Socio-economic formation. Capitalism as a socio-economic formation List of used literature

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Capitalismhow socio-economic formation

capitalism capital manufactory factory

Capitalism, a socio-economic formation based on private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of wage labor by capital; replaces feudalism, precedes socialism - the first phase of communism. The main features: the dominance of commodity-money relations and private ownership of the means of production, the presence of a developed social division of labor, the growth of the socialization of production, the transformation of labor power into a commodity, the exploitation of hired workers by capitalists. The aim of capitalist production is the appropriation of the surplus value created by the labor of hired workers. As the relations of capitalist exploitation become the dominant type of production relations and the pre-capitalist forms of the superstructure are replaced by bourgeois political, legal, ideological, and other social institutions, Capitalism turns into a socio-economic formation that includes the capitalist mode of production and its corresponding superstructure. Capitalism goes through several stages in its development, but its most characteristic features remain essentially unchanged. Capitalism is inherent in antagonistic contradictions. The main contradiction of capitalism between the social character of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation of its results gives rise to anarchy of production, unemployment, economic crises, an irreconcilable struggle between the main classes of capitalist society - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie - and determines the historical doom of the capitalist system.

The emergence was prepared by the social division of labor and the development of a commodity economy in the womb of feudalism. In the process of emergence, at one pole of society, a class of capitalists was formed, concentrating money capital and means of production in their hands, and at the other, a mass of people deprived of the means of production and therefore forced to sell their labor power to the capitalists. The developed period was preceded by the so-called. the initial accumulation of capital, the essence of which was to rob peasants, small artisans and seize colonies. The transformation of labor power into a commodity and the means of production into capital signified the transition from simple commodity production to capitalist production. The primitive accumulation of capital was at the same time a process of rapid expansion of the domestic market. Peasants and artisans, who previously existed on their own farms, turned into hired workers and were forced to live by selling their labor power, buying the necessary consumer goods. The means of production, which were concentrated in the hands of a minority, turned into capital. An internal market for the means of production necessary for the resumption and expansion of production was created. The great geographical discoveries (mid-15th - mid-17th centuries) and the capture of colonies (15th-18th centuries) provided the emerging European bourgeoisie with new sources of capital accumulation (export of precious metals from the occupied countries, robbery of peoples, income from trade with other countries, slave trade ) and led to the growth of international economic ties. The development of commodity production and exchange, accompanied by the differentiation of commodity producers, served as the basis for further development. The fragmented commodity production could no longer satisfy the growing demand for goods.

The starting point of capitalist production was simple capitalist cooperation, i.e. the joint work of many people performing separate production operations under the control of a capitalist. The source of cheap labor power for the first capitalist entrepreneurs was the mass ruin of artisans and peasants as a result of property differentiation, as well as the "fencing" of land, the adoption of laws on the poor, ruinous taxes, and other measures of non-economic coercion. The gradual strengthening of the economic and political positions of the bourgeoisie prepared the conditions for bourgeois revolutions in a number of Western European countries (in the Netherlands at the end of the 16th century, in Great Britain in the middle of the 17th century, in France at the end of the 18th century, and in a number of other European countries - in mid 19th century). Bourgeois revolutions, having carried out a revolution in the political superstructure, accelerated the process of replacing feudal production relations with capitalist ones, cleared the ground for the capitalist system, which had matured in the depths of feudalism, to replace feudal property with capitalist property. A major step in the development of the productive forces of bourgeois society was made with the advent of manufactory (mid-16th century). However, by the middle of the 18th century. the further development of capitalism in the advanced bourgeois countries of Western Europe ran into the narrowness of its technical base. The need has ripened for a transition to large-scale factory production using machines. The transition from manufactory to the factory system was carried out during the industrial revolution, which began in Great Britain in the second half of the 18th century. and ended by the middle of the 19th century. The invention of the steam engine led to a number of machines. The growing demand for machines and mechanisms led to a change in the technical base of mechanical engineering and a transition to the production of machines by machines. The emergence of the factory system meant the establishment of capitalism as the dominant mode of production, the creation of a corresponding material and technical base. The transition to the machine stage of production contributed to the development of productive forces, the emergence of new industries and the involvement of new resources in the economic turnover, the rapid growth of the population of cities and the activation of foreign economic relations. It was accompanied by a further intensification of the exploitation of wage-workers: a wider use of female and child labor, a lengthening of the working day, an intensification of labor, the transformation of the worker into an appendage of the machine, an increase in unemployment, a deepening of the opposition between mental and physical labor and the opposition between town and country.

