Theoretical concepts of revolution. Modern concept of revolution. The formation of revolutionary theory
Some Basic Concepts
The concept of a revolutionary subject is not unambiguous among Marxists. Among many theorists there is an opinion that the main subject of change is the revolutionary party. The main condition for transformation is an acute national crisis. The revolutionary party finds contradictions between social groups and chooses its allies and closest reserves, through which it replenishes its activist base. Then a plan of action and the direction of the main attack are outlined, which is formulated in the slogan. The strategic task of any revolution is the demolition of the existing state and the construction of a new state, which is an instrument of revolutionary change.
The formation of revolutionary theory
For the first time, the idea of Revolution as applied to society was put forward by K. Marx on the basis of the dialectical law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones. In this understanding, society accumulates evolutionary changes caused by technical progress and improvement of productive forces. After the accumulation of a critical number of changes, qualitative revolutionary a leap that transforms the entire social structure. Quantity turns into quality.
With the victory of the Revolution in the Soviet Union, the opportunity arose to export the Revolution to other countries.
An unresolved issue in revolutionary theory is the idea of world revolution, a supporter of which was L. D. Trotsky. During Lenin’s lifetime, I.V. Stalin actively worked with the so-called “Workers and Socialist International”, forming special national cadres to establish the “inevitable socialist order” in a huge number of countries in Europe, Asia, and America. However, after coming to power in the USSR, Stalin refused to support supporters of the world revolution and brutally dealt with the Trotskyists - refusing military support to the communists of Europe and directing all the forces of the new state to the industrialization of the country itself.
See also
Links
- October Revolution: the main event of the 20th century or a tragic mistake?
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what “Revolutionary theory” is in other dictionaries:
Political the situation preceding the revolution and characterized by mass revolution. agitation, the inclusion of broad sections of the oppressed classes in the active struggle against the existing system. R.s. serves as an indicator of social maturity... Philosophical Encyclopedia
The movement of continents according to the ideas of A. Wegener (1929) Theory ... Wikipedia
The origin of state and law, or the theory of natural law, is one of the oldest and most widespread legal doctrines, which sees the main source of legal norms in nature itself (things, man, society), and not in the will of the legislator... ... Encyclopedia of Lawyer
- “The Imaginary Establishment of Society” is a book by Cornelius Castoriadis, a French sociologist, psychoanalyst, philosopher and social activist, one of the founders of the group “Socialism or Barbarism”, published in 1975. Translation from French. G... Wikipedia
DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM. Contents: I. The subject of dialectical materialism 479 II. The emergence of dialectical materialism.... 480 III. Lenin's stage in the development of dialectical materialism 481 IV. Matter and consciousness 483 V.… … Philosophical Encyclopedia
This term has other meanings, see Revolution (meanings). Revolution is a radical transformation in any area of human activity. Revolution (from Late Latin revolutio turn, revolution, transformation, conversion) ... ... Wikipedia
World revolution is the idea of Karl Marx about the inevitability of the planetary unification of humanity in a just communist society. The global, rather than local, nature of the communist revolution is justified theoretically (Engels F., ... ... Wikipedia
Chronological Europe in the Stone Age Europe in the Bronze Age Antiquity Middle Ages Renaissance Modern times European Union This article is devoted to the history of the European continent. Contents... Wikipedia
Europe- (Europe) Europe is a densely populated, highly urbanized part of the world named after a mythological goddess, forming together with Asia the continent of Eurasia and having an area of about 10.5 million km² (approximately 2% of the total area of the Earth) and ... Investor Encyclopedia
A scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views that make up the worldview of the working class; the science of knowledge and revolutionary transformation of the world, about the laws of development of society, nature and human thinking... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
The concept of “social change” is of a very general nature. Social change – This is the transition of social systems, communities, institutions and organizations from one state to another. This concept of “social change” is concretized by the concept of development.
Development is an irreversible, directed change in material and ideal objects. Development involves a transition from simple to complex, from lower to higher, etc. Sociologists distinguish different types of mechanisms of social change and development: evolutionary and revolutionary, progressive and regressive, imitation and innovation.
Evolutionary processes are interpreted as gradual, slow, smooth, quantitative transformations of objects. Revolutionary are interpreted as relatively rapid, radical, qualitative changes. The absolutization of one or another type of change in social objects gave rise to two methodologically different trends in sociology: social evolutionism And revolutionism.
Social evolutionism represents an attempt at a global understanding of the historical process, as part of a general, infinitely diverse and active process of evolution of the cosmos, planetary system, Earth, and culture. Social evolutionism is most clearly represented in the system of the English sociologist G. Spencer. He developed a diagram of the evolutionary process, which includes several fundamental points. The core of this scheme is differentiation. Evolutionary changes occur in the direction of increasing harmonization, structural and functional compliance of all components of the whole.
Differentiation is always accompanied by integration. The natural limit of all evolutionary processes in this case is a state of dynamic equilibrium, which has the inertia of self-preservation and the ability to adapt to new conditions. The evolution of any system consists in increasing and complicating its organization.
Social evolution, according to G. Spencer, is part of universal evolution. It consists in the complication of forms of social life, their differentiation and integration at a new level of organization.
The main idea of social evolutionism of the 19th century. is the idea of the existence of historical stages of human society, developing from simple to differentiated, from traditional to rational, from unenlightened to enlightened, from a society with manual technology to a society with machine technology using artificially created power, from a loosely integrated society to a strictly integrated one.
The French sociologist E. Durkheim contributed to the development of the ideas of social evolutionism: he substantiated the position that the division of labor is the cause and consequence of the growing complexity of society; contrasted two types of society (simple societies with a developed division of labor and segmental structure and highly complex societies, representing a system of various organs).
The transition from one society to another occurs through a long evolutionary path:
1) in a segmental society the population is growing;
2) social relations in which each person is included are multiplying, competition is intensifying;
3) this poses a threat to the cohesion of society;
4) the division of labor is designed to eliminate cohesion through differentiation (functional, group, rank, etc.)
Theories of progressive development of society within the framework of social evolutionism:
1 German sociologist F. Tönnies (1855 – 1936)
F. Tönnies differentiates between traditional and modern society on the basis of five main types of social relationships and uses two concepts: “Gemeinshaft” (about the village community), “Gesellschaft” (about the industrial urban society). The main differences between them are as follows:
1) a society of the “Gesellschaft” type lives according to the communal principle and worldly values, and a society of the “Gesellschaft” type is based on the desire for personal gain;
2) Gemeinshaft gives the main importance to customs, Gesellschaft is based on formal laws;
3) Gemeinshaft assumes limited, while in Gesellschaft - specialized professional roles;
4) Gemeinshaft is based on religious values, Gesellschaft is based on secular values;
5) Gemeinshaft is based on family and community; Gesellschaft is based on large corporate and associative forms of unifying people.
lektsii.net - Lectures.Net - 2014-2018. (0.008 sec.) All materials presented on the site are solely for the purpose of information for readers and do not pursue commercial purposes or copyright infringement
A linear paradigm called linear progress is of great importance in understanding social development. It is also called the theory of evolutionary development (evolutionism). Its creators were O. Comte, G. Spencer, L. Morgan, E. Durkheim, L. Ward and others. The linear-progressive understanding considers social development as a process of change from lower to higher, from simple to complex, from partial to holistic quality societies and humanity.
The evolutionary understanding of social development was based on an analogy with a biological (living) organism and its growth.
IV. Evolutionary and revolutionary theories of social development
Society began to be viewed as an organism consisting of human cells, organs-institutions, etc.
