Traditional society and its main features. Pre-industrial (traditional) society
concept traditional society
In progress historical development primitive society is transformed into traditional society. The impetus for its emergence and development was the agrarian revolution and the social change in society.
Definition 1
A traditional society can be defined as an agrarian society based on strict observance of traditions. The behavior of members of this society is strictly regulated by the customs and norms characteristic of this society, the most important stable social institutions, such as the family, the community.
Features of a traditional society
Let us consider the features of the development of a traditional society by characterizing its main parameters. Features of the nature of the social structure in a traditional society are due to the appearance of surplus and surplus products, which in turn means the emergence of grounds for education new form social structure - the state.
Forms of government in traditional states are basically authoritarian in nature - this is the power of one ruler or a narrow circle of the elite - a dictatorship, a monarchy or an oligarchy.
In accordance with the form of government, there was also a certain nature of the participation of members of the society in the management of its affairs. The very emergence of the institution of state and law necessitates the emergence of politics and the development of the political sphere of society. In this period of development of society, there is an increase in the activity of citizens in the process of their participation in the political life of the state.
Another parameter of the development of a traditional society is the dominant nature of economic relations. In connection with the appearance of a surplus product, private property and commodity exchange inevitably arise. Private property remained dominant throughout the entire period of development of traditional society, only its object changed in different periods of its development - slaves, land, capital.
Unlike a primitive society, in a traditional society, the structure of employment of its members has become much more complicated. Several sectors of employment appear - agriculture, crafts, trade, all professions associated with the accumulation and transfer of information. Thus, we can talk about the emergence of a greater variety of areas of employment for members of a traditional society.
The nature of settlements has also changed. A fundamentally new type of settlement arose - the city, which became the center of residence for members of society engaged in crafts and trade. It is in cities that the political, industrial and intellectual life of traditional society is concentrated.
By the time of operation traditional era refers to the formation of a new attitude to education as a special social institution and the nature of development scientific knowledge. The emergence of writing makes it possible to form scientific knowledge. It was at the time of the existence and development of traditional society that discoveries were made in various scientific fields and laid the foundation in many branches of scientific knowledge.
Remark 1
An obvious disadvantage of the development of scientific knowledge in this period of the development of society was the independent development of science and technology from production. This fact and served as the reason for the rather slow accumulation of scientific knowledge and their subsequent dissemination. The process of increasing scientific knowledge was linear in nature and required a significant amount of time to accumulate a sufficient amount of knowledge. People engaged in science most often did it for their own pleasure, their scientific research was not supported by the needs of society.
Traditional, industrial and post-industrial societies have been identified in concepts based on technological determinism. These concepts were developed by the French sociologist Raymond Aron (1905 - 1983), American sociologists Daniel Bell (b. 1919) and Alvin Toffler (b. 1928).
Technological determinism is understood as a set of ideas united by the postulate about the decisive role of technology in social development. Technological determinism implies not only that technology is a special world independent of man, that it develops indefinitely according to its own laws, but also that it dominates man and society, dictating its will to them and determining their prospects.
A traditional society is a pre-capitalist society of an agrarian type. The economy of this society is characterized by manual labor with a relatively simple and stable division of labor, which is first based on natural gender and age differences, differences in natural working conditions (cattle breeding, agriculture, etc.), and then on increasingly differentiated social functions (trade, administration, army, etc.). ). A person, as the main productive force in this society, had access to land only through a clan, community or feudal hierarchy of owners, which excluded the formation of a free personality, i.e. a person who freely disposes of his labor and property according to the laws of the market.
The method of socio-cultural regulation of a traditional society is based on traditions, i.e. on cultural patterns, customs, methods of action, norms of behavior passed down from generation to generation, which widely penetrated into all spheres of society and determined its structural stability and inactivity (caste, class).
According to the developers of the concepts under consideration, the most significant historical changes in the modern world are associated with the transition from traditional agricultural societies to industrial ones. Industrial society (industrial) arises on the basis of machine production, factory organization and labor discipline, national! economic systems with free trade and a common market. From the point of view of theorists industrial society, capitalism is an early form of this society. It is characterized by the fact that industrial production is in private hands, where the entrepreneur is both the owner and the main subject of managing the labor process and employees. With the growth of the scale of the industry, ownership of capital does not guarantee control over the systems of power and authority in enterprises. The role of managers-administrators is gradually increasing.
