Social philosophy.

Anthropology and Social Philosophy of Karl Marx.

The founders of Marxism are the German philosophers K. Marx and F. Engels.

Karl Marx, 1818 - 1883

Engels Friedrich, 1820 - 1895

The doctrine of Marxism emerged in the 1840s. For understanding the social philosophy of Marxism, both the early works of the founders and the mature ones are important. Early works include "German Ideology" (K. Marx and F. Engels), "Critique of Political Economy" (K. Marx), to the works of the mature period - "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (K. Marx and F. Engels), Capital (K. Marx), Civil War in France (K. Marx), Critique of the Gotha Program (K. Marx), Anti-Duhring (F. Engels), Dialectics of Nature (F. Engels), "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (F. Engels) and others.

Social philosophy is a section of philosophical knowledge that studies the social system, its structure, connections and relationships, contradictions and patterns of development. Marxist social philosophy is materialistic dialectics, including the principle of consistency. It contains a study of the origin of a person, family, private property and the state, the economic foundations of social development, forms of class struggle, social consciousness.

Under the conditions of the initial accumulation of capital, Marx formulated a scientific model of the development of society and created a theory of the political struggle of the working class for liberation from exploitation. Karl Marx's theory inspired and supported the working class at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, it became a "weapon" in the hands of the proletariat during the socialist revolution in Russia in 1917. Marx also predicted the onset of a new socio-economic formation - socialism and communism, described in general their features. A new methodology - materialist dialectics - had a great influence on the formation of the doctrine of practical, revolutionary-transforming activity. The socialist and social democratic parties of the working class in Europe, America and Russia carried out their activities on the principles of Marxist philosophy. In the course of the class struggle, the lower strata of society sought to improve their position and participate in political government decisions. For 70 years the working people of Russia have tried to implement the model of socialist relations, however, it will not be possible to do this in one separate country (or even in several countries) within the framework of the world capitalist market, as K. Marx and V.I. Lenin. Part of the theoretical provisions of Marx became the basis of the modern model of the "welfare state" presented in the 20th century in the program documents of European social democracy. Factors in the development of modern society (new types of weapons, informatization, globalization, etc.) have changed the position of hired workers, forms of exploitation and manipulation of consciousness. New realities should be taken into account in modern models of the development of society. However, the Marxist model of man and society retains its attractiveness and relevance in our time.

In the early works of K. Marx and F. Engels, the concept of materialistic understanding of history and also the problem alienation and overcoming it in a class society; in the later, the theory of the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as criticism of opportunism.

The merit of K. Marx is the creation of a materialistic model of the development of society. Materialist philosophers of previous epochs in explaining history remained on idealistic positions, i.e. The decisive engine of history was recognized as the mind of great rulers, military leaders, scientists, or the world mind. Marx was the first to formulate a materialist understanding of society and history. He subdivided all social relations according to their origin and significance into primary and secondary. Primary relationships develop naturally, and regardless of whether a person is aware of them or not, in these relationships a person realizes his needs for food, housing, human reproduction. Relations in which people jointly create the necessary objects and conditions of life Marx called or economic structure of society, real economic basis society or social being. Towering above the base superstructure or political and legal forms of life and social consciousness (science, law, religion, etc.). Marx argued that social being (production) is primary, social consciousness is secondary, because depends on the level and nature of industrial economic relations. It followed from this statement that no matter what fantastic plans were formulated by philosophers and politicians, the main and objective condition for their implementation is the level of economy and material capabilities.

K. Marx took from Hegel's philosophy the formulation of three dialectical laws, but he ascribed these laws not to the world mind, but to nature, since he was a materialist and atheist. The three laws of dialectics are a universal characteristic of the world; they operate in nature, society and human thinking. The first law is the unity and struggle of opposites, the second is the law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones and the law of negation of negation.

Marx presented the history of mankind as a linear, progressive process of replacing the outdated mode of production with a more progressive one, while emphasizing the decisive role of the economic factor. He identified five modes of production or socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist formations. In the primitive formation, all people are equal, united in communities, there is no state, money, market and class struggle. This is the first stage in the development of the system, called the "thesis" in the third law of dialectics. The second stage (antithesis, or first negation) is a private property socio-economic formation, in which Marx united slavery, feudalism and capitalism as essentially identical, differing only in the owner (slave owner, feudal lord, bourgeois). At this stage, primitive equality is denied and private property interests, the state (power), the class struggle, the market and money are affirmed. Huge human resources are dying as a result of war and exploitation, an unreasonable and selfish management system. Marx evaluates such history as fake, inhuman, as a prehistory and believes that the history of a creator man, free from exploitation, poverty and ignorance, should come to replace it. The third stage of development of the system will come - synthesis, removal of contradictions. Marx calls it the communist mode of production. Under communism, social equality (in the ability to use public goods) will be based not only on the social high-tech nature of production, but also on the social nature of the distribution of goods in the interests of the whole society. Marx took the positions of materialism and science, arguing that all people are by nature benevolent, creative and active. They become criminal and lazy in a cruel and indifferent society. He was confident that a humane, technologically advanced and cultured society would be able to overcome the social deformities generated by inequality and humiliation.

