Theoretical concepts of revolution. The modern concept of revolution. The rise 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 transformations is the revolutionary party. The main condition for the transformation is an acute national crisis. The revolutionary party finds contradictions between social groups and chooses its allies and immediate reserves, through which it replenishes its activist base. Then a plan of action is outlined and the direction of the main strike, 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 rise 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 technological progress and improvement of the productive forces. After the accumulation of a critical number of changes, a qualitative revolutionary a leap that transforms the entire social structure. Quantity turns into quality.
With the victory of the Revolution in the Soviet Union, it became possible to export the Revolution to other countries.
An unresolved issue of revolutionary theory is the idea of a world revolution, of which L. D. Trotsky was a supporter. During the life of Lenin, I.V. Stalin actively worked with the so-called "Workers' and Socialist International", forming special national cadres to establish the "inevitable socialist order" on the territory of a huge number of countries in Europe, Asia, and America. However, after coming to power in the USSR, Stalin refused to support the supporters of the world revolution and brutally cracked down on the Trotskyists - refusing military support for the communists of Europe and directing all the forces of the new state to the industrialization of the country itself.
see also
Links
- The 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 a mass revolution. excitement, the inclusion of broad sections of the oppressed classes in an active struggle against the existing system. R. s. serves as an indicator of social maturity ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
The movement of the continents according to the ideas of A. Wegener (1929) Theory ... Wikipedia
The origin of the 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 ... ... Law Encyclopedia
- “Imaginary Establishment of Society”, a book by Cornelius Castoriadis, a French sociologist, psychoanalyst, philosopher and social activist, one of the founders of the “Socialism or Barbarism” group, published in 1975. Translated 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, coup, transformation, conversion) ... ... Wikipedia
The world revolution is the idea of Karl Marx about the inevitability of the planetary unification of mankind in a just communist society. The global, and not the 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 (about 2% of the total Earth area) and ... Encyclopedia of the investor
The scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views that make up the worldview of the working class; the science of cognition and the revolutionary transformation of the world, the laws of the development of society, nature and human thinking ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
The concept of "social change" is the most general. social change - it 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- this 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 various types of mechanisms for 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 fast, fundamental, qualitative changes. The absolutization of this or that type of change in social objects gave rise to two methodologically different trends in sociology: social evolutionism and revolutionism.
Social evolutionism is an attempt at a global understanding of the historical process, as part of a general, infinitely diverse and active process of the 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 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 the 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 the 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 XIX 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 vaguely integrated society to a strictly integrated one.
A contribution to the development of the ideas of social evolutionism was made by the French sociologist E. Durkheim: 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 a segmental structure and highly complex societies, which are a system of various organs).
The transition from one society to another occurs in a long evolutionary way:
1) in a segmental society, the population is growing;
2) social relations are multiplying, in which each person is included, competition is intensifying;
3) this creates 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 the progressive development of society within the framework of social evolutionism:
1 German sociologist F. Tennis (1855 - 1936)
F. Tennis draws a distinction between traditional and modern society on the basis of five main types of social interconnection, and in doing so uses two concepts: “Geminschaft” (of the village community), “Gesellschaft” (toward the industrial urban society). The main differences between them are as follows:
1) Gemeinschaft-type society lives according to the communal principle and worldly values, and Gesellschaft-type society is based on the desire for personal gain;
2) Gemeinschaft emphasizes customs, Gesellschaft is based on formal laws;
3) Geminschaft assumes limited, at that time, in Gesellschaft - specialized professional roles;
4) Gemeinschaft relies on religious values, Gesellschaft - on secular values;
5) Gemeinschaft is based on family and community, Gesellschaft is based on large corporate and associative forms of association of people.
lektsii.net - Lectures. No - 2014-2018. (0.008 sec.) All materials presented on the site are for the sole purpose of familiarizing readers and do not pursue commercial purposes or copyright infringement
Of great importance in understanding social development is a linear paradigm called linear progress. 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. Linear progressive understanding considers social development as a process of change from lower to higher, from simple to complex, from partial to integral 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 the development of society
Society began to be viewed as an organism consisting of human cells, organs-institutions, and so on.
Proponents of a linear understanding of development proceeded from the fact that humanity and all specific societies develop in an interconnected manner. As a result of the evolutionary development of society, a new quality is added to its former quality (cumulative effect), some transformation of a part of the old and the loss of something. It is very important for this approach to define the criteria of lower and higher, simple and complex, partial and holistic, etc. They are different in different socio-philosophical and sociological theories.