The transformation of the social structure is accompanied by the establishment of civil society, pluralistic democracy, and gives rise to the processes of various social movements. If in the early phases of its development an industrial society is characterized by sharp class conflicts, then later, through the formation of generally accepted forms labor agreements, collective agreements, they smooth out. In general, a consensus is established (from the Latin consensus - consent, unanimity) about the basic values of the social order. Technology comes to the fore - rational aspects of the functioning of society, based on the priority of science. The more industrialized societies are, the more they gravitate towards the uniformity of the industrial order. Industrial society is dominated by mass production and consumption.
Theories of post-industrial society became the development of the system of ideas of industrial society. Post-industrial society, according to the aforementioned sociologists, is formed in developed countries in the second half of the 20th century. It is characterized by the predominance of the so-called tertiary sector. Most of economic activity moves from the primary (agriculture) and secondary (industry) sectors to the tertiary (services, transport, banks, insurance, liberal professions, etc.). With the progress of technology and automation, a typical worker in a post-industrial society is becoming a "white" and not a "blue collar" physical labor- and labor directly related to the maintenance of equipment, the provision of services, as well as physical labor).
Under the conditions of a post-industrial society, the system of education is expanding unprecedentedly (longer term of study, continuous education, etc.). Science, education, and information have played a decisive role in the transformation of the industrial into a post-industrial society. Post-industrial technology produces fundamental changes in the social structure of society. Property does not disappear, however, as the basis for dividing people into classes, layers, property loses its meaning. The class structure is replaced by a professional structure.
The perspective of the development of the post-industrial society is the information civilization. Intelligent technological systems lead to a fundamentally new state of society - to global hyperintelligence (industry of data and knowledge). Informatics and computer skills become the second literacy. Technological determinism is transformed into the concept of technocracy: central to them is the idea of the possibility of power based on knowledge, competence, the possibility of replacing a political decision with a rational one. technical solution.
The developers of the concept of post-industrial society noted that in its conditions there are qualitative shifts in needs, motivations. social behavior and values. For a person, such values as autonomy and self-expression of the individual will be considered more and more priority. free time and leisure. However, with the development of scientific technical revolution, serious conflicts were predicted that would take place in this society: between knowledge and incompetence, between managers and managed and other social contradictions.
In scientific literature, for example, in sociological dictionaries and textbooks, there are various definitions of the concept of traditional society. After analyzing them, we can identify the fundamental and determining factors in identifying the type of traditional society. Such factors are: the dominant place of agriculture in society, not subject to dynamic changes, the presence of social structures different levels development that do not have a mature industrial complex, opposition to the modern, dominance in it Agriculture and low rates of development.
Features of traditional society
A traditional society is an agrarian type society, therefore it is characterized by manual labor, division of labor according to working conditions and social functions, regulation public life based on tradition.
A single and precise concept of a traditional society in sociological science does not exist due to the fact that broad interpretations of the term "" make it possible to attribute to this type social structures that differ significantly from each other in their characteristics, for example, tribal and feudal society.
According to the American sociologist Daniel Bell, a traditional society is characterized by the absence of statehood, the predominance of traditional values and a patriarchal way of life. The traditional society is the first in time of formation and arises with the emergence of society in general. In the periodization of human history, this occupies the largest time period. It distinguishes several types of societies according to historical eras: primitive society, slave-owning ancient society and medieval feudal society.
In a traditional society, as opposed to industrial and post-industrial societies, a person is completely dependent on the forces of nature. Industrial production in such a society is absent or occupies a minimal share, because the traditional society is not aimed at the production of consumer goods and there are religious prohibitions on environmental pollution. The main thing in a traditional society is the maintenance of the existence of man as a species. The development of such a society is associated with the extensive spread of mankind and the collection natural resources from large areas. The main relationship in such a society is between man and nature.
Otherwise called simple, it is a pre-capitalist structure with an agrarian way of life. It has a special way of cultural and social regulation, formed under the influence of traditions and customs. Such a set of people is characterized by a set Most of them will be discussed in this article.
What are the fundamental features of a traditional society? Enough complex issue. Often this parameter is determined by the form of state power and political relations. In relation to this particular type, the following can be noted: the behavior of each person is prescribed and controlled by the established (community and family) and is determined through the norms of behavior, traditions and customs. Any attempts at transformation are rejected and all innovations are severely suppressed. In this regard, the characteristic features of a traditional society are isolation, immobility of structures and weak rates of development.
