Moscow, Nauka Publ. 1982. 358 p.

The reviewed monograph is designed to respond to the increased interest of the scientific community in a very relevant problem both in scientific and political terms. The editorial board and the authors of the peer-reviewed work1 set out to trace the formation of the theory of socio-economic formation in the works of Karl Marx and Franz Liszt. To show the significance of this teaching for the modern process of social development. In accordance with this, the book is divided into three large sections: "Formation of the theory of socio-economic formation", "Methodological significance of the theory of socio-economic formation", "Formation analysis of the modern era".

In the opening chapter of the book (author G. A. Bagaturia), it is emphasized that the doctrine of socio-economic formation is the basis of the concept of materialistic understanding of history. The concept of social formation lies, as it were, at the intersection of two aspects of the Marxist concept: the doctrine of the structure of society (the structure of social formation) and the doctrine of the periodization of history (the formation division of the historical process). The first side defines the second (p. 7). The author outlines the main stages of the development of the theory of social formation by the founders of Marxism. He considers these stages to be: 1842- 1845, 1845 - 1848, 1848 - 1857, 1857 - 1871, 1871 - 1883, 1883 - 1895 years. G. A. Bagaturia groups these stages, in turn, into three main stages: before the European revolution of 1848-1849, from it-before the Paris Commune of 1871, and after the Paris Commune (p. 8). The author shows that Marx and Engels worked together on the development of this concept, but the decisive role in its development was played by Marx and Engels. It belongs to Marx (p. 9).

The process of formation of Marxism since 1842, G. A. Bagaturia points out, in a certain sense from the very beginning was a process of cognition of the structure of social formation (pp. 19-20). The first attempts of Marx and Engels to periodize the history of mankind are also connected with this process. In 1846, they linked the periodization of history with forms of ownership and described five forms of ownership that prevailed in different periods: tribal (tribal), ancient, feudal, bourgeois, and communist. "This is the general outline of the periodization of the historical process, which identifies five main social formations" (p. 28). The chapter shows, on the basis of much concrete material and in historical terms, that Marx and Engels ' knowledge of the structure of society went "from the external to the internal, from the surface to the depth of phenomena, to their causes, from the particular to the general, from the abstract to the concrete" (p.30).

In the next chapter (authored by V. A. Vazyulin), it is shown that Lenin, while developing the theory of formation created by Marx and Engels, paid special attention to the problems of transition from pre-capitalist formations to capitalist ones and from capitalist to communist ones. Lenin generalized, expanded, and deepened what Marx and Engels had done in the field of social formation theory. He created the theory of imperialism and developed the doctrine of the transition period from capitalism to socialism - the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin's ideas became a solid foundation for the further development of the doctrine of socio-economic formations. "The CPSU and other fraternal parties, based on Lenin's ideas, concretized their views on the content of the modern era, developed Marxist-Leninist views on the stage of the dying and decaying of the old society, identified and considered new stages of the general crisis of capitalism, developed further questions on the transition to socialism, bypassing capitalism, on the construction of the foundations of socialism, on general laws and national peculiarities of the transition to socialism; created the concept of a developed socialist society" (p. 57).

In the first chapter of the second section (author E. N. Lysmankin), the content of the category "socio-economic formation" is analyzed in the following areas: the definition of this category in Soviet philosophical literature; the doctrine of socio-economic formation and the problem of logical and historical; the relationship between theory and real historical

1 Author's team: I. L. Andreev, V. A. Andrievskaya, G. A. Bagaturia, V. A. Vazyulin, V. V. Denisov, E. N. Lysmankin, Yu. I. Semenov, V. G. Fedotova. Editorial Board: V. V. Denisov (chief editor), Yu. K. Plotnikov, E. N. Lysmankin.

page 128

socio-economic formation as a category of historical materialism; structure of socio-economic formation. The author focuses on the relationship between the historical and the logical. It is the formation theory that makes it possible to identify the main thing in each social structure, which makes it possible to understand the complex, contradictory structure of specific societies. The theory first of all indicates the main classes, the main contradictions of society. Only this approach makes it possible to understand a lot of specific facts. In historiography, we repeatedly encounter the fact that researchers (especially non-Marxist historians), who sometimes have a deep knowledge of concrete facts, are confused and lost when trying to explain them, do not see the unity and regularity of the historical process. Speaking against mixing theory with empirical reality, the author objects to those historians and philosophers who write about the multi-layered socio-economic formation as such. "Instead of recognizing the complexity of individual societies, in which different ways are really intertwined, they declare the socio - economic formation to be multi-structured" (p.92).

In the second chapter of the second section (author Yu. I. Semenov) in the center of the study is the category of socio-economic structure. The author examines the concepts of "socio - economic structure", "mode of production", "stable and non-stable production relations". Yu. I. Semenov strongly opposes such an understanding of the socio-economic structure, which allows its existence either as the embryo of a new socio-economic formation, or as a remnant of the old formation in the bowels of a new society (p. 128). The author insists: if the concept of " mode of production "characterizes social production as a whole, and the concept of" socio-economic formation "- the structure of society as a whole, then the category of "socio-economic structure" characterizes "only the system of production relations, which, being a social form of production, is either the basis of society or an integral part of it." fundamentals of society". In cases where the relations of production of one type or another do not form a system in the social organism (i.e., in the case of a social organization). a certain way of life), and exist as an appendage to the system formed by relations of a different type, "we are faced with a different form of being of production relations - a steady one" (p. 131).

