Class struggle

The idea of ​​splitting society into struggling classes (groups) of social thinkers has long been known. So, the French historian and Orleanist politician Guizot in his work “The Government of France since the Restoration and the current Ministry” (1820) spoke about the history of France as the history of two peoples. One people - the winner - the nobility ; and the other - the vanquished - the third estate . “And in the debate in Parliament, the question is posed as it was posed before, equality or privilege, the middle class or the aristocracy . Peace between them is impossible. To reconcile them is a chimerical plan. ” When, after the publication of the above work, he was accused of inciting a civil war, he replied:

I only wanted to briefly outline the political history of France. The struggle of the classes fills, or rather, makes the whole story. This was known and discussed many centuries before the revolution . They knew and spoke in 1789, they knew and spoke three months ago. Although I am now accused of saying this, I don’t think anyone would remember. ^[2]

However, before Marx, the class struggle was considered not so much an economic as a political phenomenon. Its occurrence was usually associated with the conquest of one people by another people in ancient times (the German conquest of the territory of the Western Roman Empire , the Norman conquest of England , etc.): in this case, the oppressing class was considered as the descendants of the victorious ethos, and the oppressed as the descendants of the ethnos -conquered. This point of view was held, in particular, by French historians of the early 19th century Thierry , Saint-Simon and Mignier , as well as a contemporary of Marx, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche .

Propaganda poster "Pyramid of a capitalist society." Phrases from top to bottom:
Politicians - “We Rule You”
Clergy - “We're fooling you”
Army - “We Shoot You”
Bourgeoisie - “We Eat for You”
Workers and peasants - “We work for everyone” , “We feed everyone”

The concept of "class struggle" has gained particular significance in Marxism. Already in the “ Manifesto of the Communist Party ” it was stated that the history of all existing societies was the history of the struggle of classes, 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, the class struggle will always and everywhere, in any society where antagonistic classes exist ^[1] . From the point of view of the Marxist theory of historical materialism , the division of society into classes, characterized by a different attitude towards the means of production , is not an accidental consequence of ancient conquests, but a regular feature of certain socio-economic formations . At the same time, the objective result of the struggle between classes - which is due to the opposition of their interests and is directly waged precisely for these interests - is to bring production relations into line with the level of development of constantly changing productive forces of society. In particular, it is precisely in this way that the socioeconomic formations themselves change (the transition from the primitive communal system to the slave system, then to the feudal and capitalist). Therefore, the class struggle is the main driving force in the history of a society divided into classes. It must lead to the destruction of the division of society into classes when the level of development of productive forces ceases to require such a division.

One of the main products of the class struggle is the state - which, from the point of view of Marxism, is “a machine for suppressing one class by another” ^[3] , that is, an apparatus for maintaining within the society orders that are pleasing and beneficial to the ruling class. With the suppression of the actions of the oppressed classes directed against these orders, the state is not bound by any laws, and therefore represents a violent dictatorship of the ruling class. From this point of view, the ancient state is the dictatorship of slave owners (directed against slaves); medieval - by the dictatorship of the feudal lords (over the peasants); capitalist - by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (over the working class). As a result of the socialist revolution, a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat (called to suppress the resistance of the bourgeoisie) arises.

Neither merit belongs to me that I discovered the existence of classes in modern society, nor that I discovered their struggle between themselves. Long before me, bourgeois historians outlined the historical development of this class struggle, and bourgeois economists outlined the economic anatomy of classes. What I did new was to prove the following: 1) that the existence of classes is connected only with certain historical phases of the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself is only a transition to the destruction of all classes and to a society without classes.

- Letter from K. Marx to I. Weidemeyer dated 03.03.1852

Defining the class struggle as a clash of antagonistic interests of various classes, Marxism reveals the objective interest of each individual class, which corresponds to its place in the historically defined system of social production. This interest, if not realized, makes the class a " class-in-itself ." As one realizes its true interest, the class transforms from "class-in-itself" into " class-for-itself " (conscious class interest makes people class-conscious - they already realize not only their place, but also their real class interest). This is precisely what Marx had in mind when he said that only the class struggle of the proletariat for their liberation from capital inevitably leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the dictatorship of the proletariat itself marks a transition to the disappearance of both classes and the class struggle ^[1] .

