s-1860s. forced tsarism to abolish serfdom and open the way to a new capitalist formation. But the transition to the capitalist mode of production in Russia took place in an evolutionary way, while maintaining the absolutist state, which largely determined the form and nature of bourgeois transformations, the features of capitalist evolution in Russia.
Among these features are: the historically short time frame (post-reform 40th anniversary) of capitalist development, a peculiar combination of spontaneous processes of the formation of capitalism "from below" with an active patronizing government policy "from above" to accelerate the development of railway transport and individual sectors of the national economy. The latter manifested itself in direct state-capitalist entrepreneurship, in issuing large government orders at inflated prices, attracting foreign capital on a large scale, acting as a "locomotive", "tractor" industrial development, in the regulation of finances, in the customs policy that protected Russian industry from competition.
The process of modernization of the country, which began intensively at the end of the 19th century, is largely associated with the political practice of the outstanding statesman and reformer S. Yu. Witte. In the then conditions of Russia, he actively develops and implements the principles of development national economy. In practice, they were embodied in the implementation of a protectionist trade policy (a single customs tariff of 1891), the creation of favorable conditions for foreign investment(railway construction, incentive measures for industry, stable National currency- the golden ruble), in the pursuit of political stabilization (the liberal course to create representative institutions and guarantee political freedoms). Witte's reforms were not completely completed, since they were largely apex in nature and were carried out on the basis of slowly changing traditional agrarian relations.
However, tsarism, while promoting bourgeois transformations, at the same time zealously guarded its prerogatives, the economic and political privileges of the ruling class of noble landowners.
Such a policy and practice of the autocratic state, while preserving the remnants of feudal society, led to a violation of the natural-historical sequence of the formation of the forms and order of the capitalist mode of production, to a sharp shift in its stages (stages) of development. In Western countries, railway construction was the result of an industrial revolution and in this sense crowned the final transformation of capitalist production. In Russia, in the 60-70s, even before the completion of the industrial revolution, large-scale railway construction began, which laid the foundations of capitalist industry and was one of the reasons for the transition in a number of cases to factory production without going through the manufacturing stage.
By the 80s of the 19th century, the industrial revolution was completed in many industries in Russia, and in the 90s it experienced a period of industrial upsurge. Over the years, with a large-scale infusion of foreign capital and technology, an industrial potential has been created in the country that is sufficient to ensure military, political and, to a large extent, economic security, but still insufficient to maintain a high standard of living for the population.
In the 1890s, the industrial development of the country (the first industrialization) caused its industrial production to double. The output of heavy industry increased almost three times, light industry - 1.6 times. Iron smelting increased from 45 million poods to 165 million poods, steel production - from 16 million poods to 116 million poods. total cost engineering products increased by 3.7 times, and the number of steam locomotives produced by 10 times. Oil production reached 550 million poods (an increase of 2.9 times), as a result of which, according to this indicator, Russia came out on top in the world. Coal mining increased 2.2 times. From 1893 to 1900, the country was built railways more than 20 previous years(the total length of the railway network by the beginning of the 20th century was about 50 thousand miles). In terms of the total length of roads, Russia has taken second place in the world, second only to the United States. In general, over the post-reform 40th anniversary, the total volume of industrial production in the country increased by almost 8 times.
With the beginning of the 20th century, new processes in economic development also come: the crisis of 1899 - 1903, then the depression and revolution of 1905 - 1907, and only in 1909, after a long stagnation, a new, second industrial upsurge (second industrialization) began in Russia, which continued until 1914. Over the years, industrial production has increased by almost one and a half times.
How can such a rapid rate of industrial growth be explained? Relatively low initial level data Russian economy in the middle of the 19th century; the possibility of wide use of the technical and organizational experience of the developed capitalist states; inflow and use of foreign capital, huge labor and natural resources. A significant part of foreign capital was directed to the development of heavy industry. And this accelerated the process of industrialization of Russia.
However, foreign capital failed to fully adapt the development of the Russian economy to their own interests or turn it into a "banana empire". Russia did not become either a colony or a semi-colony, as some Soviet historians of the Stalin era claimed. She retained the position of an equal state with others.
An important indicator capitalist development of industrial production was its concentration, which accelerated significantly at the beginning of the 20th century. Large enterprises and associations were replaced by even larger ones. The concentration concerned both the organization of production itself, the growth of its fixed capital, and the labor force. By the beginning of the 20th century, the concentration of workers in Russia reached such proportions that no other country in the world could compete with it. In 1903, 48.7% of all workers in Russia worked at large enterprises with more than 500 workers (there were 4% of the total number of enterprises in the country at that time).
However, in Russia there was a concentration of two different types: capitalist proper, associated with technical progress (new industries, industrial regions. South, Baku) and concentration generated by the semi-feudal system of industry (the Urals) and, in general, the cheapness of labor as a result of agrarian overpopulation.
The concentration of production led to a great growth of monopoly associations, which in the early 1900s established themselves in all the main branches of Russian industry. In total, in Russia in 1904 there were up to 50 large monopoly associations. Including: syndicates: Prodamet, Gvozd, Prodvagon, sugar producers; the Prodparovoz, Produgol, Nobel-Mazut cartels, pipe-rolling plants, etc. Monopoly unions became one of the foundations of Russia's economic life before the first Russian revolution.
The size of the operations of these associations is given, for example, by the Prodamet syndicate - a company for the sale of products of Russian metallurgical plants. It united 30 factories and monopolized more than 4/5 of the products of the Russian metallurgical industry. The Produgol syndicate controlled 70% of coal production in the Donets Basin. The “Prodvagon” syndicate united all the factories that produced cars for the broad gauge.
The marketing monopoly associations of the cartel and syndicate type that arose in the conditions of the crisis and depression (1899 - 1908) by the beginning of a new, pre-war industrial boom of 1909 - 1914. not only did not fall apart, but were modernized accordingly. The new industrial upsurge demonstrated very high rates of development: the average annual growth of all industrial output amounted to 8.8%. According to this indicator, Russia came out on top in the world. In 1909 -1913. industrial production increased almost 1.5 times, the production of means of production amounted to 84%, and consumer goods - 33%.
From 1900 to 1916 (and especially from 1910 to 1916) there was a further process of concentration and monopolization of production, an increase in the role of large firms, and the merging of industrial and banking capital. By 1914, there were already more than 150 large syndicates and cartels in Russia.
At the same time, the nature of monopolization was changing: monopolistic associations of a combined type were created, uniting the entire production process - trusts and concerns.
During the First World War, the process of socialization of production deepened, further development monopoly capital, there is a merging of monopolies with the state apparatus. And as a result, state-monopoly capitalism is born.
In parallel with the concentration of production and industrial capital, the accelerated formation of a banking system serving industry and trade continued. At the beginning of the 20th century, in addition to the State Bank with its 122 offices and branches and 727 treasuries, there were 40 joint-stock commercial banks, 192 mutual credit societies, and 255 urban public banks. In banking, a significant role belonged to foreign capital. He took over the organization of the loan. In 1913, out of 19 large banks, 11 were actually founded by foreigners.
From 1901 to 1913, 22 new joint-stock commercial banks arose in Russia, which accounted for 2/3 of the private banks established over the previous almost 40 years.
In 1901, 87 joint-stock companies were opened
1902 - 55
1903 - 51
1904 - 51
1905 - 36
1906 - 64
1907 - 90
1908 - 79
1909 - 81
1910 - 129
1911 - 165
1912 - 238
1913 - 242
Powerful banking monopolies developed especially rapidly during the industrial boom from 1909 to 1914. Among them, the largest were the Russian-Asian and St. Petersburg international, Azov-Don commercial. Russian-commercial-industrial banks. The high concentration of banking capital was evidenced by the fact that 80% of the main assets and liabilities of all 50 joint-stock banks of Russia were concentrated in the 12 largest banks, they participated in more than 90% of financing and industrial credit operations.