Proponents of a linear understanding of development proceeded from the fact that humanity and all specific societies develop interconnectedly. As a result of the evolutionary development of society, a new quality is added to its previous quality (cumulative effect), some transformation of a part of the old and the loss of something. It is very important for this approach to determine the criteria of lower and higher, simple and complex, partial and complete, etc. They are different in different socio-philosophical and sociological theories.
O. Comte believed that to understand the modern era of mankind, it is necessary to place it in a broader historical context. The driving force for the development of society, according to O. Comte, is the strength of the human spirit (intellect, morality, will). The development of society directly depends on the quantity and diversity of its knowledge, which determines the military, political, and economic aspects of social life. Society goes through three levels in its development. At the theological stage, people base their creation of life on the presence of supernatural beings, which they worship in the form of mythology and religion. This stage is characterized by military confrontation and slavery. At the metaphysical stage of development, people increasingly base their creation of life on abstract concepts created by their minds: freedom, sovereignty, law, legitimacy, democracy, etc. At a positive stage of historical development, people discover the laws of nature, society, and man and begin to use them in organizing their lives. Science is gradually becoming the main productive force of society.
G. Spencer considered evolution to be the fundamental principle of the development of nature, society, and man. The world is a material reality in the unity of matter, movement, energy. Evolution is a movement from homogeneity (homogeneity) of the world to heterogeneity (complexity), accompanied by the dispersion of movement and the integration of matter. Evolution is carried out through the structural and functional differentiation of matter from simplicity to complexity, from homogeneity, uniformity to heterogeneity, specialization, from fluidity to stability.
The evolution of society from one stage to another is characterized by: 1) differentiation of functions, power, property, prestige between different groups of people; 2) increasing inequality of labor, power, wealth, prestige and, in general, complicating the differentiation of people into numerous strata; 3) the division of society into groups, classes, layers according to economic, professional, political, national, religious characteristics.
G. Spencer was the first to propose a dichotomous typology of societies - dividing them into two opposing ideal types. Real societies represent a mixture of the features of these ideal types: military society and industrial society. Military societies are focused on protection and conquest, integrated through political violence, their basis is an authoritarian state with low social mobility, the economy is extensive, regulated, the dominant values are discipline, patriotism, courage. Industrial societies are focused on economic development, the form of integration is voluntary cooperation of people, the state is democratic with high social mobility, the economy is dynamic and market, the dominant qualities are initiative, ingenuity, independence.
Social revolutions occur when the old socio-economic system, having exhausted the possibilities of its development, must necessarily give way to a new one. The economic basis of a social revolution is the conflict between productive forces and production relations that do not correspond to them. The revolution is aimed at eliminating these relations of production, which have become the basis for the development of the productive forces. A social revolution includes, in most cases, a political revolution, a transfer of power from one class and social group to another. The need for a political revolution is due to the fact that in order to change economic relations it is necessary to overcome the resistance of social groups that are bearers of the old relations of production.
They hold political power in their hands, use the state machine to prolong their leadership position in society and preserve the old relations of production. The materialist understanding of history indicates the need to determine the differences in the nature of each social revolution depending on what relations of production are established as a result of the revolution. An important point in the revolution is the question of its driving forces, i.e. about the action of those classes and social groups that are interested in the victory of the revolution and are actively fighting for it.
History knows revolution “from above,” i.e. radical changes in social relations, which were carried out on the initiative of forces capable of recognizing the need for urgent changes and taking the side of progress. Such were, for example, the peasant and other bourgeois reforms in Russia in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Today, the PRC has begun the process of transforming a socialist economy into a market economy.
The reforms currently taking place in Russia have the character of a revolution, since we are talking about replacing unjustified production relations with others corresponding to the progress of production and society. Reforms are progressing slowly. The awareness of the need for such reforms in society is too delayed; many social groups are not able to fit into the market economy and prefer to exist within the framework of a cost-based economy. Strict centralized management, economically unjustified guarantees, leveling created a state-dependent type of worker, deprived of initiative and enterprise, the desire for individual success, preferring equality in poverty to social differentiation created as a result of competition between economically free producers realizing their abilities in production activities. Revolution should be considered as a dialectical negation of the old.
The rejection of old production relations must be accompanied by the preservation of everything positive that the people have accumulated over decades of previous development. In a social revolution, the most important question is the question of violence and the cost of revolution. Marxism-Leninism allowed civil war to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the present stage, the illegality of this approach is obvious. The conditions for the transition to new relations of production, according to dialectics, must mature in the depths of the old society, and the revolution must really play in each such case of transition to a new one only the role of a “midwife,” i.e. only contribute to the birth of new societies, new relations of production. Any attempts to forcefully solve socio-economic problems in the modern period, and calls for such methods to any kind of extremism should be considered a crime against the people. In modern conditions, “soft”, “velvet” revolutions have become the most acceptable, in which economic and social transformations, the formation qualitatively different, corresponding to the achieved level of scientific and technical progress, production relations occur with the help of political means and methods, mechanisms of democracy, without allowing civil wars, that is, peacefully. Social transformations in a number of countries have taken place and are taking place not through leaps and revolutions, but through more or less calm evolutionary by, that is, by gradual quantitative changes in production relations that do not entail sharp transitions, leaps, or cataclysms with a minimum of social tension, in an environment where the majority of the population accepts the proposed political course.
⇐ Previous25262728293031323334
Date of publication: 2015-02-03; Read: 1138 | Page copyright infringement
studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 (0.001 s)…
The concept of evolutionary and revolutionary development of society
One of the most important problems of sociology is the problem of social change, its mechanisms and direction. The concept of “social change” is of a very general nature. Social change is the transition of social systems, communities, institutions and organizations from one state to another. The concept of “social change” is concretized by the concept of development. Development is an irreversible, directed change in material and ideal objects.
Evolutionary theories of social development
Development involves a transition from simple to complex, from lower to higher, etc. Sociologists distinguish various types of mechanisms of social change and development: evolutionary and revolutionary, progressive and regressive, imitation and innovation, etc.
Why do progressive changes increase rapidly in some societies, while others remain frozen at the same economic, political and spiritual level? Humanity has always wanted to accelerate the development of the economy and society as a whole. But in different countries they achieved this in different ways - some by waging wars of conquest, others by carrying out progressive reforms aimed at transforming society and the economy. In the course of the history of human development, two paths of development of society have been determined - revolutionary and evolutionary.
The evolutionary path (the word “evolution” comes from the Latin word meaning “unfolding”) - the path of peaceful non-violent transformation of society was to calmly, without jerks and attempts to “jump over time,” to help progress, i.e. to capture its basic directions and support them in every possible way, quickly adopt the best practices of other countries.
Supporters of the revolutionary path believed that for the sake of a good goal, a “bright future” (heaven on earth), all means are good, including violence. At the same time, in their opinion and conviction, everything that stands in the way of progress must be immediately discarded and destroyed. By revolution we generally understand any (usually violent) change in the nature of government of society. A revolution is a total change in all aspects of life that occurs over a certain period of time (usually short), a radical change in the nature of social relations.
Revolution (from the late Latin term meaning “turn”, “revolution”, “breakthrough of gradualism”) is a change in the internal structure of the system, which becomes a connecting link between two evolutionary stages in the development of the system, this is a fundamental qualitative change, i.e. a leap . At the same time, reform is part of evolution, its one-time, one-time act. This means that evolution and revolution become necessary components of socio-historical development, forming a contradictory unity. Evolution is usually understood as quantitative changes, and revolution as qualitative.
