1. What are the characteristics of a traditional society?

Traditional society is characterized, first of all, by the predominance of agricultural production. In such a society, there are cities, but their role in the overall economy is not significant. The traditional society is little subject to change. And although they are visible for centuries, in the life of one generation everything basically remains unchanged. The main features of a traditional society are:

The predominantly agrarian nature of the economy;

estate organization;

Relative stability of the structure of society;

Low or relatively low social mobility.

2. What is modernization? What areas of life in European society did it affect in the first place? Why?

Modernization is the process of transition from a traditional society to an industrial one, to a capitalist civilization capable of rapid change and adaptation. Literally translated, this word means "renewal", this phenomenon has introduced innovations in all spheres of human life and activity. Primary in this sense were the changes in the economy associated with the growth of trade and production, because they gave rise to new needs in society. However, these changes could not lead to anything without support in the spiritual realm. And the economic success itself could only be achieved because some barriers in the worldview of people in Europe had already been removed by previous centuries of development.

3. What points of view on the periodization of the history of the New Age do you know?

According to the supporters of the theory of "stages of growth", the New Age begins with the advent of an industrial society, that is, with the beginning of the industrial revolution, and ends with the transition to a post-industrial one. Therefore, supporters of this theory (O. Toffler, Z. Brzezinski) believe that this period of history began at the end of the 18th century. and lasted until the 1970s.

Traditional Marxist historiography associated the advent of the New Age with a time when capitalism, albeit pre-industrial, was sufficiently strengthened in society. Therefore, Soviet historiography began this period with the English bourgeois revolution in the middle of the 17th century. At the same time, the end of the XVIII century. (French bourgeois and industrial revolutions) were considered the boundary between two sub-periods of modern times.

According to the civilizational approach (theories of K. Jaspers, for example), the New Age begins when, instead of local civilizations, a global one begins to take shape. This has been happening since the Great Geographical Discoveries, which made all other parts of the world known to Europe and began to connect them.

Modern historiography as a whole is based on the Marxist division, however, it also includes a civilizational approach, therefore it includes two of its subperiods, and considers the time from the beginning of the Great geographical discoveries to the English Revolution to be transitional, although related to the New Age.

4. What factors and events determined the crisis of traditional society in Europe? Describe the significance of the Hussite movement in the Czech Republic.

The crisis of medieval society in Europe was determined by:

Plague epidemics and the spiritual crisis associated with them;

Changes in economic life associated with plague epidemics and the demographic changes caused by them;

Proto-reformation Hussite movement in the Czech Republic.

The Hussite movement played a special role in the crisis of medieval European society. A new time has come with the advent of not only the Great geographical discoveries, but also the reformation. It was confessional dualism that largely determined the image of European society in modern times. The Hussite movement was the forerunner of the Reformation. It put forward in many ways the same ideas, its followers in the XVI century. organically joined the reform movement. The main difference lies in the locality of the Hussites - their ideas did not spread beyond the Czech Republic. According to some researchers, the decisive role was played by the not yet invented in the first half of the 15th century. printing press: the Hussites did not yet have the means to convey their ideas to a pan-European audience.

5. What are the main features of the Renaissance man's worldview.

Main features:

Interest in the personality of a person, his individuality and activity, especially creativity;

Admiration for all manifestations of antiquity (only in the Renaissance did the collection of any ancient inscriptions, regardless of content, spread);

The desire to imitate antiquity, but not blind copying, but following its spirit, as it was understood by the figures of the Renaissance

Attention to the beauty of nature and especially the human body, the desire to reproduce it.

Let's read the information.

Characteristic features of a traditional society

Consider examples.

Let's do online tasks.

We invite you to intellectual and gaming activities.

Intellectual games "Social science"

Intellectual games at the forum "Know Society"

Used Books:

1. Social science: Textbook for grade 10. Part 1 - 3rd ed. / A.I. Kravchenko. - M .: "TID "Russian Word - RS", 2003.

2. Social science: Textbook for grade 11. – 5th ed. / A.I. Kravchenko, E.A. Pevtsova. - M .: LLC "TID "Russian Word - RS", 2004.

