Marxist theory of the social structure of society. Test - Social structure of society: definition, elements and their interaction

As a result of studying Chapter 4, the student should:

know

• the meanings of key concepts related to social structure;
• approaches to studying the theory of social structure;
• classification of social groups and communities, types of social mobility;
• features of the social structure and social stratification of modern Russian society;
• classification of social institutions and types of social organizations;

be able to

• apply the conceptual and categorical apparatus of sociology when analyzing various social subjects;
• distinguish between existing approaches to defining basic sociological concepts;
• highlight the characteristic features of social groups, communities, institutions and organizations;
• analyze the concept of social inequality, demonstrate its connection with the problem of social stratification and mobility;
• use sociological knowledge obtained in the field of the theory of social structure in practical activities;

own

• skills of analytical work with text;
• skills of sociological thinking in considering the realities of social life;
• critical thinking skills when analyzing the state of Russian society.

Theory of social structure of society

Social structure: approaches, concept, elements

Social structure is a stable connection between various elements of the social system. The main elements of the social structure are people who own certain positions in society (social status) and who perform certain social functions (social roles), as well as the association of these people based on their status characteristics into groups, territorial, national and other communities, etc. d. Social structure reflects the existing division of society into groups, classes, layers, communities, noting differences in the position of people in relation to each other. In turn, each element of the social structure is a complex social system with its own internal subsystems and connections.

The concept of social structure is generally used in the following main aspects. In a broad sense, social structure is the structure of society as a whole, a system of relations between all its main elements. With this approach, social structure characterizes all the numerous types of social communities and the relationships between them. In the narrow sense, the term "social structure" is most often applied to communities of a class or group nature. In this sense, social structure is a set of interconnected and interacting classes, social strata and groups.

There are many approaches to social structure in sociology. Historically, one of the first is the Marxist concept. In Marxist sociology, the leading role is played by the social class approach to the structure of society. The social class structure of society, in accordance with this teaching, is the interaction of three main elements: classes, social layers And social groups.

The key elements of social structure are classes. The class division of society is the result of the social division of labor and the formation of private property relations. The process of the emergence of classes occurs in two ways: through the formation of an exploitative elite in the clan community, which initially consisted of the clan nobility, and the enslavement of foreign prisoners of war and impoverished fellow tribesmen who fell into debt dependence.

The key feature of class is the attitude towards the means of production. Property relations, relations to the means of production (ownership or non-ownership) determine the role of classes in the social organization of labor (managers and controlled), in the system of power (dominant and subordinate), their well-being (rich and poor). It is the struggle between classes that is the driving force of social development.

Marxism divides the class into major and minor, i.e. basic and non-core. The main classes are those whose existence directly follows from specific economic relations within a certain socio-economic formation, primarily from property relations: slaves and slave owners, feudal lords and peasants, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Secondary ones are the remnants of previous classes in a new socio-economic formation or newly emerged classes that will replace the main ones and form the basis of the class division in the new formation. In addition to the main and minor classes, the structural elements of society are social strata (or strata).

Social strata are transitional or intermediate social groups that do not have a clearly defined specific relationship to the means of production and, therefore, do not possess all the attributes of a class. Social strata can be intraclass (part of a class) and interclass. The first could include the large, middle, petty urban and rural bourgeoisie, the industrial and rural proletariat, the labor aristocracy, etc.

A historical example of interclass strata is the so-called “third estate” during the maturation of the first bourgeois revolutions in Europe - the urban middle class, represented by the philistines and artisans. In modern society, this is the intelligentsia.

In turn, the interclass elements of the Marxist structure may have their own internal division. Thus, the intelligentsia is divided into proletarian, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois.

Thus, the social stratum structure does not completely coincide with the class structure. The use of the concept of social system, in accordance with Marxist sociology, allows us to clarify the nature of the social structure of society, pointing out its diversity and dynamism, despite the fact that in the conditions of ideological dictate and the prosperity of dogmatic Marxist sociology in Russian science for a long time, Lenin’s definition of classes had absolute dominance based on a purely economic approach.

V.I. Lenin’s definition of social classes sounds like this: “Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in social organization of labor, and consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have."

At the same time, some Marxist sociologists understood that class is a broader formation. Therefore, the theory of the social class structure of society must include political, spiritual and other connections and relationships. From a broader perspective on the interpretation of the social structure of society, the concept of “social interests” begins to play an important role in it. Interests are the real life aspirations of people, groups and other communities, which they consciously or unconsciously guide in their actions and which determine their objective position in the social system. Social interests represent the most generalized expression of the urgent needs of representatives of certain social communities. Awareness of interests is carried out in the continuous process of social comparison occurring in society, i.e. comparison of the life position of various social groups. To better understand the concept of “class,” there is the term “radical social interests,” which reflects the presence of vital interests in large social associations that determine their existence and social position. Based on the above, we can propose the following definition of a class: classes – These are large social groups, differing in their role in all spheres of society, which are formed and function on the basis of fundamental social interests. Classes have common socio-psychological characteristics, values, and their own specific “code” of behavior.

With this approach, social strata are social communities that unite people on the basis of certain private interests.

The Marxist theory of classes as the basis of social structure in non-Marxist Western sociology is the opposite social stratification theory. Proponents of the theory of stratification believe that the concept of class may, but not always, be suitable for analyzing the social structure of societies in the past, including industrial capitalist society, but in modern post-industrial society the class approach does not work, because in this society, based on widespread corporatization production, subject to the exclusion of shareholders from the sphere of production management and their replacement by hired managers, property relations became blurred and lost their definition. What class should the CEO of a large corporation be classified in if he is nothing more than an employee?

Thus, the concept of “class” should be replaced by the term “stratum” (from lat. stratum– layer, layer) or the concept of “social group”, and the theory of social class structure of society should be replaced by theories of social stratification.

Theories of social stratification are based on the belief that a social stratum (group) is a real, empirically observable community. This community unites people in some common positions, or they may have a similar type of activity, which leads to the integration of this community into the social structure of society and distinguishes it from other social communities. The theory of stratification is based on the unification of people into groups and their confrontation with other groups based on status: power, property, profession, level of education, etc. At the same time, researchers offer various stratification criteria. R. Dahrendorf proposed to base social stratification on the political concept of “authority,” which, in his opinion, most accurately characterizes power relations and the struggle between social groups for power. On this basis, he divides all modern society into rulers and ruled, and managers, in turn, into two groups: owners of managers and hired managers (managers-officials). The managed group is also heterogeneous. In it, at least two subgroups can be distinguished: the highest - the “labor aristocracy” and the lowest - low-skilled workers. Between these two social groups there is an intermediate “new middle class” - a product of the assimilation of the labor aristocracy and employees with the ruling class - the managerial class.

American sociologist B. Barber stratified society according to six indicators:

• 1) prestige, profession, power and authority;
• 2) income or wealth;
• 3) education or knowledge;
• 4) religious or ritual purity;
• 5) family ties;
• 6) nationality.

French sociologist A. Touraine believes that in modern society there is no social differentiation based on attitudes to property, prestige, power, ethnicity, but it is based on access to information. Dominant positions are occupied by people who have access to more information.