Each transformer of society understood “progress” in his own way. Accordingly, the “enemies of progress” also changed. These could be kings and presidents, feudal lords and bourgeois (for Peter 1 these were boyars), but the essence of this direction always remained the same - to act quickly and mercilessly. The violent path, the path of revolution (in Latin - “coup”) was almost certainly associated with destruction and numerous casualties. In the process of development of socio-political thought, the views and practices of supporters of the revolutionary path became increasingly fierce and merciless. But still, until approximately the end of the 18th century, before the French Revolution, the theory and practice of ideological and political trends developed primarily in the spirit of evolutionary views. This was to a certain extent due to the cultural and moral traditions of the Renaissance and humanism, and then the Enlightenment, which rejected violence and cruelty.
They are unique in the late 17th – early 18th centuries. reforms of Peter 1, who began with cutting the beards of the boyars and ended with severe punishments against opponents of the reforms. These reforms of the Russian emperor were in the spirit of the revolutionary path of development of society. Ultimately, they contributed to significant progress in the development of Russia, strengthening its position in Europe and the world as a whole for many years to come.
Evolutionary and revolutionary processes are often considered as opposite types of changes in material and ideal objects. Evolutionary processes are interpreted as gradual, slow, smooth, quantitative transformations of objects, while revolutionary processes are interpreted as relatively fast, radical, qualitative changes. The absolutization of one or another type of change in social objects gave rise to two methodologically different movements in sociology: social evolutionism and revolutionism.
Social evolutionism is an attempt at a global understanding of the historical process, as part of the general, infinitely diverse and active process of evolution of the Cosmos and the planetary system. Lands, cultures. Social evolutionism is most clearly represented in the system of the English sociologist G. Spencer. He developed the most complete scheme of the evolutionary process, which includes several fundamental points. The core of this scheme is differentiation, which is inevitable, since all finite homogeneous systems are unstable due to different conditions for their individual parts and the unequal influence of various external forces on their various elements.
Sociologists of all schools and directions view society as a changing system. At the same time, when interpreting social changes, representatives of various schools and directions show significant differences. The absolutization of one or another type of change in social systems gave rise to two methodologically different movements in sociology: social evolutionism and revolutionism.
Social evolutionism represents an attempt at a global understanding of the historical process, as part of a general, infinitely diverse and active process of evolution of the Cosmos, the planetary system, the Earth, and culture. Social evolutionism is most clearly represented in the system of the English sociologist G. Spencer . He developed the most complete scheme of the evolutionary process, which includes several fundamental points. The core of this scheme is differentiation, which is inevitable, since all finite homogeneous systems are unstable due to different conditions for their individual parts and the unequal impact of various external forces on their various elements. As complexity and heterogeneity in systems increases, the pace of differentiation accelerates, since each differentiated part is not only the result of differentiation, but also its further source.
Differentiation, according to Spencer, presupposes specialization, division of functions between parts and selection of the most stable structural relationships. Evolutionary changes occur in the direction of increasing harmonization, structural and functional compliance of all components of the whole. Consequently, differentiation is always accompanied by integration. The natural limit of all evolutionary processes in this case is a state of dynamic equilibrium, which has the inertia of self-preservation and the ability to adapt to new conditions.
The evolution of any system consists in increasing and complicating its organization. Moreover, the accumulation of inconsistencies and disharmonies in the course of evolution can lead to the disintegration of its own works.
Social evolution, according to Spencer, forms part of universal evolution. It consists in the complication of forms of social life, their differentiation and integration at a new level of organization. The sociology of G. Spencer implements the basic idea of social evolutionism XIX century- the idea of the existence of historical stages of human society, developing from simple to differentiated, from traditional to rational, from unenlightened to enlightened, from a society with manual technology to a society with machine technology using artificially created power, from a loosely integrated society to a strictly integrated.
A significant contribution to the development of the ideas of social evolutionism was made by the French sociologist E. Durkheim. It is E.
3. The concept of evolutionary and revolutionary development of society
Durkheim was the first to thoroughly substantiate the position that the division of labor is the cause and consequence of the growing complexity of society.
E. Durkheim contrasted two types of society: at one extreme of social evolution there are simple societies with a developed division of labor and segmental structure, consisting of homogeneous and similar segments; at the other, highly complex societies, representing a system of various organs, of which each has its own special role and which themselves consist of differentiated parts.
The transition from one society to another occurs along a long evolutionary path, the main points of which are as follows: 1) in a segmental society the population is growing; 2) this increases the “moral density”, multiplies the social relations in which each person is included, and, consequently, competition intensifies; 3) hence the threat to the cohesion of society arises; 4) The division of labor is designed to eliminate this threat, since it is accompanied by differentiation (functional, group, rank, etc.) and requires the interdependence of specialized individuals and groups.
The concept of social evolutionism occupies a dominant position in sociology when interpreting social changes. At the same time, along with it, the theory of the revolutionary transformation of society, the founders of which were K. Marx and F. Engels.
The Marxist concept of social development is based on a formational approach to the interpretation of history. According to this approach, humanity in its development goes through five basic stages: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist. The transition from one socio-political formation to another is carried out on the basis of a social revolution. A social revolution is a radical qualitative revolution throughout the entire system of social life. The economic basis of the social revolution is the deepening conflict between the growth of the productive forces of society and the outdated, conservative system of production relations, which manifests itself in the strengthening of social antagonisms and the intensification of the class struggle between the ruling class, interested in preserving the existing system, and oppressed classes.
The first act of social revolution is the conquest of political power. On the basis of the instruments of power, the victorious class carries out transformations in all other spheres of social life and thus creates the prerequisites for the formation of a new system of socio-economic and spiritual relations. From the point of view of Marxism, the great and strategic role of revolutions is that they remove obstacles from the path of social development and serve as a powerful stimulus for all social development. K. Marx called revolutions “the locomotives of history.”
Evolutionist and revolutionary theories of society are based on the idea of social progress. They affirm the possibility of directed development of society, characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect. In one case, the criterion of progress is the complication of the social organization of society ( G. Spencer ), in another - changes in the system of social connections and the type of regulation of social relations ( E. Tennis ), in the third - changes in the nature of production and consumption ( W. Rostow and D. Bell ), in the fourth - the degree of mastery of society by the spontaneous forces of nature, expressed in the growth of labor productivity, and the degree of liberation of people from the yoke of the spontaneous forces of social development ( K. Marx ).
Many historians, including Shchegolev, wrote their works decades after the February Revolution. In their research, they focused on the crisis moments of the reign of Nicholas II.
In the concepts of the four authors, there is one most important question, on the study of which historians have concentrated their attention: what Nicholas II was like as a person and as a statesman. Despite the fact that the authors relied on different sources when writing their works, they are united by a common tendency to present Nicholas II as a weak-willed and weak-willed figure.
It is the emphasis on the lack of will and weak character of Nicholas II that makes it possible for historians to assert that Russia was ruled not by a tsar, but by an empress, and by Rasputin. The authors attribute many of the miscalculations in the state policy of Nicholas II to the harmful influence of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna on him. To confirm this hypothesis, historians referred to the correspondence of the royal couple, specifically choosing passages from the queen’s letters to Nicholas II during the First World War and other equally important events in the history of Russia.
As for the personality of Rasputin, the views of Soviet historians on him are quite contradictory. Attributing to Rasputin a great influence on the royal couple, historians interpret the facts quite freely.