The chapter by Yu. I. Semenov, like the first chapter of the first section (authored by G. A. Bagaturia), is largely historical in nature. The authors constantly refer to specific historical examples and try to consider the extent to which the theoretical formulas they analyze are applicable to practice. Asserting that the socio-economic order does not necessarily have to prevail in any particular formation, Yu. I. Semenov divides the ways into "formational" (primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, communist) and "non-formational" (as an example, he calls the "petty-bourgeois socio-economic order") (p. 140).

Speaking about the fact that in history one can observe periods when none of the existing socio-economic structures is dominant, "that is, it does not determine the nature of the socio-economic structure of society as a whole", putting forward the position that in this case " society cannot be attributed to any socio-economic formation "and" can only be described as transitional", the author gives a specific example: Soviet Russia in the early 20s. It had five socio-economic structures: socialist, state - capitalist, private-capitalist, small-commodity, and patriarchal (pp. 140-141).

But here we should make a significant reservation. Since the October Revolution of 1917, State power has been in the hands of a certain class representing a certain way of life, and through the levers of state power, this class has guided all other classes and ways of life, directing their development. Socialist ownership and the socialist way of life have taken a dominant position, despite the quantitative predominance of small-scale property relations. Therefore, it is important to emphasize not that "society cannot be attributed to any socio-economic formation" (p. 140), but that the era of a new socialist formation (although still in the form of a transitional society) opens, as is generally recognized, from October 1917. Yu. I. Semyonov himself, emphasizing that the socialist-

page 129

At that time, the socialist system "did not determine the socio - economic system of the country as a whole", but at the same time states: "The socialist system was the leading one" (p.141).

In search of a criterion that would make it possible to draw a clear distinction between regular and non-regular production relations, Yu. I. Semenov introduces the concepts of "economic cell" and "economic organism" (the latter is characterized by him as "a complex formation that includes many economic cells" - p. 143). " On the existence, for example, of the capitalist way of life we can speak only if there is a capitalist economic organism. If this is not the case, then wage labor, no matter how widespread, cannot be characterized as capitalist, " writes Yu. I. Semenov (p. 144). In this case, the relations of wage labor, according to the author's terminology, appear as stable.

The author's quoted passage seems controversial: "As if widely... however widespread wage labor may be, it can hardly be said that it will not affect the character of society as a whole. Quantitative growth, as we know, leads to qualitative jumps. If wage labor spreads to a certain limit (which undoubtedly depends primarily on the development and level of the productive forces of society), then in such a society, in the terminology of Yu.I. Semenov, there will already exist a "capitalist and economic organism" and, consequently, a capitalist way of life. But we can agree with the author that wage-labor relations, which have never even been fairly widespread, do not yet mean capitalist relations and can be regarded as stable.

According to the author's logic, there are as many types of small-scale production as there are types of economic organisms. The author calls the system of small-scale commodity production that existed in the feudal city burgher, or guild. The same external structure in capitalist society is already becoming petty-bourgeois. Qualitatively different from both of them is the small-scale way of life in a slave-owning city (pp. 145-146). All modes of small-scale independent production are, according to the author, non-formal, additional (p. 146).

Yu. I. Semenov emphasizes that a slave-owning society without a way of small-scale independent production is generally unthinkable. "The slave-owning system can exist only in symbiosis with the system of small-scale independent production... Accordingly, in such a society, the existence of not two, but three social classes is necessary" (p. 147). A necessary condition for the existence and domination of the slave-owning system in society is the coexistence of slavery with the system of small producers (not necessarily commodity producers). Small farmers and artisans, forming a significant part of society within the borders of slave-owning states, as well as the main part of society outside these states, serve as the basis that constantly supports and nourishes the slave-owning system.

Analyzing the structure of medieval society, Yu. I. Semenov does not find anything specifically feudal within the peasant household and peasant community. Therefore, he calls this way of life peasant-communal, sharply distinguishing it from patrimonial. Feudalism, according to the author, was characterized by " a symbiosis of two modes of social economy, one of which is a system of production of the necessary product, and the other - surplus. The feudal system included the peasant - communal system as its most necessary component" (p. 154).

The third chapter of the second section (authored by V. V. Denisov) is devoted to the role of social revolutions in changing historical types of society. It deals with the following questions: the dialectical character of the revolutionary change of socio-economic formations; the revolutionary process and the objective laws of history; the revolutionary activity of the masses and social progress; the dialectic of the general and special in the revolutionary process. The author shows the correlation between the concepts of social and political revolution. Considering the relation between revolution and reform, he notes that Marxism-Leninism does not reject in principle reforms as a particular and gradual method of solving individual problems of social progress. But reforms "have no independent significance and cannot be an end in themselves in the revolutionary struggle. They are a by-product of it and have a character historically determined by the revolutionary movement of the masses" (p.204). It is incorrect, the author emphasizes, that the modern era, in particular

page 130

In particular, the success of the scientific and technological revolution supposedly leads to the triumph of the reformist path: "The 20th century brought more social changes to humanity than any previous century. The revolutionary renewal of the world continues on an increasingly large scale and at an accelerating pace" (p. 207).