O. Comte believed that in order to understand the modern era of mankind, it is necessary to place it in a broader historical context. The driving force behind the development of society, according to O. Comte, is the strength of the human spirit (intelligence, morality, will). The development of society directly depends on the quantity and variety of its knowledge, which determine the military, political, economic aspects of public life. Society goes through three levels in its development. In 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 proceed in their creation of life from abstract concepts created by their minds: freedom, sovereignty, rights, legitimacy, democracy, etc. At a positive stage of historical development, people discover the laws of nature, society, 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, motion, energy. Evolution is a movement from the homogeneity (homogeneity) of the world to heterogeneity (complexity), accompanied by the dispersion of motion and the integration of matter. Evolution is carried out with the help of 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) an increase in the inequality of labor, power, wealth, prestige and, in general, the complication of differentiating people into numerous strata; 3) the division of society into groups, classes, strata according to economic, professional, political, national, religious characteristics.
G. Spencer was the first to propose a dichotomous typology of societies - dividing them into two opposite ideal types. Real societies are a mixture of features of these ideal types: military society and industrial society. Military societies are focused on defense and conquest, integrated through political violence, their basis is an authoritarian state with low social mobility, an extensive, regulated economy, the dominant values are discipline, patriotism, courage. Industrial societies are focused on the development of the economy, a form of integration is the voluntary cooperation of people, a democratic state with high social mobility, a dynamic market economy, 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 the social revolution is the conflict between the 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. The social revolution includes in most cases a political revolution, the 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 the bearers of the old production relations.
They hold political power in their hands, use the state machine to extend their leading position in society and preserve the old production relations. The materialist understanding of history points to the need to determine the differences in the nature of each social revolution, depending on which production relations are established as a result of the revolution. An important moment of 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 the revolution "from above", i.e. fundamental changes in social relations, which were carried out on the initiative of forces capable of realizing 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 and early 20th centuries. Today, the PRC has begun the process of transforming the socialist economy into a market economy.
The ongoing reforms in Russia are in the nature of a revolution, since we are talking about the replacement of production relations that have not justified themselves with others corresponding to the progress of production and society. Reforms are progressing slowly. The awareness of the need for such reforms is too long in society, many social groups are not able to fit into the market economy and prefer to exist within the framework of a costly economy. Rigid centralized management, economically unjustified guarantees, leveling created a state-dependent type of worker, devoid of initiative and enterprise, striving for individual success, preferring equality in poverty to social differentiation created as a result of competition from economically free producers who realize their abilities in production activities. Revolution should be seen as a dialectical negation of the old.
The rejection of the old production relations must be accompanied by the preservation of everything positive that the people have accumulated over the decades of previous development. In the social revolution, the most important question is the question of violence and the price of the revolution. Marxism-Leninism allowed civil war for the sake of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the present stage, the illegitimacy of this approach is obvious. The conditions for the transition to new production relations, 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 production relations. Any attempts to forcefully solve socio-economic problems in the modern period, and calls for such methods to any kind of extremism should be regarded as a crime against the people. In modern conditions, "soft", "velvet" revolutions, in which economic and social transformations, the formation qualitatively different, corresponding to the achieved level of scientific and technological progress, production relations occur with the help of political means and methods, mechanisms of democracy, avoiding civil wars, that is, peacefully. Social transformations in a number of countries have taken place and are taking place not through jumps, upheavals, but more or less calm evolutionary way, that is, through gradual quantitative changes in production relations that do not entail abrupt transitions, jumps, cataclysms, with a minimum of social tension, in an environment where the majority of the population accepts the proposed political course.
⇐ Previous25262728293031323334
Publication date: 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 changes, their mechanisms and direction. The concept of "social change" is very general. 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 the development of society
Development involves a transition from simple to complex, from lower to higher, etc. Sociologists distinguish various types of mechanisms for social change and development: evolutionary and revolutionary, progressive and regressive, imitation and innovation, etc.
Why are progressive changes accelerating rapidly in some societies, while others are frozen at the same economic, political and spiritual level? Mankind 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 the development of mankind, two ways of the development of society were determined - revolutionary and evolutionary.
The evolutionary path (the word "evolution" comes from the Latin word meaning "deployment") - 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 main directions and support them in every possible way, quickly adopting the best practices of other states.
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. Revolution is generally understood as any (usually violent) change in the nature of the government of society. A revolution is a total change in all aspects of life that takes place over a certain period of time (usually a short one), a radical change in the nature of social relations.
Revolution (from the late Latin term meaning “turn”, “revolution”, “breakthrough of gradualness”) is a change in the internal structure of the system, which becomes a 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. Usually evolution is understood as quantitative changes, and revolution - as qualitative ones.
Each reformer 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 they were boyars), but the essence of this direction has always remained the same - to act quickly and mercilessly. The violent path, the path of revolution (in Latin - “coup”) almost certainly turned out to be associated with destruction and numerous victims. In the process of development of socio-political thought, the views and practices of the supporters of the revolutionary path became more and more fierce and merciless. Nevertheless, until about the end of the 18th century, before the French Revolution, the theory and practice of ideological and political currents developed mainly 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.