In Marxist theory, the class struggle can be either spontaneous (unconscious defense of one’s rights) or conscious (purposeful movement for one’s true interests), the highest form of which is party affiliation . Marxists believe that the class struggle is waged in three main forms ^[1] :

1. economic (regarding the class of proletarians, this is a struggle to improve the conditions for the sale of their labor, reduce working hours, increase wages);
2. political (for the proletariat - a class struggle for their fundamental interests - for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat);
3. ideological (ideological) (struggle against bourgeois and reformist ideology, it is called upon to bring socialist consciousness to the broad masses of working people).

According to the founders of Marxism, as the class develops, its struggle develops from a less developed economic form to more developed political and ideological forms ^[1] .

V.I. Lenin believed that antagonism between classes is inevitable in capitalist society and should ultimately lead to the establishment of the dictatorship of one of the main classes, and he considered the dictatorship of the proletariat the only alternative to the dictatorship. After the proletariat came to power, although it became the ruling class, the class struggle nevertheless continues, but in new forms and new means. But these are already state forms of the class struggle, such as the suppression of the resistance of overthrown classes, the civil war , the neutralization of the petty bourgeoisie, the use of bourgeois specialists, the upbringing of a new discipline of labor ^[1] .

In the late 1920s, JV Stalin put forward the idea of ​​strengthening the class struggle with the strengthening of socialist power ^[1] . On July 9, 1928, in a speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, he expressed the opinion that the "obsolete classes" would not "voluntarily" give up their positions, "without trying to organize resistance." Moreover, in his opinion, “the advance towards socialism cannot but lead to the resistance of the exploiting elements to this advance, and the resistance of the exploiters cannot but lead to the inevitable aggravation of the class struggle” ^[4] . This thesis became the justification for both the struggle against the “Right deviation” and Trotskyism , which were headed by Nikolai Bukharin and Lev Trotsky , and the large-scale Stalinist repressions that began .

The 1936 Constitution of the USSR officially proclaimed the construction of socialism. Stalin's report at the VIII Congress of Soviets , adopted in the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, noted that the very concept of the class struggle was outlived: there was no class antagonism in the USSR, since the bourgeois class had been completely eliminated ^[5] . Despite this, the following 1937-1938 years saw the peak of “great terror” - mass repressions against “ enemies of the people ”, which included people who belonged to the “exploiting classes”, as well as the “Trotskyists” and “right-wingers” who allegedly joined them deviators. " The idea of ​​strengthening the class struggle as socialism and capitalism was built was cultivated in Soviet science until the death of Stalin ^[1] .

Since the 1960s, the concept of class struggle has transformed. At this time, it was believed that the class struggle is a process of peaceful competition between the socialist and capitalist systems. During this competition, the question of which system will prevail is decided. In this regard, it was proved that the struggle between the two systems expresses the main contradiction of the current era. It was believed that under the influence of this contradiction, a revolutionary struggle is unfolding between the three main detachments of the working people: the world socialist system, the international labor and national liberation movements, and imperialism. This view persisted through the 1980s ^[1] .

The Marxist position on antagonistic and non-antagonistic classes is based on the Hegelian theory of antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions, however, if Hegel's speculative method allowed the possibility of reconciliation, then the dialectical method of Marx rejected such a possibility as a form of surrender to reality ( Dialectical contradiction ).

The concept of the existence of antagonistic and non-antagonistic classes allows us to draw a conclusion within the framework of Marxist theory about the possibility of resolving the contradictions of some classes within the framework of one socio-economic formation and the impossibility of such a solution between other classes, the main within the framework of this social formation, antagonistic. The struggle of the latter leads to a change in the social system ( slavery , feudalism , capitalism ) and opens up the possibility of further development of the productive forces on the basis of new production relations .