The basic laws governing the development of capitalism are characteristic of all countries. However, different countries had their own characteristics of its genesis, which were determined by the specific historical conditions of each of these countries.

The classical path of development - the primitive accumulation of capital, simple cooperation, manufactory production, the capitalist factory - is characteristic of a small number of Western European countries, mainly Great Britain and the Netherlands. In Great Britain, earlier than in other countries, the industrial revolution was completed, the factory system of industry arose, and the advantages and contradictions of the new, capitalist mode of production were fully manifested. The extremely rapid (compared with other European countries) growth of industrial output was accompanied by the proletarianization of a large part of the population, the deepening of social conflicts, and regularly repeated (since 1825) cyclical crises of overproduction. Great Britain became the classical country of bourgeois parliamentarianism and at the same time the birthplace of the modern labor movement. By the middle of the 19th century. it achieved world industrial, commercial and financial hegemony and was the country where capitalism reached its highest development. It is no coincidence that the theoretical analysis of the capitalist mode of production given by Marx to capitalism was based mainly on English material. IN AND. Lenin noted that the most important distinguishing features of English capitalism in the second half of the 19th century were there were "huge colonial possessions and a monopoly position in the world market."

The formation of capitalist relations in France - the largest Western European power of the era of absolutism - was slower than in Great Britain and the Netherlands. This was due mainly to the stability of the absolutist state, the relative strength of the social positions of the nobility and the small peasant economy. The landlessness of the peasants did not take place through “fencing”, but through the tax system. An important role in the formation of the bourgeois class was played by the system of paying off taxes and public debts, and later by the protectionist policy of the government in relation to the emerging manufacturing industry. The bourgeois revolution took place in France almost a century and a half later than in Great Britain, and the process of primitive accumulation stretched over three centuries. The Great French Revolution, having radically eliminated the feudal absolutist system that hindered the growth of capitalism, at the same time led to the emergence of a stable system of small peasant landownership, which left its mark on the entire further development of capitalist production relations in the country. The widespread introduction of machines began in France only in the 30s. 19th century In the 50-60s. it has become an industrialized state. The main feature of French capitalism was its usurious character. The growth of loan capital, based on the exploitation of the colonies and profitable credit operations abroad, turned France into a rentier country.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

The essence of the socio-economic formation

The category of socio-economic formation occupies a central place in historical materialism. It is characterized, firstly, by historicism and, secondly, by the fact that it embraces each society in its entirety. The development of this category by the founders of historical materialism made it possible to put in place of abstract reasoning about society in general, characteristic of previous philosophers and economists, a concrete analysis of various types of society, the development of which is subject to their own specific laws.

Each socio-economic formation is a special social organism that differs from others no less profoundly than different biological species differ from each other. In the afterword to the 2nd edition of Capital, K. Marx cited the statement of the Russian reviewer of the book, according to which its true price lies in "... the clarification of those particular laws that govern the emergence, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another, higher one."