Unique are in the late 17th - early 18th centuries. the reforms of Peter 1, who began with cutting the beards of the boyars and ended with severe punishments in relation to the 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 positions in Europe and the world as a whole for many years to come.
Evolutionary and revolutionary processes are often considered as opposite types of change 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 this or that type of change in social objects gave rise to two methodologically different currents in sociology: social evolutionism and revolutionism.
Social evolutionism is an attempt at a global understanding of the historical process as part of a general, infinitely diverse and active process of the evolution of the Cosmos, 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 any 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.
Sociologists of all schools and trends view society as a changing system. At the same time, when interpreting social changes, representatives of various schools and trends show significant differences. The absolutization of this or that type of change in social systems gave rise to two methodologically different trends in sociology: social evolutionism and revolutionism.
social evolutionism is 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 any 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 increase in systems, 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, implies 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. Therefore, differentiation is always accompanied by integration. The natural limit of all evolutionary processes in this case is the 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. At the same time, the accumulation of inconsistencies and disharmony in the course of evolution can lead to the disintegration of its own works.
social evolution, according to Spencer, is part of universal evolution. It consists in the complication of the forms of social life, their differentiation and integration at a new level of organization. G. Spencer's sociology implements the main idea of social evolutionism 19th century- the idea of the existence of historical stages of human society, developing from simple to differentiated, from traditional to rational, from non-enlightened to enlightened, from a society with manual technology to a society with machine technology, using artificially created power, from an indistinctly 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 for the first time elaborately substantiated the position that the division of labor is the cause and effect of the growing complexity of society.
E. Durkheim contrasted two types of society: on one pole of social evolution there are simple societies with a developed division of labor and a segmental structure, consisting of segments that are homogeneous and similar to each other, on the other, highly complex societies, which are 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 in a long evolutionary path, the main points of which are as follows: 1) the population is growing in a segmental society; 2) this increases the "moral density", multiplies the social relations in which each person is included, and, consequently, competition intensifies; 3) hence there is a threat to the cohesion of society; 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 in the interpretation of social change. At the same time, along with it, the theory of the revolutionary transformation of society, the founder of which was K. Marx and F. Engels.
The Marxist concept of social development is based on the formational approach to the interpretation of history. According to this approach, humanity in its development goes through five basic stages: primitive communal, slave-owning, 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 in 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 maintaining 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 public 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 ʼʼlocomotives of historyʼʼ.
Evolutionist and revolutionary theories of society based on the idea of social progress. Οʜᴎ affirm the possibility of a 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 the other - changes in the system of social relations 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 elemental forces of nature, expressed in the growth of labor productivity, and the degree of liberation of people from the yoke of the elemental forces of social development ( K. Marx ).
Many historians, including Shchegolev, wrote their works decades after the February Revolution. In their studies, they focused on the crisis moments of the era 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 focused their attention: what was Nicholas II 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 the tsar, but by the empress, and by her - Rasputin. The authors attribute many 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 places from the letters of the tsarina 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 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 that “harmful influence of the depraved whip of Rasputin,” which in the last years of the reign of Nicholas II was truly the “evil demon and fate” of the Romanov dynasty. The formulation of this question leads us to the study of relationships in aristocratic, government and socio-political circles, whose representatives sat in the State Duma.
The 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 against 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. The concepts based on the analysis of the events that preceded the February Revolution were mainly reduced to the study of 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 between 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 that moment, having coordinated their actions: all the generals turned out to be traitors and traitors to their sovereign. Mstislavsky examined in detail what forces participated in the implementation of the February coup. The historian dwelled in more detail on the training of members of the "P.B." to the palace coup. He was also interested in the relationship between the leaders of "P.B." with the guards, 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 have been preparing for several years.
These urapatriotic aspirations of the leaders of the "Progressive Bloc" culminated in the speech of P.N. "Stupidity or betrayal."
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 on the whole front from Kerensky to Purishkevich led, in the end, to the shot of Purishkevich and Yusupov. Thus, it was the murder, as the author believed, that became the signal for revolution. Firsov places all responsibility for the destruction of the monarchy on the bourgeoisie.
Thus, in this paper, the publications of Soviet historians of the 20-30s were considered, in which four points of view on the course of events preceding the February Revolution were identified.
The authors believe that one of the reasons for the February Revolution was the activities of various political parties, in particular the Progressive Bloc, aimed at undermining the monarchical system as a political system in Russia.
Historians have covered in detail the problem of relations between the leaders of the State Duma and members of the House of Romanov and, finally, with the reigning couple. The authors explored issues that, to a certain extent, reveal how complex and conflicting were the relations between the liberal intelligentsia and 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 investigate 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 features of the last monarch. Precisely because there is a general tendency in the works to present Nicholas II as an ordinary person and not possessing the talents of a statesman, he appears before us as an ordinary layman.