Historians paid closer attention to the study of the hypothesis of concluding a separate peace with the Germans. The authors of these works argued that the last two years before the February Revolution, the only rulers of Russia were the Empress and Rasputin. They led Russia to the conclusion of a separate peace. Historians largely reduced the collapse of the three-hundred-year-old Romanov dynasty only to the “harmful influence of the depraved whip Rasputin,” who in the last years of the reign of Nicholas II was truly the “evil demon and fate” of the Romanov dynasty. Raising this question leads us to study the relationships in aristocratic, governmental and socio-political circles, whose representatives sat in the State Duma.
Discussion in the Duma of state reforms since 1912 was reduced mainly to issues that had a political context. For 5 years, the State Duma fought the tsarist government.
The most significant point in these historical publications is the coverage of little-known issues in the history of the February Revolution. Concepts based on an analysis of the events preceding the February Revolution mainly boiled down to studying the problem of a palace coup led by the leaders of “P.B.” and to the coverage of the February events.
Firsov bases the hypothesis of the February coup on the role of Rasputin at court in those years. Firsov also focuses on the relationship of the III and IV State Dumas with the tsarist government. Shchegolev developed the problem of the relationship between Nicholas II and the generals. The historian claims that the generals of the High Command provoked the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne, long before this moment, by coordinating their actions: all the generals turned out to be traitors and traitors to their sovereign. Mstislavsky examined in detail what forces participated in the February coup. The historian dwelled in more detail on the training of members of "P.B." to a palace coup. He was also interested in the relationship between the leaders of "P.B." with the guard, aristocratic circles, with the Grand Dukes. The historian tried to trace from what moment a certain group of people in the State Duma began to develop a plan for a “palace coup.” The historian examines in detail the program of the conspirators, which they had been preparing for several years.
These urapatriotic aspirations of the leaders of the “Progressive Bloc” ended with the speech of P.N. Milyukov I/XI in 1916 in the State Duma: words about the role of Rasputin and the irresponsible influence of Alexandra Fedorovna were heard throughout the country. "Stupidity or treason."
Unlike Vasilevsky and Shchegolev, who paid little attention to the activities of “P.B.” in preparation for the February events, Firsov put forward a different hypothesis. The attack on Rasputin by the entire front from Kerensky to Purishkevich ultimately led to the shooting of Purishkevich and Yusupov. Thus, it was the murder, as the author believed, that became the signal for the revolution. Firsov places all responsibility for the destruction of the monarchy on the bourgeoisie.
Thus, this work examined the publications of Soviet historians of the 20-30s, in which four points of view were highlighted on the course of events that preceded the February Revolution.
The authors believe that one of the reasons for the February Revolution was the activities of various political parties, especially the Progressive Bloc, aimed at undermining the monarchical system as a political system in Russia.
Historians have covered in detail the problem of relationships between the leaders of the State Duma and members of the House of Romanov and, finally, with the reigning couple. The authors examined questions that to a certain extent reveal how complex and conflictual the relations of the liberal intelligentsia were with the autocrat, who did not want to give up the prerogatives of monarchical power in Russia. Thus, the analysis of these problems leads historians to study the hypothesis of a palace coup.
No less attention in these works was paid to the activities of Nicholas II. The authors mainly analyze some personal characteristics of the last monarch. Precisely because in the works there is a general tendency to present Nicholas II as an ordinary person and not possessing the talents of a statesman, he appears before us as an ordinary man in the street.
Historians have paid no less close attention to the moment Nicholas II signed the “Manifesto of Abdication.” In this case, the researchers were interested in the personal position of the king during the most dramatic period of his life. Historians attribute the ability to control himself even in a moment of mental shock to his indifference and lack of will.
It was the emphasis on the lack of strong-willed qualities in the emperor that contributed to the fact that the authors exaggerated the role of Rasputin and the empress in resolving important state issues.
Historians claim that Rasputin played a sinister role at court, as he had enormous influence on the royal couple. Being a man of pacifist sentiments, he undermined the authority of the monarch in military and socio-political circles.
Historians attached great importance to the study of the problem of concluding a separate peace with Germany, which, from their point of view, Alexandra Fedorovna and Rasputin were striving for. Despite the fact that historians based their concept of the February events on this assumption, this hypothesis has no basis in reality, since the authors did not refer to reliable sources.
Ultimately, as historians argued, the February Revolution occurred not only because Nicholas II showed himself to be an incompetent politician lacking the gift of foresight of events. An equally important event, which became the prologue to the February events, was the First World War, for it revealed contradictions that, apparently, could only be resolved by a socio-political revolution in Russia.
The main advantage of these studies is that the authors were able in their historical works to reflect the drama of that era and show the ambiguity of the positions of the socio-political forces that participated in the preparation of the February events of 1917.
Revolution (from Latin revolutio - turn, revolution) is a deep qualitative change in the development of any natural phenomena! society or knowledge. The concept of “revolution” is most widely used to characterize socio-political development when a leap occurs - a revolution (explosion), a rapid, impetuous, fundamental change that transforms the essence of the system. This! distinguishes revolution from evolution, that is, gradual changes in certain aspects of social life.
A social revolution is a radical, qualitative, profound revolution in the development of society, all its spheres, a way of replacing one socio-economic and socio-cultural system with another, more progressive one.
Revolutions are the result and highest manifestation of class struggle. The driving forces of the social revolution are classes and social strata interested in the victory of a more progressive social system. The main issue of such a revolution is the conquest of state power, the establishment of political dominance of the revolutionary class or classes, and then the transformation of social life. There are social revolutions: bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic, national liberation,
socialist. They differ in their goals. For example, bourgeois revolutions set as their goal the destruction of the feudal system or its remnants.
The attitude towards revolutions in world socio-political thought is ambiguous. Representatives of classical liberalism of the 17th-18th centuries. believed that if the government violates the terms of the social contract, then revolutionary resistance to despotism may be legitimate. They justified not only the revolutions in England and France, but also the American War of Independence. However, in the 19th century. under the impression of the extremes of real revolutionary processes, liberalism gradually evolved towards liberal reformism.
A negative assessment of the revolution was given by the generally recognized “prophet of conservatism” - Edmund Burke (1729-1797). Reflecting on the French Revolution of the late 18th century, he wrote that revolution was a social evil. Society must follow such principles as stability, balance, gradual renewal. The conservatives saw the causes of the revolution in the emergence and spread of false and harmful ideas.
Unlike bourgeois ideologists who denied the historical inevitability of revolution, representatives of Marxism believed that revolutions are powerful engines of social progress, “locomotives of history.” In particular, Karl Marx (1818-1883) created one of the first theoretical concepts of revolution. He considered the economic basis of the revolution to be the conflict between the growth of the productive forces of society and the outdated system of production relations, which manifests itself in the aggravation of social contradictions between the ruling and oppressed classes. This conflict is resolved in the “era of social revolution,” by which the founder of Marxism understood a long transition from one socio-economic formation to another. The culmination of this transition is the socio-political revolution itself. K. Marx saw the reasons for such a revolution in the class struggle, which he considered the driving force of social progress. In the course of this revolution, a more advanced social class overthrows the reactionary class and makes long-overdue changes in all spheres of public life.
Marx considered the proletarian or socialist revolution to be the highest type of socio-political revolution. During such a revolution, the proletariat overthrows the power of the bourgeoisie and establishes its own dictatorship to suppress the resistance of the overthrown classes and eliminate private property, and then begins the transition to a new communist society. It was assumed that the socialist revolution would be worldwide and would begin in the most developed European countries, since it required a high degree of maturity of the material prerequisites and a new social system.