The capitalist restructuring of the agrarian system in Russia in the post-reform era up to 1917 appears before historians in all its complexity and inconsistency. The peasant reform of 1861, carried out by the landlords themselves, headed by the tsar, did not carry out a radical purge of the feudal order, retained the economic privileges and political dominance of the nobility. The most significant feudal vestiges of the reform of 1861 were the preservation of landownership, cuts, redemption payments, the labor system of class land use, the peasant community and the tsarist autocracy. The conditions for the emancipation of the peasants did not give the necessary scope for the development of peasant economy and agricultural production along the capitalist path. The agrarian system of Russia, even at the beginning of the 20th century, was a complex combination of semi-serfdom, early capitalist and proper capitalist farms and forms of ownership.
The disputes of agrarian historians were mainly on the issue of determining the level of development of agrarian capitalism in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Until the 1950s, many agrarian historians argued that by the end of the 19th century capitalist relations had become dominant in the country as a whole. Such conclusions, apparently, should have served as proof of the capitalist maturity of the country's economy for the possibility of a socialist revolution.
A well-founded agrarian historian A.M. Anfimov. On the basis of scrupulous studies of various sources, he convincingly proved that, right up to the First World War, in the agricultural system of European Russia, semi-serfdom still prevailed over capitalist ones. In the 1970s, this problem was again subjected to a much deeper and more detailed analysis. Some historians (academician I. D. Kovalchenko and others) came to the conclusion that “in the internal structure of the landlord economy of European Russia, the capitalist organization of production occupied a dominant position everywhere” with “simultaneous organic interweaving of capitalist and semi-feudal relations”. There was a social dualism of the landowners, who were at the same time capitalist-agrarians and semi-feudal lords.
At present, historians agree that the process of capitalist development in the post-reform Russian countryside, of course, went on, but slowly, both in landowners and peasant farms, approaching a new capitalist formation. In real history, this process was very complex and contradictory. Through the obstacles of serfdom, commodity-money relations penetrated, capitalist principles were formed in the agrarian system of Russia.
After the abolition of serfdom, 4/5 of the allotment lands ended up in communal land ownership, and this situation was almost completely preserved until the first decade of the 20th century. This was a brake on the path of capitalist agrarian evolution. The community was responsible for paying taxes, rural gatherings determined the amount of taxes between members of the community, divided the land between them. The community could take away allotments from the debtors, subject them to corporal punishment by the verdict of the volost court.
Communal landownership was characterized by such survivals of serfdom as forced crop rotation, insignificant and infertile plots of land, striped land, lack of meadows, pastures, forests, mutual responsibility. Contrary to the logic of economic development, tsarism tried to preserve the pseudo-equalizing community, thereby forcibly retaining the most painful patriarchal forms of oppression and property inequality, continuing the monstrous proportions of tax robbery of the peasants.
The peasantry of Russia was suffocated by the lack of land, which became even more aggravated by the beginning of the 20th century due to the growth of the rural population by 40 million. By 1897, the piece of land that was left to the peasant after liberation became almost half as much (2.6 acres per male soul instead of 4.8 acres). The allotment not only did not provide for expanded production, but could not even fully satisfy the current expenses of the peasant. All this hindered the formation of capitalist relations in the Russian countryside.
Nevertheless, these relationships were becoming a reality in agriculture. What testified to this? First, by the beginning of the 20th century, a noticeable growth in commercial and entrepreneurial landownership and the associated specialization of individual economic regions of the country had already been determined. The steppe provinces of the South and the Trans-Volga region were finally defined as areas for the production of grain for the market, mainly for export. Northern, Baltic and Central provinces became areas of cattle breeding and dairy farming. The northwestern provinces specialized in the production of flax, and the cultivation of sugar beet was concentrated in Ukraine and the Central Black Earth Zone.
Secondly, for 32 years (from 1877 to 1910) the area of ​​peasant private land ownership increased by 3.2 times.
Thirdly, by the beginning of the 20th century. in Russia there were already 570 advanced (for that time) landlord capitalist farms with a land area of ​​up to about 6 million acres. They employed hundreds and even thousands of hired agricultural workers.
Fourthly, the role of wealthy peasants in the supply of grain to the market, and in general the level of marketability of the produced grain, has increased. In 1909 - 1913. the peasant economy prevailed in the production of gross grain (88%) and in the production of marketable grain (78.4% against 21.6% for the landowners).
Fifth, after the revolution of 1905-1907. The number of all kinds of cooperatives grew very rapidly in the country. At the end of 1916 in Russia there were 35,000 consumer cooperatives with 11.5 million members, 16,000 credit cooperatives with 10.5 million members, and 5,700 production artels and partnerships with. 1.8 million members, etc. In 1908, the first All-Russian Congress of Cooperators took place. Cooperation itself under capitalism had a capitalist character.
Individual historians, and mainly writers and publicists, reacting vividly to the current political situation, began to prove (without sufficient arguments) that the time from 1907 to 1917 was a time of upsurge and prosperity. At the same time, reference is made to the large export of bread abroad.
Russia exported and sold a lot of grain abroad, but this was done at the expense of a forced decrease in grain stocks within the country. So, in the USA, Argentina and Canada "together" after the export of grain for export, 59 poods of bread per capita remained at home, and in Russia - 28 poods - half as much. All this testifies that the agrarian wagon, "led" by the tsarist autocracy and the landowners-latifundists, did not go far up the mountain of agrarian Russian capitalism and got stuck in the mud of serfdom halfway.
Even such significant historical events as the first Russian revolution and the subsequent Stolypin agrarian reform did not fundamentally solve the agrarian issue. By 1917, the country's agriculture had not gone through formational bourgeois restructuring, although the Stolypin agrarian reform objectively contributed to some growth in the productive forces of the peasant economy.
Large-scale agrarian reform is associated with the name of P.A. Stolypin, but basically it was prepared by S.Yu. Witte and prominent tsarist officials A.V. Krivoshein and A.A. Rit-quiet in 1902-1904. Their proposals provided for the gradual individualization and intensification of the peasant economy and its transformation into a system of small private property based on hamlets and family farms. But only the onslaught of the revolution, which raised the issue of alienating landowners' estates and allocating land to the peasants, as well as the coming to power of P.A. Stolypin led to radical attempts to finally solve the agrarian question in Russia through the destruction of the community and the introduction of allotment lands into capitalist circulation.
P.A. Stolypin stressed that the government is relying on strong and strong middle peasants - the future social support for further reforms and. building the foundation of civil society. The agrarian reform provided for fundamental changes in the life of the peasantry, the most numerous class of Russian society. It was necessary not just to change the foundations of land tenure, but the whole system of life, the psychology of the communal peasantry with its collectivism, the equalizing principle of land use.
However, the attempt of the outstanding tsarist reformer P.A. Stolypin to lead to the establishment of large-scale peasant entrepreneurship in Russia did not achieve the goal. The fact is that the reform itself was carried out in a bourgeois-conservative version, while maintaining the autocracy and the nobility. Its goals boiled down mainly to the forcible destruction of the rural community and the planting of farms and cuts, and the creation in the Russian countryside of a wide layer of independent peasant proprietors leading an entrepreneurial economy. “A strong personal owner,” said Stolypin, “is necessary for the reorganization of our kingdom, its reorganization on strong monarchical foundations.” Stolypin stood at the origins of Russian farming. All of Stolypin's reformist activities were ultimately supposed to save Russia from the impending revolution.
Stolypin's agrarian reform failed. Why?
Firstly, because it was impossible to provide the new owners - "farmers" with the necessary amount of land for the organization of a highly productive economy, leaving intact the main obstacle hindering the agrarian capitalist development of Russia - the landownership of large landowners.
Secondly, the new owners were left with little or no government assistance. There was open and covert resistance to the reform of the autocracy.
Thirdly, free farming could not be born in the absence of democracy, in an environment of severe police terror, mass arrests, exiles and executions. Count S.Yu. was right. Witte, saying that "individual property was introduced ... not by voluntary consent, but by force, without a lawful judicial organization worked out for these private peasant owners." This new peasant law was imbued with a police spirit.
Fourthly, the reformers' attempt to "storm" the peasant community, resorting to violent and bureaucratic methods, often provoked a rebuff from the community members. The peasants for the most part opposed the implementation of the reform, they often burned farms, arranged grasses and mowing at the cutters. The results of the reform were affected by the lack of sufficient incentives for the peasants to leave the community, the inability to manage individually, like a farmer, at their own peril and risk.
Fifthly, such important instruments for the destruction of the community and the planting of small personal property as the Peasant Bank and the resettlement of peasants beyond the Urals did not fully justify the hopes.
Among some historians, and even more so publicists, there is still a version about the failure of the reform due to the lack of peacetime for its implementation. At the same time, they refer to Stolypin's statement: "Give the state 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today's Russia."
This rosy alternative did not take place, because, in fact, Stolypin's agrarian reform failed even before the start of the First World War. This is evidenced by the data on the consolidation of land into personal property: out of 14.6 million peasant households (but the 1916 census), farms accounted for 2.3%, and cuts - 9.1%.