Historians paid no less close attention to the moment when Nicholas II signed the "Manifesto of Abdication". In this case, researchers were interested in the personal position of the king in the most dramatic period of his life. The ability to control oneself even at the moment of mental shock, historians attribute to his indifference and lack of will.
It was the emphasis on the emperor's lack of strong-willed qualities that contributed to the fact that the authors exaggerated the role of Rasputin and the empress in solving important state issues.
Historians claim that Rasputin played a sinister role at court, as he had a huge influence on the royal couple. Being a man of pacifist sentiments, he undermined the authority of the monarch in the 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 aspired to. Despite the fact that historians based their concept of the February events on this assumption, this hypothesis has no real basis, since the authors did not refer to reliable sources.
Ultimately, as historians have argued, the February Revolution occurred not only because Nicholas II showed himself to be an incompetent political figure, devoid of the gift of foresight of events. No less important event, which became the prologue of the February events, was the First World War, because it revealed such contradictions that, apparently, only a socio-political revolution in Russia could resolve.
The main advantage of these studies lies in the fact that the authors were able to reflect the drama of that era in their historical works 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 lat. revolutio - turn, upheaval) - 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 there is a leap - a coup (explosion), a quick, rapid, fundamental change that transforms the essence of the system. This is! distinguishes revolution from evolution, that is, a gradual change 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 to change one socio-economic and socio-cultural system for another, more progressive one.
Revolutions are the result and the highest manifestation of the 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 question of such a revolution is the conquest of state power, the establishment of the political domination of the revolutionary class or classes, and then the transformation of public life. There are social revolutions: bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic, national liberation,
socialist. They differ in their goals. For example, bourgeois revolutions aim at the destruction of the feudal system or its remnants.
The attitude to revolutions in world socio-political thought is ambiguous. Representatives of classical liberalism of the XVII-XVIII centuries. believed that if the government violates the terms of the social contract, then revolutionary resistance to despotism can be legitimate. They justified not only the revolutions in England and France, but also the American Revolutionary War. However, in the XIX century. Impressed by 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 non-servatism" - Edmund Burke (1729-1797). Reflecting on the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, he wrote that revolution is a social evil. Society must follow principles such as stability, balance, and gradual renewal. The conservatives saw the causes of the revolution in the emergence and dissemination of false and harmful ideas.
Unlike the bourgeois ideologists, who denied the historical inevitability of the revolution, the representatives of Marxism believed that revolutions are powerful engines of social progress, "the locomotives of history." In particular, Karl Marx (1818-1883) created one of the first theoretical concepts of revolution. He considered 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, to be the economic basis of the revolution. This conflict is resolved in the "epoch of social revolution", by which the founder of Marxism understood a long transition from one socio-economic formation to another. The culminating moment of this transition is the actual socio-political revolution. 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, the more advanced social class overthrows the reactionary class and brings about urgent changes in all spheres of social life.
Marx considered the highest type of socio-political revolution to be the proletarian or socialist revolution. In the course of such a revolution, the proletariat overthrows the power of the bourgeoisie and establishes its own dictatorship to crush the resistance of the overthrown classes and abolish 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, the new social order.
In practice, Marxist ideas were picked up in countries that, from the point of view of Marx, were not suitable for starting a communist experiment. Such was 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 the Russian framework, became the most important event of the 20th century, which largely predetermined its dynamics.
In addition to Marxism in the XIX 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 in themselves, but their psychological perception, when the masses at one time or another begin to perceive their 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 grows and society plunges into a crisis due to its erroneous managerial 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 just a revolution." Thus, V. Pareto believed that Evolutions are a change of ruling elites: "some rise, others fall into 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 for his son, left, and a new one took its place, but the effectiveness of its activity was no higher, since it did not have real experience of government, special knowledge, and most importantly - a reasonable attitude to solving the most important socio-political problems of that most difficult period. Because of this, the Bolshevik counter-elite began to form very quickly, which, relying 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 needed not only a “crisis from the bottom”, but also a “crisis from 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" as well as Pareto's is connected with the degeneration of the ruling elite. Sorokin's attitude to 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 says that people are only imbued with revolutionary ideas when they begin to think about what they should have in justice and what they have, and see a significant difference. It is then, from the point of view of the above scientists, that the syndrome of relative deprivation arises, that is, the gap between value expectations and value opportunities.
Finishing the analysis of the theoretical concepts of the 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 types 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. These are the “crisis of the top”, and the “crisis of the bottom”, and the vigorous 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 who are prone to quick revolutionary ways to solve their problems after a long patience, etc.