Marx was a dialectician and emphasized the positive role of social contradictions. The main economic contradiction he called the contradiction between productive forces and industrial relations... Productive forces are workers with their skills, tools, objects of labor, infrastructure. They represent a progressive, rapidly changing content economic system - a mode of production. The second element of economics, Marx called production relations, which include relations of management, exchange, distribution, consumption and are based on the nature of property enshrined in the law. This is the formal side of the way of production, slowly changing form economic system. Marx emphasized that the ruling class is interested in preserving the system of its own privileges and the distribution of material wealth that is beneficial to it. He seeks to legislate the right of private ownership of factories, factories, mineral resources and does not want political, legal and tax changes in favor of other sectors of society, thereby holding back the modernization of production and the improvement of the people's life. Marx also emphasized that with the maximum aggravation of the contradiction between productive forces and production relations, between antagonistic (irreconcilable) classes, a period of social revolution begins, during which a new class comes to power, the nature of power and property changes, and a transition to a new economic formation takes place. He considered economically ineffective such a type of social relations in which production is of a social nature, and distribution is carried out according to the principle of priority of private interests. Marxism proceeds from the fact that work provides a person with everything he needs - food, clothing, housing; labor turned the monkey into a man; labor relations are the foundation of working class solidarity. Communism will be based on labor relations, work ethics, on the ability of all people to equally enjoy public goods, on "real movement forward." Marx assumed that under communism there will be no private property, market and money, class struggle and social inequality, there will be no state, politics and classes. The new society will be based on the principle of equality of all in the use of social benefits: medical services, education, housing and everything necessary for life, development of abilities and creative work. To overcome the competition for material goods, society needs to rise to a high technological level of production, and for this everyone must make their own positive contribution to its development. The social philosophy of Marx asserts the need to overcome social inequality as a source of suffering and ignorance. He called scientific methodology and theory as a means of overcoming inequality, as well as revolutionary transformative human activity.

The core of Marx's sociological theory is the concept of a materialist understanding of history. In its presentation, one should rely primarily on the classical formulation given by Marx in the Preface to his 1859 Critique of Political Economy, since it is here that he formulates the “general result” to which he came and from which he proceeded in his subsequent works. In using other texts by Marx, it is necessary to adhere to the interpretational model proposed by M. Burav: to consider the materialistic understanding of history primarily as a developing research program of empirical sociology. This will allow avoiding both artificial unification and excessive attention to "breaks" in the corpus of Marx's texts.

So, a comparison of the three classics showed that for Weber the starting point was epistemological problems associated with the question of how knowledge about social reality is possible, while for Durkheim, the determining subject is the very subject of sociology - social facts. In this case, it is assumed that social reality exists as an object subject to cognition: having fixed the existence of a multitude of social facts or social actions, one can begin to study them. Unlike both classics, Marx poses the question more radically: before asking the question of whether what is a social reality and how to investigate it, it is necessary to raise the question of conditions of its possibilities. As has been shown, Marx did not seek to limit his field of research to a certain area of ​​the "social" and, moreover, did not distinguish between sociological and historical research. Social relations cannot be understood outside of their history. Therefore, the question about the conditions for the possibility of social reality - society - turns for him into a question about the possibility of human stories. Arguing against the "idealistic" philosophy of history, which explains historical development by factors such as the evolution of ideas, the development of the human spirit, the actions of "historical personalities" or the activities of "historical peoples", Marx points to "the first precondition of all human history" - the existence of living people, human individuals in a certain natural environment. In order to maintain their existence, these individuals must provide the livelihood they need by transforming and modifying the environment, or material production. Its basis is the purposeful human activity aimed at transforming the material environment into a means for life - work. According to Marx, labor is the generic essence of man, since in labor he is realized as a conscious active being; therefore, it is the material production of living conditions that distinguishes man from animals. Besides labor, a key element of this process is means of production- a set of available natural resources, technologies, tools, etc. The set of means of production and working people employed in production forms social productive forces.