3. Unified State Examination 2009. Social studies. Reference book / O.V.Kishenkova. – M. : Eksmo, 2008.

4. Social science: USE-2008: real tasks / ed. O.A. Kotova, T.E. Liskova. - M. : AST: Astrel, 2008.

5. Unified State Exam 2010. Social science: tutor / A.Yu. Lazebnikova, E.L. Rutkovskaya, M.Yu. Brandt and others - M .: Eksmo, 2010.

6. Social science. Preparation for the state final certification-2010: teaching aid / O.A. Chernysheva, R.P. Pazin. - Rostov n / a: Legion, 2009.

7. Social science. Experimental examination paper. Typical test tasks. Grade 8 / S.V. Krayushkina. - M .: Publishing house "Exam", 2009.

8. Social science: a complete reference book / P.A. Baranov, A.V. Vorontsov, S.V. Shevchenko; ed. P.A. Baranova. – M.: AST: Astrel; Vladimir: VKT, 2010.

9. Social science: profile. level: textbook. For 10 cells. general education Institutions / L.N. Bogolyubov, A.Yu. Lazebnikova, N.M. Smirnova and others, ed. L.N. Bogolyubova and others - M .: Education, 2007.

The history of the countries of Asia and Africa in the Middle Ages is an integral part of the world-historical process. If the ancient history covers the primitive communal and slave-owning system, and the new one - the era of capitalism, then the medieval one corresponds mainly to the time of the existence of feudalism. However, there is a problem of the chronology of the Eastern Middle Ages, since the time frames are very arbitrary and the choice of periodization criteria is still controversial in the scientific community. According to some, feudal relations in the countries of the East exhausted themselves during the 16th-18th centuries, so the Great Francis should be considered the final frontier of their Middle Ages. Revolution, end of the 8th century. Others believe that the Middle Ages ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. There is also a point of view that Srednev. In the East, it existed from the beginning of our era until the 7th-19th centuries.

Some Scholars consider the 11th century as the peak of the Middle Ages in the East. The level of civilization correlated with Europe as 1:25. Characteristic features of this period were

Higher degree of urbanization (20% in Chinese cities, 15-20% in Muslim countries, 13% in Europe)

High produces. Labor and production level

Development of international trade, high profits. The East traded trade goods (cloth, weapons, paper, porcelain), Europe specialized. on raw materials.

Ahead of the East and in terms of literacy and education

High life expectancy (in Europe - 23-50 years, in the East 50 years were the norm)

Thus, we can say that in the Middle Ages the East continued to develop in a spiral. During this period, significant progressive movements take place - advances in the industrial and intellectual spheres.

2. Features of the transition of the countries of the East from Antiquity to the Middle Ages

Historians identify the following stages in the development of the Middle Ages. in the East:

I-IV centuries - the birth of feudal relations

7th-10th centuries - the movement of the population to the countryside, the decline of cities, the formation of feudal relations.

XI-XII centuries - pre-Mongolian period, the heyday of feudalism, state. structures and cultural takeoff.

13th century - the time of the Mongol conquests.

XIV-XVI centuries - post-Mongolian stage, slow development, conservation of despotism.

XVII-XIX centuries - colonial conquest.

According to the totality of qualitative parameters, the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages.

happened as follows:

Near East (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia) in the 4th century BC The period began with the conquests of Alexander the Great. Romanization and Christianization of the population took place until the Arab conquests of the 7th century.

India (all Hindustan, Pakistan, Bangladesh). The peak of development came only in the 15th-17th centuries.

China and the Far East. Back in the second century BC. feudal relations began to emerge. Under the influence of China, such countries as Japan, Korea, and Vietnam received an impetus for development.

However, despite the intensive development of the countries of the East, there was a factor of inhibition. It expressed itself in:

Long-term preservation of the remnants of primitive society - slavery (cancelled only in 1911, in some cases even later - in Ethiopia in 1942 and in Saudi Arabia in 1962)

Stable communal forms in the social structure, curbing the differentiation of Christianity

The predominance of the state property and power of the state. over private property

The power of the feudal lords over the city.

Active migration of the population also complicated the progressive development of Eastern society.

The heterogeneity of the natural environment, regional differences in culture and economy gave rise to a huge variety of features of the patterns of development of the countries of the East.