THEORETICAL CONCEPTS OF THE REVOLUTION 1. The right to resist tyrants in a traditional society 2. Evaluations of the revolution in the ideology of the Enlightenment 3. Attitude towards revolutions in the ideological heritage of the XIX century: - Conservative ideology about the French Revolution - The role of revolutions in the assessments of the ideology of classical liberalism - Theoretical concept of revolution by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - The Anarchist Doctrine of Social Revolution - Ideas about revolutions at the beginning of the 20th century 4. Sociology of the revolution of the 20th century 5. The concept of revolution in modern political science
F. Hautemann F. Duplessis-Mornet THE RIGHT TO RESIST TO TYRANTS in the French political thought of the 17th century FRANCOIS HAUTHMANN 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": proclaimed the principle of the supreme sovereignty of the people, which existed during the time 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 wars, to legislate. For the sake of this, a war against the king for the public good of the country is legitimate, and the nobility should lead it. PHILIPPE DUPLESSI-MORNET Pamphlet "A claim to tyrants" - The people existed before the kings, he elected them, putting the contract and mutual obligations as the basis of their power. Violation of the rights of the people leads to the establishment of tyranny. By the people is meant the nobility and the top of the third estate; they must cleanse the country from the sacrilege of tyranny.
THE THEORY OF THE PUBLIC CONTRACT AND THE RIGHT TO RESIST TYRANCE “On the right of war and peace. ”G. Grotius The state is “a perfect union of free people, concluded for the sake of observing the law and the common good.” The people can change the form of government if the agreement is terminated by the rulers of the state. Citizens have the right to consider the social contract terminated in the event of "extreme necessity", "great and obvious danger" that threatens citizens from the rulers of the state. "Political treatise" the goal of the state in reality is freedom B. Spinoza When the state does something contrary to the dictates of reason, it "sins" against its nature, betrays itself, and in this sense commits a crime. For such a situation of violation of the terms of the treaty by the state authorities, Spinoza recognizes the natural right of the people to revolt.
HUMAN RIGHTS AS A JUSTIFICATION OF THE REVOLUTION 24 pamphlets on human rights problems 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 form of government that they please. If kings say that their power is from God, then the freedom of the people, whose power is primary, is also from God, based on innate rights. D. Milton "People's agreement" D. Lilburn The state was created by mutual agreement of people "for the good and good of everyone." From this follows 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 power that encroaches on the natural rights and freedom of the people is lawful and necessary
POLITICAL RADICALISM J.-J. RUSSO (1712 -1778) "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences" "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 ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPEARANCE AND GROWTH OF SOCIAL INEQUALITY, OR WITH THE REGRESS OF FREEDOM . The first time there is wealth inequality. It was an inevitable consequence of the establishment of private ownership of land. From that time on, the state of nature was replaced by civil society. At the next stage, political inequality appears in public life. The state was formed. At this stage, property inequality is supplemented by a new one - the division of society into ruling and subject. The last 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. Revolt against tyranny is a lawful act
T. Payne E.-J. Sieyès F. Guizot I. Taine APOLOGY REVOLUTION OF T I Y There are grievances that nature cannot forgive: it would cease to be itself if it did so. The Almighty instilled in us an indestructible attraction to 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 resist not only tyranny but tyrant, come forward! T. Payne
The traditionalist concept of Edmund Burke REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE Contested: Ø the theory of the social contract Ø the theory of popular rule. ØAn artificial fiction is the will of the majority ØThe theory of human rights is based on fictions. Ø The supposed equality of people is also a fiction. popular sovereignty is "the most false, immoral, malicious doctrine that has ever been 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 a long historical work that affirms stability, traditions, customs q All this is the most valuable legacy of the ancestors, which must be carefully preserved. q the state, society, law are not invented by man, but are created as a result of a long evolution, they cannot be rebuilt at the will of people.
CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION REFLECTIONS ON FRANCE JOSEPH DE MESTRE q A man who can change everything, but cannot create or change anything for the better without God's help, imagined himself as a source of supreme power and wanted to do everything himself. q For this, God punished people, saying - do it! q And the revolution, God's punishment, destroyed the entire political order, perverted the moral laws. q History shows that revolutions always produce more evil than the one they want to correct.