YES - SOCIALIZATION OF THE RUSSIAN CONSTITUTION! YOU GIVE SOCIAL GUARANTEES AND PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS!

SOCIAL BASE OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE PARTY OF THE COMMUNISTS OF RUSSIA K.A. ZHUKOV AT THE IOC SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE 01/26/2013

“The class structure of modern Russian society

And the social base of the communist movement."

Abstracts of the report of the Executive Secretary of the Central Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic Zhukov K.A. at the scientific and practical conference of the Interregional Association of Communists on January 26, 2013.

Introduction

Scientific analysis and forecast of changes in the existing class structure of modern Russian society, contradictions between classes and social groups, has not only theoretical, but also the most important applied significance for all political forces in Russia.

This question is especially important for communists who are guided by the scientific Marxist materialist and dialectical approach when analyzing economic and social relations.

Class approach

Marxist sociology is guided by a class approach to the analysis of the social and class structure of society.

The definition of classes according to V.I. Lenin fully retains its significance, according to which classes are “... large groups of people that differ in their place in a historically defined system of social production, in their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, according to their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy” (V.I. Lenin, Complete Works, 5th ed., vol. 39, p. 15).

Non-Marxist approaches to analysis

Social class structure of society

The main directions in bourgeois sociology are the stratification approach, the founder of which is M. Weber, as well as functionalism.

Functionalism

Theorists of functionalism view society as consisting in the interpretation of society as a social system that has its own structure and mechanisms of interaction of structural elements, each of which performs its own function.

Functionalism, as formulated by its theorists, should be recognized as an unscientific reactionary bourgeois theory, since its basis is the idea of ​​​​"social order" and virtually excludes contradictions between classes and class struggle.

Stratification approach

The stratification approach is based on taking into account not only economic, but also political, social, as well as socio-psychological factors.

This implies that there is not always a rigid connection between them: a high position in one position can be combined with a low position in another.

Thus, the main difference between the stratification and class approaches is that within the latter, economic factors are of primary importance, all other criteria are their derivatives.

In a society with an established social structure, economic factors are certainly dominant and, of course, the classical Marxist class approach is correct.

However, the classical class approach was developed by Marx, Engels and Lenin to societies with an established social class structure.

Modern Russian society is a society with a rapidly changing and still unstable social-class structure, when analyzing which additional dynamic factors must be taken into account.

Such a society is characterized by:

Mass transition of people from one class or social group to another class or social group,

Rapid change in property relations,

Lack of established class consciousness,

Lack of established mechanisms for the reproduction of the social class structure,

The presence of a number of transitional social groups.

Therefore, in conditions of rapid changes in the social-class structure of society, along with economic factors, other factors of a political, social, and socio-psychological order can take on a commensurate importance.

In this regard, individual studies and conclusions made by bourgeois sociologists on the basis of a stratification approach in relation to societies with a rapidly changing social class structure may correspond to reality and not contradict Marxist analysis.

Theory of post-industrial society

and the bourgeois sociological theories arising from it

At the same time, attempts by non-Marxist theorists of the stratification approach to apply the non-Marxist theory of the so-called to Russia are completely unscientific and untrue. post-industrial society, and the resulting theories of the division of society into upper, middle and lower classes.

Even the absurd concept of a “creative” class appeared.

The theorists of “post-industrial society” themselves admit that due to the looseness and multi-layered nature, it is very difficult for them to give a clear definition of the concepts of upper, middle and lower, especially “creative” class.

According to bourgeois theories, post-industrial society is the next stage in the development of society and the economy after the so-called. an industrial society in which the economy is dominated by the innovative sector of the economy with highly productive industry, knowledge industry, with a high share of high-quality and innovative services in GDP, and with competition in all types of economic and other activities. In a post-industrial society, an effective innovative industry satisfies the needs of all economic agents, consumers and the population, gradually reducing its growth rate and increasing qualitative, innovative changes. Scientific developments become the main driving force of the economy - the basis of the knowledge industry.

The most valuable qualities are the level of education, professionalism, learning ability and creativity of the employee. The main intensive factor in the development of post-industrial society is human capital - professionals, highly educated people, science and knowledge in all types of economic innovation activities.

Thus, if you believe the theorists who substantiate the concept of a post-industrial society, then this society is very close to communist.

In fact, we have no signs of such a society or movement towards it in Russia or in other countries.

In modern Russia there is not only no innovative economy, but also the industrial economy has collapsed, and the level of education and professionalism of workers is not growing, but has been steadily declining in recent years.

State monopoly capitalism in Russia

There are many answers to the key question about what kind of society we live in now; there is no unity among theorists of the communist movement on this issue.

The assessment that was fair in the 90s of the last century of the regime established during Boris Yeltsin’s presidency as bourgeois and comprador, which some continue to repeat now, is completely incorrect at the present time.

Let us recall the concept of state capitalism from the Soviet dictionary of scientific communism of 1983:

State capitalism is an economy conducted by the state either together with private capital or for it, but on the principles of capitalist entrepreneurship.

In relation to Russia, the state currently, using the raw material model of economic development, controls more than 90 percent of the economy, acting in the interests of the large national bourgeoisie and bureaucracy (bureaucracy).

Thus, in Russia there is no so-called “post-industrial society”, neither a comprador bourgeois regime, nor some unique model of Russian capitalism.

In Russia, after the bloc of the national bureaucracy and the national bourgeoisie came to power in 2000, whose interests were expressed by V.V. Putin, and the bloc of the comprador bourgeoisie was removed from power, the regime of state monopoly capitalism, long studied theoretically and practically, was gradually established.

This is what we must proceed from when analyzing the existing social-class structure of Russian society and forecasting its changes.

The ruling classes of modern Russia

In modern Russia, a bloc of two ruling classes has emerged - the bureaucracy (bureaucracy) on the one hand and the large and middle bourgeoisie on the other.

Bureaucracy (officialdom)

The question of whether under capitalism the bureaucracy (officialdom) is an independent social class, or a social group expressing the interests of the ruling class, is debatable, including among theorists of the communist and left movements.

Marx, Engels and Lenin did not classify the bureaucracy as an independent social class.

Meanwhile, in countries where there is a regime of state monopoly capitalism, due to the peculiarities of managing the means of production and the resulting surplus value, the role of the bureaucracy is fundamentally different from that in countries with a classical capitalist economy.

Based on Lenin’s definition of classes, in Russia the highest bureaucracy at the moment is not only and not so much an exponent of the will of the oligarchic bourgeoisie, but an independent social class:

Independently managing raw materials and natural monopolies,

Independently managing the surplus value obtained from the extraction and sale of a significant part of raw materials and from the activities of natural monopolies,

Having class consciousness and aware of his interests,

Having established the mechanisms of its reproduction, since the children of senior government officials, prosecutors, and judges en masse become government officials, prosecutors, and judges,

Having certain contradictions with another ruling class - the bourgeoisie, imposing tribute on it in the form of bribes and kickbacks, resolving its contradictions with the bourgeoisie using mechanisms of economic and non-economic coercion.

If we draw historical parallels, then to some extent (in terms of functional position in society) the analogue of the modern Russian bureaucracy is the nobility in Tsarist Russia.