However, material production in the Marxian sense is not limited only to the maintenance and reproduction of the physical existence of individuals - production in the narrow economic sense of the word, a set of certain technological and organizational processes, the use of "factors of production". Having fixed the conditions for the possibility of human history (social reality), he proceeds to consider the very "life process" of individuals. In the course of the production of their own living conditions, people enter into communication (German: Verkehr) with each other, in a relationship of cooperation and division of labor. As Marx and Engels write in German Ideology, the production of life arises as a two-fold process: natural (in the sense of people transforming the material environment) and social, since it presupposes “the cooperation of many individuals” [Marx, Engels, 1955, p. 28]. By producing their livelihood, people indirectly produce their own material life, and their mode of production is that how people jointly create conditions for their own life - this is not just a certain way of organizing work, using technology and resources, but a way of living a certain Lifestyle producing individuals. Therefore, as Marx writes, “individuals who produce in society — and, consequently, the social production of individuals — is, naturally, the starting point” [Marx, 1958, p. 709]. In other words, material production is social production, since in the course of this process certain social relations are established and maintained - relations of production. At each historical stage, the productive forces and production relations form a certain mode of production.

Returning to the comparison with Weber and Durkheim, one could put the category of industrial relations on a par with social facts and social actions. However, what kind of relationship is this? What are their properties and characteristics? Marx gives the classical formulation of the materialist understanding of history in the preface "To the Critique of Political Economy": "In the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, necessary, independent relations from their will - production relations that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces" [ Marks, 1959, p. 6-7]. So, production relations, firstly, in each historical epoch are determined by the achieved level of development of productive forces, technology, organization of labor; secondly, they are necessary - in the logical sense of the word, that is, they are not random and not arbitrary, but are systematically connected with productive forces and are stable; at the same time, production relations arise as a result of the need for material production to maintain human existence, that is, they have “coercive power” in relation to individuals, and therefore, thirdly, they exist independently of the consciousness of the individuals involved in them. In other words, Marx deduces here the autonomy of social reality in relation to the individual, and this is what makes the materialist understanding of history a proper sociological concept.

Wrong to mix materialism Marx to economic determinism: material production is a condition for the possibility of social reality, but the meaning of historical materialism is not at all that "the economy is fate", but that social relations have supra-individual causality, structure the process of human life. In other words, we are not talking about economic determinism, but about social determinism: the empirical diversity of social phenomena cannot be understood either from the individual ideas of people, or from abstract historical-philosophical concepts (“the general development of the human spirit”), or from these phenomena themselves. because, as Marx writes, “they are rooted in material life relations, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of the English and French writers of the 17th and 18th centuries, calls“ civil society ”” [Marx, 1959, p. 6]. Materialism is not about "things" - technological processes or natural resources; material relations in the sense that they exist independently of the will and consciousness of people, and one can get distracted from them only in the imagination. It is impossible to understand human history, state and law, religion and art, economic life "from ourselves", abstracting from the context of social relations. It is easy to see that this thesis coincides with the initial premises of the classics of sociology.

At the same time, “the anatomy of civil society should be sought in political economy” [Marx, 1959, p. 6]. It must be understood that the "political economy" of the time of Marx was a social science in the full sense of the word, which studied the course of economic processes in society - it was this discipline that Marx began to study already in the 1840s, since it made it possible to approach the study of social reality, going further philosophical speculation and normative jurisprudence.

Society is not a closed system, it exists only thanks to the "exchange of substances" with the environment, material production. Acting as its "anatomy", production relations set the principles by which society is structured, and their central element is relations about the means and results of production, the legal expression of which is property relations.

Individuals participating in the production process perform different functions, and control over the means of production and the right to appropriate its results are unequally distributed among them. Property relations are the axis around which class structure society. Class- This is a certain position of an individual or group in the system of social relations, allocated on the basis of the position of this individual or group in social production, attitude to the means of production and participation in the distribution of production results. In accordance with this principle, society is divided into two large classes - owners of the means of production, who control the means and the production process itself, as well as the distribution of its products, and workers, deprived of property rights and control and forced to sell their labor. At the same time, distribution relations, as Marx emphasizes in the Economic Manuscripts, are a subordinate factor, a consequence of property relations. The source of social inequality is not a simple fact of possession of certain material resources, but a conflict in the sphere of production, unequal access and control over the means of production and the resulting relations of domination and subordination. For the same reason, the establishment of legal equality and freedom to conclude economic contracts does not eliminate, but only hides the real inequality arising from the structure of industrial relations.