In practice, Marxist ideas were taken up in countries that, from Marx's point of view, were not suitable for starting a communist experiment. This was also Russia, where in 1917 the world's first victorious October Socialist Revolution took place. It, being systemic, transformed not only political institutions, but also changed all spheres of life of Russian society without exception. It went far beyond Russian boundaries and became the most important event of the 20th century, largely predetermining its dynamics.
In addition to Marxism in the 19th century. Other attempts were made to create revolutionary theories. Thus, the French historian and sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), realizing the inevitability of bourgeois transformations, believed that the cause of revolutionary events is not the economic crisis and political oppression themselves, but their psychological perception, when the masses at one point or another begin perceive your situation as unbearable. He rejected the inevitability of the French Revolution.
One of the most famous sociological concepts of revolution at the beginning of the 20th century. was the concept of the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923). He saw the most important reason for the revolution in the degeneration of the ruling elite, when its incompetence increases and society plunges into a crisis caused by its erroneous management decisions. Against this background, a counter-elite is formed from the lower strata, uniting around itself the masses of those dissatisfied with the ruling elite. When the counter-elite manages, with the help of the masses, to squeeze out and replace the old ZDita, then this process can be called “mass circulation of the elite, or simply a revolution.” Thus, V. Pareto believed that Evolution is a change in the ruling elites: “some rise, others decline.” This happened in Russia as part of the February Revolution of 1917, when the tsarist elite, after the abdication of Nicholas II for himself and his son, left, and a new one took its place, but the effectiveness of its activities turned out to be no higher, since it did not have real experience in government, special knowledge, and most importantly - a reasonable attitude towards solving the most important socio-political problems of that most difficult period. Because of this, a Bolshevik counter-elite began to form very quickly, which, based on Marxist theory, came to power in October 1917.
The creator of the modern concept of revolution was P. A. Sorokin (1889-1968), who further developed the ideas of V. Pareto. He noted that a revolution requires not only a “crisis at the bottom,” but also a “crisis at the top.” The “crisis of the lower classes,” from the point of view of P. Sorokin, is associated with the general suppression of innate “basic” instincts (digestive, freedom, self-preservation, etc.), which leads to a revolutionary explosion. Sorokin’s “crisis at the top,” like Pareto’s, is associated with the degeneration of the ruling elite. Sorokin's attitude towards revolutions was negative, since he considered them the worst way to solve the material and spiritual problems of the masses.
Among modern points of view on revolutions, the theory of J. Davis and T. Garr is of interest, which states that people only become imbued with revolutionary ideas when they begin to think about what they should have in fairness and what they have, and see a significant difference. It is then, from the point of view of the above-mentioned scientists, that the relative deprivation syndrome arises, that is, the gap between value expectations and value opportunities.
Concluding the analysis of the theoretical concepts of revolution, it should be noted that none of them can fully explain such a complex socio-political phenomenon.
The October Socialist Revolution of 1917 is a complex, multi-level historical phenomenon with the help of which the Bolsheviks tried to create a new social system. It combined the agrarian, proletarian, national liberation, anti-war and general democratic type of revolution and had a huge impact on the further development of the world (Fig. 2 diagram of the revolution).
Using the provisions of the above theories, it is possible to explain the events of the 1980-1990s, which put an end to the system of “developed socialism” in the USSR. Many specific features of the socio-political development of Russia during this period were a repetition of the specific features of the Russian revolutions of the early 20th century. This is the “crisis of the top”, and the “crisis of the bottom”, and the active activity of the opposition-minded Russian intelligentsia, prone to utopian solutions and having no political experience, and the separatist aspirations of the national elites, and the psychological characteristics of Russians inclined to quick revolutionary ways to solve their problems after prolonged patience, etc.
THEORETICAL CONCEPTS OF REVOLUTION 1. The right to resist tyrants in a traditional society 2. Assessments of revolution in the ideology of the Enlightenment 3. Attitude to revolutions in the ideological heritage of the 19th century: - Conservative ideology about the French Revolution - The role of revolutions in assessments of the ideology of classical liberalism - Theoretical concept of revolution by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - Anarchist doctrine of social revolution - Ideas about revolutions at the beginning of the twentieth century 4. Sociology of revolution of the twentieth century 5. The concept of revolution in modern political science
F. Hautman F. Duplessis-Mornay THE RIGHT TO RESIST TYRANTS in French political thought of the 19th century FRANCOIS HAUTMAN Pamphlets “Tiger”, “Anti-Tribonian”: calls for resistance to usurpers of power, the thesis about the historicity of laws and their compliance with the customs of the country, France has their experience of freedom - Merovingian laws and ancient Germanic customs. In the political program of “Franco-Gaul”: he proclaimed the principle of the supreme sovereignty of the people, which existed during the times of the Merovingians and Carolingians, when the people chose their monarch. Demands: a return to the ancient constitution of Gaul, to a federation of self-governing republics, to the full rights of the States General, to the right of the people to elect and depose a king, to declare war, to make laws. For this reason, a war against the king for the public good of the country is legitimate, and it should be led by the nobility. PHILIP DU PLESSIS-MORNAY Pamphlet “Claim against Tyrants” - The people existed before kings, they elected them, basing their power on agreement and mutual obligations. Violation of the rights of the people leads to the establishment of tyranny. The people mean the nobility and the top of the third estate; they must cleanse the country from the sacrilege of tyranny.
THE THEORY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT AND THE RIGHT TO RESIST TYRANNY “On the law of war and peace. “G. Grotius The State is “a perfect union of free people, concluded for the sake of law and the common good.” The people can change the way of government if the contract is terminated by the rulers of the state. Subjects have the right to consider the social contract terminated in the event of “extreme necessity”, “great and obvious danger” threatening their subjects from the rulers of the state. “Political treatise” the goal of the state is in reality freedom B. Spinoza When the state does something contrary to the dictates of reason, then it “sins” against its nature, betrays itself and in this sense commits a crime. For such a situation of violation by state authorities of the terms of the contract, Spinoza recognizes the natural right of the people to revolt.
HUMAN RIGHTS AS A RATIONALE FOR A REVOLUTION 24 pamphlets on human rights, the state was created at the behest of God by the social agreement of the people, who, by virtue of the innate freedom of people, have the right to govern themselves and create the type of government they please. If kings say that their power is from God, then the freedom of the people, whose power is primary, is based on innate rights, is also from God. D. Milton “People's Agreement” D. Lilburn The state was created by mutual agreement of people “for the good use and benefit of everyone.” From this stems the inalienable right of the people to organize the state in such a way that this good is ensured. Power must be based on the free choice or consent of the people; no one can dominate people without their free consent. "Two Treatises on Government" "Reflections on the Glorious Revolution of 1688". D. Locke The state was created to guarantee natural rights (freedom, equality, property) and laws (peace and security), it should not encroach on these rights, it should be organized so that natural rights are reliably guaranteed. the uprising of the people against the tyrannical government encroaching on the natural rights and freedom of the people is legitimate and necessary
POLITICAL RADICALISM J. -J. ROUSSEAU (1712 -1778) “Discourse on the Sciences and Arts” “On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law” “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality between People” q q THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION WAS CONNECTED WITH THE APPEARANCE AND GROWTH OF SOCIAL INEQUALITY, OR WITH THE REGRESSION OF FREEDOM . The first to emerge is property inequality. It was an inevitable consequence of the establishment of private ownership of land. From this time on, civil society replaced the natural state. At the next stage, political inequality appeared in social life. A state was formed. At this stage, property inequality is supplemented by a new one - the division of society into rulers and ruled. The final limit of inequality comes with the degeneration of the state into despotism. In such a state there are no more rulers, no laws - there are only tyrants. Rebellion against tyranny is a lawful act
T. Payne E. -J. Sieyes F. Guizot I. Tain A P O L O G I A R E V O L U T I O N There are offenses that nature cannot forgive: she would cease to be herself if she did so. The Almighty has instilled in us an ineradicable desire for goodness and wisdom. If we were deaf to the voice of good feelings, social ties would fall apart, justice on earth would be uprooted... O you who love humanity! You who dare to oppose not only tyranny, but also the tyrant, come forward! T. Payne
Traditionalist concept of Edmund Burke REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE Disputed: Ø the theory of social contract Ø the theory of popular supremacy. ØThe will of the majority is an artificial fiction. ØThe theory of human rights is based on fictions. ØThe supposed equality of people is also a fiction. popular sovereignty is "the most false, immoral, malicious doctrine that was ever preached to the people" q Abstract ideas of freedom lead to anarchy, and through it to tyranny. q Any social order arises as a result of long historical work that establishes stability, traditions, customs q All this is the most valuable heritage of our ancestors, which must be carefully preserved. q state, society, law are not invented by man, but are created as a result of long evolution; they cannot be rebuilt at the will of people.
CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY ABOUT THE FRENCH REVOLUTION REFLECTIONS ON JOSEPH DE MASTRE'S FRANCE q A man who can change everything, but cannot create or change anything for the better without God's help, imagined himself to be the source of supreme power and wanted to do everything himself. q God punished people for this, saying - do it! q And the revolution, God's punishment, destroyed the entire political order and perverted moral laws. q History shows that revolutions always produce greater evil than the one they want to correct.
ASSESSMENT OF THE REVOLUTION IN I. KANT’S “METAPHYSICS OF MORALS” METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING CHANGES REFORM AND REVOLUTION “CHANGES IN A FAILED STATE ORGANIZATION, WHICH ARE SOMETIMES REQUIRED, CAN BE MADE ONLY BY THE SOUVER HIMSELF BY THE ENOM BY REFORM, not by the people through revolution." “The revolution of a talented people, taking place before our eyes, may end in success or failure, may be so full of disasters and atrocities that a sane person, even in the hope of a happy outcome, would not dare to begin such an expensive experiment a second time - and yet this revolution , meets in the hearts of all viewers. . . sympathy” “A citizen of the state, and, moreover, with the permission of the sovereign himself, should have the right to openly express his opinion about which of the orders of the sovereign seem to him to be unfair in relation to society...”. Public opinion has the right to refuse support to a tyrant; placed in conditions of moral isolation and fearing spontaneous rebellion, he will be forced to heed the voice of the people, comply with existing laws or reform them if they need correction
The role of revolutions in assessments of the ideology of classical liberalism. Alexis de Tocqueville THE OLD ORDER AND THE REVOLUTION 1856 The revolution was not supposed to change the nature of our civilization, stop its progressive development, or change the essence of the fundamental laws underlying human societies in our West. If we consider the Revolution in itself, having cleared it of the accidental layers that modified its image in different periods and in different countries, we will see that its only result was the destruction of political institutions that for many centuries reigned supreme over the majority of European peoples and are usually called feudal, and replacing them with a more uniform and simpler political system, the basis of which is equality of conditions. The revolution was least of all an accidental event. And although it took the world by surprise, it was nevertheless the completion of a long work, the swift and stormy end of a work on which ten generations had labored.
Theoretical concept of revolution by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels German ideology (1846) Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) GERMAN IDEOLOGY: dialectics of interaction and development of productive forces and production relations the study of social formations, the study of the state the theory of classes and class struggle the proletarian revolution is assessed as a result of development contradictions between the productive forces and production relations, the need for the proletariat to gain political power is formulated, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in general form. The proletarian revolution is characterized as a two-pronged process - a change in the living conditions of society and, at the same time, a change in the people themselves making the revolution: “. . . revolution is necessary not only because it is impossible to overthrow the ruling class in any other way, but also because the overthrowing class only in revolution can throw off all the old abominations and become capable of creating a new basis for society.”
IN THE PLACE OF THE OLD BOURGEOIS SOCIETY WITH ITS CLASSES AND CLASS OPPOSITES IS AN ASSOCIATION IN WHICH THE FREE DEVELOPMENT OF EVERYONE IS A CONDITION FOR THE FREE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY: justification for the inevitability of the communist revolution . “The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggle” üModern society is increasingly split into two opposing, antagonistic classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. üThe development of the productive forces is traced, which took place under the domination and under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, and has now outgrown bourgeois relations and requires their elimination, üThe process of formation and development of the proletariat is examined - that objective force that will be forced to abolish bourgeois production relations, which have become fetters for the further development of modern productive strength Two general tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat were formulated: to transform private ownership of the means of production into public ownership and to develop production as quickly as possible. üSummary characteristics of a communist society: class differences will disappear, public power will lose its political character, and the free development of everyone will be ensured.
Theoretical concept of revolution in the legacy of classical anarchism STATE POWER HIERARCHY CENTRALIZATION BUREAUCRACY LAW FEDERALISM DECENTRALIZATION RECIPROCITY FREE CONTRACT AND SELF-GOVERNMENT POLITICAL REVOLUTION SOCIAL REVOLUTION
What is property? Or a study on the principle of law and power 1840 Anarchy was understood as the abolition of all forms of human oppression, the replacement of a “political constitution” beneficial only to the dominant minority with a “social constitution” corresponding to justice and human nature P. -J. Proudhon Statehood and Anarchy 1873 M. Bakunin “At present, for all countries of the civilized world there is only one world question, one world interest - the complete and final liberation of the proletariat from economic exploitation and from state oppression. “Freedom without socialism is a privilege, an injustice. . . Socialism without freedom is slavery and bestiality." The state and its role in history 1896 P. Kropotkin The purpose of the revolution is the establishment of "stateless communism", a social system in the form of a free federal union and self-governing units (communities, territories, cities), based on the principle of voluntariness and “no leadership.” It was assumed that collective production, collective distribution of resources, collectivity of everything related to the economy, to the service sector, to human relationships.
THE FIRST PROGRAM OF THE RSDLP ADOPTED BY THE SECOND CONGRESS OF 1903 The maximum program: defined the main task of the party - the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat to build a socialist society. The minimum program: set the immediate task of overthrowing the tsarist autocracy and replacing it with a democratic republic.
PROGRAM-MAXIMUM Ø By replacing private ownership of the means of production and circulation with public ownership, Ø by introducing a planned organization of the social-productive process. to ensure the well-being and all-round development of all members of society, the social revolution of the proletariat will destroy the division of society into classes and thereby liberate all oppressed humanity, since it will put an end to all types of exploitation of one part of society by another. A necessary condition for this social revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, the conquest by the proletariat of such political power that will allow it to suppress all resistance of the exploiters.
“On the slogan of the United States of Europe” 1915 Uneven economic and political development is an unconditional law of capitalism. It follows that the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few or even in one individual capitalist country. The political form of society in which the proletariat wins, overthrowing the bourgeoisie, will be a democratic republic, increasingly centralizing the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or given nations in the struggle against states that have not yet converted to socialism. The destruction of classes is impossible without the dictatorship of the oppressed class, the proletariat. The free unification of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less long, persistent struggle between the socialist republics and the backward states.