In addition, the presented type is distinguished by a natural division of labor by age and specialization by gender. It is also characterized by a peculiar when there are no status and officials, but only older individuals. The result of this is following the norms of the unwritten laws of morality and religion (informal regulation of relations and interactions). The features of a traditional society described earlier can be considered the reason for both the complete absence of government and cases when several different states exist in one group. At the same time, each of them strives for isolation and self-government. The patriarchal way of life can also be attributed to characteristic feature. The transfer of status and power is determined by the rule of the elders and this type of leadership is considered a primitive system.
Distinctive features of a traditional society are found in all spheres of human life. For example, unlike the industrial one, a person here is absolutely dependent on the surrounding world. The influence of the forces of nature is considered to be quite large, and the impact of man, in turn, is minimal. However, the relationship between the individual and nature is strong and strong. Thus, the features of a traditional society are the absence or minimal presence of industrial production, the life of the totality of people at the expense of pastoralism and agriculture, which are widespread.
From the above, we can also conclude the following: the main goal of society is to maintain the population of the human species. As a result of the small amount of industry, there is no question of the production of consumer goods. Consequently, the features of a traditional society are the development of a larger territory and the spread of the population on it, as well as the extraction and collection of natural resources.
Characteristic features of the traditional, industrial and post-industrial type of society. Basic social differences. Signs of what type of society are there in Russia?
Society typology
Modern societies differ in many ways, but they also have the same parameters by which they can be typified.
One of the main directions in the typology of society is the choice of political relations, forms of state power as the basis for highlighting various types society. For example, in Plato and Aristotle, societies differ in type state structure Keywords: monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy. In modern versions of this approach, there is a separation of totalitarian (the state determines all the main directions social life); democratic (the population can influence state structures) and authoritarian (combining elements of totalitarianism and democracy) societies.
Marxism based the typology of society on the difference between societies according to the type of production relations in various socio-economic formations: primitive communal society (primitively appropriating the mode of production); societies with the Asian mode of production (the presence special kind collective ownership of land); slave-owning societies (ownership of people and the use of slave labor); feudal (exploitation of peasants attached to the land); communist or socialist societies (equal attitude of all to ownership of the means of production through the elimination of private property relations).
Traditional, industrial and post-industrial societies
The most stable in modern sociology is the typology based on the allocation of traditional, industrial and post-industrial societies.
A traditional society (it is also called simple and agrarian) is a society with an agrarian way of life, sedentary structures and a method of socio-cultural regulation based on traditions (traditional society). The behavior of individuals in it is strictly controlled, regulated by the customs and norms of traditional behavior, established social institutions, among which the family and community will be the most important. Any attempts are rejected social transformation, innovations. It is characterized by low rates of development and production. Important for this type of society is a well-established social solidarity, which was established by Durkheim, studying the society of the Australian Aborigines.
A traditional society is characterized by a natural division and specialization of labor (mainly by gender and age), personalization of interpersonal communication (directly by individuals, and not by officials or status persons), informal regulation of interactions (by the norms of the unwritten laws of religion and morality), connectedness of members by kinship relations (family type of organization). community), a primitive system of community management (hereditary power, the rule of elders).
Modern societies are distinguished by the following features: the role-based nature of interaction (expectations and behavior of people are determined by the social status and social functions of individuals); the developing deep division of labor (on a professional and qualification basis related to education and work experience); a formal system of regulation of relations (based on written law: laws, regulations, contracts, etc.); complex system social management(singling out the institution of management, special governing bodies: political, economic, territorial and self-government); secularization of religion (separation of it from the system of government); selection of a set social institutions(self-reproducing systems of special relations that allow for social control, inequality, protection of its members, distribution of benefits, production, communication).
These include industrial and post-industrial societies.
An industrial society is a type of organization of social life that combines the freedom and interests of the individual with the general principles governing their joint activities. It is characterized by flexibility social structures, social mobility, developed communication system.
In the 1960s the concepts of a post-industrial (information) society appear (D. Bell, A. Touraine, J. Habermas), caused by drastic changes in the economy and culture of the most developed countries. The role of knowledge and information, computer and automatic devices is recognized as leading in society. An individual who has received the necessary education, who has access to latest information, receives preferential chances of moving up the ladder of the social hierarchy. Creative work becomes the main goal of a person in society.
The negative side of the post-industrial society is the danger of strengthening social control from the state, the ruling elite through access to information and electronic means mass media and communication over people and society as a whole.