ASSESSMENT OF THE REVOLUTION IN I. KANT'S "METAPHYSICS OF MORALS" METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING CHANGES REFORMS AND REVOLUTIONS "CHANGES IN THE FAULTY STATE ORGANIZATION, WHICH ARE SOMETIMES REQUIRED, CAN BE MADE ONLY BY THE SOVEREIGN, NOT THE REFORM BY THE SOVEREIGN WAY." “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 start 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 unfair in relation to society ... ". Public opinion has the right to refuse to support a tyrant; placed in conditions of moral isolation and fearing a spontaneous rebellion, he will be forced to heed the voice of the people, comply with existing laws or reform them if they need to be corrected
The role of revolutions in assessing the ideology of classical liberalism. Alexis de Tocqueville THE OLD ORDER AND THE REVOLUTION 1856 The revolution was not to change the character of our civilization, stop its progressive development, change the essence of the fundamental laws underlying human societies in our West. If we consider the Revolution itself, clearing it of the accidental stratifications that modified its image in different periods and in different countries, we will see that its only result was the destruction of the 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 simple political system, the basis of which is the equality of conditions. The revolution was least of all an accidental event. And although it took the world by surprise, it was nevertheless the end of a long work, the swift and stormy end of a work over 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: ü dialectics of interaction and development of productive forces and production relations ü the study of social formations, ü the doctrine of the state ü the theory of classes and class struggle ü the proletarian revolution is assessed as the result of development contradictions between the productive forces and production relations, the need is formulated for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in general form. . . revolution is necessary not only because it is impossible to overthrow the ruling class in any other way, but also because the overthrowing class can throw off all the old abomination and become capable of creating a new basis for society only in a revolution.
IN THE PLACE OF THE OLD BOURGEOIS SOCIETY WITH ITS CLASSES AND CLASS OPPOSITIONS COMES AN ASSOCIATION IN WHICH THE FREE DEVELOPMENT OF EVERYONE IS A CONDITION FOR THE FREE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL THE COMMUNIST PARTY MANIFESTO: The justification for the inevitability of the communist revolution. "The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of the struggle of classes" üModern society is increasingly splitting into two opposite, antagonistic classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. ü The development of the productive forces that took place under the rule and under the leadership of the bourgeoisie is traced, and now it has outgrown bourgeois relations and requires their elimination, ü The process of the formation and development of the proletariat is considered - that objective force that will be forced to abolish bourgeois production relations that have become fetters for the further development of modern productive forces. Two general tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat are formulated: to turn private ownership of the means of production into public ownership and to develop production as quickly as possible. üTotal characteristics of a communist society: class differences will disappear, public power will lose its political character, free development of everyone will be ensured.
THEORETICAL CONCEPT OF REVOLUTION IN THE HERITAGE OF CLASSICAL ANARCHISM STATE POWER HIERARCHY CENTRALIZATION BUREAUCRACY RIGHT FEDERALISM DECENTRALIZATION MUTUALITY FREE CONTRACT AND SELF-GOVERNMENT POLITICAL REVOLUTION SOCIAL REVOLUTION
What is property? Or a study on the principle of law and power 1840 Under anarchy was understood the abolition of all forms of oppression of man, the replacement of a "political constitution" beneficial only to the ruling minority, a "social constitution" corresponding to justice and human nature P.-J. Proudhon Statehood and anarchy 1873 M. Bakunin "At present, for all the 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 state oppression. "Freedom without socialism is a privilege, injustice. . . Socialism without freedom is slavery and bestiality. The state and its role in history 1896 P. Kropotkin The goal 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 “headlessness.” Collective conduct of production, collective distribution of resources, collectiveness of everything related to the economy, the service sector, and human relationships were assumed.
THE FIRST PROGRAM OF THE RSDLP IS ADOPTED BY THE 2nd CONGRESS OF 1903 The maximum program: determined the main task of the party - the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to build a socialist society The minimum program: set the immediate task of overthrowing the tsarist autocracy and replacing it with a democratic republic
MAXIMUM PROGRAM Ø Replacing private ownership of the means of production and circulation with public property, Ø introducing a systematic organization of the social production process. To ensure the well-being and all-round development of all members of society, the social revolution of the proletariat will abolish the division of society into classes and thereby liberate all oppressed humanity, as it will put an end to all forms of exploitation of one part of society by another. The necessary condition for this social revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the conquest by the proletariat of such political power as will enable it to crush all resistance from the exploiters.
On the Slogan of the United States of Europe, 1915 Uneven economic and political development is an unconditional law of capitalism. From this it follows that the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few or even in one single capitalist country. The political form of society in which the proletariat wins by overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic that increasingly centralizes 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, stubborn struggle between the socialist republics and the backward states.
"APRIL THESES" The peculiarity of the current situation 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 place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasantry. Not a parliamentary republic, but a republic of Soviets of Workers', Laborers' and Peasants' Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom. Elimination of police, army, bureaucracy. The salary of all officials, with the election and turnover of all of them at any time, is not higher than the average salary of a good worker.
"APRIL THESES" Confiscation of all landed estates. Nationalization of all lands in the country, Disposal of land by local Soviets of Laborers and Peasants' Deputies. The immediate merger of all the banks of the country into one nationwide bank Not the "introduction" of socialism, but the transition to control by the soviets of workers' deputies over social production and distribution of products.