In contrast to such categories as productive forces, law, etc., which reflect various aspects of the life of society, the socio-economic formation covers all aspects of social life in their organic interconnection. Each socio-economic formation is based on a certain mode of production. The relations of production, taken in their totality, form the essence of this formation. The data system of production relations, which form the economic basis of the socio-economic formation, corresponds to a political, legal and ideological superstructure and certain forms of social consciousness. The structure of the socio-economic formation organically includes not only economic, but also all social relations that exist in a given society, as well as certain forms of life, family, lifestyle. With a revolution in the economic conditions of production, with a change in the economic basis of society (beginning with a change in the productive forces of society, which at a certain stage of their development come into conflict with the existing relations of production), a revolution also takes place in the entire superstructure.

The study of socio-economic formations makes it possible to notice the repetition in the social orders of various countries that are at the same stage of social development. And this made it possible, according to V. I. Lenin, to move from a description of social phenomena to a strictly scientific analysis of them, exploring what is characteristic, for example, of all capitalist countries, and highlighting what distinguishes one capitalist country from another. The specific laws of development of each socio-economic formation are at the same time common to all countries in which it exists or is established. For example, there are no special laws for each individual capitalist country (USA, Great Britain, France, etc.). However, there are differences in the forms of manifestation of these laws, arising from specific historical conditions, national characteristics.

In almost any conversation about communism, every self-respecting anti-Soviet is obliged to state the thesis that, they say, communism is a utopia. A more refined anti-Soviet likes to present this thesis under a "sweet and sour" sauce, saying: the idea is good, no one argues, but it is unrealizable; built communism, built nothing, and even ruined the country. And then, based on this thesis, other no less crazy tales of our “fighters for democracy” and other defenders of the “huckster” power, who play on patriotic feelings, appear: “Stalin was a tyrant because he built a communist utopia!” - shout the first. "Stalin was not a communist, he was a statesman!" - shout the second.

In order not to continue the flight of fantasy of speculators and just people who are not fully versed in these concepts, I would like to answer the question: is communism a utopia in principle?

primitive communism

But I do not want to focus on this thesis, but move on to something more relevant and important in the context of today.

Socialism is communism

Only absolute outcasts will argue that there was socialism in the USSR, so I would like to figure out what socialism is and what it is eaten with? For this I want to give the floor to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin:

What is usually called socialism, Marx called the "first" or lower phase of communist society. Since the means of production become common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, if we do not forget that this is not complete communism ...

In its first phase, at its first stage, communism cannot yet be fully mature economically, completely free from traditions or traces of capitalism. (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 25, ed. 4, p. 442.)

Let's take a look at this quote. Perhaps Comrade Lenin made a mistake? There could not be any communism in the USSR, but there was only socialism, right?

And in general, what socio-economic formations do we know from Marxist theory:

P primitive communal

slaveholding

feudal

capitalist

communist

As we can see, socialism is not a separate socio-economic formation, which means that it must be part of one of these five. The first two have long passed the historical stage, but the last three are worth a closer look.

The bourgeois revolution in Russia happened in February 1917, which means that there was a transition to capitalism, that is, from feudal ownership of the means of production to private ownership. The bourgeoisie, which until then was content exclusively with its own capital, reached out to power. Since capitalism had just triumphed, there were still remnants of the old order in it. But the main property is already private and, it would seem, here it is happiness, you can “eat pineapples and chew grouse”. But no, the Bolsheviks came and ruined everything ... They decided to build some kind of socialism there, to take away property from "creative" entrepreneurs, or, simply speaking, hucksters.

Socialism came after capitalism, and it has nothing to do with feudalism. Accordingly, socialism must belong to either capitalism or communism (as the next stage in the development of society). Let's take a look at the concept of capitalism. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia gives the following definition:

Capitalism is a socio-economic formation based on private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of wage labor by capital; replaces feudalism, precedes socialism.

Okay, so socialism follows capitalism and is not. And this implies that socialism belongs to the next formation on the list - communism:

Communism - 1) a socio-economic formation replacing capitalism, based on public ownership of the means of production;

2) in a narrower sense - the highest stage (phase) of development of this formation in comparison with socialism.