It is no coincidence that back in 2000, the then director of the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, called career state security officers “the new nobility.”

The Russian bureaucracy is an independent ruling social class, and not a social group serving the interests of another ruling class - the bourgeoisie.

Bourgeoisie

The second ruling class of modern Russia is the large (“oligarchs”) and middle (“regional barons”) bourgeoisie.

The large and middle Russian bourgeoisie should become the subject of permanent monitoring and independent research by Marxist scientists.

This issue, due to its scale, is not within the scope of this report.

The petty bourgeoisie in Russia is not the ruling class and, rather, can be classified as an oppressed social group.

3. Oppressed classes and social groups of modern Russia.

Industrial working class

The size of the industrial working class in Russia over the past 20 years, due to deindustrialization, has decreased significantly, according to unreliable official statistics, up to 1.5 times, to approximately 40 percent.

Part of the industrial working class changed their social status by going into small business, while another part stopped working due to age.

In the industrial working class, there is a significant stratification by income, primarily between workers in the energy sector, natural monopolies, enterprises serving them, forming the “labor aristocracy,” and everyone else.

There is a noticeable deskilling of workers caused by the retirement of skilled workers and the destruction of the vocational training system.

The bourgeoisie is actively using migrants who are afraid to express their protest, and the possibility of manipulation by them on the part of enterprise administrations is much higher.

As a consequence of the above factors, over the past 20 years the role of the industrial working class in society has declined; at the moment, unlike the beginning of the 20th century, the industrial working class is not in the vanguard of the class struggle.

The reduction in the number and role of the industrial working class was significantly affected by the raw materials model of functioning of the Russian economy.

Other wage earners (including intellectuals)

The number of persons employed in wage labor, physical and intellectual, who do not belong to the industrial proletariat, is commensurate with the number of the latter.

At the same time, the possibility of organization and self-organization of wage earners working in trade, public catering, and service enterprises is significantly lower than that of the industrial working class.

It should be noted that the INTERNET is becoming an important element of self-organization of hired labor, physical and intellectual, not related to the industrial proletariat.

A significant part of hired labor consists of workers in state enterprises and institutions, where the possibilities of manipulating employees are much higher, and where the employer is actually the bureaucracy (officialdom).

Persons of wage labor, physical and intellectual, who do not belong to the industrial proletariat, can be divided into various social groups (according to occupation, income level and other criteria).

Homogeneous, so-called These social groups do not form a “middle class”; some of them may be the social base of the Communist Party.

Peasantry

The collective farm peasantry, as a class, has been virtually destroyed in modern Russia.

The ruling classes managed, basically, to carry out decollectivization in the countryside, which was reflected in the destruction of most collective farms of the Soviet period and the purchase of a significant part of attractive agricultural land by the large and middle bourgeoisie.

Over the past 20 years, the reduction in numbers and property stratification of the former collective farm peasantry has continued. In particular, a new, but still small class of rural bourgeoisie (farmers) was formed.

Of course, both the industrial working class and the majority of other wage earners who do not belong to the industrial working class, as well as the rural proletariat, are the social base and support group of the Communist Party.

Petty bourgeoisie

In recent years, the ruling classes have been using administrative methods to curtail the economic activity of the population and limit small private business.

The most noticeable results of this policy are in the sphere of trade, in which its monopolization by trade networks belonging to the large and middle bourgeoisie is increasingly visible.

As a result, a significant part of the petty bourgeoisie has a negative attitude towards the ruling regime, which creates objective preconditions for its temporary alliance with other oppressed classes and social groups.

At the same time, as V.I. Lenin noted, the petty bourgeoisie is characterized by instability, swaying from side to side, which allows us to consider this social group only as a possible fellow traveler of the working people, led by the Communist Party, at certain stages of the struggle.

Pensioners

Pensioners form a special social group of significant numbers, which, as a rule, has lost contact with their social groups and classes, and is dependent on the state, on whose behalf the bureaucracy acts.

At the moment, the number of pensioners in Russia is more than 39 million people, which exceeds the number of the industrial working class, the peasantry, and any other individual classes and social groups.

The dependence of pensioners on the bureaucracy and the policy of social maneuvering carried out by the bureaucracy since 2000 have significantly reduced protest sentiments among pensioners.

At the same time, such a socio-psychological factor as the positive perception by the majority of pensioners of the Stalin and Brezhnev periods of development of our country allows us to continue to consider the majority of pensioners as a social base and support group for the Communist Party.

Declassed elements

The number of declassed elements in Russia is very large compared to the Soviet period of development and has increased by several orders of magnitude.

To estimate the size of this social group, due to the lack of official data, one can use expert estimates, according to which declassed elements make up up to 14 percent of the working population (about 10 million people).

For obvious reasons, this social group as a whole cannot be a social base or a support group for communists, although individual members of it can participate in the communist movement.

Class struggle in modern Russia

Already in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” it was stated that the history of all existing societies was the history of class struggle, that is, that it is the class struggle that drives the development of human society, since it inevitably leads to a social revolution, which is the culmination of the class struggle, and to the transition to new social order. From the point of view of Marxists, class struggle will always and everywhere, in any society where antagonistic classes exist.

In modern Russia, the antagonist classes are, on the one hand, the bureaucracy (officialdom), the large and middle bourgeoisie, and, on the other hand, the industrial working class, other wage earners, and the majority of peasants.

Politics of the ruling classes:

aimed at the almost complete appropriation of surplus value created by the labor of the entire people, the privatization of raw materials, land, water bodies, rivers and lakes;

Led to the deindustrialization of Russia, deskilling of the working class, destruction of agriculture, science and culture, loss of social guarantees of the Soviet period;

It hinders the reintegration of Russia and some of the former Soviet republics, generates interethnic tension;

Leads to the infringement of general democratic rights and freedoms;

It infringes on the economic interests of not only workers, but also the petty bourgeoisie.

Meanwhile, the interests of all social classes and social groups not related to the ruling classes correspond to a mixed socialist model of the economy, the restoration of democracy and state unity of the country, destroyed in 1991.

It is these preferences of the working masses, the majority of the lower and middle bureaucracy, military personnel and law enforcement officials, and pensioners that the results of numerous sociological surveys, including those conducted by bourgeois sociologists, indicate.

Thus, the state monopoly capitalism established in Russia contradicts the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, with the exception of the ruling classes.

Therefore, the socialist revolution can be supported, under certain conditions, in addition to the working masses by part of the lower and middle bureaucracy, military personnel and law enforcement officers; part of the petty bourgeoisie and individual representatives of the middle bourgeoisie; most of them are pensioners.

An important negative feature of the modern stage of the class struggle due to the transitional unstable social-class structure of Russian society is the absence of a clearly defined avant-garde revolutionary class.

Social base of Russian communists

As V.I. Lenin wrote in his work “The Infantile Disease of Leftism in Communism”:

Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes; - that it is possible to contrast masses and classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, not divided according to their position in the social system of production, to categories that occupy a special position in the social system of production; -that classes are usually and in most cases, at least in modern civilized countries, led by political parties.

The ruling class of bureaucracy in Russia, represented by specialists in “situational analysis” and “political modeling” from the Main Directorate of Internal Policy of the Administration of the Russian Federation, decided to go down in history by refuting this indisputable and generally accepted conclusion of Lenin.