"STATE AND REVOLUTION" MARXISM'S TEACHING ABOUT THE STATE AND THE TASKS OF THE PROLETARIAT IN THE REVOLUTION The state is a product and manifestation of the irreconcilability of class contradictions. The state arises where, when and insofar as class contradictions objectively cannot be reconciled. The state is an organ of class domination, an organ of the oppression of one class by another; The emancipation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which has been created by the ruling class.
"STATE AND REVOLUTION" The bourgeois state ... is destroyed by the proletariat in the revolution. The “special force for suppressing” the proletariat by the bourgeoisie must be replaced by a “special force for suppressing” the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (dictatorship of the proletariat). dictatorship of the proletariat The doctrine of the class struggle necessarily leads to the recognition of the political domination of the proletariat, its dictatorship, that is, a 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 unprecedented fierce class struggle, unprecedented sharp forms of its Revolution is, undoubtedly, the most authoritarian thing that is possible. A revolution is an act in which part of the population imposes its will on another part by means of guns, bayonets, cannons, i.e., extremely authoritarian means. And the victorious party is necessarily compelled to maintain its dominance by means of the fear which its weapons inspire in the reactionaries.
"STATE AND REVOLUTION" We set as our ultimate goal the destruction of the state, that is, of all organized and systematic violence, of all violence against people in general. Ø We do not expect the advent of such a social order, when the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority is not respected. 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 subjugating one person to another, one part of the population to another part of it, will disappear, because people will get used to observing elementary conditions of society without violence and without subjugation.
Wilfredo Pareto Treatise on General Sociology 1916 üHistory is an arena of constant struggle between different types of elites for power. ü Elite circulation is necessary to maintain social balance 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, the number of individuals with the necessary traits for governing and capable of using violence to seize power is growing üThe revolution acts as a kind of complement to the circulation of elites. In a certain sense, the essence of the revolution consists in a sharp and violent change in the composition of the ruling elite. At the same time, 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 are deprived of those qualities that individuals from the lower strata possess.
Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the revolution 1925 1) 2) Causes of the 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 defiled, their members are tormented 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 disregard for their merits and achievements, and on the other hand, with an exaggeration of the merits of people who do not deserve it. If most people suppress their impulse to struggle and competition, creative work, the acquisition of various experiences, the need for freedom, then we have auxiliary conditions - the components of a revolutionary explosion.
Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the Revolution 1925 Causes of the revolution: 3) If the government and the groups that guard the order are not able to prevent the collapse for a revolutionary explosion, it is also necessary that the social groups that act as guardians of the existing order would not have a sufficient arsenal of means to suppress destructive encroachments from below. When the forces of order are no longer able to carry out the practice of suppression, the 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 that produce "repression"; c) split and divide the repressed mass into groups, setting them against each other, in order to weaken them mutually; d) direct the "exit" of suppressed impulses into a different, non-revolutionary channel.
Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the Revolution 1925 The atmosphere of pre-revolutionary epochs always strikes the observer with the powerlessness of the authorities and the degeneration of the ruling privileged classes. They are sometimes unable to perform the elementary functions of power, not to mention the forceful resistance to the revolution. Nor are they capable of dividing and weakening the opposition, curtailing repressions, or organizing the "exit" of repressed impulses into a non-revolutionary channel. Almost all pre-revolutionary governments carry the characteristic features of anemia, impotence, indecision, incompetence, confusion, frivolous indiscretion, and on the other hand - licentiousness, corruption, immoral sophistication ...
Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the 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 increases catastrophically; As a result, the self-preservation reflex is 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 of freedom. People are becoming less and less adaptive to the environment and relationships. Their cumulative 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 the Revolution 1925 Two stages of the revolutionary process: And now the demand for unlimited freedom is replaced by a thirst for order; the praise of the "liberators" from the old regime is replaced by the praise of 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 within, giving rise to individual apathy, indifference, mass lethargy. All people are in this state, and there is nothing easier than subordinating them to some energetic group of people. And what was practically impossible at the first stage of the revolution is now carried out with ease. The population, which is an inert mass, is a convenient material for social "shaping" 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) C. Brinton "Anatomy of a Revolution" (1938) D. Pitti "The Revolutionary Process" (1938) The Second Wave in the Development of the Sociology of Revolution J. Davis "Toward 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. Oberschal “Growing Expectations and Political Disorder” (1969) E. Muller “The Applicability of Possibility Theory to the Analysis of Political Violence” ( 1972), B. Salert "Revolutions and revolutionaries" (1976), T. Skokpol "Explaining revolutions: in search of a social-structuralist approach" (1976), "States and social revolutions" (1979)
The definition of revolution in the writings of representatives of the third generation: “a quick, fundamental and violent change, produced by the internal forces of society, of the dominant values and myths of this society, its political institutions, social structure, leadership, government activities and politics” S. Huntington and class structures of society ... accompanied and partly carried out through uprisings of the masses with a class basis "T. Skokpol Signs of revolutions: 1) fundamental, 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 the transformation of societies 1978 Ø The most common image of the revolution. . . has several main Ø Ø Ø components: violence, novelty and the generality of change. Revolution is characterized as the most intense, violent and conscious process of all social movements. They see it as the ultimate expression of free will and deep feelings, a manifestation of extraordinary organizational abilities and a highly developed ideology of social protest. Emphasis is placed on a utopian or emancipatory ideal based on the symbolism of equality, progress, freedom and on the belief that revolutions create a new and better social order social factors like the class struggle, the involvement of large social groups in the social movement and their political organization.