The totality of production relations acts as the foundation of society, the real basis, determining the limits of variation superstructures- political and legal institutions and forms of social consciousness - literature, art, science, etc. It must be understood that we are not talking here about the one-sided and only influence of the base on the superstructure - the phenomena of political and spiritual life have their own logic, not reducible to logic economic, however "in the end(our italics .- A.R.) the defining moment is the production and reproduction of real life ”[Engels, 1965, p. 370]. Empirical analysis always comes down to analysis multiple causation, and that is precisely why he cannot ignore the influence of the base on the superstructure, of production relations on the forms of law, politics and ideology.

The mode of production determines the processes of social, political and spiritual life. However, the mode of production is not a static system, but a historical formation that has its own dynamics of development. It develops in the process of interaction of productive forces and production relations, which change at different rates, unevenly and at a certain moment come into conflict - a contradiction with each other. The development of the productive forces inevitably entails a change in production relations and, accordingly, the phenomena of the superstructure, but this does not occur simultaneously, but in the process social revolution, period, which Marx designates as "epoch", spanning several centuries.

The restructuring of production relations means a breakdown of the old system of relations between power and domination, a change in the social structure and therefore is accompanied by class conflicts and class struggle. Society is a stable system, but it is subject to historical development and, having reached the limits of its development, enters a period of transformation. A change in material productive forces requires a corresponding restructuring of production relations - social institutions; however, as noted, we are not talking about "spontaneous order", but about stable, objective, material relations related to the vital interests of certain groups subject to historical inertia. Marx emphasizes that, firstly, any social change involves social conflict(which can take the form of a political conflict) does not happen "automatically", and attempts to present it as a neutral process of "economic growth" or "technical progress" only hide the essence of the matter. Secondly, precisely due to the fact that social relations exist independently of the will of individuals, they do not arise and do not disappear at the same time, but they have a historical duration, long-term consequences and effects.

History matters because here and now people rely on the results of the activities of past generations, embodied not only in material culture, but also in social institutions, the creation of which is significantly distant in time from the immediate present. "People make their own history, but they do not do it as they please, under circumstances that they did not choose themselves, but which are directly present, given to them and passed on from the past" [Marx, 1957, p. 119]. Formulated in this quote, the problem of the role of human action in historical change, presented in sociological theory in the form of the well-known dichotomy "agency - structure", allows for different interpretations. Of course, these questions were discussed in the philosophy of history even before Marx, but his research program allows us to consider them as empirical questions, which can be answered by comparative historical research.

Having formulated the concept of a materialist understanding of history, Marx sketches a model for such a study, considering the historical process as a sequence of historical systems - modes of production corresponding to different stages of socio-economic development: Asian, ancient, feudal and modern, bourgeois (Marx did not use the word "capitalism"). In his sociological concept, Marx constructs a program of empirical sociology as historical and comparative discipline. The materialistic understanding of history provides the key to understanding both the relationships within the system and its changes, since they are governed by the same logic.

The principles of this concept open up the possibility of posing many empirical questions. How are economic crises and political revolutions related? How changes in technological processes affect the structure of employment and income distribution? What role does mass mobilization play in institutional change and economic development? Why did England switch to a wage labor system earlier than France? How to explain the economic backwardness of the countries of Eastern Europe in the early modern era? Why did the revolutions in France of the old regime and in Russia take place there and then, and not sooner or later and not anywhere else? As can be seen, these questions are consistent with both qualitative case-oriented (why England?) And quantitative, systematic relationship-oriented variables (how are property relations and political structure related?) Comparative research strategies. However, this is where a number of problems arise.

Awareness of the inconsistency, incompleteness, and one-sidedness of the old materialism led Marx to the conviction of the need to "harmonize the science of society with a materialistic foundation and rebuild it according to this foundation." If materialism generally explains consciousness from being, and not vice versa, then when applied to the social life of mankind, materialism demanded an explanation public consciousness from public being. "Technology - says Marx (Capital, I) - reveals the active relationship of man to nature, the direct process of the production of his life, and at the same time his social conditions of life and the spiritual ideas arising from them." An integral formulation of the basic principles of materialism, extended to human society and its history, Marx gave in the preface to the essay "On the Critique of Political Economy" in the following words:

“In the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, necessary, independent of their will, relations - relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces.

The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political IT and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or - which is only a legal expression of this - with the property relations within which they have developed so far. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations are transformed into their fetters. Then the era of social revolution begins. With the change in the economic basis, a revolution is taking place more or less quickly in the entire immense superstructure. When considering such upheavals, it is always necessary to distinguish a material, with natural-scientific accuracy, a revolution in the economic conditions of production from legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophical, in short: from the ideological forms in which people are aware of this conflict and fight against it.