Accordingly, Lenin's thesis that socialism is communism, in the sense of a socio-economic formation, is correct, unless of course we forget that this is only an early stage of formation. And then we see the second narrower meaning of communism: communism is the highest stage of the communist formation, which today is often confused with the formation itself.

The fact that socialism is communism is also confirmed by the constitution of the USSR of 1936:

Article 4. The economic basis of the USSR is constituted by the socialist system of economy and socialist ownership of the instruments and means of production, established as a result of the liquidation of the capitalist system of economy, the abolition of private ownership of the instruments and means of production, and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man.”

And finally, I would like to give the very definition of socialism from the TSB:

Socialism is the first (lower) phase of the communist socio-economic formation, which differs from its second (higher) phase by the degree of economic maturity of the new society and the level of development of the communist consciousness of the masses.

Socialism seems to have been sorted out, but what does this give us on the question of the utopian nature of communism? After all, socialism is only the first phase. Can we find similar examples in other formations and are they utopian?

Utopian capitalism

We have all heard this great phrase and the work of the same name: "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism." Imperialism, or monopoly capitalism, is the highest stage in the development of the capitalist formation, just as complete communism is the highest stage in the next formation. But we also know about the existence of the lowest stage of capitalism - pre-monopoly capitalism. In an early stage, capitalism already has private ownership of the means of production and, although it still carries the vestiges of the old order, it is already capitalism.

Imagine that you live in bourgeois France at the beginning of the 19th century, the Great French Revolution happened more than two decades ago. Feudalism ended, capitalism came. You are a prosperous peasant who owns land and lives off the labor of hired workers. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, Napoleon abdicates and the Bourbons come to power, but this time they are conducting a counter-revolution. They take away the land from the peasants and return the feudal property. Then tens of thousands of newspapers come out screaming about the impossibility and utopian nature of capitalism. You are surprised by this set of circumstances: after all, you already once lived under capitalism, because property was once private, not feudal. And in other countries, such as England and Holland, there is capitalism. But this does not detract for a second from anti-capitalist propaganda. All feudal countries in unison repeat the same thing: feudalism is peculiar to man! People are born unequal!

Now let's go back to our time and think about the absurdity of capitalism's utopianism. Even at its early stage, it is clear that this is only the beginning and far from the end of a new formation. In that case, why should we think differently about communism? After all, communism in its early stage (socialism) was already built on Earth and there are still countries with public ownership of the means of production. The counter-revolution in our country changed the formation, but did not cancel the fact that the formation had already existed once.

Communism is not a utopia, it is a reality that can be realized today.

The end of this formation is a bright future, but its first stage is our possible present.

taken here bd.su/political education/falsity-utopian-communism

(from Latin communis - general; from French communisme - general; English communism; German Kommunismus)

1. A classless social system with a single public ownership of the means of production, complete social equality of all members of society, where, along with the comprehensive development of people, the productive forces will grow on the basis of constantly developing science and technology, all sources of social wealth will flow in full flow and the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

2. Future, perfect society, excluding private property, hard, monotonous work and inequality of people.

3. A highly organized society of free and conscientious workers, in which social self-government will be established, work for the benefit of society will become for all the first vital need, a recognized necessity, the abilities of each will be used with the greatest benefit for the people.

4. The highest and last socio-economic formation, within which the true history of mankind will unfold.

5. A higher stage (phase) in the development of a socio-economic formation based on public ownership of the means of production compared to socialism.

6. The highest phase of communist society.

7. The highest form of development of socialism as a transitional stage from capitalism to Communism.

8. A hypothetical social and economic system based on complete equality, public ownership of the means of production, implementing the principle "from each according to his ability - to each according to his needs."

9. An ancient hypercenter, an ideal of a utopian social system representing the pole opposite to evil, injustice, hunger, suffering, etc.

10. An ideal society in which equal access to all benefits is ensured, there are no private property, economic competition, labor exploitation, estates, classes and nations, and, accordingly, violence, crime, the state, the police and the army (utopia).