There is also a point of view that the meaning of the struggle of opposites is not in achieving unity or in mutual destruction, as in the case of antagonistic contradictions, but in achieving integrity, balance and dynamic balance between the elements of the system ( Tectology , Theory of sustainable development , Sustainable economy , Green economy ) , which allows us to conclude that the class struggle does not necessarily lead to the destruction of the old society and there are evolutionary ways of developing a social system that adapts to new ones in zovam environment within the existing social order.

The concept of the inevitable emergence of a new social system is also questioned by the synergetic model , which considers not a dialectical contradiction as the main source of development, but chance, irreversibility and instability, where the emergence of a new holistic structure is not a regular result of even multidirectional influences, but the result of a sum of random factors affecting system, which makes it impossible to predict the development of society over a significant time period as Marx does ist theory ^[6] .

The universal cybernetic approach and the widespread use of synergetics, extrapolating its principles to all phenomena of nature and society, also meet their critics who claim that the transfer of theoretical models describing a limited group of natural phenomena to immeasurably more complex social processes is ineffective, especially since these models are unable to have a predictive function in significant time perspective ( Synergetics ) ^[7] .

Karl Popper regarded the Marxist theory of class struggle as oversimplification, believing that it cannot be absolutized in any way. At the same time, he believed that it was quite suitable for the conditions of classical capitalism of the mid-19th century. He believed that one should not look for the background of any problem in the underlying class conflict of the rich and the poor. Indeed, such modern social movements as the struggle for social freedoms, ecological, feminist, and other nuclear disarmament , are difficult to describe from the point of view of certain class interests, to reduce them entirely to the class antagonism of the owners and non-owners of the means of production ^[1] . Researchers adhering to the postmodern conception believe that in the modern world the theory of class struggle is becoming less and less relevant as globalization processes develop and the differences between classes and between nations become blurred ^[8] .

However, some researchers have an opposite point of view and argue that property inequality in industrialized countries has remained unchanged throughout the 20th century and tends to increase in the 21st century (see Capital in the 21st Century ). Therefore, the central problem for critics of class theory is the explanation of the preservation of classes as a real social force ^{[9] [10]} .

Partially agreeing with critics of the theory of class struggle, it would be a mistake to exclude it altogether from the arsenal of modern analysis of social relations. The processes of social differentiation in society do not stop, the opposite of the objective interests of different class groups of society does not disappear, which means that conflicts between them cannot disappear. At the same time, the modern social system has developed democratic institutions ( multi-party system , electoral, legal, parliamentary, independent judicial systems), which make it possible to change in many respects the nature of class conflicts, providing the possibility of their non-violent resolution ^[1] .

A significant contribution to the theory of classes and class struggle was made by Pitirim Sorokin , who considered classes not as closed static structures, but as dynamic formations that allowed the mutual transition of different social groups ( social mobility ), while the class struggle was considered as part of a more general process of changing different sociocultural societies types ^[11] . If for Marxism the class struggle is the main engine of progress, then from the point of view of P. Sorokin's integral approach, the class struggle is only one of the three principles of social differentiation, the struggle of various social forces: the principle of the class (class struggle), the principle of state (the struggle between states) and the national principle (the struggle between nations), which, depending on the specific political situation, can both be opposite and complement each other, by the criterion of choice between them is the principle of self-value card, the reverse side of which is common humanity principle ^[12] .

Many representatives of the capitalist class themselves do not deny the fact of the class struggle. Thus, one of the richest people in the world, billionaire Warren Buffett, in an interview in 2005 and 2006, indicated that his class, the “class of the rich,” is waging a class struggle against the rest of society - and wins in it ^{[13] [14]} .

• Yu. I. Semenov “French historians of the restoration era: the discovery of social classes and class struggle” // Philosophy of History. "Modern notebooks", 2003; ISBN 5-88289-208-2
• C. Marx , F. Engels. Communist Manifesto
• G.V. Plekhanov. Augustin Thierry and the Materialistic Understanding of History
• V.I. Lenin. State and revolution
• Yu. I. Semenov “Global class struggle: its possible course and results” // Philosophy of History. "Modern notebooks", 2003; ISBN 5-88289-208-2
• S. Ermolaev . "Class war" in the "hypermarket": who is against whom?
• D. Pilash . Theory of class struggles and criticism (Ukrainian)