Just as an individual cannot be judged on the basis of what he thinks of himself, just as one cannot judge such an era of revolution by its consciousness. On the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between social productive forces and production relations "..." In general terms, the Asian, ancient, feudal and modern, bourgeois, modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs of economic social formations ". (Cf. Marx's brief formulation in a letter to Engels dated July 7, 1866: "Our theory on the definition of the organization of labor by means of production.")

The discovery of the materialist understanding of history, or, rather, the consistent continuation, the spread of materialism to the field of social phenomena, eliminated two main shortcomings of previous historical theories. First, they, at best, considered only the ideological motives of the historical activity of people, without examining what causes these motives, not grasping the objective laws in the development of the system of social relations, not seeing the roots of these relations in the degree of development of material production; secondly, the previous theories did not cover just actions the masses population, while historical materialism for the first time made it possible with natural historical accuracy to study the social conditions of life of the masses and the changes in these conditions. Pre-Marxian "sociology" and historiography in the best the case was given the accumulation of raw facts, sketchy typed, and the image of individual aspects of the historical process. Marxism showed the way to a comprehensive, all-round study of the process of the emergence, development and decline of socio-economic formations, considering aggregate all contradictory tendencies, reducing them to precisely defined conditions of life and production of various classes society, eliminating subjectivity and arbitrariness in the choice of individual "dominant" ideas or in their interpretation, revealing roots without excluding all ideas and all different tendencies in the state of material productive forces. People make their own history, but what determines the motives of people and precisely the masses of people, what causes the collisions of conflicting ideas and aspirations, what is the totality of all these collisions of the entire mass of human societies, what are the objective conditions for the production of material life, which create the basis for all the historical activity of people, what is the law the development of these conditions - all this drew attention to Marx and showed the way to the scientific study of history, as a single, natural process in all its enormous versatility and contradictions.

Marx and Engels made their main philosophical discovery - materialistic understanding of history . The possibilities of reason in the development of society are enormous. But his requirements can be realized only if they correspond to the possibilities and needs of the time. Real history is characterized by some objective materialistic factors, their change and development is due to the laws of the historical process that do not depend on reason.

Marxism saw a major defect in all previous materialism in the underestimation of the fact that the basis of man's attitude to reality was materialistic activities, practice. Only on the basis of this basis can one explain how the subjective world of a person is formed and the process of cognition is carried out.

The philosophy of Marxism is called dialectical and historical materialism.

Dialectical materialism proceeds from the recognition of the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness. If the previous materialism was looking for a certain first brick of the universe, then Marx abandoned the physical characteristics of matter and came to the conclusion that the only property of matter is the property of being an objective reality.

Marx and Engels put forward a fundamentally new approach to history. Marxist philosophy proceeds from the recognition of the primacy of social being and the secondary nature of social consciousness. The main meaning of his understanding of history was formulated by Marx as follows: “people enter into the necessity of production relations that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, above this rises the legal and political superstructure. " Consequently, Marx in his historical materialism substantiates the idea that the development of society is naturally historical character, that is, it is done necessarily, naturally, is conditioned by reasons that do not depend on the will and consciousness of people.

26. The problem of the beginning of Russian philosophy. The main periods of its development, features and problems.

Starting to analyze the history of Russian philosophy, we first of all face the problem of its "beginning." According to Zenkovsky, it is possible to speak about philosophy in Russia only in relation to the era of the late 18th - early 19th centuries, and Grigory Skovoroda should be called the first philosopher in the true meaning of this word.

Justifying his point of view, Zenkovsky argues that the existence of philosophy as a special sphere of national culture is associated with the identification of a number of characteristic problems and a completely definite set of concepts and methods designed to fix and solve these problems. In Russia, the presence of these factors becomes evident only in the indicated epoch; in the spiritual culture of previous eras, we find only individual elements of philosophy that do not add up to a complete picture.

Trying to understand the reasons for such a late separation of the sphere of philosophical thinking, Zenkovsky uses the opinion of G. Fedotov, who believed that this was due to the rather late adoption of Christianity and the special nature of its development in Russia. According to Fedotov, by adopting Christianity in its eastern tradition and almost immediately translating the Bible into the national language, Russia made it impossible to adequately perceive ancient culture and at the same time protected itself from the influence of the emerging Western culture, in which philosophy played a very significant role. In Russia, the Christian worldview, adopted on the initiative of the state power and all the time closely interconnected with the state ideology, subjugated all other spheres of culture, which could only develop under the control of religious dogma. Lacking its own conceptual apparatus and its own set of problems, philosophical thought was completely assimilated by dogmatic theology and developed almost exclusively within this sphere.