It is easy to see that the curve of exits from the community went down sharply long before the war.
Despite the failure in the main, the agrarian reform, having opened the "last valve" for the development of capitalism while maintaining landownership and tsarist autocracy, markedly intensified the ongoing at the beginning of the 20th century. processes of capitalist evolution in Russia. The position of the rural bourgeoisie, which supplied half of the grain to the domestic market, somewhat strengthened. It was the beginning of the legal registration of land ownership, the number of owners of which has grown and focused on entrepreneurial activity. The Stolypin reform contributed to the proletarianization of part of the peasantry. It awakened the initiative of the peasantry and zemstvos and thereby contributed to the agrarian and technical reorganization of the Russian countryside.
But under those conditions, the reform could not resolve the peasant question of land, and therefore the struggle against large-scale landownership remained the very essence of the coming new bourgeois-democratic revolution that broke out in February 1917.
About P.A. Stolypin, as a reformer and statesman, has been written a lot over the past 5-6 years by those who are completely delighted with his work, and by those who judge it in a balanced or even negative way. We consider it appropriate to give a word about him to his contemporaries:
Nicholas II: "Stolypin is my faithful servant, a valiant performer of his duty"; IN AND. Lenin: “Stolypin is a hanger. Stolypin was the head of the government of the counter-revolution. Stolypin is a pogromist. Stolypin knew how to cover up the Asian "practice" of torture and pogroms with gloss and phrases, poses and gestures, faked for European ones.
V.A. Maklakov (right-wing cadet, deputy of the 1st-3rd State Dumas): "Stolypin sought to cut the revolutionary roots."
A. I. Guchkov (leader of the Octobrists): “Stolypin is called upon to save Russia from revolution. He loved Russia. Broad and distinctive nature. It did not fit into the framework of existing party views.”
V. V. Shulgin (ideologist of the monarchical large nobility, deputy of the II-IV State Dumas): “Strong, confident, not losing courage. He tamed 400 Duma deputies with words like red-hot iron. With great dignity and seriousness, he outlined the plan of reforms in the Duma, where before him sat “animals dressed in“ jackets ”, hopelessly stupid, with anger in their eyes. In essence, in the Second Duma only Stolypin was the real palladin of power. He sought by all means to reconcile Russia.
A.V. Tyrkova-Williams (member of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party): “But Stolypin is much larger than Milyukov. Stolypin considered the calming of the country and the fight against anarchy to be the first task. Under him, relations between the authorities and public opinion were very much aggravated. The mere appearance of Stolypin on the podium immediately aroused hostile feelings, swept away any possibility of an agreement ... His confidence in his rightness infuriated the opposition. But he threw a remark into the hall: “Do not intimidate!”
The Avanti newspaper of September 14, 1911 (Italy): “The Russian revolution offered Stolypin 5 years of truce in order to carry out reforms. Stolypin accepted the armistice in order to kill, hang, exile, organize pogroms, disperse the Duma, close schools, universities, destroy newspapers; sinister minister of the sinister tsar, confidant of the Russian despot Nicholas II.

The degree of penetration of capitalist relations into geographically different regions of a vast Russian Empire was far from the same. And this happened because the Russian metropolis, formed by the provinces of Central European Russia, was merged (as history would like) into single complex with dependent territories of different economic status:
a) colonies "in the economic sense", populated by immigrants from the metropolis and representing areas of developed agricultural production (southern and southeastern outskirts of European Russia, Siberia);
b) colonies of the "purest type", the indigenous population of which was at the stage of predominantly feudal relations, was only just being drawn into commodity circulation by Russian capitalism (Central Asia, Kazakhstan, the Caucasus);
c) areas that constituted a kind of reserve zone for the development of Russian capitalism (the north of European Russia);
d) areas "directly dependent politically", which were approximately at the same level of economic development with the metropolis (the Kingdom of Poland, the Baltic States, Finland). Here, as well as in the Ukraine, the commodity economy was much more developed, the local bourgeoisie was more developed, the "bourgeoisization" of the peasants and workers proceeded more rapidly.
A brief analysis of the post-reform economic development (1861-1917) gives grounds for drawing some conclusions.
I. In these short periods of time (a little over 50 years), Russia has passed a significant part of its capitalist path of development. It was a special, new type of capitalist evolution, both in terms of the form and order of this development. By 1917, Russia came as a country with a moderately weak level of development of capitalism, tk. the most developed forms of capitalism covered mainly large-scale industry, banking system and had little effect on agriculture. In the context of the continued preservation of the remnants of feudal society, the country's economy was of a multistructural nature, which hampered the development of capitalism and caused sharp economic and social contradictions.
II. In the system of world capitalism, Russia was economically a country of the “second echelon”, because. the newest capitalism was intertwined here with the network of pre-capitalist relations. Industrializing Russia depended on Western European capital, but at the same time exploited the colonies of Central Asia.
Both the volume of industrial production per capita and labor productivity in the industrial sector were significantly less than in Great Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. In 1913, the Russian national income per capita was: 2/5 French, 1/3 German, 1/5 British, 1/8 American national income.
The gap between Russia and other great powers in terms of per capita national income between 1861 and 1913. increased. By 1913, Russian agriculture was inferior to the five leading European states in terms of productivity, in terms of output per worker employed in the agricultural sector, in terms of the range of products.
That is why an attempt to embellish the socio-economic state of pre-revolutionary Russia is untenable. Even the well-known emigrant monarchist, philosopher and historian I. Solonevich in his book “People's Monarchy” draws attention to this inconsistency: “One of the most stupid things that some foreign monarchists do is an attempt to present Russia before 1917 as a paradise. No one will believe in any paradise now... Until 1917, Russia was probably the poorest country in European culture. Indeed, the gap between poverty and wealth was a gaping gap, and the same gaping gap was the gap between the sophisticated hothouse culture of the "top" and the remnants of complete lack of culture on the bottom ... "The features of Russia's economic development were reflected in the social structure of society. In 1913, out of the 160 million population of Russia, about 3 million constituted the hierarchical elite, consisting of 100 thousand noble families (only 0.5 million people), 2 million (with family members) bourgeois owners of more than 200 thousand industrial and trade enterprises, more than 1 million persons engaged in mental labor (teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, officers, etc.). Of these, 130 thousand had a higher education. social forces the outgoing feudal serf system gradually weakened both economically and politically, but the classes and other social strata of the developing capitalist society grew noticeably. The economic and social role of the big industrial and financial bourgeoisie, which, in cooperation with the autocracy, aspired to increase its political influence, increased. By 1917, a powerful social base for a bourgeois-democratic alternative to the development of society had developed in Russia. But, as history will later show, she was not given the opportunity to realize her potential.
The multinational Russian proletariat was intensively formed (on a hereditary basis, as well as at the expense of ruined peasants, artisans and handicraftsmen) and grew numerically, concentrated to a large extent on large and largest enterprises of the country. About 10 million people were employed in industrial production, construction, railway transport, and domestic trade (6.4 million hired workers, mainly in industry and railway transport, the rest were small artisans and those who were employed in the summer agriculture).
Most of the population 66.7% were the middle strata of the population, most of whom were peasants. Their transformation into a class of bourgeois society was hindered by the oppression of the autocracy, the landowners, and inconsistent economic reforms. Nevertheless, about 9 million peasants left the villages for seasonal agricultural work, construction and logging.
The problem of modernizing the country has long worried Russian society. For more than two centuries, starting with the reforms of Peter I, through the “golden lawsuit” of Catherine II, the Great Reforms of Alexander II, and significant transformations of outstanding Russian reformers of the early 20th century - S.Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin, a modernization process was unfolding in Russia. It was not easy going, combining original soil and Western features, but did not bring Russia into the ranks of technologically highly developed powers.
By 1917 Russia had not reached the level of advanced European countries and had not turned into a state with a highly efficient economy. Moreover, the reforms undertaken by the monarchical government in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries proved unable to stop the rapidly growing revolutionary process, which escalated into three revolutions over 12 years.
These revolutions clearly confirmed the inability of the autocratic power to solve a set of tasks now called "modernization" (industrialization, the resolution of the agrarian issue, the destruction of the cultural poverty of the vast majority of the population, the reorganization of the power system, etc.). All this, ultimately, led to the death of the monarchy.