The life world of human society is increasingly subject to the logic of efficiency and instrumentalism. Culture, including traditional values, is destroyed under the influence of administrative control, which tends to standardize and unify social relations and social behavior. Society is increasingly subject to the logic of economic life and bureaucratic thinking.
Distinctive features of a post-industrial society:
§ transition from the production of goods to a service economy;
§ the rise and dominance of highly educated vocational professionals;
§ the main role of theoretical knowledge as a source of discoveries and political decisions in society;
§ control over technology and the ability to assess the consequences of scientific and technological innovations;
§ decision-making based on the creation of intellectual technology, as well as using the so-called information technology.
The latter was brought to life by the needs of the information society that began to take shape. The emergence of such a phenomenon is by no means accidental. basis social dynamics in the information society are not traditional material resources, which are also largely exhausted, but information (intellectual): knowledge, scientific, organizational factors, intellectual abilities of people, their initiative, creativity.
The concept of post-industrialism has been developed in detail today, it has a lot of supporters and an ever-increasing number of opponents. In the world, two main directions for assessing the future development of human society have been formed: eco-pessimism and techno-optimism. Ecopessimism predicts total global catastrophe in 2030 due to rising pollution environment; destruction of the Earth's biosphere. Techno-optimism paints a more rosy picture, suggesting that scientific and technical progress cope with all the difficulties in the development of society.
Basic typologies of society
Several typologies of society have been proposed in the history of social thought.
Typologies of society during the formation of sociological science
The founder of sociology, the French scientist O. Comte, proposed a three-part stadial typology, which included:
§ stage of military domination;
§ stage of feudal rule;
§ stage of industrial civilization.
G. Spencer's typology is based on the principle of the evolutionary development of societies from simple to complex, i.e. from an elementary society to an increasingly differentiated one. Spencer presented the development of societies as an integral part of an evolutionary process that is unified for all nature. The lowest pole of the evolution of society is formed by the so-called military societies, characterized by high homogeneity, the subordinate position of the individual and the dominance of coercion as an integration factor. From this phase, through a series of intermediate phases, society develops to the highest pole - an industrial society dominated by democracy, the voluntary nature of integration, spiritual pluralism and diversity. (11)
Signs of what type of society are there in Russia?
The type of society in modern Russia can be characterized in different ways. On the one hand, Russia is an industrial society, possibly with elements of a post-industrial society. On the other hand, modern society can be characterized as state capitalism with the highest degree of monopolization. Russia can also be called a statist system inherited from Soviet times.
In the 21st century, Russian society is progressing from an industrial society (that which is engaged in the production and processing of raw materials) to a post-industrial one (the priority in such a society is development in the field of technology and innovation). Today, the country is interested in the field of computer technology, the latest developments in the field of nanotechnology, as well as information innovations. Appears a large number of specialists and professionals in these fields. Let's hope that Russia will not stop there, and will firmly take the path of post-industrial development of society.
According to some estimates, Russia is usually attributed to the post-industrial type of society, since it is the final component of production, including advertising, trade, and marketing, that makes a significant contribution to the cost of material goods. The information component of production in the form of R&D and patents is also large. However, there is an opinion, given the dependence of the economy on raw materials, that we still live in an industrial society.
4. M. Bakunin: human freedom consists solely in the fact that he obeys natural laws, because he himself recognizes them as such, and not because they were not externally imposed on him by any extraneous will - divine or human, collective or individual ". Confirm or refute the conclusion
Throughout history - regardless of the type of formations and the nature of power - there have been and, apparently, for a long time to come there will be strong anarchist tendencies in the moods and behavior of large social groups.
The opinion about the petty-bourgeois nature of anarchism still dominates in Marxist literature. In our opinion, this phenomenon has more broad sense, reflecting a certain mental attitude and the form of behavior of various social strata, including groups of workers, students, and intelligentsia. Anarchism is not an accident, not an invention of Proudhon or Bakunin, but a completely natural phenomenon in the life of any society.
In October 1989, an interesting and fruitful discussion took place, which determined a new approach to assessing the theoretical and political heritage of M. Bakunin. - See Questions of Philosophy, 1990, No. 3, p. 165-169. This choice is due to two additional considerations.
The first boils down to the fact that it is the internal contradictions of the ethics of anarchism that are of greatest interest. Their comprehension to a large extent helps to understand some common processes moral development.
The second consideration boils down to the fact that in general the problem of universal morality was almost forgotten by us and relegated to the department of "petty-bourgeois sentimentalism" and "priestry". In Marxist theory, the idea of the priority of "class morality" completely prevailed. All universal criteria of morality were evaluated as harmful inventions of the church and bourgeois propaganda.