Therefore, it is quite natural that in Russia philosophy appeared precisely from within theology and only at the moment when, on the one hand, a tendency towards the secularization of culture began to grow in society, a desire arose for liberation from the all-encompassing control and influence of the religious worldview and, on the other hand, when, finally, the legacy of ancient philosophy was perceived, combined with the assimilation of the ideas of modern European philosophy.

The originality of development Russian philosophy is primarily due to the fact that less attention was paid to the problems of epistemology, cognition in general, etc., while socio-anthropological and moral-religious problems come to the fore.

The time of the emergence of philosophy in Russia in its modern meaning, as many researchers note, it can be considered 1755 - the year of foundation of Moscow University, i.e. the era of the Enlightenment. However, this does not mean that there was no philosophy in Russia before this period. In development Russian philosophy the following stages can be distinguished.

I. "Preparatory period", or "prologue" - XIV-XVIII centuries. Zenkovsky points to the collection "Dioptra" (1305), in which philosophical questions are already advanced and discussed. Before the era of Peter the Great in Russian philosophy problem solving was imbued with a spirit of mystical realism and intuitive insights. A philosopher of this period realizes his thoughts in his own deeds and behavior. He knows the truth, he comprehended it. This distinguishes him from ordinary people, causing the latter to have a variety of feelings - from admiration to anger. The largest figure until the 19th century. is G.S. Skovoroda (1722-1794), who, within the framework of Christian philosophy, raises general philosophical problems of epistemology, anthropology, metaphysics and ethics, while outlining the paths of a free philosophy separated from religion.

II. Period until the 70s. XVIII century characterized by the development of secular culture in Russia under the influence of the ideas of the European Enlightenment and is associated with the development of social doctrines. At this time, such thinkers as Tatishchev, Shcherbatov, Novikov, Radishchev live and act, in whose works social and moral problems prevailed. During this period M.V. Lomonosov (1711 - 1765), on the one hand, as a major scientist and natural philosopher, and on the other, as a poet and religious thinker. He was a typical representative of the Enlightenment, who received a rigorous scientific education and got acquainted not only with the works, but also with the very thinkers of Europe of this period, such as G. Leibniz, H. Wolf.

III. The period of the end of the 18th-19th centuries, which A.I. Vvedensky calls the time of "the domination of German idealism", characterized by the most rapid development of philosophy in Russia. At this time, under the influence of theological academies, Christian philosophy was further developed, and under the influence of Moscow University, secular philosophy. After the war of 1812, philosophical circles appeared in Moscow and such thinkers as V.F. Odoevsky and P. Ya. Chaadaev. Discussion of the prospects for the development of Russia results in a philosophical discussion between Westerners and Slavophiles (A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs). So, Kireevsky, in particular, opposes the Hegelian philosophy, which he considers the pinnacle of the development of the rationalist Catholic spirit, the philosophy of the church fathers of the early patristic period and the apostolic church. This philosophy should become the basis of an original Russian philosophy, the main points of which are religious and moral research. The emerging Hegelian philosophical circles that develop the social aspects of German idealism (N.V. Stankevich, M.A. Bakunin, V.G. Belinsky) are engaged in the development and interpretation of Hegel's philosophy in relation to Russian conditions.

During this period, A.I. Herzen. The analysis of European culture led him to formulate the problems of the prospects for the development of society in connection with scientific and technological progress, the relationship between philosophy and science, their place in society and culture. The revolutions that took place throughout Europe and social problems in Russia itself give rise to conservative, liberal and radical trends in socio-political thought. Under the influence of positivism and Marxism, such philosophers as N.G. Chernyshevsky, P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky.

IV. The period of the beginning of the XX century. characterized as "rebirth" or "systems period". It really represents a stage in the classical development of philosophy, characterized by the creation of large systems that cover all aspects of being and human existence. Here, first of all, the work of Vl. Solovyov, who develops questions of metaphysics: the doctrine of ideas and the Absolute; epistemology, anthropology and aesthetics; cosmology - the concept of "Sophia". Sophia, conciliarity, total unity for many years become the main ideas of Russian philosophy. N.F. Fedorov develops an existential-anthropological tendency in Russian philosophy. He discusses such problems as the problem of human death and the ways of resurrection, human immortality and the Cosmos. At the beginning of the century, such directions as religious philosophy and existentialism (D.S.Merezhkovsky, N.A. Berdyaev, L. Shestov), ​​anthropological direction (princes S. and E. Trubetskoy), transcendental metaphysics (P. B. Struve, P.I. Novgorodtsev). The philosophy of law, the relationship between law, morality and morality, the role of violence in public life, a kind of critical processing of the Hegelian heritage are the problems that were at the center of attention of the original Russian thinker I.A. Ilyin. And finally, the problems of phenomenological philosophy are being developed in the works of G.G. Shpet and A.F. Losev. A special place in this period is occupied by such a direction in Russian philosophy as the metaphysics of all-unity (L.P. Karsavin - S.L. Frank, P.A.Florensky - S.N.Bulgakov). During this period, within the framework of the development of ideas, Leibniz builds his metaphysics N.O. Lossky, giving his own idea of ​​the role of intuition in human cognition. Russian neo-Kantianism is realized in the works of I.I. Lapshina, A.I. Vvedensky, who develop the epistemological aspects of this movement. Positivism in Russia is manifested in the works of V.I. Vernadsky and I.I. Mechnikov. At the same time, Vernadsky creates his own doctrine of the biosphere, the meaning and significance of which become clear only in our time.

