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