In any Marxist philosophical reference book one can find a list of "abominations of anarchism" - and egoism, and banditry, and irrationalism, and voluntarism, and subjectivism, and counterrevolutionaryism, and much more. In any case, one cannot find any positive opinions about anarchism anywhere. But what is interesting is that almost all criticism is directed at the political face of anarchism, at its role in concrete politics. As for the analysis of the strictly moral (or, if you like, immoral) aspects of the doctrine, they are placed in a dependent position on politics. The logic is this: is it possible to talk about any morality of anarchism, if its political role is reactionary and harmful from the point of view of the revolutionary proletariat and Marxist-Leninist theory? Of course not. And if so, then all anarchists are children of the Father of lies, i.e. devil. After all, it was not for nothing that the father of Russian anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin, rejecting belief in God, defiantly worshiped "the first free thinker and emancipator of the worlds" - Satan.
Contrary to common philistine views on anarchy as a kind of chaos and licentiousness, almost banditry, etc., the root meaning of this Greek word means "anarchy", "anarchy". That is how the greatest representative of anarchism, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876), interpreted anarchy. "Freedom! Only freedom, complete freedom for everyone and for everyone! This is our morality and our only religion. Freedom - characteristic man, this is what distinguishes him from wild animals. It contains the only proof of his humanity," Bakunin wrote about the moral content of the anarchist model of the structure of life. He especially strongly and consistently defended the principle of linking the freedom of one with the freedom of all in the future society: "Consequently, freedom is not a restriction, but the assertion of the freedom of all . This is the law of interconnection. "The triple interconnection - the brotherhood of people in reason, in labor and in freedom - that, in his opinion," constitutes the basis of democracy ... The exercise of freedom in equality - this is justice. "It is difficult to disagree with this judgment.
There is only one single dogma, one single moral basis for people - freedom, and therefore the entire organization of social life must be built in accordance with this principle. This ideal meant, according to Bakunin, anarchy. In essence, it was nothing but the communist system.
Both Marx and Bakunin saw the humanistic side of their ideal in the striving to survive in the future of the state and the transition to self-government. The discrepancy concerned not the content, but the ways and speed of achieving the goal. For Bakunin, a simple leap from classes and the state to a classless and stateless society was both possible and desirable.
According to scientific socialism, the path to the complete freedom of man and society is long and lies through the dictatorship of the proletariat, through the temporary expansion of revolutionary state violence. Bakunin strove at all costs to reduce the time of transition from an exploitative and unjust society to a free and just system.
Absoluteizing the idea of the freedom of the human person, Bakunin naturally came to the conclusion that its main enemy is the state and, in general, any power. He unhesitatingly extended this assessment to the dictatorship of the proletariat, opposing to it the image of luminous powerlessness - anarchy. "Revolutionaries - politicians, adherents of the dictatorship," he wrote, "wish the first victories of calming passions, they want order, the trust of the masses, submission to the authorities created on the path of the revolution. Thus, they proclaim a new state. We, on the contrary, will feed, awaken, unbridled passions bring anarchy to life."
The Program of the Bakunin International Socialist Alliance stated: “We are not afraid of anarchy, but we call for it, convinced that from this anarchy, that is, from the full manifestation of the liberated folk life, freedom, equality, justice must be born, new order and the very force of the revolution against reaction. This new life - the people's revolution - will undoubtedly not be slow to organize itself, but it will create its revolutionary organization from the bottom up and from the periphery to the center - in accordance with the principle of freedom.
So, every state is "equally" hateful, anarchy is a synonym for freedom and revolution, the source of a "new order": without power, property, religion. Such was the creed of the secret associations of the "international brothers" - the Bakuninists, who believed that the new revolutionary power can only be "even more despotic" than the former, and therefore must be completely refuted a priori.
In his movement towards understanding anarchism as the highest stage of humanism and freedom, Bakunin went through a difficult and difficult path. Spiritual father anarchism, in his youth he was a passionate and sincere apologist for religion and Christian morality. Admiration for God and the harmony of nature, the desire to find harmony in "absolute love" for truth - this is the main aspiration of young Bakunin ..
The mood of active spiritual activity and personal moral improvement prompted him to take a position of critical attitude to reality. In a letter dated May 7, 1835, Bakunin wrote: “I am a man of circumstances, and the hand of God has inscribed in my heart the following sacred letters, embracing my whole existence: “He will not live for himself.” I want to realize this wonderful future. I will make myself worthy of it. To be able to sacrifice everything for this sacred purpose is my only ambition."