V. Philosophy of the XX century. in Russia is under the sign of the dominance of the ideas of Marxism (G.V. Plekhanov, A.A. Bogdanov, V.I. Lenin), during this period the formation of the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism takes place. After the revolution in Russia, a dogmatic period of endless interpretation of the works of the classics of Marxism, and later of Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, began. Nevertheless, it should be noted that even in these conditions, philosophical research in our country did not stand far from the main lines of development of world philosophy, the same trends and tendencies are found in them. An attempt at a kind of departure from ideology was the development, first of all, of historical and philosophical problems, as well as issues of epistemology, logic and philosophy of science.

Materialistic understanding of history (historical materialism)

The materialistic understanding of history was first expounded in a systematic form by Marx in his work German Ideology (1845-1846), written jointly with Engels. The social philosophy of Marx was expressed in the preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), The Poverty of Philosophy, Capital, and also in the works of Engels Anti-Dühring, Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy. "

F. Engels later worked on improving the materialist understanding of history. He created the labor theory of anthroposociogenesis, set forth in the work "The role of labor in the process of transformation of a monkey into a man" (1876). In "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (1884) he investigated the problems of the development and decomposition of primitive society, during which he raised the question of the possibility of considering natural reproduction (human reproduction) as one of two (along with the mode of production of material goods) factors that determined the evolution of the primitive community. He developed in detail the concepts of the formation and origin of the family, classes and the state. In the cycle "Letters on Historical Materialism" (to I. Bloch, Fr. Mering, K. Schmidt, etc.), he offered a more flexible interpretation of the social philosophy of Marxism, considering the activity and relative independence of the "superstructure" in relation to the "base". Implemented the materialist method in the study of the history of different eras and peoples: "The Peasant War in Germany" (1850), "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany" (1851-52), "On the History of Primary Christianity" (1894-95) and in the manuscripts "History Ireland "(1870)," On the history of the ancient Germans "," Frankish period "(all three - 1881-82), etc., in the analysis of the problems of domestic and foreign policy of various states -" On the housing issue "(1872-73 ), "Prussian Vodka in the German Reichstag" (1876), "Foreign Policy of Russian Tsarism" (1890), "The Peasant Question in France and Germany" (1894), etc.

Nevertheless, the first results of the process of formation of the philosophical concept of Marx are most vividly presented in the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844", where the question of the essence of man and the nature of alienated labor is resolved. The specificity of Marx's position is expressed in the fact that he begins not from nature and not from man, but from their real unity, which is carried out daily and hourly in the sphere of material production. Man and nature are one substance. For Marx, nature is not only a condition of life and a house in which a person lives. Nature is man himself, his own body. Marx affirms the naturalness of man.

But man is not only a natural being, he is a human natural being. Man separates himself from the rest of nature by the way of interacting with it, that is, by his own way of life, which is labor - the deepest essence of his relationship to nature. Therefore, the entire history of man is assessed as a product of man through labor. In labor, man asserts himself not as a being reducible to nature. Nature, which becomes the object of human activity in a practical or spiritual sense, turns into an inorganic human body. This body is the foundation under the line of the essence of a person, created by him of his own world. Thus, man is one with nature, man is a natural being, but the very way of this unity leads to his difference from her.

The first comprehensive development of the philosophical worldview of Marx and Engels is carried out in their joint work - in "German Ideology" (1845-1846), the authors of which call their worldview practical materialism, a materialistic understanding of history. Marx and Engels begin their presentation of their concept by stating the premises, which are actual individuals, their activities and the material conditions of their life. The task, according to Marx and Engels, is to study this real life process, as it develops from the activities of individuals in each separate era, and on this basis move on to understanding real individuals with their consciousness.