Sources and literature

Avrekh A.N. Stolypin N.A. and the fate of reforms in Russia. - M., 1991.
Ananyich B.V., Ganelin R.Sh. The Crisis of Power in Russia: Reforms and the Revolutionary Process. 1905-1917 // History of the USSR. - 1991. -№2.
Ananyich B.V. S.Yu. Witte and P.A. Stolypin - Russian reformers of the XX century // Zvezda. - 1995. - No. 6. Anatomy of a revolution: masses, party, power. - St. Petersburg. 1994.
Anfimov A.N. Shadow of Stolypin over Russia // History of the USSR. - 1991. - No. 4.
Bovykin V.I. Russia on the eve of great achievements. - M., 1988.
Borodin A.P. Council of State and Decree November 9, 1906
From the history of Stolypin's agrarian reform // Patriotic history. - 1994. - No. 2.
Bokhanov A.N. The big bourgeoisie in Russia late XIX V. - 1914) - M., 1992.
Volobuev P.V. Choice of ways of social development: theory, history and modernity. - M., 1987.
Questions of the history of capitalist Russia. Problems m7nogo-stylization. - Sverdlovsk, 1972.
Dongarov A.G. Foreign capital in Russia and the USSR. - M., 1990.
Dyakin B.C. Bourgeoisie, nobility and tsarism in 1911-1914. - L., 1988.
Dyakonova I.A. Research on the history of Russian imperialism (economics and politics of tsarist Russia) // History of the USSR. - 1993. - No. 3.
The historical experience of three Russian revolutions. - Prince. 1. - M., 1985; Book. II. - M., 1986.
Izmestieva T.F. Russia in the system of the European market (late XIX - early XX century). - M., 1990.
Ivanovna. Industrial center of Russia. 1907-1914 Statistical and economic research. - M., 1995.
Crisis of autocracy in Russia. 1895-1917. - L., 1984.
Kovalchenko I.D. Some questions of methodology // New and recent history. - 1991. - № 5.
Laverychev V.Ya. Military state-monopoly capitalism in Russia. - M., 1988.
Lenin V.I. The development of capitalism in Russia // PSS. - T. 3.
Lenin V.I. The last valve // ​​PSS. - T. 22.
Lenin V.I. Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism // PSS. - T. 27.
Lenin V.I. Impending catastrophe and how to deal with it // PSS. - T-34.
Lubsky A.V. Introduction to the study of the history of Russia in the period of imperialism. - M., 1991.
Monopolies and the economic policy of tsarism in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. - L., 1987.
Unknown Russia: XX century. - Prince. 1-3. - M., 1992-1993.
Polikarpov V.D. "New direction" in the old reading // Questions of history. - 1989. - No. 3.
Reform or revolution? Russia in 1861-1917 - St. Petersburg, 1992.
Reforms in Russia in the 19th-20th Centuries: Western Models and the Prussian Response // Domestic History. - 1996. - No. 2.
Speeches by P. A. Stolypin. - M. 1991.
Russia, 1917: Choosing a Historical Path ("Round Table" of October Historians, October 22-23, 1988). - M., 1989.
Solovyov Yu.B. Autocracy and the nobility in 1907-1916. - L., 1990. Stolypin P.A. We need a great Russia. 1906-1911. - M., 1991.
Semennikova A.I. Russia in the world community of civilizations: tutorial for universities. - Bryansk, 1995.
Tarnovsky K.N. Socio-economic history of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. - M., 1990.
Tarnovsky K.N. Small industry in Russia in the late XIX - early XX century. M.: - Nauka, 1995.
Shatsillo K. F. Nicholas II: reforms or revolution // History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, decisions: Essays on the history of the Soviet state. - M., 1991.
Shatsillo K.F. State and monopolies in the military industry (late XIX - 1914) - M., 1992.
Shatsillo K.F. State industry of tsarist Russia // Svobodnaya thought. - 1992. - No. 2.
Florinsky M. F. Crisis government controlled in Russia during the First World War: Council of Ministers in 1914-1917.- M., 1988.
Reader on the history of the USSR. 1861-1917 - M., 1990.
Shepelev L.E. Tsarism and the bourgeoisie in 1904-1914. - M., 1987.

You already know that within the framework of society as a complex social system, various communities and groups are formed and operate - clans, tribes, classes, nations, families, professional teams, etc. The social structure of society is an integral set of all communities taken in their interaction. The subject of further consideration will be the relationship and mutual influence of the social structure of society and its economic life.

One of the significant communities is the population, which is the most important condition for the life and development of society. The pace of social development, crisis or flourishing largely depends on such indicators as the total population, its growth rate, and health status. In turn, all these indicators are very closely related to the economic life of society. So, the birth rate is influenced primarily by the level of material well-being, housing, the degree of involvement of women in social production. For example, the birth rate in European countries with transition economy(Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc.) has fallen sharply over the past 5-10 years, which is associated with the decline in living conditions that accompanied economic reforms. In Russia in the 1990s also, the number of births per 1,000 people of the population has decreased significantly.

There is also an inverse relationship, when the population affects the economy. Accelerating or slowing down the pace of economic development depends on total strength population, population density (in a region with a small population, the division of labor is difficult, subsistence farming lasts longer), population growth rates (low rates make it difficult to reproduce the labor force and reduce production volumes, respectively, too high population growth rates force significant resources to be directed to its simple physical survival).

The health status of the population is also a factor in economic development. Its deterioration leads to a decrease in labor productivity in the economy, a reduction in life expectancy. In addition, one of the reasons for the sharp decline in life expectancy, for example, among men in Russia (from 64 to 58 in the 1990s) was the prevailing social conditions(reduction of incomes of the population, growth of nervous stress due to socio-economic changes and instability in society).

The influence of the economic life of society on the formation of professional social communities is noticeable. IN traditional societies where the social structure is most stable, socio-professional groups associated with subsistence farming and small-scale production remain. In the developed countries of the West, under the influence scientific and technological revolution a new middle class is growing (intelligentsia, managers, highly skilled workers). Wherein structural changes in the economy lead to a reduction in the industrial working class, the disappearance of clear boundaries between it and other social groups.

In the context of socio-economic transformations in Russia, the collapse of former social relations, people and groups are trying to master new niches of social and economic survival. A feature of the recent years of the development of Russian society is the tendency to increase economic differentiation (differences), which is expressed in the division of society into groups with different incomes, living standards and consumption. The complication of the social structure manifested itself in the formation of new social groups and strata: entrepreneurs, financiers, stock brokers, merchants, etc.

The economic interests of various social groups are heterogeneous and often oppose each other. For example, in modern Russia the economic interests of workers, entrepreneurs, and the intelligentsia are not the same. All of them are opposed by the interests of mafia groups. The social stratification of society exacerbates the contradictions between the interests of various social groups, including economic ones. In modern society, there is a problem of coordinating these interests.

Income inequality poses a particular threat to political and economic stability in society. Development of Russia in the 1990s led to significant income disparities. The market system, left to itself, gives preference to some social strata and, conversely, “punishes.) others. If this system is not corrected by a certain social policy, then it tends to degenerate into a system that operates in the interests of a minority of society (the elite) and against the majority.

In modern industrialized countries, welfare states are being created, that is, incomes are redistributed in favor of the poorer and disadvantaged strata, social security systems are being created ( pension provision, health insurance, poverty benefits, etc.). Thus, in Sweden and the Netherlands, social redistribution accounts for about 30% of national income. Social politics Russian government suggests: social support poor citizens, regulation of labor relations and promotion of employment of the unemployed population, freedom to choose a profession, sphere and place of work, ensuring the availability of education and assistance in retraining personnel, ensuring freedom of entrepreneurship, etc.

The problem of harmonizing the interests of various participants in the economic life of society remains relevant, therefore, economic and social sphere should complement and mutually support each other.

ECONOMY AND POLITICS

Let's see how the main political institution, the state, influences the economic development of society. One of the public functions of the state is the use of available opportunities for economic development. Each country is faced with the problem of choosing the best option for such development, and the role of state policy is essential here. In recent decades, this policy has undergone a major reorientation.

Due to the collapse of the economic, political and social system based on central planning, market forces and free enterprise began to be seen as the basis of the viability of the socio-economic system.

In most countries that have chosen the path of market transformations in the economy, privatization and a reduction in the regulatory role of the state have become a prerequisite for economic growth. This is accompanied by a reassessment of the functions and policies of the state. Governments tend to interfere less in areas where the market works more efficiently. However, this does not mean the elimination of public administration, but rather a change in its forms and an improvement in its quality.