11. An ideal society (the ideal of society), characterized by public ownership of the means of production, corresponding to highly developed productive forces and ensuring: the comprehensive development of the individual, the elimination of classes, public self-government, the implementation of the principle: from each according to his abilities - to each according to his needs.

12. Ideologies of a utopian nature, in which, according to the teachings of scientific communism, the goal is to achieve a communist society, but means are proposed, from the standpoint of communist theory, in principle unrealizable.

13. The ideology according to which the vicious bourgeois society is divided into antagonistic classes of workers and owners, and in order to build a humane society, the former must seize political power and forcibly redistribute property.

14. Communist ideology, claiming to be a scientific substantiation of the inevitability and forms of transition from capitalism to communism.

15. Concepts, teachings, political movements that share and substantiate the communist ideal, advocating its implementation in practice.

16. Any society of the 20th century controlled by the communist party.

17. The general name of various concepts based on the denial of private property (primitive communism, utopian communism, etc.).

18. A social formation that is replacing capitalism, based on large-scale scientifically organized social production, organized distribution and consisting of two phases: 1) lower (socialism), in which the means of production are already public property, classes have already been destroyed, but still remain the state, and each member of society receives, depending on the quantity and quality of his labor; 2) the highest (complete communism), in which the state withers away and the principle is implemented: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

19. Socio-economic formation, which, as a result of the proletarian revolution, replaces capitalism, resolving its contradictions on the basis of social ownership of the means of production and the transformation of labor from the force of enslaving man into a means of its development.

20. A socio-economic formation based on public ownership of the means of production and having as its goals the construction of a classless society, complete social equality of all members of society and the implementation of the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

21. A socio-economic formation that replaces capitalism and passes through two stages (phases) in its development - the lower (socialism) and the higher (complete communism).

22. Society, a specific type of organization of social life, corresponding to one or another understanding of the communist ideal.

23. Social justice society.

24. A social ideal that has absorbed the humanistic principles of human civilization, the eternal aspirations of people for general well-being, complete social equality, and free all-round development.

25. One of the radical versions of the social ideal, associated with the myth of the achievability of universal equality of people on the basis of multidimensional and unlimited abundance.

26. Political ideology aimed at building a society without private ownership of the means of production, without social classes and the state.

27. A political theory based on the idea of a social organization that allows all people to fully develop their abilities in conditions of freedom and the dominance of the public good, as well as the political practice of trying to create such relations in the form of socialism.

28. A kind of political ideology that presupposes the organization of society on the basis of the principles of collectivism, equality, justice, satisfaction of all the needs of the individual.

29. A number of political ideas elevated to the rank of ideology with an attempt to implement in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and some third world countries.

30. A socio-economic formation replacing capitalism, based on public ownership of the means of production.

31. A utopian concept that advocates the possibility or even the need to build in the foreseeable future a perfect society that excludes private property, hard, monotonous work and the inequality of people.

32. A utopian economic system in which production decisions must be collectively controlled by all citizens, based on the assumption of limitless resources and technological capabilities to satisfy any need.

33. A form of society approaching the socialist ideal.

34. The formation following capitalism, the second, higher stage of this formation compared to socialism, the ultimate goal of the communist movement.

The collapse of capitalism is a very hot topic in intellectual circles today. Why, even the capitalists themselves are already saying that the days are coming when the long-awaited change in economic formations takes place. What is a socio-economic formation? Let's break this down to be clear. In general, this term was introduced by Marx. This is the historical type of society, determined by the mode of production. He identified the following socio-economic formations characteristic of the European continent: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist (where socialism is the first stage of communism).

This means that throughout the history of mankind, development has taken place within the framework of these five economic formations. Asian countries with a special type of development, Marx designated the "Asiatic mode of production."