3. The main features of the development of traditional society.

In order to identify the main features of a traditional society, one should consider them in comparison with a technogenic society, as well as touch on only some of the most important aspects, such as the relationship of society to nature. Value system, economics, attitude towards a person

Now, knowing the features of a traditional society, we can explain the reasons for closed development, and the despotism of power, and many other factors that determine the development of entire civilizations.

4. Geopolitical situation at the turn of Antiquity and the Middle Ages

At the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages, Iran became the political leader. They appear in the territory of the Front East. Many historians believe that they descended from the Caucasus or from Central Asia. They actively begin to assimilate with the local population.

And already from about the 7th century, 2 new ethnic groups begin to take shape - in the north - the Medes and in the south - the Persians. The Medes are developing more actively, as they were constantly drawn into wars with Assyria and Urartu. In the south, the process was slower, and Cyrus II, who ruled from 558 BC, played a decisive role in the development of the Persians. e - 530 AD (became famous for the collapse of Babylon, the founder of the Achaemenid dynasty).

Also one of the most important figures was Darius I, who laid the foundation of Iranian statehood.

After that, the territory of Western Asia was under the rule of the Greeks for 500 years (the work of Alexander the Great). The baton of capture was intercepted by Sasanian Iran, the basis of which was laid by the Persians. They came from those places that were rightfully considered the core of the power of Pars (Persida) and were the most cultured and developed ethnic group.

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 distinguishing different types of society. For example, in Plato and Aristotle, societies differ in the type of state structure: monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy. In modern versions of this approach, there is a separation of totalitarian ones (the state determines all the main directions of 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 an Asian mode of production (the presence of a special type of 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 (also called simple and agrarian) is a society with an agrarian way of life, sedentary structures and a method of sociocultural 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. Attempts of any social transformations, innovations are rejected. 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.); a complex system of 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); the allocation of many 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 the flexibility of social structures, social mobility, and a developed system of communications.

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 the latest information, gets an advantageous chance 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 on the part of the state, the ruling elite through access to information and electronic 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. The basis of social dynamics in the information society is 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 a total global catastrophe in 2030 due to increasing environmental pollution; destruction of the Earth's biosphere. Techno-optimism paints a more rosy picture, assuming that scientific and technological progress will 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-term 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 common to 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. You can also call Russia 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. There are a large number of specialists and professionals in these areas. 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 a broader meaning, reflecting a certain psychological attitude and 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 of the general processes of 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 is a characteristic feature of a person, 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 organization of life. Especially resolutely and consistently he 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 relationship - the brotherhood of people in mind, in work and in freedom - that, in his opinion, "is the basis of democracy ... The implementation 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 radiant 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 people's life, freedom, equality, justice, a new order and the very strength of the revolution must be born." 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 "international brothers" - the Bakuninists, who believed that the new revolutionary power could only be "even more despotic" than the former, and therefore should be completely denied a priori.

In his movement towards understanding anarchism as the highest stage of humanism and freedom, Bakunin went through a difficult and difficult path. The spiritual father of 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 a new stage in Bakunin's life. In the "Appeal of a Russian Patriot to the 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 turn the current obsolete social world, which has become powerless and fruitless, upside down."

It was another step towards anarchism. In moral terms, Bakunin still stands on the positions of Christian philanthropy, but he 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 the progressive role of 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, connected with W. Weitling's "Christian communism", trying to find a direct connection between Christian and communist ideals.

To realize 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: "The human mind is recognized as the only criterion of truth, human conscience is the basis of justice, individual and collective freedom is the source and only basis of order. in man." What is immoral in this orientation? Which postulate means immorality? In our opinion, this is a noble, humanistic and highly moral version of the goal setting for the creation of 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 state power, 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, the political organization of the future society was to be based on the following principles: the 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, first of all, the bright side of Bakunin's anarchist ethics was manifested. 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 sick imagination of two people - old Bakunin and young Nechaev, who stirred up with their ideas many fine and 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.

The concept of traditional society

In the process of historical development, a primitive society is transformed into a traditional society. The impetus for its emergence and development was the agrarian revolution and the social changes that arose in connection with it 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. The 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 the formation of a new form of 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.

The formation of a new attitude to education as a special social institution and the nature of the development of scientific knowledge dates back to the time of the functioning of the traditional era. 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 the foundation was laid 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 was the reason for the rather slow accumulation of scientific knowledge and its 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.