In a market economy, the main functions of the state are to facilitate and stimulate the action of market forces through government policies. The most general, important condition for the existence market economy is the implementation by the state of such political goals as the free development of society, the legal order, external and internal security (highlighted by Adam Smith).

The free development of society is understood both as a social and as economic category. The more valuable the freedom of an individual in society is recognized, the more significant is perceived economic freedom in the state.

The state is interested in ensuring legal reliability economic activity to enjoy its results. Creation legal order provides, first of all, ensuring by means of laws the right to property and its protection, to freedom of entrepreneurial activity, to a system of economic contracts.

Ensuring external and internal security by the state involves the creation of institutions to maintain public order within the country and the presence of a professionally trained army capable of protecting the country from outside attack.

An important task of the state is the protection and maintenance of competition in the national economy, the fight against the desire of firms for monopoly. For example, for the developing market economy of Russia, this is one of the most pressing problems. (Remember and give examples of antitrust regulation of the economy by the Russian government.)

And finally, in a market economy, the most important function of the state is the development of an optimal national strategy for economic development, the unification of the efforts of state bodies, private companies, public organizations for its implementation. This function cannot be left to automatic market mechanisms. Thus, state policy plays an important role in financing education, healthcare, national culture, etc.

The goals of public policy may be: ensuring full time, fair distribution of incomes, protection of the natural complex, etc. Each government chooses the economic priorities necessary for society in its policy. (What, in your opinion, are the priorities of the policy of the modern Russian state in the economy?)

On economic life societies influence and various political parties and associations.

As you can see, the political institutions of society actively influence the economy. Is the economy interested in supporting, for example, political democracy, the rule of law?

The experience of developed countries shows that a market economy provides a basis for supporting democracy, the rule of law, and civil society. The existence in a competitive environment of a variety of political and economic structures reduces the risk for a person to fall under the authority of an irresponsible employer or organization, giving him the opportunity to choose whom and in what to obey.

The conditions of market competition teach people a more responsible attitude towards their business, those around them, and decision-making. The freedom of entrepreneurship convinces a person that he can change his life for the better by his own choice of activity and initiative.

The market economy is interested in functioning within the framework of the rule of law. Thus, it is important for an entrepreneur to start his own business, knowing the “rules of the game” in the market space, that is, according to what known laws he can act, what taxes he must pay. And such important issues for the economy as the establishment of taxes, laws on the protection of environment, regulations governing relations between employers and employees should be openly discussed, taking into account the opinions of various parties.

In turn, the rule of law is based on civil society, which is made up of citizens who independently make personal decisions that realize private interests. Structural units of civil society in economic sphere are private enterprises, cooperatives, joint-stock companies and other production cells created by citizens on their own initiative.

PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS

1 Follow the main trends in the economic development of the country, topical issues modern economic and social policy of the Russian government. This will help you competently defend your economic and social rights and interests.

2 Use knowledge of the interests, needs of various socio-professional groups and the possibilities of their implementation in modern economic conditions. This will give you an opportunity for sound professional self-determination.

3 Determine your position in relation to economic policy states to choose the form of influence on this policy (participation in elections, in the work of parties or associations).

4 Try not just to analyze the positive or negative consequences of economic transformations in the country, but to look for ways of civilized forms of your participation in economic life.

The social structure of society is the totality of its social components and what unites and keeps them from disintegration, organizes and provides the structure with a certain configuration. There are various approaches to determining the components of the social structure. Thus, some Russian sociologists interpret the social structure of society as a set of statuses and roles that are functionally interconnected, while others define the essence of the social structure of society as a set of interconnected and interacting social communities, layers, groups, ordered relative to each other, as well as relations between them. Social inequality is an integral part of modern society. Philosophers - enlighteners hoped to eliminate it in the future. However, as social practice has shown, this is impossible to implement. Scientists faced a new problem - to study the causes and mechanisms of the reproduction of social inequalities in order to minimize their manifestations. Under such conditions, the focus is on the specifics of the social structure Vertakova, Yu.V. Research of socio-economic and political processes: textbook. allowance for universities / Yu. V. Vertakova, O. V. Sogacheva. - M.: KNORUS, 2009. - 336 p..

It is becoming increasingly difficult to single out certain strata in society. According to one method, the individual is a representative of the middle class, and according to the other, the upper class. For example, researchers may consider a person to be low-income, but he does not consider himself as such. When using a multi-criteria approach in defining a social subject in a social space, the situation becomes even more complicated.

But this does not mean that society is devoid of any logic. Representatives of a certain level of well-being assess social reality in approximately the same way. The poor consider society unfair, while the rich, on the contrary, believe that the poor themselves are to blame for not being able to satisfy their basic needs.

Most often, three parts are distinguished in the structure of modern societies: the rich (upper class), the wealthy (middle class) and the poor (lower class). Each of these parts, in turn, is divided into subclasses (layers, strata). Moreover, each country has its own characteristics.

The basis of a higher class based on legitimate forms of organization of social life, positive, constructive logic social development, are entrepreneurs, businessmen, bankers, a certain category of managers, representatives of the creative intelligentsia, etc. Changes in the social structure of Russian society and its political consequences: an attempt to predict / S.A. Belanovsky et al. // World of Russia. - 2012. - No. 1. - P.123-139 ..

The basis of the social structure of modern Russian society is the population, which is associated primarily with the state form of ownership. Many of these people are in a state of deep social degradation and marginality and do not hope for the best. It should be emphasized that this situation is alarming - it is from these strata, most of which are on the verge of low-income, that the middle class is formed, a significant part of which has a significant professional, qualification and educational potential, experience in productive activity. IN modern conditions he is not able to contribute to the inclusion of an individual in the system of social production and ensure an appropriate level of income, and hence: the socio-economic aspirations of people are not justified.

The pragmatic formations of these two strata, categories of the population have led to destructive changes in the social structure, to distortions, sharp social contradictions in many areas of public life, which deepen the systemic crisis, accelerate inflation, distort the personal consumption of the main part of the population with low solvency, and increase the social instability of society. . These pragmatic tendencies, especially deformations, contradictions, can be traced in the example of the division of the consumer market into two types, prices in which differ significantly. So, one - for the first category of the population with practically unlimited solvency. It should be emphasized that such a division of the social structure of Russian society further deepens pragmatism, which covers not only the sphere of the consumer market, but also all the main areas of social life. Thus, two systems of social worldview were formed, which are in a state of conflict, and this leads to a narrowing of the sphere of communication of these categories of the population, which realize their life potential and social vector in two diametrically opposed social spaces and dimensions. Such a separation of the spheres of life, the lack of direct contacts contribute to increased social tension Changes in the social structure of Russian society and its political consequences: an attempt to predict / S.A. Belanovsky et al. // World of Russia. - 2012. - No. 1. - P.123-139 ..

The lowest stratum in modern Russia is workers of various professions, employed in medium and low-skilled labor, as well as office workers (approximately 80% of the population). It should be noted that the process of social mobility between these levels in Russia is limited. This may become one of the prerequisites for future conflicts in society.

The main trends observed in the change in the social structure of modern Russian society Ibid.:

1) social polarization, i.e. stratification into rich and poor, deepening social and property differentiation;

2) the erosion of the intelligentsia, which manifests itself either in the mass departure of individuals from the sphere of mental labor, or in the change of their place of residence (the so-called "brain drain");

3) the process of erasing the boundaries between specialists with higher education and highly skilled workers.

Dynamic changes in all spheres of Russian society have intensified the process of its marginalization. The reasons for the emergence of marginal groups include: basic changes in the social status of some socio-professional groups, a reduction in production, a general decline in living standards, and uncertainty of status. Now in Russia, the following main marginal groups can be distinguished: “post-specialists” (specialists in sectors of the economy that have lost their social perspective in modern conditions), “new agents” (representatives of small businesses, self-employed people), “migrants” (refugees, migrants) Simonyan R .X. Reforms of the 1990s and the modern social structure of Russian society (to the 20th anniversary of economic reforms) // Sociol. research - 2012. - No. 1. - P.17-26..

The reasons for the formation in society of non-systemic elements of the social structure, which are carried out by illegitimate means, are due to a complex set of objective and subjective factors, among which inconsistency in the implementation of market transformations and the reform of social relations plays an important role.