“APRIL THESE” The uniqueness of the current moment in Russia lies in the transition from the first stage of the revolution, which gave power to the bourgeoisie, to its second stage, which should give power into the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry. Not a parliamentary republic, but a republic of Soviets of workers, farm laborers and peasants' deputies throughout the country, from bottom to top. Elimination of the police, army, bureaucracy. The pay of all officials, with the election and replacement of all of them at any time, is not higher than the average pay of a good worker
"APRIL THESE" Confiscation of all landowners' lands. Nationalization of all lands in the country, disposal of land by local Soviets of farm laborers and peasants' deputies. Immediate merger of all banks in the country into one national bank. Not the “introduction” of socialism, but the transition to control by the councils of workers’ deputies over social production and distribution of products.
“STATE AND REVOLUTION” TEACHING OF MARXISM ABOUT THE STATE AND TASKS OF THE PROLETARIAT IN THE REVOLUTION The state is a product and manifestation of the irreconcilability of class contradictions. The state arises there, then and insofar as, where, when and insofar as class contradictions cannot be objectively reconciled. The state is an organ of class domination, an organ of oppression of one class by another, it is the creation of “order” that legitimizes and strengthens this oppression, moderating the clash of classes. The liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power that was created by the ruling class
“STATE AND REVOLUTION” The bourgeois state...is destroyed by the proletariat in the revolution. The “special force for the suppression” of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie must be replaced by a “special force for the suppression” of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (dictatorship of the proletariat). The transition from capitalism to communism, of course, cannot but give an enormous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: dictatorship of the proletariat The doctrine of the class struggle necessarily leads to the recognition of the political dominance of the proletariat, its dictatorship, that is, power not shared with anyone and based directly on the armed force of the masses.
“STATE AND REVOLUTION” The period of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is inevitably a period of unprecedentedly fierce class struggle, its unprecedentedly acute forms. Revolution is undoubtedly the most authoritarian thing that is possible. Revolution is an act in which part of the population imposes its will on another part through rifles, bayonets, cannons, that is, extremely authoritarian means. And the victorious party is of necessity forced to maintain its dominance through the fear that its weapons inspire in the reactionaries.
“STATE AND REVOLUTION” ØWe set as our ultimate goal the destruction of the state, that is, all organized and systematic violence, all violence against people in general. Ø We do not expect the advent of a social order in which the principle of the subordination of the minority to the majority is not observed. Ø But, striving for socialism, we are convinced that it will develop into communism, and in connection with this, any need for violence against people in general, for the subordination of one person to another, of one part of the population to another part, will disappear, because people will get used to observing elementary conditions of society without violence and without subordination.
Vilfredo Pareto Treatise on General Sociology 1916 üHistory is the arena of constant struggle between different types of elites for power. üTo maintain social balance, the circulation of elites is necessary. ü If the elite turns out to be closed, that is, circulation does not occur or occurs too slowly, this leads to the degradation of the elite and its decline. üAt the same time, in the lower stratum there is a growing number of individuals who have the traits necessary to govern and are capable of using violence to seize power üRevolution acts as a kind of addition to the circulation of elites. üIn a certain sense, the essence of the revolution lies in a sharp and violent change in the composition of the ruling elite. Moreover, as a rule, during the revolution, individuals from the lower strata are controlled by individuals from the higher strata, since the latter possess the intellectual qualities necessary for battle and lack those qualities that individuals from the lower strata possess.
Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of revolution 1925 1) 2) Causes of revolution: growing suppression of basic instincts; their universal character; If the digestive reflex of a good part of the population is “suppressed” by hunger, If the instinct of self-preservation is “suppressed” If the reflex of collective self-preservation is “suppressed”, their shrines are desecrated, their members are abused If the need for housing, clothing, etc. is not satisfied at least in a minimal amount If the majority of the population is “suppressed” the sexual reflex in all its manifestations If the possessive instinct of the masses is “suppressed”, poverty and deprivation prevail If people are faced, on the one hand, with insults, neglect, permanent and unfair ignorance of their merits and achievements, and on the other hand, with exaggeration of the merits of people who do not deserve it. If in most people their impulse to struggle and competition, creative work, acquiring diverse experience, and the need for freedom are suppressed, then we have auxiliary conditions - the components of a revolutionary explosion.
Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of Revolution 1925 Causes of revolution: 3) If the government and groups guarding order are not able to prevent disintegration, for a revolutionary explosion it is also necessary that social groups acting as guardians of the existing order do not have a sufficient arsenal of means to suppress destructive attempts below. When the forces of order are no longer able to carry out the practice of suppression, revolution becomes a matter of time. By insufficiency and ineffectiveness I mean the inability of the authorities and the ruling elite: a) to develop countermeasures against the pressure of repressed instincts sufficient to achieve a state of social equilibrium; b) remove or at least weaken the conditions producing “repression”; c) split and divide the repressed masses into groups, pitting them against each other, in order to weaken them mutually; d) direct the “output” of suppressed impulses in a different, non-revolutionary direction.
Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the Revolution 1925 The atmosphere of pre-revolutionary eras always strikes the observer with the impotence of the authorities and the degeneration of the ruling privileged classes. They are sometimes unable to perform the basic functions of power, not to mention forcefully resisting the revolution. They are also incapable of dividing and weakening the opposition, reducing repressions or organizing the “exit” of repressed impulses in a non-revolutionary direction. Almost all pre-revolutionary governments bear the characteristic features of anemia, impotence, indecisiveness, incompetence, confusion, frivolous imprudence, and on the other hand, licentiousness, corruption, immoral sophistication...
Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of Revolution 1925 Two stages of the revolutionary process: the first stage of any deep revolution does not eliminate the very fact of suppression, but, on the contrary, only strengthens it. The behavior of the masses, now controlled only by elementary unconditioned reflexes, becomes uncontrollable. Hunger, instead of decreasing, increases. Human security becomes even more problematic; Mortality is increasing catastrophically; As a result, the self-preservation reflex turns out to be even more suppressed. Expropriations, starting with the rich, spread to the entire population, which further suppress the possessive instinct. Sexual permissiveness suppresses the sexual instinct. The despotism of the new ruling class suppresses the instinct for freedom. People are becoming less and less adaptive to the environment and mutual relationships. Their overall assessment of everything that is happening can be expressed in the words: “It is impossible to live like this any longer, we need order, order at any cost.”
Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of Revolution 1925 Two stages of the revolutionary process: And now the demand for unlimited freedom is replaced by a thirst for order; praise to the “liberators” from the old regime is replaced by praise to the “liberators” from the revolution, in other words, the organizers of order. "Order!" and “Long live the creators of order!” - such is the general impulse of the second stage of the revolution. Fatigue acts from the inside, generating individual apathy, indifference, and mass lethargy. All people are in this state, and there is nothing simpler than their subjugation by some energetic group of people. And what was practically impossible at the first stage of the revolution is now being done with ease. The population, which is an inert mass, is convenient material for social “molding” by a new “repressor”. Thus, it is the revolution that inevitably creates all the conditions for the emergence of despots, tyrants and coercion of the masses.