In the time of Marx, socialism as a phenomenon, as an economic model of development, was already developing and, in fact, had already matured, but at the same time, capitalism dominated, which began around the 16th century. Marx, as an analyst, suggested and even proved that capitalism cannot exist forever and sooner or later must collapse, burst like a soap bubble. Everything from the fact that the capitalist model is based on the constant expansion of markets, scientific and technological progress, and innovation. In connection with the constant growth of the population of Europe, people were already getting crowded, or rather, the European land could no longer provide everyone with food, then another change in economic formations took place: from feudal to capitalist. The ban on loan interest, which was prohibited by the Catholic Church and the Christian system of values in general, was lifted. It was with the taking of loan interest that progress was possible as a way to bring the economy out of the crisis.

Then people's minds matured to a new formation, to socialism, but it could win only in the 20th century, replacing capitalism. And according to the very theory of Marx, the capitalist world had to collapse even then, as it once did feudal. And the revolution in Russia was planned not as a simple change of power, but as the first stage in the world socialist revolution. Russia was then only a spark in the world flame of revolution. But the world revolution did not work, capitalism survived and even won at the end of the 20th century. What tenacious it turned out, however!

What is the vitality of capitalism? Capitalism, as I wrote above, continues to exist due to the expansion of markets, increasing demand and consumption. Capitalism is a model of the accumulation of capital by individual individuals, the domination of the bourgeois class, which subjugates other classes (the petty bourgeoisie, the proletariat, the lumpen-proletariat). Those. in theory, capitalism is good, there is good, only for a single class. Just as communism is good for a single class - the proletarians, capitalism is good for the bourgeoisie. Those. some exploit others. Some work, while others eat... Capitalism is conditioned by interest on loans, i.e. some lend money to others, and then receive this amount with interest, i.e. make money out of thin air. It turns out that in the country there is a certain amount of produced goods and there is a certain amount of money that is the equivalent of this entire product. If there is more goods, then there is more money (there was an issue, printed, in short). So, in order to get some amount of money, you need to sell some part of the goods equivalent to this amount. Under capitalism, money itself becomes a commodity, so it can be exchanged, loaned, and so on. If I have not produced anything, then I should not receive money, and if I receive money only on the services of a moneylender that I provide, then by doing so I undermine the economy, there is more money than goods, hyperinflation occurs. Therefore, in order for inflation not to occur, it is necessary to create such conditions under which there will be more and more goods, so that I can continue to receive loan interest and live off this (and happily ever after) happily ever after. And what do I care about the exploited class?

This condition is the expansion of markets, the creation of new enterprises, new elements of the economy that produce goods. But it is not enough just to increase the number of goods, it is also necessary to increase their sales. But how to do it? That's right, through advertising. And so, starting from the 19th century (maybe earlier), the capitalists began to increase their markets. This increase is well, competently, with figures and statistics, written by V. Lenin in his work "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism." There he gives living examples of the developed capitalist countries of the West.

Coming to the brink of the abyss at the beginning of the 20th century, capitalism faced a serious problem. The Great Depression began in the United States - an economic crisis, unemployment, famine. And this really hurt the large oligarchic families, as they really thought about the fact that they could soon lose all the fortune that they "honestly earned" over all these years. And so, in 1913, the legendary US Federal Reserve System was created. The most influential American bankers decided to create a kind of reserve bank, and not reporting to anyone. They managed to create a private bank, which eventually took over the functions of the country's central bank and started issuing (issuing) the dollar. Thus, they were able to support the division of labor system, the expansion of markets through the refinancing of the system. But what about the fact that in some America there appeared a central bank, which is a private office? Yes, it seems to be nothing if he would not distribute his candy wrappers around the world, thereby colossally increasing the market, the possibility of loan interest, and, therefore, prolonging the life of capitalism.

Then came World War I, which began in 1914. Actually, the American bankers unfolded it, causing it with the help of various political provocations. And these same dollars, printed under the leadership of a new bank, they floated in tons across the ocean, in the thick of the war, lending money to the countries participating in the war.