Gradually, the apology of philanthropy is replaced by a persistent search for effective ways to improve society. In a letter to his brother (March 1845), Bakunin declares: “To free a person is the only legitimate and beneficent influence ... Not forgiveness, but inexorable war against our enemies, because they are enemies of everything human in us, enemies of our dignity, our freedom ".
Since then, the motive of freedom has come to the fore in Bakunin's worldview. Humanity develops into its political incarnation - "love of freedom". The rejection of Christian humility and the transition to the positions of "really electric contact with the people" and the revolutionary struggle for freedom marked new stage in the life of Bakunin. In "Appeal of the Russian Patriot to Slavic peoples", written under the influence of the revolution of 1848, he emphasized: "It is necessary to destroy the material and moral conditions of our modern life to topple the current obsolete social world, which has become powerless and barren, upside down.
It was another step towards anarchism. IN morally Bakunin still stands on the positions of Christian philanthropy, but already demands the overthrow of the power of the state and the church, "the realization of freedom in equality." He believes: "Everything that corresponds to the needs of man, as well as the conditions of his development and his full existence, is GOOD. Everything that is disgusting to him is EVIL." It was a humanistic view of life and the task of its renewal.
Based on such a vision of good and evil, Bakunin came closer and closer to the idea of rebellion: a downtrodden and oppressed people, he writes, have only three means to get out of a slave state, "of which two are imaginary and one is real. The first two are a tavern and a church , the depravity of the body or the depravity of the soul. The third is the social revolution, "a complete moral and social revolution."
Fundamental disagreements on questions of tactics, breach of discipline, factional behind-the-scenes intrigues - all this led Bakunin to a serious conflict both with the ideas of scientific socialism of K. Marx and F. Engels, and with the political course of the International Association of Workers. The break between Marxists and anarchists became inevitable. The Commission of the First International, which included K. Marx and F. Engels, after analyzing in detail the documents on the activities of the Bakuninists, issued a special report in July 1873, in which, along with other accusations, it was concluded that the "all-destructive anarchists" at the head with Bakunin "they want to bring everything into a state of amorphism in order to establish anarchy in the field of morality, they carry bourgeois immorality to the extreme."
This assessment confused the ultimate goal (anarchy, i.e. freedom) with the method of achieving it. To a certain extent, this confusion was also characteristic of Bakunin himself. But in his original positions he remained an honest revolutionary and defender of the new morality. Regardless of his bad personal qualities - pride, irascibility, individualism - his behavior, even his very struggle with the unquestioning authority of Marx and Engels for the right to have his own point of view, his organization cannot be considered as a sign of immoral behavior. What was needed here was not angry accusations, but sober political assessments. As for morality, it should be borne in mind that Bakunin himself, more and more immersed in politics and moving away from religion, experienced a strong moral shock, abandoning his own deep religiosity for the sake of the idea of freedom. It would be more accurate to say this: rejecting the official religion, he actually defended the Christian idea of human freedom, bringing it to full implementation. This point is very important for understanding his orientation towards anarchy.
Recognizing progressive role early Christianity, Bakunin attacked the official religion and the church with all his fury, accusing them of perverting the true Christ, of inciting violence and exploitation. He contrasted "Divine morality" with its humiliation of man with a new "human morality" - the morality of the complete freedom of man. Defending the idea of socialism and anarchy, he wrote: “Finally, isn’t socialism, by its very goal, which is the realization on earth, and not in heaven, of human well-being and all human aspirations without any heavenly compensation, the completion and, therefore, the negation of every religion, which will no longer have any basis for existence, once its aspirations are realized? In this he in a certain sense merged with the "Christian communism" of W. Weitling, trying to find a direct connection between Christian and communist ideals.
For the realization of true freedom, according to Bakunin, it is necessary to abandon the omnipotence of private property and the authoritarian pressure of the state, dependence on religion and the church: " human mind is recognized as the only criterion of truth, human conscience - the basis of justice, individual and collective freedom - the source and only basis of order in man. "What is immoral in this orientation? What postulate means immorality? In our opinion, this is a noble, humanistic and highly moral option goal setting to create a new just society, moreover, corresponding to the communist ideal.