The perverted economic model of state monopoly capitalism that has developed in Russia has also given rise to a perverted political system.

The majority of political parties in Russia are not created naturally as a spokesman for the interests of certain classes and social groups, but are constructed by the ruling regime, for the most part, artificially, with “leaders” at the head of these parties imitating the fight against the regime.

Meanwhile, the technology for creating “deception parties” is becoming less and less effective.

Life shows that the existing social classes and social groups no longer trust and are not going to trust the pseudo-parties created by the ruling regime to express their interests.

The Communists of Russia, regardless of their division into political parties and organizations, have long had their own social base, which, however, is insufficient for a victorious socialist revolution.

The potential social basis for expanding the influence of communists at the current stage of development of Russia are those social classes and social groups whose interests correspond to the mixed socialist model of the economy, the restoration of democracy and state unity of the country:

The majority of wage earners (both industrial workers and those employed in the service sector, trade, and intellectual activity);

Most of the peasantry;

Part of the lower and middle bureaucracy, military personnel and law enforcement officials;

Part of the petty bourgeoisie and some representatives of the middle bourgeoisie;

Most of them are pensioners.

The main task of the organizational, ideological and propaganda work of Russian communists is to ensure that this potentially broad social base of the communist movement turns into a real one, so that broad sections of the working people entrust the communists with the right to express their interests.

Broad support of the working masses is a necessary condition for removing the bloc of bureaucracy and bourgeoisie from power and returning Russia to the path of socialist development.

Social structure is a collection of relatively stable communities of people, a certain order of their interrelation and interaction. For clarity, the social structure can be represented as a kind of pyramid, where there is an elite, middle strata, and lower classes.

There are various approaches to describing or studying the social structure of society:

1) structural-functional analysis, in which social
structure is considered as a system of roles, statuses and social
institutions.

2) Marxist, deterministic approach, in which social
structure is class structure.

The very attempt to describe the social structure of society is as old as the world. Even Plato, in his doctrine of the soul, argued that in accordance with the division of the soul into rational, volitional, sensual parts, society is also divided. He imagined society as a kind of social pyramid, consisting of the following groups:

philosopher-rulers - their activity corresponds to the rational part of the soul;

warrior-guards, overseers of the people - their activities correspond to the volitional part of the soul;

artisans and peasants - their activities correspond to the sensual part of the soul.

4.1. Elite theory

This theory is considered quite fully within the framework of political science, but it is also directly related to sociology. Representatives of this theory V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels argued that the necessary components of any society are the elite (which includes layers or layers that carry out the functions of management and cultural development) and the masses (the rest of the people, although the concept itself is sufficient uncertain).

In the concept of V. Pareto, the elite are people who received the highest index based on the results of their activities, for example, 10 on a ten-point scale.

The Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gaset took an original approach to the interpretation of elites in his work “The Revolt of the Masses,” which examines the problems of the relationship between the elite and the masses.

4.2. Theory of social stratification and mobility

Social stratification is the identification of social groups and layers based on certain criteria, such as 1. nature of property, 2. amount of income, 3. amount of power, 4. prestige.

Social stratification of society is a system of inequality and social differentiation based on differences in position and functions performed.

This theory describes the existing system of inequality in terms of status, role, prestige, rank, i.e. provides a functional description of social structure.

According to T. Parsons, who laid the theoretical foundations of the analysis
social stratification, diversity existing in society
socially differentiating characteristics can be classified
into three groups:

first form “qualitative characteristics” that people possess from birth: ethnicity, gender and age characteristics, family ties, various intellectual and physical characteristics of the individual;

second form socially differentiating characteristics associated with the performance of a role, which include various types of professional and labor activity;

third form so-called possessions: property, material and spiritual values, privileges, goods, etc.

Within the framework of a theoretical approach to the study of social stratification, a generalized assessment presupposes the presence of a “cumulative social status,” which means the individual’s place in the hierarchy of social assessments, based on some type of cumulative assessment of all occupied statuses and all the rewards that he is able to receive.

However, the assessment (reward) is not always adequate to the social position occupied by the individual. It often turns out that the position a person occupies is quite high, but its assessment by society is low.

A typical case of a discrepancy between status and evaluation is a highly educated person receiving a low salary. This phenomenon is called “status incompatibility” (incompatibility). It applies not only to the two indicated positions: status and salary, but to any others. Its long-term study revealed a number of interesting patterns; Let's look at two of them.

First concerns a person's individual reaction to status incompatibility. As a rule, it is characterized by the presence of a stress reaction in an individual who experiences an unfair assessment of his status

Second The moment belongs to the sphere of political sociology. A study of voter behavior during election periods has shown that people in a state of status incompatibility most often have rather radical political views.

So, let's define the basic concepts. Social status is the position occupied by a person in society according to With origin, nationality, education, position, income, gender, age and marital status.

Social status is divided into innate (origin) and acquired (education, position, income) statuses.

Personal status is the position occupied by an individual in a primary group (small social group).

Marginal status is a contradiction between personal and social status.

Occupying a certain position (status), an individual along with it receives the corresponding prestige.

A role is a specific behavior resulting from a given status. According to Linton, a social role is the expected behavior typical of a person of a given status in a given society.

With the functional approach used in this theory, such a concept as a social institution is also used.

A social institution is defined as a system of roles and statuses designed to satisfy a specific social need.

Let's look at this concept in more detail. Sociologists often call this concept “nodes” or “configurations” in the value-normative structure of society, thereby emphasizing their special role in the normative functioning of society and the organization of social life in general.

The successful operation of the institute is possible only under a certain set of conditions:

1) the presence of specific norms and regulations governing the behavior of people within a given institution;

2) integration of the institute into the socio-political,
ideological and value structure of society;

3) the availability of material resources and conditions that ensure
successful implementation of regulatory requirements by institutions and
implementation of social control.

There are various types of social institutions in society, for example, economic institutions, their purpose is the production of goods and services; education system - transfer of knowledge and culture from one generation to another.

American version of social stratification

The highest status group is the “upper class”: chief executive officers of national corporations, co-owners of prestigious law firms, senior military officials, federal judges, archbishops, stockbrokers, medical luminaries, major architects.

The second status group is the “highest class”: the chief manager of a medium-sized company, a mechanical engineer, a newspaper publisher, a doctor in private practice, a practicing lawyer, a college teacher.

The third status group is “upper middle class”: bank teller, community college teacher.

The fourth status group is “middle middle class”: bank employee, dentist, primary school teacher, shift supervisor at an enterprise, insurance company employee, supermarket manager.

The fifth status group is “lower middle class”: auto mechanic, hairdresser, bartender, grocery seller, skilled manual worker, hotel employee, postal worker, policeman, truck driver

The sixth status group is the “middle lower class”: taxi driver, semi-skilled manual worker, gas station attendant, waiter, doorman.

The seventh status group is the “lowest lower class”: dishwasher, domestic servant, gardener, gatekeeper, miner, janitor, garbage man.

Most Americans who consider themselves middle class are sensitive to anything associated with an increase or decrease in their status. For example, a taxi driver will consider it an insult to be asked to go to a factory where he could earn much more.