The informality of the social structure, the absence of stable, sustainable classes leads to an increase in uncontrolled destructive social conflicts. At the same time, sociologists are actively involved in the processes of development of the social structure, its dynamics in the country, and also take part in politics and the socio-political life of the state, and hence a wide layer of owners of shares, real estate, and land plots is established. With the deepening of reforms, the recovery of the economy from the crisis, the position of this layer in the distribution of income, ensuring real influence on management processes will be pragmatically strengthened, the role of such social groups as financiers, managers, bankers, stockbrokers Simonyan R.Kh. will increase. Reforms of the 1990s and the modern social structure of Russian society (on the 20th anniversary of economic reforms) // Sotsiol. research - 2012. - No. 1. - P.17-26..

The qualitative changes taking place today in the economy of modern Russian society have led to serious shifts in its social structure. The social hierarchy that is currently being formed is distinguished by inconsistency, instability and a tendency to significant changes.

The social structure of society today is unjustifiably determined by the modern authorities, first of all, by economic parameters and socio-economic criteria arising from the volume and quality of the economy. The state should influence the social structure of society, seeking to speed up the process of its modernization as much as possible. Without this, not only the accelerated development of the economy, but also its development in general, is not possible. The structure of modern society is determined today by many parameters. One of the characteristics of modern society is the size of the middle class in the country as a percentage, which, in my opinion, should be about 75% of the total population. In Russia, therefore, already today it is necessary to make serious, fundamental adjustments to the financial, economic and social policy, which should not only provide the minimum necessary socio-economic conditions for survival, but create optimal conditions for the development of the middle class. It is he who will determine the future of the country.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

The economic system is a set of interconnected and in a certain way ordered elements of the economy.

Outside the systemic nature of the economy, economic relations and institutions could not be reproduced (constantly renewed), they could not exist economic patterns, there could be no theoretical understanding economic phenomena and processes, there could be no coordinated and effective economic policy.

Real practice constantly confirms the systemic nature of the economy. Objectively existing economic systems find their scientific reflection in theoretical (scientific) economic systems. The first detailed analysis of the economy as a system was given by A. Smith, the founder of the classical school of political economy, in his main scientific work "A Study on the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"

1. Basic concepts

1.1 The concept of social economic structure

The socio-economic structure is, first of all, the total labor force of society, people with their physical and mental abilities, level of education and qualifications, their life and production experience. The most important part of the socio-economic structure is the ownership of the means of production and consumption, social infrastructure, economic legislation, traditions and customs. The dominant type of ownership determines the specifics of the economic structure. The socio-economic structure also includes institutions of law, various legislation that determines the rules of economic activity. Economic systems also differ depending on the type of socio-economic structure. The main characteristic of this structure in the economic system is the dominant form of ownership of the means of production. Depending on this, such economic systems as primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and socialism stand out in history. In these economic systems, the dominant form of ownership is, respectively, collective, private slaveholding, private feudal, private capitalist, public. A system is a set of interdependent elements that form a single whole; the whole performs some function. Systems take a variety of forms. Major systems include:

biological;

technological;

social (including socio-economic).

1.2 The concept of the social structure of society

Interaction in society usually leads to the formation of new social relations. The latter can be represented as relatively stable and independent links between individuals and social groups.

In sociology, the concepts of "social structure" and "social system" are closely related. A social system is a set of social phenomena and processes that are in relationships and connections with each other and form some integral social object. Separate phenomena and processes act as elements of the system.

The concept of "social structure of society" is part of the concept of a social system and combines two components - social composition and social connections. Social composition is a set of elements that make up a given structure. The second component is a set of connections of these elements. Thus, the concept of social structure includes, on the one hand, the social composition, or the totality of various types of social communities as the system-forming social elements of society, on the other hand, the social connections of the constituent elements that differ in the breadth of their action, in their significance in the characteristics of the social structure of society at a certain stage of development.

The social structure of society means the objective division of society into separate strata, groups, different in their social position, in their relation to the mode of production. This is a stable connection of elements in a social system. The main elements of the social structure are such social communities as classes and class-like groups, ethnic, professional, socio-demographic groups, socio-territorial communities (city, village, region). Each of these elements, in turn, is a complex social system with its own subsystems and connections. The social structure of society reflects the characteristics of the social relations of classes, professional, cultural, national-ethnic and demographic groups, which are determined by the place and role of each of them in the system of economic relations. The social aspect of any community is concentrated in its connections and mediations with production and class relations in society.

The social structure as a kind of framework for the entire system of social relations, that is, as a set of economic, social and political institutions that organize social life. On the one hand, these institutions set a certain network of role positions and normative requirements in relation to specific members of society. On the other hand, they represent certain rather stable ways of the socialization of individuals.

The main principle of determining the social structure of society should be the search for real subjects of social processes.

Subjects can be both individuals and social groups. various sizes allocated on various grounds: youth, working class, religious sect, and so on.

From this point of view, the social structure of society can be represented as a more or less stable correlation of social strata and groups. The theory of social stratification is called upon to study the diversity of hierarchically arranged social strata.

Initially, the idea of ​​a stratified representation of the social structure had a pronounced ideological connotation and was intended to neutralize Marx's idea of ​​class society and the dominance of class contradictions in history. But gradually the idea of ​​singling out social strata as constituent elements of society was established in social science, because it really reflected the objective differences between different groups of the population within a single class.

Theories of social stratification arose in opposition to the Marxist-Leninist theory of classes and class struggle.

1.3 Theory of social stratification and social mobility

Representatives of this theory argue that the concept of class is probably suitable for analyzing the social structure of past societies, including industrial capitalist society, but it does not work in modern post-industrial society, because in this society, on the basis of wide corporatization, as well as turning off the main shareholders from the sphere of production management and their replacement by hired managers, the property relations turned out to be blurred, lost their certainty. Therefore, the concept of "class" should be replaced by the concept of "stratum" (from the Latin stratum - layer) or the concept of a social group, and the theory of social class structure of society should be replaced by theories of social stratification.

Theories of social stratification are based on the idea that a stratum, a social group, is a real, empirically fixed community that unites people on some common positions or have a common cause, which leads to the construction of this community in the social structure of society and opposition to other social communities. The theory of stratification is based on the association of people into groups and their opposition to other groups on the basis of status: power, property, professional, educational, etc.

1.4 Types of socio-economic systems

Socio-economic systems include enterprises, industries, municipalities, regions, etc. The system always reacts to external perturbations and tends to return to a state of equilibrium. However, if under the influence of external forces the system moves far from the equilibrium state, then it can become unstable and not return to the equilibrium state. At a certain point (bifurcation point), the behavior of the system becomes undefined. Sometimes even a slight impact on the system can lead to significant consequences, and then the system passes into a new quality. Moreover, this transition is carried out in leaps and bounds.

The principles of consistency involve consideration modern organization, first of all, as a socio-economic system that has a number of specific features inherent only to it:

integrity, when all elements and parts of the system serve to achieve the common goals facing the organization as a whole. This does not exclude the possibility of the emergence of non-antagonistic contradictions between its separate elements(divisions);

the complexity that manifests itself in in large numbers feedback, including in the process of strategic planning and management;

large inertia, which predetermines the possibility of predicting the development of organizations in the future with a high degree of certainty;

a high degree of reliability of functioning, which is predetermined by the interchangeability of components and ways of life of the organization, the possibility of using alternative technologies, energy carriers, materials, methods of organizing production and management;

parallel consideration of the natural and cost aspects of the functioning of the system. This allows you to constantly measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the organization, the management system and the implementation of its strategy.

Among the many factors that affect the activity of the enterprise, three groups of factors that determine it can be distinguished:

1. Factors characterizing economic environment as a market and supply for the enterprise.

2. Factors characterizing the labor force used by the enterprise.

3. Factors characterizing the state of the finances of enterprises and financial market generally.

Any social system consists of two independent, but interconnected subsystems: managed and managing. The managed subsystem includes all elements that provide the direct process of creating material and spiritual wealth or providing services. The control subsystem includes all elements that ensure the process of purposeful impact on groups of people and resources of the controlled subsystem. One of the most important elements of the control subsystem is organizational structure management.

The connection between the control and managed systems is carried out with the help of information, which serves as the basis for the development of management decisions and actions coming from the control system to the controlled one for execution. The economic system is a unity of economic and financial processes and connections. Social system - people and their associations created for joint life activity (individual, family, state).