Bakunin rejected the idea of a revolutionary dictatorship not on a whim, but in strict accordance with the absolutization of the principle of freedom. Any government, even the most revolutionary, is fraught with violence, the denial of freedom. However, the denial of the state concerned only its violent, but not organizing function. According to Bakunin, political organization future society was to be built on the following principles: separation of church and state; freedom of conscience and worship; the absolute freedom of every individual who lives by his own labor; universal voting rights, freedom of the press and assembly; autonomy of communities with the right of self-government; provincial autonomy; abandonment of imperial ambitions; cancellation of the right of inheritance, etc.
"Social solidarity is the first human law, freedom is the second law of society. Both of these laws complement each other and, being inseparable from one another, constitute the whole essence of humanity. Thus, freedom is not a negation of solidarity, on the contrary, it is a development and , if I may say so, the humanization of the latter".
Such were Bakunin's views on the ultimate goals of the struggle. You can't call them immoral. In them, in the first place, and manifested bright side anarchist ethics of Bakunin. Let us now turn to the moral principles of the second founder of anarchism - Prince Peter Alekseevich Kropotkin (1842-1921). He just as ardently and energetically stood up for the freedom of man, for the destruction of the state, property and religion, while always and in everything assigning a certain role to the "moral principle". He never allowed the thought of the possibility of any immoral, or not completely moral, methods of struggle, even for the sake of the speedy achievement of "powerless communism."
The quintessence of Kropotkin's views on the role of the moral factor can be the following emotional passage from the mentioned lecture: "We declare war not only on the abstract trinity in the person of Law, Religion and Power."
Kropotkin's humanistic concept was built not only on a Christian one, like Bakunin's, but also, basically, on a natural science foundation. And this circumstance to a large extent predetermined the difference in the views of the two founders of anarchism on morality. This thought ... was for me the key to the whole problem. " Bakunin expressed the same idea in his own way. "In the intellectual and moral world," he noted, "as in the physical world, only the positive exists; the negative does not exist, it is not a separate being, but only a more or less significant decrease in the positive ... increased by education.
As we can see, both Bakunin and Kropotkin, and thousands of their sincere followers, proceeded in their understanding of the goals of progress and revolution from the categories of high morality and philanthropy. This was the strongest and most attractive side of the anarchist ethic. But there was another, contradictory side of their worldview. It is about the approach of anarchism to the means and ways of achieving anarchy as a goal. The question of the conformity of ends and means is perhaps the most difficult in any moral system, because here politics and morality are equivalent. For the sake of achieving the goal, it is considered in politics that any means are acceptable. And such a line gives a specific effect.
Morality also prohibits the use of wrong, dirty means to achieve even the brightest goal. But then the goal is often unattainable. Does this mean that morality puts the means above the end and is ready to sacrifice the main thing? This dilemma confronts anyone who would like to reconcile politics and morality. But in most cases, the hope for such reconciliation is a chimera, a utopia and self-deception.
How did Bakunin solve this insoluble problem? Did he have any doubts about this? In our opinion, if they were, then only at the beginning of his political career. In the future, he, giving priority to anarchy as a goal, subordinated all his concrete actions to this. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) also substantiated the anarchist doctrine in his own way. He tried to put anarchism on an economic footing, defending small property and opposing it to "stolen" and therefore condemned to death large property. "Down with the party; down with power; absolute freedom of man and citizen - this is our political and social credo," Proudhon declared.
In the conditions of the growing spontaneous protest of the “lower classes” in the 1950s and 1960s, both in Europe and in Russia, anarchism flourished as a special political trend.
Bakunin was a resolute supporter of revolutionary violence, spontaneous mass rebellion, which alone is capable of destroying the world of "the legal state and the entire so-called bourgeois civilization." In his opinion, a real "revolutionary puts himself outside the law both in practice and emotionally (more precisely: morally. - B.K.). He identifies himself with bandits, robbers, people who attack bourgeois society, engaging in direct robbery and destroying someone else's property. Bakunin liked to shout such shocking slogans, as if on purpose demanding from every revolutionary a complete rejection of any kind of moral hesitation and restrictions. Revolutionary messianism was in some strange way combined with the most obvious amoralism, which gave K. Marx and F. Engels reason to define Bakunin's morality in the sphere of choosing means as Jesuit, i.e. double-dealing, hypocritical, deceitful.