Most Americans do not associate economic success with starting their own business, an independent enterprise. They work for hire. Nevertheless, work remains for them not only the basis of material well-being, but also of self-affirmation, self-respect, and self-esteem.

Social stratification in Russia

Based on the conceptual model of multidimensional stratification, taking into account the role of power and ideology in its formation, sociologist Inkels (USA) presents the system of social inequality that developed in the USSR in the 30-50s in the form of a pyramid consisting of 9 degrees (strata), the top of which was three most prestigious groups:

1) the ruling elite, which included party leaders and
governments, military leaders, senior officials;

2) the highest layer of the intelligentsia, outstanding scientists, figures
art and literature (in terms of material wealth and privileges they
stood quite close to the first group, but between them there was
quite a significant difference on the power scale;

3) “aristocracy of the working class”: shock workers are the heroes of the first
five-year plans, Stakhanovites, etc.;

4) “intelligentsia squad”: middle managers, heads of small enterprises, higher education workers, graduates
specialists and officers;

5) “white collar”: small managers, accounting
workers, etc.;

6) “prosperous peasants”: workers of advanced collective farms and
state farms;

7) Medium and semi-skilled workers;

8) “the poorest strata of the peasantry”, low-skilled
workers engaged in hard physical labor in production for a meager
wages;

9) "convicts".

Speaking about the fact that one of the main reasons for the deformation of the system of social stratification was associated with the replacement of socio-professional criteria with political and ideological surrogates, it should be noted the phenomenon of the so-called ascription. The existence of a prescribed ascriptive status is a characteristic feature of pre-industrial societies, while in modern Western society the orientation toward “achieved status” prevails: a person’s successful career and social prestige are determined mainly by his professional results and achievements. In our country, the phenomenon of “prescribed status” has become very widespread, especially in the last two decades: a person’s social position in society was determined not only by the volume of his socio-political activity, but also by many other criteria that acted as signs of social differentiation.

These include such factors as a person’s place of residence (capital, regional center, village), the industry in which the person worked (production sector), and membership in any specially designated social group.

Sociological surveys conducted in 1996 by VTsIOM indicate that the financial situation of approximately 2/3 of respondents is constantly deteriorating, 25-30% maintain approximately the same level as before the start of reforms, only 7-8% have improved their financial situation , their incomes are rising faster than prices. There is a strong wealth stratification in society, as a result of which 7-8% benefit, primarily those associated with commercial activities.

The minimum wage today is less than a quarter of the cost of living; about 20 million workers have earnings below the subsistence level, and about 40 million cannot provide for themselves and one child; A monstrous polarization of living standards has developed, with 40 percent of families having no savings at all, and 2 percent concentrating more than half of the population’s total accumulation fund.

The average salary of the bottom 10 percent of workers is 30 times less than the salary of the top 10 percent. For example, in Japan already at the end of the 20th century this figure was 10, and in Sweden 5.

4.3. Social mobility theory

The theory of social mobility considers society in dynamics from the point of view of the internal mechanism of this movement. According to P.A. Sorokin, mobility is only the movement or transition of an individual from one social position to another, but it includes the movement of the value of everything that is created or changed by human activity, be it a car, a newspaper, an idea, etc.

There are two types of social mobility: vertical and horizontal, their general characteristics are individual and collective, upward and downward.

Mobility depends on the type of society in which it occurs: open or closed. The mechanisms of social selection and distribution of individuals into strata in a mobile society are the army, church, school, various economic, political, professional organizations, and family.

4.4. Marxist-Leninist class theory (deterministic approach)

The main essence of this approach: - the existence of classes is associated with certain stages in the development of production;

classes arise at a certain stage of development of social production, the reasons for their appearance: division of labor and private property;

classes continue to exist until such a stage of development of society at which the development of material production and associated changes in social life will make the division of society into classes unacceptable;

classes have their own specific characteristics that reflect their place in the system of social production: relationship to the means of production, role in the social organization of labor, methods and sizes. shares of social wealth.

The absolutization of the deterministic approach to the description of social structure (and even according to a simplified, dogmatic scheme), ignoring the functional approach could not but affect the state of our knowledge and understanding of the processes characteristic of the social processes of our society.

We can sum up some of our ignorance:

the absolute unsuitability of the model of stratification of Soviet society “2+1”: (workers, collective farmers plus the intelligentsia);

deep contradictions between the main elements of the social structure: classes and ethnosocial groups;

a description of social structure, actually reduced to the rapprochement of classes and social groups, the movement of society towards social homogeneity, etc.

a formal, dogmatic interpretation of property relations, which actually blocked research on the actual disposal of property, the amount of power, etc.

denial of the stratification of Soviet society: the presence in it of an elite, top, bottom.

There are two different approaches to the study of the social structure of society: class theory and stratification theory.

Materialist (class) theory proceeds from the fact that the state arose due to economic reasons: the social division of labor, the emergence of surplus product and private property, and then the split of society into classes with opposing economic interests. As an objective result of these processes, a state arises, which, using special means of suppression and control, restrains the confrontation of these classes, ensuring primarily the interests of the economically dominant class.

The essence of the theory is that the state replaced the tribal organization, and law replaced customs. In materialist theory, the state is not imposed on society, but arises on the basis of the natural development of society itself, associated with the decomposition of the tribal system. With the advent of private property and the social stratification of society along property lines (with the emergence of rich and poor), the interests of various social groups began to contradict each other. In the emerging new economic conditions, the tribal organization turned out to be unable to govern society.

There was a need for a government body capable of ensuring the priority of the interests of some members of society as opposed to the interests of others. Therefore, a society consisting of economically unequal social strata gives rise to a special organization that, while supporting the interests of the propertied, restrains the confrontation of the dependent part of society. The state became such a special organization.

According to representatives of the materialist theory, it is a historically transient, temporary phenomenon and will die out with the disappearance of class differences.

Materialist theory identifies three main forms of the emergence of the state: Athenian, Roman and German.

The Athenian form is classical. The state arises directly and primarily from class contradictions that form within society.

The Roman form is distinguished by the fact that the clan society turns into a closed aristocracy, isolated from the numerous and powerless plebeian masses. The victory of the latter explodes the tribal system, on the ruins of which a state arises.

The German form - the state arises as a result of the conquest of vast territories for the state.

The main provisions of materialist theory are presented in the works of K. Marx and F. Engels.

Class and economic conditionality of law are the most important fundamental provisions of Marxist theory. The main content of this theory is the idea that law is a product of class society; expression and consolidation of the will of the economically dominant class. In these relations, the dominant individuals must constitute their power in the form of a state and give their will universal expression in the form of state will, in the form of law. The emergence and existence of law is explained by the need to consolidate the will of the economically dominant class in the form of laws and the normative regulation of social relations in the interests of this class. “Right is only will elevated to law.”

The merit of Marxism is the postulates that law is a necessary tool for ensuring the economic freedom of the individual, which is an “impartial” regulator of the relations of production and consumption. Its moral foundations in the civilized world take into account and implement the objective needs of social development within the framework of permitted and prohibited behavior of participants in social relations.