The results of the revolution appear to be multilateral. Ø Firstly, this is a violent change in the existing political regime. . . Ø Secondly, the replacement of an incapable ruling elite or ruling class by others. Ø Thirdly, far-reaching changes in all institutional areas, primarily in the economy and class relations - changes that are aimed at modernizing most aspects of social life, at 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 Fifthly, they believe 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.
"a modern definition of revolution: it is an attempt to reshape political institutions and give a new justification for political power in society, accompanied by formal or informal mobilization of the masses and such non-institutionalized actions that undermine existing power" Jack Goldstone "Toward a fourth generation theory of revolution" 2001 Typologies of revolutions: Ø Revolutions , 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 the independent action of the lower classes are called social revolutions, Øwhile large-scale reforms carried out by elites who directly control the mobilization of the masses are sometimes called elitist revolutions or revolutions from above. Another typology is based on the guiding ideology of revolutionary movements, distinguishing: liberal or constitutional revolutions, Ø communist revolutions, Ø Islamic revolutions
Velvet revolutions of 1989 Ø Ø Ø In 1989, revolutions took place in many countries of Eastern Europe, which led to the liquidation of the "socialist camp" . June 4th. Parliamentary elections in Poland, which allowed the opposition parties on 24 August. The government of Poland was headed by the representative of the opposition Tadeusz Mazowiecki. September 18th. During the negotiations within the framework of the "round table" between the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and the opposition, a decision was made to introduce a multi-party system in Hungary. Ø 18 October. The Hungarian Parliament adopted about 100 constitutional amendments regulating the transition to parliamentary democracy. Ø 23 October. The Hungarian Republic was proclaimed in Budapest and defined itself as a free, democratic, independent state governed by the rule of law. Ø 9 November. The Council of Ministers of the GDR decided to open the border with the FRG and West Berlin. Ø 10 November. 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 17 November. The Parliament of Bulgaria elected Mladenov the head of the State Council of the country. Ø 28 November. In Czechoslovakia, a decision was made to create a new government and to abolish the provision enshrined in the constitution on the leading role of the Communist Party. Ø 29 December Václav Havel is elected President of Czechoslovakia. Ø 22 December. In Romania, the head of state and the Romanian Communist Party, N. Ceausescu, was overthrown. I. Iliescu, the leader of the National Salvation Front, became President of Romania Ø October 3, 1990 - German unification
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 countries, different levels of social contradictions and, most importantly, 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 decided in principle. q The most important civilizational condition for 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 belief of Eastern Europeans in their identity with Western Europe. q A feature of "velvet" revolutions is the fact that supporters of different socio-philosophical principles merge in them. They were united by a common dislike for state power and the political regime, "keeping" them in the anti-Western "Soviet bloc". q A key factor in mass support for revolutionary change was the potential for material gain. q Destroying the “authoritarian bureaucratic system”, the population of Eastern European countries hoped for a sharp increase in opportunities for social mobility
"COLOR REVOLUTIONS" 2003 - Rose Revolution in Georgia. 2004 - Orange Revolution in Ukraine. 2005 - Tulip revolution in Kyrgyzstan. 2005 - Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. 2006 - An attempt at the Vasilkovo revolution in Belarus. 2008 - Attempted 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 "COLOR" REVOLUTIONS q The form of revolution is mass rallies, demonstrations and strikes, which are held by the opposition after elections are held, according to the results of which the opposition is declared the 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 second vote (Ukraine) or to the forcible 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 the “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 power structures plays a decisive role in the success of the revolution q Pro-American politics after the revolution
Gene Sharp: From Dictatorship to Democracy. Conceptual Foundations of Liberation The book by D. Sharp was published in Bangkok in 1993. It became a guide for the organizers of "color revolutions" This book details the tactics and strategy of subversion within "anti-democratic" states. What force can the opposition mobilize to be 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 massive use of political defiance by the population. A dictatorial regime has characteristics that make it very sensitive to skillfully applied political defiance. The effective overthrow of the dictatorship with minimal casualties requires the fulfillment of four primary tasks: §The resolve, self-confidence and resistance skills of the oppressed population must be strengthened; §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; § A wise strategic plan for liberation must be developed and clearly implemented.