Violence and immorality were indeed tolerated by the Bakuninists. In one of his letters, Bakunin wrote: “Poison, a knife, a noose, etc. The revolution sanctifies anyway. So, the field is open! with fire and sword, uniting fraternally with those who will do the same throughout Europe." Poison, knife, loop - a set of tools, suitable, perhaps, only for a medieval robber, and not for an organized revolutionary movement. But it was precisely in the revival of the traditions of robber freemen and individual rebellion against those in power that Bakunin saw the task. He quite sincerely wrote: "Only in robbery is proof of the vitality, passion and strength of the people." The idealization of medieval forms of protest by common people against princes and feudal lords was extended by the founder of anarchism to other times and customs. This indicated, among other things, that Bakunin did not like and did not understand the city, and even more so the demands of the labor movement. Speaking against the absolutization of violent methods of struggle, the great Russian democrat and educator H.P. Ogarev wrote to Bakunin: "Suppress the anxiety, the vacillation of thoughts and actions, humble yourself until you doom yourself to preparatory work." But it is precisely the organic rejection of any "preparatory work" as boring, monotonous, invisible, dull, etc. and gave rise to a passion for terror, the rejection of political methods of struggle.
Thus, the attitude of anarchists to the choice of means to achieve a noble goal was distinguished by the most unprincipled pragmatism. Any pangs of conscience were considered immoral, if it was about the interests of the "revolutionary cause." The "deed" itself, according to the anarchists, is the moral justification of any means for the accomplishment of this "deed".
The humanistic attitude contradicts the demands that the anarchists made of themselves and people. Here stands out the famous Catechism of the Revolutionary. Modern science considers S.G. Nechaev (1847-1882), although, according to the Commission of the First International, the text was written by Bakunin.
The ideas expressed by Nechaev that a "comrade" can be deceived, blackmailed and even killed for disobedience were put into practice by him (for example, on his orders, student Ivanov was killed in 1869, who rebelled against the dictates "the leaders were suspected by him of betrayal).
What an ominous game of the diseased imagination of two people - old Bakunin and young Nechaev, who stirred up many beautiful and beautiful people with their ideas. honest people who wanted to "go into the revolution", but ended up in a swamp of immorality and falsehood! Anarchy in the interpretation of Bakunin, according to the fair definition of K. Marx, turned from freedom and classlessness "into general destruction; revolution - into a series of murders, first individual, then mass; the only rule of conduct is exalted Jesuit morality; the example of a revolutionary is a robber."
So, high morality in determining the goal and the rejection of moral restrictions in the choice of means - such is the contradictory essence of the ethics of anarchism.
5. Guberman I.: “Our Lord is a tradition. And in it - its blessings and obstacles; unwritten rules are stronger than the most cruel laws." Confirm or refute the assessment of the role of traditions in Russia
Igor Guberman - the writer lives in Jerusalem, but, nevertheless, is sure that humor in Russia has not died, has not slipped into stupid American jokes.
Igor Mironovich Huberman became widely known thanks to his aphoristic and satirical quatrains - "gariks". He was born on July 7, 1936 in Kharkov.
After school, he entered the Moscow Institute of Railway Engineers (MIIT). In 1958 he graduated from MIIT with a degree in electrical engineering. For several years he worked in his specialty, while simultaneously studying literature.
In the late 1950s, he met A. Ginzburg, as well as a number of other freedom-loving philosophers, figures of literature, and fine arts. He wrote popular science books, but more and more actively manifested himself as a dissident poet.
In 1979 Huberman was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison. The authorities, not wanting an unnecessary political process, tried Huberman as a criminal under an article for speculation. Once in the camp, Huberman kept diaries there as well.
In 1984 the poet returned from Siberia. For a long time I could not register in Moscow and get a job.
In 1987, Huberman emigrated from the USSR, since March 1988 he has been living in Jerusalem. He has an older brother, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences David Mironovich Guberman, who is one of the authors of the project for drilling superdeep wells and currently holds the position of director of the Research and Production Center "Kola Superdeep
Igor Huberman often comes to Russia, performs at poetry evenings. But even today he is still a dissident at heart - a person who is always dissatisfied with something. He believes that during the years of his absence, changes have taken place in his homeland: grandiose construction projects are underway in the cities, multi-storey office centers have risen.
Igor Guberman left the USSR and since then he has never regretted that he lives in Israel. At first it was very difficult for him, although the state provided comprehensive assistance: it paid for an apartment in Jerusalem and taught the whole family the language, gave money for a comfortable life. A particularly difficult time fell on the beginning of the 90s - due to the increase in the flow of repatriates, especially from Russia. This led to a surge in unemployment and other everyday troubles.