An analysis of this activity reveals its individual moments that have existed from the very beginning of history: the production of the means necessary to satisfy the needs of life, the generation of new needs, the production of other people. It is established that the production of one's own and someone else's life is always associated with a certain way of joint activity, with a certain social state. The production of immediate life provides not only the physical condition of individuals, it simultaneously functions as a certain way of life. Each mode of activity represents a step in human history and is characterized primarily by the specific relationship of people to nature and to each other. The relationship of man to nature is fixed by the concept of productive forces, and the relationship of people to each other - by the concept of communication. Further, within the framework of communication relations, the production relations proper are distinguished. All historical collisions, Marx and Engels note, are rooted in the contradiction between productive forces and forms of communication.

In the course of analyzing the labor relationship in various forms of its historical modification, the role of the division of labor as a constructive basis for the historical process is established. With the help of the category of "division of labor" the nature of such social formations as property, classes, state, alienation, revolution, various states of consciousness is explained, and the periodization of the world-historical process is also outlined.

As a result, the concept of a materialistic understanding of history can be presented in the form of the following logical scheme:

• · The basis of history, or society, is civil society, formed by the production process and the form of communication generated by it;
• · This foundation is determined by the material production of immediate life, labor relations, division of labor;
• · The central place in the social-production organism is occupied by property relations and the corresponding distribution relations, which are based on the division of labor;
• · On this basis, class relations grow;
• · Due to class stratification, the state appears, and with it - various legal forms;
• Finally, on the basis of production and forms of communication, it is necessary to trace the emergence of various forms of consciousness.

So, the history of human society is a natural-historical process. The laws of history are objective. And the main one is that “not a single social formation will perish before all the productive forces have developed, for which it gives sufficient scope, and new higher production relations never appear before the material conditions of their existence in the depths have matured. the oldest society ".

Marx's understanding of history deepens in the process of working on Capital. Here Marx's most significant discovery is made, in comparison with which the establishment of the nature of surplus value (Marx's own economic discovery) is only a particular moment. In Capital, labor is characterized not only in its abstract definiteness, regardless of concrete historical social relations. First of all, it is studied as a historical phenomenon with primary attention to the way in which people unite to carry out this process. With an abstract characterization of labor, Marx invariably emphasizes the natural-material character of man's relationship to nature. And this in no way means that the social moment of interaction is eliminated. Moreover, in this case, relations between people are analyzed. But only in the sphere that is formed by technological relations directed directly at the material-natural object. When studying the concrete historical forms of social production by people of their lives, when they enter into objective relations of production, the subject of special attention of Marx is also the relationship of people to nature, but the emphasis is now on the study of the relationship of participants in production to each other. After all, any production, according to Marx, is the appropriation by an individual of objects of nature within the framework of a certain form of society and through it. On this path, Marx discovers the social form of labor and creates a theory of it.

According to Marx, the historical specificity of man's relationship to nature - and primarily production relations proper - is formed, according to Marx, depending on the relationship in which personal and material elements of human activity are to each other before the start of the production process (since in the production process they are always in unity). The way they are combined gives one or another form of coercion to surplus labor. Recreating the history of human society as the history of the development of people in the process of their relationship to nature, which is always mediated by a special type of relationship of individuals to each other, Marx traces the process of human change and development from a member of a land community, where he is dissolved in the original natural community, to the formation of material prerequisites formation of an integral personality. The specific historical forms of this process differ in the type of production relations - the economic social formation. The development of each of them occurs according to its own internal laws, but in such a way that society can neither jump over the natural phases of development, nor cancel the latter by decrees. But it can reduce and alleviate the pain of childbirth.

According to the social philosophy of Marxism, "it is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness." The basis of social life is the mode of production (basis), which is the unity of productive forces and production relations. It determines the superstructure - the spheres of politics, law, morality, philosophy, religion and art, which, in turn, have an active opposite effect on social life.

The source of social progress is the dialectic of productive forces and production relations. With the ripening of the contradiction between the productive forces and production relations and the aggravation of its expression - the class struggle - a social revolution sets in, which is a means of transition from one stage of development of society (formation) to another.

Historical materialism proceeds from the recognition of the primacy of the material life of society - social being in relation to social consciousness; from the idea that people create their own history, and the incentives for their activities are determined by the material conditions of social production; identifies production relations as an economic structure, the basis of society, defining a superstructure; considers history as a natural-historical process of development and change of socio-historical formations, as a result of which communism is established.

Marx singled out primitive, ancient (slave-owning), feudal, bourgeois and communist formations. The latter is subdivided into two stages: the lower one (socialism), in which the features of the previous history ("prehistory") are still preserved: the division of labor, wages according to work, the state (the dictatorship of the proletariat), etc. and the highest, or communism in the narrow sense, mature communism ("true history"), under which a complete transformation of human society takes place.