Representatives of other concepts and theories of the origin of the state consider the provisions of the materialist theory to be one-sided and incorrect, since they do not take into account the psychological, biological, moral, ethnic and other factors that determined the formation of society and the emergence of the state.

Social stratification expresses the social heterogeneity of society, the inequality that exists in it, the dissimilarity of the social status of people and their groups. Social stratification is understood as the process and result of differentiation of society into various social groups (layers, strata), differing in their social status. The criteria for dividing society into strata can be very diverse, both objective and subjective. But most often today, profession, income, property, participation in power, education, prestige, a person’s self-esteem of his social position (self-identification), etc. are highlighted. In empirical sociological studies of social stratification, three or four main measured characteristics are usually identified - the prestige of the profession, income level , attitude towards political power and level of education.

Despite all the differences in theoretical interpretations of the essence of social stratification, one can still identify a common one: it is a natural and social stratification of society, which is hierarchical in nature, stably fixed and supported by various social institutions, constantly reproduced and modernized. Natural differences between people are associated with their physiological and psychological characteristics and can serve as the basis for social inequality.

The inequality of people - social communities - is one of the main characteristics of society throughout the history of its development. What are the causes of social inequality?

In modern Western sociology, the prevailing opinion is that social stratification grows out of society’s natural need to stimulate the activities of individuals, motivating their activities through appropriate systems of rewards and incentives. However, this stimulation is interpreted differently in different scientific and methodological schools and directions. In this regard, we can distinguish functionalism, status, economic theories, etc.

Representatives of functionalism explain the cause of inequality by the differentiation of functions performed by different groups, layers, classes. The functioning of society, in their opinion, is possible only thanks to the division of labor, when each social group, stratum, class carries out the solution of relevant tasks that are vital for the entire social organism: some are engaged in the production of material goods, others create spiritual values, others manage, etc. For the normal functioning of a social organism, an optimal combination of all types of activities is necessary, but some of them are more important from the position of this organism, others are less important. Thus, on the basis of the hierarchy of social functions, a corresponding hierarchy of groups, layers, and classes performing them is formed. Those who exercise general leadership and management are placed at the top of the social pyramid, because only they can maintain the unity of the state and create the necessary conditions for the successful performance of other functions.

Such a hierarchy exists not only at the level of the state as a whole, but also in every social institution. Thus, according to P. Sorokin, at the enterprise level, the basis of interprofessional stratification is made up of two parameters: 1) the importance of the occupation (profession) for the survival and functioning of the organism as a whole; 2) the level of intelligence necessary to successfully perform professional duties. P.A. Sorokin believes that the most socially significant professions are those associated with the functions of organization and control. The dishonest work of an ordinary worker will harm the enterprise. But this harm is incomparable to that which will be caused to the enterprise if its senior officials and managers act dishonestly and irresponsibly. Thus, in any given community, more professional work manifests itself in a higher level of intelligence, in the function of organization and control, in the higher rank that people of these professions occupy in the interprofessional hierarchy. A clear confirmation of this position, according to P. Sorokin, is the constantly operating universal order, which consists in the fact that the professional group of unskilled workers is always at the bottom of the professional pyramid. People belonging to this occupational group are the lowest paid workers. They have the least rights and the lowest standard of living, the lowest control function in society.

Close in meaning to functionalism is the status explanation of the causes of social inequality. From the point of view of the representatives of this theory, social inequality is inequality of statuses, arising both from the abilities of individuals to perform one or another social role (for example, to be competent to manage, to have the appropriate knowledge and skills to be a professor, inventor, lawyer, etc.) etc.), and from the opportunities that allow a person to achieve a particular position in society (origin, ownership of property, belonging to influential political forces, etc.).

The economic approach to explaining the causes of social inequality is associated with the interpretation of property relations. From the point of view of representatives of this approach, those individuals and groups who have property, primarily ownership of the means of production, occupy a dominant position both in the sphere of management and in the sphere of distribution and consumption of material and spiritual goods.

The most concise definition of social stratification, often found in the sociological literature, identifies it with social inequality as a universal phenomenon of human civilization. Upon closer analysis of this phenomenon, as a rule, two main features are distinguished. The first is associated with the differentiation of the population into hierarchically formed groups, i.e. upper and lower strata (classes) of society. The second point characterizing social stratification is the unequal distribution in society of various sociocultural goods and values, the list of which is very wide.

In sociological theory, social stratification is analyzed from the point of view of the interaction of three fundamental levels of social life: culture, which forms the value-normative level of regulation of people’s behavior, the social system (the system of social interaction of people, during which various forms of group life are formed) and, finally, the level of behavior the personality itself, affecting his motivational sphere.

If these general principles of sociological analysis are transferred to the sphere of social stratification, then it should be recognized that the specific forms of its manifestation in a particular society will be determined by the interaction of two main factors: the social system or, more precisely, the processes of social differentiation occurring in society on the one hand, and the prevailing social values ​​and cultural standards in a given society, on the other.

Clarification of the concept

There are two main approaches to the study of socio-economic structure.
Firstly, the so-called. "gradational approach", or the classical theory of social
stratification. Its subject is socio-economic strata (strata). The layers differ in the degree to which they have certain social and economic characteristics (for example, income, property, prestige, education
and so on.). Typical of this approach is the division of society into upper, middle and lower strata. This is stratification analysis in the narrow sense of the word.

Secondly, this is a class analysis, the subject of which is socio-economic groups connected by social relations (hence
its other name is relational approach), occupying different places in the social division of labor. If strata are arranged in a hierarchy located
along one axis, then the classes differ not in the quantity, but in the quality of features, although
often they can be interrelated. Thus, a small entrepreneur can have the same standard of living as a highly skilled worker or low- or middle-level manager. They may be part of the same stratum, but in terms of their place in the market exchange system they belong to different socio-economic classes.

The point is not that one approach is correct and the other is false. These two approaches look at different slices of the system of socio-economic inequality.

In post-Soviet Russia, as a reaction to the long dominance of the Marxist-Leninist concept of class structure, the gradational, i.e. stratification approach immediately triumphed. It is in this vein that almost
all major works on socio-economic inequality. Although in them
and the concept of class is used, but in fact as a synonym for “stratum”. Class analysis was left out as an “anachronism.”

Class analysis has several directions. However, they are united by a focus on studying the relationships between positions formed
"employment relations in the labor market and in production units".

1. Structural (theoretical) direction. Its content is the study of the structure of class positions, analysis of the content of individual positions
and forms of communication between them. The content of the class structure is the processes of distribution of capital in society (in its various forms) and the mechanisms of its
reproduction. Anthony Giddens defined this process of redistribution
as a “structuration” during which economic relations transform
into non-economic social structures.

2. The demographic direction focuses attention on people occupying positions in class space, on their mobility, on the number of individuals in each part of class space. This direction dominates
in empirical research.

3. The cultural direction is quite heterogeneous. This may include studies of problems of class consciousness, class habitus, subculture, lifestyles, consumption, etc. One of the central questions that stands in
this direction of research can be formulated as follows: how
Do people reproduce class structure through their culture?

The subject of this work is only theoretical class analysis.