However, the October Revolution of 1917 still took place. There was another period when, it seems, there should be a change in the socio-economic formation, and it happened, but not everywhere. The world is divided into two camps. The communist model at that time was something new, something that had never happened before. The communist man was the man of the future, the exploitation of the lower classes by the bourgeoisie was stopped, and in general, the bourgeoisie as a class was destroyed (literally). I will not talk now about whether it was a good period or a bad one, I will only say that it was timely, this is what should have happened. Without in the least belittling the atrocities of the Bolsheviks, I will say that this period had to happen sometime and be transformed from the previous experience, from the previous models.

The countries of the eastern bloc eventually drastically reduced the tentacles of the capitalists, cutting them off at the root. The socialist countries removed the possibility of the expansion of capital into their territories, did not allow the expansion of markets and the spread of zones of influence of the West. And the latter hoped by creating the Fed... And, starting from the mid-70s, the American economy began to experience mild stress. So just before the collapse of the USSR, in 1987, the Dow Jones industrial index collapsed by as much as 22.6% (508 points). This event went down in history as Black Monday. In addition to the states, other exchanges also shook. Australian stock exchanges soon lost 41.8%, Canada - 22.5%, Hong Kong - 45.8%, UK - 26.4%. "Shit, what do we do?" thought the cunning Anglo-Saxon moneybag.

Only a miracle could save these guys. And here you are - this miracle turned out to be the collapse of the USSR! After that, the expansion of Western capital continued, the soap bubble began to inflate further, having received reinforcements and that's it - you can sleep peacefully, happy ending! This hated by all of them Marx with his political economy was removed from Russian educational institutions and a new subject appeared in its place - economics. All at once became businessmen, businesslike and successful entrepreneurs. These all sorts of beznesvumany, these directors in their jackets, all so modern, well, where are we before them!

The population began to be seen as consumers. And even the (former) Minister of Education said that the Soviet education system trained creative people, but now we need qualified consumers. That's right, we need consumers, we need armies of consumers, so that there is someone to cram all this junk produced with the sole purpose of obtaining the maximum profit for the capitalist. Those. again, some live well, clover, while others work for them. Do you like it? Become a capitalist! Thus, develop and expand the markets, and don't forget to take a loan from us. Here you are, grandmother, and St. George's Day!

What now? And now we have a unique moment: to be contemporaries of a historical event - a change in economic formation. That is, roughly speaking, the capitalist paradigm, as a socio-economic formation, as well as a philosophical model, died a long time. Actually, kranty come to capitalism. According to economist M. Khazin, the key stage was the arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The fact is that he represented the position of those people who promoted, as a new, yet another way out of the crisis, the creation of some kind of new federal reserve system, i.e. as if "nadbanka" - an organization that is higher in the hierarchy than the US Federal Reserve. But somehow it did not grow together, you see, and Strauss-Kahn was forced to go to jail.

To all appearances, capitalism as a global economic system has reached its bifurcation point, i.e. to the point after which there will already be an abyss. Most likely, capitalism has exhausted itself and there is nowhere else to expand markets, the soap bubble is about to burst, and no one knows what's next. In general, Marx was so right that the capitalists are so afraid of him that they almost have epileptic seizures from fear. One can treat Marx differently for his, for example, materialism, but as far as the study of capitalism is concerned, he has no equal. Even if it is possible to prolong the sailing of capitalism on the "world ocean", sooner or later it will end. It's like a sick person, when his body is already essentially dead, but he continues to exist with the help of artificial life extension devices - in the same way, in this case, sooner or later the soap bubble must burst. But the worst thing is not this, but the fact that there are no alternatives to capitalism and socialism at the moment, well, people simply haven’t come up with yet. And therefore, the unknown is ahead, frightening and, at the same time, freeing from the shackles of capitalist slavery.

Socio-economic formation. Capitalism as a socio-economic formation List of used literature

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

The essence of the socio-economic formation