1.5 Emergence of socio-economic systems

Organizations are as old as the world. Even in ancient times, mankind had a need to create large-scale structures, solve complex problems, which required the involvement of a large number of performers. To coordinate their activities, large organizations were created that needed management.

To meet the diverse needs of society, various organizations were created. One of the first organizations created by man is the state. Various voluntary organizations - religious, public associations, clubs, etc. - have a long history. The compulsory organizations include the army, the school. The most numerous are utilitarian organizations. These include institutions and enterprises. Enterprises (firms) may have different organizational and legal forms, act in various fields economy. Depending on the goals of the activity, there are commercial (created by participants for profit) and non-profit enterprises. The whole history of mankind is also the history of management. The creation of writing by the ancient Sumerians in 3000 BC made it possible to register facts - a necessary condition for management. The ancient Egyptians, and later the Chinese, not only recognized the need for management, but actually carried out its main functions - planning, organization, motivation, accounting, control. The creation of giant structures (pyramids, dams, canals, protective structures) required optimization, decentralization and centralization of management, as well as delegation of authority. Among the ancient Greeks (Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle) ​​we find the formulation of the principle of universality of control. They viewed management as a special kind of art.

The development of trade and the creation of the first industrial enterprises - manufactories in the northern Italian city-republics (Venice and Genoa), and later in Holland, required the development of a system accounting, level control inventory and their movement, accounting for the costs of production and circulation.

In the XVI-XVII centuries, the content of the management of organizations is already being explored in a number of areas. A fundamental contribution to the analysis of specialization, the development of the theory of value was made by A. Smith. The formation of the theory of power is connected with the names of N. Machiavelli and D. Stewart. Qualitative changes in the organizations themselves - their structure, scale, as well as the development of relationships with the external environment, were also the frontier of the formation of modern management. For modern economy characterized by the functioning of a large number of major organizations that have a powerful impact on the life of society. Among the commercial ones, these are transnational corporations, which, according to their main characteristics (turnover, resources, investments in holding scientific research etc.) are comparable to entire states. Among non-commercial, i.e. not focused on achieving profit, the most powerful organization was and remains the state. The church, trade unions, foundations, and international organizations also have significant potential and influence.

2. General trends in the change in the social structure of modern Russian society

The changes that have taken place in Russia over the past few years could not but affect the stratification structure of society. These changes are due to a number of different reasons. The current situation, when society is in a state of transition, formation, is characterized by an unstable system of social relations. There is no sufficient clarity in social differentiation, and, accordingly, in the certainty of individual and group interests. Many have not yet self-determined, have not realized their interests. The same applies to social communities.

Modern changes in the social structure in Russia cause two differently directed processes; complication of social differentiation and its simplification. The complication occurs due to the emergence of new forms of ownership (mixed, private, joint-stock, cooperative, etc.), and simplification - due to the disappearance of the nomenclature with non-institutionalized types of privileges, the hierarchy of owners in terms of income, greater or lesser freedom, self-regulation, self-realization, etc., then is in connection with the formation of economic classes.

Therefore, if earlier the main differentiating criterion was the place in the structure power relations, now property inequality becomes such a criterion, although the first has not lost its essential significance.

“The social structure of modern Russian society is characterized by extreme social instability, both at the level of processes occurring within social groups and between them, and at the level of self-awareness by the individual of his place in the system of social hierarchy. There is an active process of “erosion” of traditional groups of the population; there is a formation of new types of intergroup integration in terms of ownership, income, inclusion in power structures, social self-identification.”

At present, in the social structure of Russian society, we observe the coexistence of old, “regulated” classes and strata and the emergence of new ones, while modern Western societies base their social order and parliamentary democracy on the institution of private property and the middle class, supported by a system of stratification that acts as a tool own control. Consequently, the question today is also whether a sufficiently powerful middle class oriented towards democratic values ​​can form in Russia in the near future. The socio-psychological prerequisites for the formation of the “middle class” can be assessed by the value orientations, attitudes of the population, and the prestige of belonging to the middle stratum.

Today, an important characteristic of society is its social polarization, stratification into rich and poor. According to studies in the 1st quarter of 1995, the ratio of per capita cash income 10% of the richest and 10% of the poorest Russians amounted to about 15 times. However, this figure does not take into account those 5% of the super-rich population, for which statistics do not have data.

Today the attitude of the majority of the employed population to a "solid", guaranteed salary as the only acceptable form of income dominates. Other types of it - entrepreneurial income, income on assets, as well as the ability to use credit, seem illusory, unreliable, and to many - simply speculative, and therefore unacceptable.

The change in the forms of ownership of the means of production served as the basis for reforming the social system in Russia. The intensive denationalization of enterprises operating in all sectors of the economy, especially in trade and industrial production, led to an outflow of the employed population from the state sector. According to a survey conducted in December 1995 by the Department of Applied Sociology of the Ural State University, only 44.7% and 6.5% of the respondents were working at that moment in state and municipal enterprises, respectively. This process became the economic foundation for the formation, first of all, of the class of the domestic bourgeoisie, which today can be differentiated by areas of capital investment (industrial, commercial, financial), by the nature of activity: entrepreneurs (usually owners), business layer (including small business) , managers (employees) and by level of income (wealth).

The growing stratification of property differentiates the population with particular rigidity and polarizes strata and groups. Income distribution is becoming not only an important macroeconomic characteristic, but also carries a huge political potential.

When assessing the dynamics of the income level of the entire population and its individual groups, the researchers mainly used data from statistical agencies, since, for a number of methodological reasons, the corresponding indicators obtained in the course of a sociological survey did not seem quite reliable, such as: respondents, especially from high-income groups, underestimate indicators of their income; a large percentage refusals to answer this question, etc.).

According to the study, “after some stabilization of the situation of the poor strata of the population (with an average per capita income of up to 1 living wage) during 1993 and the first half of 1994, in the III quarter of 1994 there was a sharp, and during the subsequent 1995 1. gradual, decrease in the relative value of the average per capita income in this social stratum (especially in the group below the poverty line) , simultaneously accompanied by an increase in the proportion of this layer.” In addition, it was noted that the decline in income levels in the poor group of the population contrasts with their growth in the high-income group. It is also of interest to evaluate indicators in the middle-income group: with a comparative stabilization of the level of income, the concentration of the population in it tends to decrease.

These data clearly testify to the continuing impoverishment of the population: the erosion of the middle stratum, the shift of certain groups of it towards the poorest and the rapprochement with the poorest strata of the population. “This trend is opposite to that which exists in the West, where the middle stratum is growing, by reducing the stratum of the poor, and is the guarantor of the stability of the state, the pillar of democracy.”

Characteristically, absolutely for all the identified differentiating features, significant differences in indicators of income levels are found. Among the regions, stable groups of territories with a relatively high standard of living (Moscow, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, Chelyabinsk, Tyumen, Krasnoyarsk regions, etc.) and a high concentration of the poor (Kalmykia, Dagestan, Tuva, Altai) appeared.

The results of sociological research, as well as statistical materials, show significant differences in the size and structure of incomes of urban and rural residents ( per capita income per person in the countryside is almost two times lower than the corresponding figure for urban residents. But for the period 1993-1995. there has been a trend towards some smoothing of these differences.

The differentiation of incomes of the population by sectors of the economy is as follows (industries are listed in ascending order of incomes of workers employed in them). Wages below the average were among workers in culture, art, health, education, Agriculture; above average - construction, transport, logistics, finance and lending.

The most important differentiating factor in terms of income is the size and type of family. The threat of impoverishment is especially tangible for families with many children, incomplete families, the unemployed, and those who include pensioners. The average size of the poorest family, according to the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation in 1995, is 4.2 people: (1-2 workers contain two or more dependents), about 40% of the poorest families consist of 5 people. On average, income per person in a family with 1 child is 2 times higher than in a family with 4 or more children. With the growth of the employed population in the family, the poverty rate decreases. According to economists' forecasts, this trend of reduction in real money incomes of the population will continue in the near future (in 1996 by approximately 30% compared to 1995). The reasons for the level of income decline are not only bursts of inflation, but also a crisis of non-payments, delays in issuing wages.

Unemployment is a factor that reduces the real level of wages on a scale inadequate to the decline in production. Depending on the calculation methods used, several indicators differ from each other in the statistics. However, regardless of this, they record the same trend: an increase in the share of unemployment in the structure of the working population. According to the results of sociological surveys, in 1993 2.6% of the respondents considered themselves unemployed, in 1995 - 4.6%. At the end of 1995, the unemployment rate in Russia as a whole was approximately 5–7% (up to 11% in a number of regions).