Classical Concepts: Commonalities and Differences

Modern class theories come from two main sources: Karl Marx and Max Weber. Although they are often contrasted with each other, I
it appears that their concepts are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. They have important similarities:

1) both concepts consider class structure as a phenomenon only of capitalist society, the key characteristics of which are
a market economy and private ownership of the means of production are considered;

2) both Marx and Weber used the category of class to designate socio-economic groups;

3) both attached great importance to property as a class criterion
differentiation. Society, from their point of view, is divided primarily into those who
has it, and on those who do not have it.

At the same time, between Marxist and Weberian class concepts
There are also significant differences.

1. Marx's concept is dynamic. At its center are processes
initial accumulation and reproduction of capital. The first he tied,
first of all, with the deprivation of peasants’ property (for example, “fencing”
in England) and colonial robbery, the second - with exploitation.
Weber, apparently, the question of where the wealth of some classes comes from
and the poverty of others, was not interested.

2. Marx viewed his class theory as the theoretical basis of a revolutionary ideology designed to change the world. Weber this problematic
I wasn't interested.

3. Marx linked the process of reproduction of class structure before
with a system of market production, while Weber shifted the focus
its attention to the market.

4. For Marx, the structure of society is very polarized: he analyzes only
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with passing mention of other groups. Weber focuses
attention to more subtle inequalities manifested in the labor and capital markets, which made it possible to approach the study of the new middle class, i.e., highly qualified hired professionals.

5. For Marx, the mechanism of formation of the class boundary is based on capital (primarily the means of production) as a self-increasing value.
Weber wrote about property in general, that is, he used a broader category. On the one hand, this was a step back compared to Marx, since the category of property focuses attention on the phenomenon, leading away
from the analysis of the essence, mechanisms of formation of class inequalities. On the other hand, this approach opens up opportunities for studying lifestyle
various classes, including the spheres of not only labor, but also consumption.

All modern models of class have grown from classical concepts.
analysis, often denoted by the prefix “neo”: neo-Marxism
and neo-Weberianism. If at the general theoretical level the differences between them are noticeable, then in empirical research they become elusive.
Nick Abercrombie and John Urry quite rightly argue that it is now
it is difficult to determine which of the modern researchers of class structure
belongs to the Marxist, and some to the Weberian tradition. These shortcuts
in their opinion, indicate rather differences in the style of analysis or emphasis,
but not to a fundamental conflict.

Class analysis and modern society

How relevant is class analysis, which arose in the West in a completely different
era, for modern Russia? It is obvious that classical concepts cannot adequately explain a number of phenomena in modern society.

1. Capitalism, where the main subject was the individual owner
enterprise or bank, has turned into corporate capitalism, where the main subject is an impersonal corporation. The company owns a company, which in turn creates a whole series of subsidiaries. Although the figure of the individual capitalist has been preserved, it is only in medium-sized businesses.
Therefore, modern Western society is sometimes defined as “capitalism”
without capitalists."

2. After World War II, the Western world began to grow rapidly
a new middle class of salaried professionals. The new phenomenon caused active discussions in sociology.

The reaction to these new phenomena in the life of capitalist society was
denial of class analysis in general, implying denial of relevance
learning and class structure. However, another part of sociologists proceed from the fact that Western society was and is class-based, therefore there is no reason for
refusal of class analysis. “Class inequalities in industrial countries,” writes George Marshall, the famous British sociologist, “remained
more or less unchanged throughout the 20th century. Therefore, the central problem of class theory is not at all what was assumed by generations of critics who spoke about the disappearance of social classes in developed countries.
societies. The real problem is to explain their persistence as a potential social force." And in modern Western sociology it is done
a lot for the development of class analysis in relation to new realities.
The most famous options were proposed by the American Eric Wright and the Englishman John Goldthorpe.

To what extent is class analysis relevant for post-Soviet Russia? Answer
This question depends on two groups of factors. First, class analysis
is relevant for Russia to the extent that it has formed a capitalist society, the economy of which is based on the market and private ownership of the means of production. It is difficult to deny that a step has been taken in this direction, but the process is still far from complete. Secondly, class
the analysis is relevant only for researchers who believe that the distribution of capital in society has a powerful impact on the formation of its
social structure. If you don’t see such a connection or don’t want to see it,
then, naturally, class analysis can be forgotten as an intellectual anachronism.

Capital as a social relation

Modernization of class analysis, it seems to me, can follow the path
modernization of ideas about capital as a kind of watershed in the class structure. In classical theories, capital was limited to specific material forms: money and means of production. In the twentieth century, attempts were made to expand the concept of capital to new objects. Thus, the concepts of “human”, “social”, “cultural” and “organizational” capital appeared. However, expanding the list of material forms of capital only emphasizes the need to determine the essence of this phenomenon,
capable of appearing in different forms.

Capital is a process. According to K. Marx, “the objective content of this process is an increase in value.” Capital is a kind of coefficient before the indicator of simple labor, which in a certain market
context can lead to an increase in the cost of the product of simple labor. Role
This coefficient is fulfilled not only by the means of production, but also by knowledge,
experience, connections, name, etc. So, well-trained and experienced workers will build a house
much faster and better than an amateur builder who has nothing,
except hands and intentions. The use of modern technology changes the process
construction radically.

The categories of resource and capital are related, but are not identical. A resource is an opportunity that does not necessarily become a reality.
Any capital is a resource, but not every specific resource is converted into
into capital. Capital is a market resource realized in the process of increasing value. Therefore, owners of the same resources from the point of view of material form may have different attitudes towards capital and, accordingly, different places in the class structure. Money in a jar is a treasure;
money in market circulation that generates profit is capital.

Such transformation of a resource into capital is possible only in the context of a market society. Where there is no market, the market value of resources increases
not happening.

Capital can also be cultural resources, which during the market
exchanges are capable of generating profit. This is primarily knowledge and skills. Capital can be a name, which is clearly manifested in the phenomenon of a brand. Based on this process, class boundaries are formed.

Capital acts as a key factor in the formation of class
structures. Classes are social groups that differ in their attitude to capital: some have it, others don’t, some have it as means of production
or financial capital, for others - cultural capital.

Basic elements of class structure

Capital, transformed into elements of social structure, is placed
society is very uneven. On the one hand, there are areas endowed with capital and those deprived of it. On the other hand, the former differ in the nature of the capital available there.

Accordingly, social class space is divided into at least four main fields.

1. Social field of the working class. It consists of status positions that are engaged in simple hired labor, sold and bought as a commodity. The ideal type of worker is an unskilled worker who sells his labor power, the main content of which is this
He has natural potential.

In the space of positions of the working class, a zone of relatively skilled labor is distinguished, the proportion of which varies from country to country
and depends on the technological equipment of production and labor organization.
Skilled workers have cultural resources (formal
indicators are ranks, work experience in the specialty).

The proportion of workers with significant cultural capital depends on the nature of production. The more technically complex it is, the more
It requires workers whose training sometimes takes many years. Therefore, in the developed countries of the world, the classical proletarian is increasingly moving towards
marginal positions. However, in Russia, with its characteristically very high
level of simple unskilled labor typical worker - noticeable
phenomenon in the group under consideration.

In the 20th century, a noticeable phenomenon was the formation of the office proletariat - a group of hired workers engaged in simple mental labor. If
consider capital as a key factor in class formation,
then there is no fundamental difference in the class position of manual workers and office proletarians.