The first wave in the development of the sociology of revolution L. Edwards “The Natural History of the Revolution” (1927). E. Lederer “On Revolutions” (1936) K. Brinton “Anatomy of a Revolution” (1938) D. Pitti “Revolutionary Process” (1938) The second wave in the development of the sociology of revolution J. Davis “Towards a theory of revolution” (1962), T. R. Garr “Why People Revolt” (1970), C. Johnson “Revolutionary Change” (1966), N. Smelser “The Theory of Collective Behavior” (1963) The Third Wave in the Development of the Sociology of Revolution S. Huntington “Political Order in Transforming Societies” ( 1968) and “Revolutions and Collective Violence” (1975) G. Eckstein “The Etiology of Internal War” (1965), E. Obershal “Growing Expectations and Political Disorder” (1969) E. Muller “Applicability of the Theory of Possibility to the Analysis of Political Violence” ( 1972), B. Salert “Revolutions and Revolutionaries” (1976), T. Skocpol “Explaining Revolutions: In Search of a Social-Structuralist Approach” (1976), “States and Social Revolutions” (1979)
The definition of revolution in the works of representatives of the third generation: “a rapid, fundamental and violent change, produced by the internal forces of society, in the dominant values and myths of this society, its political institutions, social structure, leadership, government activities and policies” S. Huntington “a rapid, radical transformation of state and class structures of society... accompanied and partly carried out through uprisings of the masses that have a class basis" T. Skokpol Signs of revolutions: 1) radical, comprehensive changes in the social order 2) Large masses of mobilized people are involved 3) The revolutionary process is always accompanied by violence
S. Eisenstadt Revolution and transformation of societies 1978 Ø The most common image of the revolution. . . has several main Ø Ø Ø components: violence, novelty and universality of change. Revolution is characterized as the most intense, violent and deliberate process of all social movements. It is seen as the ultimate expression of free will and deep feelings, a manifestation of extraordinary organizational abilities and a highly developed ideology of social protest. Particular importance is attached to the utopian or emancipatory ideal, based on the symbolism of equality, progress, freedom and the belief that revolutions create a new and better social order. It is generally accepted that the preconditions for revolutions are fundamental social anomalies or flagrant manifestations of injustice, the connection of struggles between elites with deeper social factors like class struggle, the involvement of large social groups in the social movement and their political organization.
The results of the revolution appear to be multifaceted. Ø Firstly, this is a violent change in the existing political regime. . . Ø Secondly, replacing the incapable ruling elite or ruling class with others. Ø Thirdly, far-reaching changes in all institutional spheres, primarily in the economy and class relations - changes that are aimed at modernizing most aspects of social life, economic development and industrialization, centralization and expansion of the circle of participants in the political process. Ø Fourth, a radical break with the past. . . Ø They believe, fifthly, that revolutions carry out not only institutional and organizational changes, but also make changes in morality and education, that they create or give birth to a new person.
“modern definition of revolution: it is an attempt to transform political institutions and give a new justification for political power in society, accompanied by formal or informal mobilization of the masses and such extra-institutionalized actions as undermine existing power” Jack Goldstone “Towards a theory of fourth generation revolution” 2001 Typologies of revolutions: ØRevolutions , which, along with political institutions, transform economic and. social structures are called great; Those that change only political institutions are called political revolutions. ØRevolutions associated with independent actions of the lower classes are called social revolutions, Øwhile large-scale reforms carried out by elites who directly manage the mobilization of the masses are sometimes called elite revolutions or revolutions from above Another typology is based on the guiding ideology of revolutionary movements, distinguishing between: Øliberal or constitutional revolutions, communist revolutions, Islamic revolutions
Velvet revolutions of 1989 Ø Ø Ø In 1989, revolutions took place in many countries of Eastern Europe, leading to the liquidation of the “socialist camp”. June 4. Parliamentary elections in Poland, to which opposition parties are allowed on August 24. The government of Poland was headed by opposition representative Tadeusz Mazowiecki. September 18. During the round table negotiations between the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and the opposition, a decision was made to introduce a multi-party system in Hungary. Ø October 18. The Hungarian Parliament has adopted about 100 constitutional amendments regulating the transition to parliamentary democracy. Ø October 23. The Hungarian Republic was proclaimed in Budapest, defining itself as a free, democratic, independent, rule-of-law state. Ø November 9. The Council of Ministers of the GDR decided to open the border with Germany and West Berlin. Ø November 10. The head of the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Zhivkov, resigned from the post of General Secretary and member of the Politburo. Ø November 17. The Bulgarian Parliament elected Mladenov as head of the country's State Council. Ø November 28. In Czechoslovakia, a decision was made to create a new government and abolish the provision enshrined in the constitution on the leading role of the Communist Party. Ø On December 29, Vaclav Havel was elected President of Czechoslovakia. Ø December 22. In Romania, the head of state and the Romanian Communist Party N. Ceausescu was overthrown. The leader of the National Salvation Front, I. Iliescu, became the President of Romania Ø October 3, 1990 - German reunification
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE “VELVET REVOLUTIONS” OF 1989 -1990 q “The internal source of the modern revolution is the counter-elite: an active, power-hungry stratum of those who were left behind as a result of the clan struggle.” q “Velvet” revolutions in all Eastern European countries took place almost simultaneously, despite the different levels of development of the countries, different levels of social contradictions and, most importantly, the different strengths of their leaders. q They were carried out according to a similar scenario in the year when, in the course of active negotiations between Gorbachev and the United States, the fate of the USSR was, in principle, decided. q The most important civilizational condition of the “velvet” revolutions common to the countries of Eastern Europe was the fact that the inhabitants of these countries were drawn to the West. One of the manifestations associated with the change in the system of power in the region should be considered the faith of Eastern Europeans in their identity with Western Europe. q A feature of “velvet” revolutions is the fact that they unite supporters of different socio-philosophical principles. They were united by a common hostility to state power and the political regime, which “kept” them as part of the anti-Western “Soviet bloc”. q A key factor in mass support for revolutionary change was the potential for material gain. q By destroying the “authoritarian bureaucratic system”, the population of Eastern European countries hoped for a sharp expansion of opportunities for social mobility
“COLORED REVOLUTIONS” 2003 - Rose Revolution in Georgia. 2004 - Orange Revolution in Ukraine. 2005 - Tulip revolution in Kyrgyzstan. 2005 - Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. 2006 - Attempt at the Vasilkov revolution in Belarus. 2008 - Attempt at a color revolution in Armenia 2009 - Color revolution in Moldova 2010 - Melon revolution - the second Kyrgyz revolution 2010 -2011 - Jasmine revolution (or Date) in Tunisia 2011 - Melon revolution (or Twitter, Date) in Egypt
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF “COLORED” REVOLUTIONS” q The form of revolution is mass rallies, demonstrations and strikes, which are carried out by the opposition after elections, according to the results of which the opposition is declared a loser. q The opposition in this case claims that there were violations of the electoral legislation that distorted the will of the people. q Mass protests lead either to a repeat vote (Ukraine) or to the forceful seizure of government buildings by a crowd (Yugoslavia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan) and the flight of state leaders, followed by new elections. In both cases, the opposition comes to power. q The revolution is taking place under anti-corruption and radical democratic slogans. q The revolution is preceded by the formation of youth organizations that form “field detachments of the revolution.” q The revolution is emphatically bloodless. Hence the characteristic brand of the revolution - a non-aggressive color or flower. However... q The restraint of the security forces plays a decisive role in the success of the revolution q Pro-American policy after the revolution
Gene Sharp: From dictatorship to democracy. Conceptual foundations of liberation D. Sharp's book was published in Bangkok in 1993. It became a guide for the organizers of “color revolutions.” This book reveals in detail the tactics and strategy of subversion within “anti-democratic” states. What force can the opposition mobilize so that it is sufficient to destroy the anti-democratic regime, its military and police system? A common feature of these examples of the destruction or weakening of dictatorships is the decisive mass application of political disobedience on the part of the population. A dictatorial regime has characteristic features that make it very sensitive to skillfully applied political disobedience. Effectively overthrowing a dictatorship with minimal casualties requires four priorities: §It is necessary to strengthen the resolve, self-confidence and resistance skills of the oppressed population; §It is necessary to strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of the oppressed people; §It is necessary to create a powerful force of resistance; §It is necessary to develop a wise strategic liberation plan and clearly implement it.