As can be seen from the figures, employment indicators are inadequate to the decline in production. The reason for this phenomenon, apparently, is the growth of underemployment and "hidden" unemployment, manifested in such forms as shortened working hours, part-time work (3.8% of respondents in 1993, 6.3% - in 1995 ), forced leave (partially or completely unpaid), delay in payment of wages, irrational use of skilled workers.

Another circumstance explaining the low unemployment rate is the fact that only a third of job seekers turn to employment services for help or advice.

The stratum of the unemployed in one way or another permeates all social groups and strata, blurring their boundaries. The exception is high-income groups, strata with a high social status (managers). To a lesser extent, in comparison with others, people with higher education are also subject to unemployment: probably, the education they receive makes it easier and easier for them to adapt to new economic conditions and find an unoccupied niche in the labor market. However, the work performed by them in a new place does not always correspond to the specialization or skill level received.

According to research data from 1993 to 1995. there has been a tendency to increase in the structure of the unemployed the share of specialists with secondary specialized education, who are representatives of the middle stratum. This once again testifies to its washing out, dismemberment. However, the greatest concern and concern is high level unemployed among young people. According to the State Statistics Committee Russian Federation the unemployment rate among young people under 20 in 1995 was above 20% of the economically active population of this age group and over 10% in age group 20-24 years old. With rising unemployment, the spread various forms underemployment meaningful way maintaining and even strengthening its material new position, and indirectly and social status are additional earnings. “A fifth of the respondents earn extra money, and this indicator is stable. A few more of these among men. They earn extra money either according to the profile of their main activity (using equipment, production facilities, and sometimes the raw materials of their enterprise), or they are engaged in trade, mediation, the provision of household services, and the performance of construction and agricultural work. The most active in the search for additional earnings are workers in science, culture, education (with the official status of specialists in the natural sciences, humanitarian profile, lower-level managers), as well as entrepreneurs, businessmen.

The processes of differentiation are expressed most frankly in the sphere of consumption. In the system of factors that determine consumer behavior, the dominant. The backbone is the belonging of an individual to a certain social stratum (class, group): his occupation, economic situation, social status, lifestyle, etc.

No significant changes in volume and structure cash costs population of Russia for the period under review did not occur. A slightly larger share than before, in 1995, began to account for the cost of food, continue to decline (and in % terms) costs for the services of institutions of culture, education, art. Consumption is a universal, focused characteristic of the level and quality of life of various groups and strata of the population. It is in this area that their preferences, interests, orientations, and lifestyle features are clearly represented. A sociological study of the objective and subjective characteristics of consumption will make it possible to establish the indicative boundaries and dimensions of these strata.

Thus, a qualitatively different social base is being formed in Russia. adequately reflecting the processes of market transformations. Its prospects depend on the complexity and consistency of reforming the Russian economy. However, it can already be noted that it is becoming more and more complicated. New, real classes appeared with their own interests, orientations, claims. For all their originality, they are in many ways similar to those that exist in modern Western society (bourgeoisie, managers, specialists, middle class).

In addition to economic changes, other factors also influenced the social structure. One of the most important is the ethnic factor. For example: the tendency to increase the status of indigenous ethnic groups is typical for the republics of the Near Abroad and Tatarstan. However, this is not supported by reality. In fact, among them there is not a sufficient number of ready-made workers of highly skilled types of labor capable of replacing the former ones. Therefore, this can only artificially smooth out the problem. A tense atmosphere is also created by the flows of migration from the Near Abroad to Russia and the problems associated with them. The point is not so much in maintaining the former social status, but in adapting to a new locality, finding a job. As can be seen, ethnic and social statuses are close and in many respects contiguous concepts. In general, national interests and, consequently, national policy cannot be reduced only to spiritual problems, since they cover a whole range of equally important issues of economic, political, and social development. These problems are particularly acute when regional and national interests are intertwined.

Conclusion

social structure of modern Russian society

Thus, the interweaving of political, economic, ethnic and other factors and their influence on the social status and social position of people is obvious. In the context of the incompleteness of the formation of a new social structure for Russian society, it is very important to conduct control studies in order to trace the dynamics of stratification changes in our state. To do this, it is necessary to develop a system of criteria for assessing social status. Since we can talk about the difference between these criteria for the urban and rural population, we will allow ourselves to somewhat narrow the object of study and consider in the future only urban residents.

Bibliography

Permeability of boundaries in conflict theory // Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 1999. V. 2. No. 1. S. 32-44. [Article]

Chernobyl community - self-settlers in the zone // Sociological research. 1994. No. 4. S. 107-109. [Article]

Economists look into a pocket mirror // Sociological Studies. June 1994. No. 6. S. 108-112. [Article]

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Characterization of the social structure of society, the study of its main elements: classes, estates, urban and rural residents, socio-demographic groups, national communities. Features of social mobility and analysis of the problem of civil society.

abstract, added 02/01/2010


Concepts, elements and levels of the social structure of society, analysis of its state and transformation in post-Soviet Russia. Suggestions and recommendations for the formation of a new social stratification and the middle class of the social structure of Russian society.

term paper, added 05/06/2010


The main elements of the Ukrainian social structure. Hidden and explicit elements of social structure. The theory of social stratification and its role in the study of the social structure of modern Ukrainian society. Social inequality of society in Ukraine.

control work, added 01/09/2008


The concept of the social structure of society, a description of its elements. Analytical review of the social structure of society as a whole. The state of the social structure of society in post-Soviet Russia, its transformation at the present time, the search for ways to improve it.

term paper, added 05/06/2010


The essence and analysis of the sources of social stratification. Systems and typologies of classes in society. Description of the features of the stratification processes of modern Russian society. Studying the problem of social mobility, its types, forms and factors.

term paper, added 07/18/2014


Groups, layers, classes are the most important elements of the social structure of society. Correlation between the class theory of the social structure of society and the theory of social stratification and mobility. Types of social communities of people, their features and characteristics.

abstract, added 03/15/2012


The concept of the social structure of society. Changes in the social structure of Russian society in the transition period. The social structure of modern Russian society. Sociological studies of the structure of Russian society at the present stage.

abstract, added 11/21/2008


The essence of social inequality and stratification, which is understood as the unequal opportunities for people to satisfy their needs and achieve their goals. The concept of social mobility. Basic approaches to the analysis of the social structure of society.

test, added 02/07/2012


The concept of social structure. Intergenerational, intragenerational, socio-geographical, seasonal, pendulum form of mobility. The social structure of modern Russia. The "modernization" paradigm. Stratification tendencies of modern society.

abstract, added 01/18/2016


The study of the social system of society: characteristics and development trends. The main functions of social stratification. Analysis of contradictions in society. The concept of social structure. Features and signs of a social group. Types of social mobility.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

There is no HTML version of the work yet.
You can download the archive of the work by clicking on the link below.

Similar Documents

Essence, structure and classification of the economic system of society. Types of economic systems. General concepts and typology of crises in the development of socio-economic systems of society. Cycles of social reproduction and their role in the emergence of crises.

term paper, added 08/06/2010


Subject, methods, functions of historical and economic science. Options for periodization of the economic development of society (formational, civilizational approach, theory post-industrial society). Economics of primitive communal society: chrono-scheme, features of the economy.

presentation, added 12/24/2010


The concept and structure of the economic system of society, the laws of its development. Characteristics of post-industrial society. Types of economic systems: command-administrative, market, mixed. Problems of formation of the economic system in Russia.

term paper, added 06/20/2010


Concept, essence, classification and types of economic systems. Character traits modern market economy. Economic culture, its features, functions and role in the economic sphere of society. List of meanings of basic concepts economic theory.

test, added 02/23/2010


The emergence and development of economic theory. Schools of economic theory. The subject and functions of economic theory. Methods of economic research. Economic laws. Problems economic organization society.

abstract, added 02/15/2004


essence post-industrial economy. Principles and signs of the information society. Specificity of the theory of post-industrial economy in the modern socio-economic system. Development of the national economy of Belarus in the direction of post-industrialism.

term paper, added 06/10/2014


Information economy - an attempt to create a coherent economic theory of the information society. The subject and method of the discipline, description of the "creative person" model, which in the information society replaces the "economic person" model.

term paper, added 10/11/2010