2. The social field of the bourgeoisie. Here status positions require external support
in relation to individuals of types of capital (money, means of production, land).
The form of material remuneration is dividends on capital.
The ideal type of bourgeois is a rentier, a shareholder.

When studying the class structure of modern corporate capitalism, which is also emerging in Russia, the phenomenon of the bourgeoisie creates serious methodological and methodological problems. To replace individual
The owner received a joint stock company with a confusing multi-level ownership structure. Methodological problems in studying this phenomenon can be reduced if we abandon the archaic figure of the individual capitalist
as units of this class. There is a class as a space of positions endowed
ownership of the means of production and money capital. And there are specific individuals entering this space (due to the acquisition of shares)
and those leaving it (as a result of ruin or sale of shares). At the same time, individuals often combine different class positions: a top manager who owns
a significant stake is a typical phenomenon in the West and especially in Russia. Since each class field has its own logic of interests,
then the manager and the owner often represent the interests of the company differently,
evaluate its effectiveness differently. Often the bearer of this contradiction is one individual.

3. Social field of the traditional middle class . It consists of status
positions that require the combination of labor and organizational capital, and often the means of production, in one person. A typical status position of this field is an employee who directly enters the market for goods or services.
This position is often supplemented by means of production and money capital (farmers, artisans, small traders, etc.), but can often do without them (lawyer, sometimes doctor, consultant, artist, etc.).
usually have only cultural and organizational capital). The form of material remuneration is income, which includes both wages and
different types of dividends. There are also differences between class positions and the people who occupy them. With this approach, one person combines positions
does not create a small owner and worker or employee for the researcher
deadlock situation.

4. Social field of the new middle class. The ideal member type of this class is
an employee who has a large amount of cultural capital, dividends from which provide him with his main income. Typical representatives of this class are managers, various kinds of experts working in companies.
However, the nature of the work is not at all important.

Labor power is only physical and intellectual potential.
It can be compared to a computer that does not have any special software other than DOS. A representative of the new middle class is described using the metaphor of a computer loaded with valuable and expensive
programs. He, like the worker, has labor power, but the company pays
to him the bulk of his income is not for this, but for the cultural capital placed at her disposal.

The more complex a cultural resource is, the more scarce it is, and in market conditions, the excess of demand over supply leads to an increase in price. Therefore, the more scarce
a specialist (more experience, better education, reputation), the more people want to hire him, the greater the monetary income offered.

The monetary income of an employee in the position of the new middle class consists of two main parts: 1) wages equal to the cost of labor
strength, which is the same for both the general director and the loader; 2) dividends
on cultural capital.

The worker can also have dividends on cultural capital (for example,
payment for rank, for length of service, etc.), but the main income of a worker is payment for his labor power. Therefore, class differences between the proletariat and the middle strata do not consist in the set of elements of their income, but in their quantitative relationships, which form a new quality.

In market conditions, the same cultural resource can be capital,
it may not be. If there is no demand for Type A specialists, then their cultural resource does not bring any or almost no dividends to their owners. More
a mild version of this situation is the inability to effectively use these resources. And then a high-class specialist receives a salary comparable to the income of a medium-skilled worker. The market is eroding
class boundary between them. Diploma of any nature, including Doctor of Science,
does not guarantee against joining the ranks of the intellectual working class - a situation typical of post-Soviet Russia.

In a different market situation, the same person may be at a great price
and receive dividends on cultural capital. Therefore, education, experience, knowledge in themselves are not cultural capital; they can turn into
into capital only in the process of market exchange that gives dividends. It follows that the professional structure can be very different from the class structure.
This is manifested in the fact that in one country the owner of cultural resource X falls into the ranks of the new middle class, and in another country he is in the ranks of the working class. Similar fluctuations are possible between regions. Therefore, with this understanding of the class structure, attempts to replace class analysis with the study
professional structures do not make sense.

The logic of the transformation of a cultural resource into capital and back is similar to the transformations that machines often undergo in market production
and equipment. If they produce a commodity that is in demand and makes a profit, it is capital. If they cannot be turned on effectively
into the market exchange system, they stop, stand idle and turn into scrap metal, which does not exclude their possible resuscitation in the future. This is exactly the path many factories and factories in post-Soviet Russia went through.

The new middle class stands out as a special element in almost all key
modern class concepts, although the name often varies. So,
John Goldthorpe calls it service-class or salariat. He includes in this class professionals, administrators and managers employed by employers who have delegated part of their powers to them. For this they receive relatively high wages, stable employment, increased pensions,
various privileges and wide autonomy in the performance of their functions. In Wright's scheme, the new middle class mainly corresponds to the following classes:
expert managers, expert supervisors, expert non-managers.

The line separating the new middle class from the working class is fluid,
situational, blurry, lacking clear outlines. People nearby
it, may find themselves drawn into interclass social mobility without
unnecessary movements. Occupying the same position in the company, having the same
same resource, they suddenly find themselves drawn into a new market situation that radically changes their class status.

Class structure is an attribute of capitalist society, the result of converting economic processes of capital reproduction into social ones
processes of its unequal distribution. If in Russia there is already private ownership of the means of production, there is a free market for labor and capital, then there is also a class structure, although one can argue about the degree of its maturity
and national characteristics. If there is such a structure, then it is necessary
and class analysis as a theoretical tool for its interpretation. Is not
means that, as in Soviet Marxism-Leninism, everywhere and everywhere it is necessary
look for class roots. There are other types of social structures (gender,
age, professional, industry, ethnic, etc.). Class - one
of them. In some cases it comes to the fore, in others it moves away
into the shadow, but it does not disappear completely.

The study of class structure is interesting in itself. Moreover, understanding it is the key to understanding the behavior of the people included in it. Class
affiliation significantly shapes people’s lifestyles, styles of consumer behavior, and electoral choice. In the West, especially in Great Britain, a lot of research is devoted to the relationship between class and voting behavior. And it is clearly visible. In Russia
So far, class status has little effect on voters' actions. And the reason is not
the fact that there is no class structure, and in the absence, firstly, of clear ideas about class interests and, secondly, of real parties capable of representing and defending these interests not in words, but in deeds. Is it possible to count
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the party of the working class, and the Union of Right Forces is the party of the middle classes? I have
I have big doubts about this. Other parties are not positioned at all
in class space. True, in recent years Yabloko has been trying to become
the party of the intelligentsia, public sector workers, i.e., speaking in terms of class analysis, the intellectual working class. However, trying and becoming is still
not the same thing.

Marshall G. Repositioning Class. Social Inequality in Industrial Societies. L.: SAGE Publication,

Giddens A. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. L.: Hutchinson, 1981 (2nd ed.). R. 105.

Abercrombie N. & Urry J. Capital, Labor, and the Middle Classes. L.: Allen & Unwin, 1983. P. 89, 152.

Marshall G. Repositioning Class. Social Inequality in Industrial Societies. P. 1.

Marx K. Capital. T. 1 // Marx K. and Engels F. Izbr. op. M., 1987. T. 7. P. 146.

In E. Wright’s scheme, this group corresponds to two classes: the petty bourgeoisie and small
employers.