The last section of the book was written by E. N. Lysmankin, V. G. Fedotova, V. A. Andrievskaya, and I. L. Andreev. It examines the Marxist doctrine of formation in relation to the modern historical epoch, first of all the essence of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism and the features of the development of the current stage of the general crisis of capitalism. Then the authors analyze the development paths of the liberated countries in the light of the theory of socio-economic formation, try to show the dialectic of the general, special and individual in their development, the place and role of national liberation movements in the world revolutionary process, the opposite types of formation orientation of the liberated countries, and give a stage - genetic analysis of the non-capitalist path of development. The final chapter of the third section and the book as a whole is devoted to the communist formation - its essence and main stages of development. It discusses the theory and practice of communist construction, the significance of the stage of developed socialism, and the prospects for communist construction.

The list of issues raised in the book itself speaks of the undoubted benefits of its publication. At the same time, one could disagree with the interpretation of a number of points in it. Thus, carefully tracing the details of Marx and Engels ' development of the theory of social formations, G. A. Bagaturia omits some links that seem essential to us. On page 38, while correctly stating that the various variants of the periodization of the history of society found in the works of Marx and Engels are "both relative and legitimate in their own way", the author might add that since it was a question of applying the theoretical formula developed by the classics to the specific content of world history, the founders of Marxism were more dependent on G. A. Bagaturia notes (ibid.) that in the periodization variant of 1859 Marx distinguished "another epoch of economic history - the Asian mode of production. This was a direct result of the new research that Marx undertook in the 1950s (studying the works of Prescott, Bernier, and others, analyzing the Asian, Ancient, and Germanic forms of ownership in the manuscripts of 1857-1858, etc.)" (p. 38). In this case, first of all, it would be important to note that in the list of five socio - economic formations of 1859, Marx not only has an "Asian mode of production", but also does not have a primitive formation, which, according to G. A. Bagaturia himself, was actually present in the periodization of 1846 and was then firmly included in the Marxist-Soviet system of production.Lenin's periodization of the historical process. Secondly, when G. A. Bagaturia speaks below about the Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in which "Engels, relying on Morgan's research and Marx's analysis of his discoveries, develops a materialist understanding of primitive history" (pp. 41-42), it would be worth noting by analogy with p. 38 that In the scheme of periodization given in Engels ' book, the primitive social formation is again present and the Asian mode of production is absent. Thus, the last stage of Marx's and Engels ' theoretical search was improperly shortened somewhat.

The tendency of this attitude towards the last stage of the development of world-historical periodization by Marx and Engels is even more noticeable in the chapter by Yu. I. Semenov, who would probably like to prove that for Marx the first antagonistic formation was always not the slave-owning one, but the one that he called "Asian". Semenov argues that the books of Soviet historians do not provide "any evidence" that in 1881-1882 Marx abandoned the concept of the" Asian " mode of production (p.158). But Semyonov does not mention Engels ' book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State". Meanwhile, if we talk about proofs, this particular work of Engels was the final one in the process of developing a Marxist theory of the formation and periodization of world history. It is on this work that all subsequent Marxist periodization is based, including Lenin's work On the State. As is well known, Engels eventually arrived in his book at the well-known five-term

page 131

periodization that includes primitive communal, then slave-owning social formations and does not contain the "Asian mode of production".

It is generally accepted that Marx and Engels created the theory of social formation together. But still, Engels ' book was written after Marx's death: perhaps that is why the authors (including Yu.I. Semyonov), who do not recognize the global nature of the slave-owning formation and defended the concept of an "Asian mode of production" in the East in discussions, admit that Engels ' book can not be considered proof of a change in Marx's views. The subject of the dispute is replaced by them, since it is not just Marx who is being discussed. As for Marx personally, we recall that shortly before his death, he took notes on Morgan's book "Ancient Society", which Engels later laid down as the basis for the work"The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State". It is also known that Marx had a conversation with Engels about Morgan's book. After Marx's death, Engels began reading Morgan, and then working on the Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, and wrote that he was fulfilling Marx's will .2 Finally (if all this is not enough), Marx's synopsis has been preserved, which, among other things, says: "The element of private property... brought humanity despotism, imperialism, monarchy, privileged classes " 3 . As we can see, Marx at the end of his life believed that private property gives rise to despotism, and this position is at odds with the concept of the "Asian mode of production", according to which the state grew out of a primitive community.

The number of examples that characterize the views of Marx and Engels, formed by the beginning of the 80s of the XIX century, could be increased. Therefore, it is hardly appropriate to pretend that they do not exist. The commitment of individual authors to the controversial concept of the" Asian mode of production "can be explained: as stated in the preface, the authors 'team focused primarily on" unresolved and still controversial issues " (p. 5). Without sharing this concept, we, of course, have nothing against its implementation in the work under consideration, we only want to focus on the following issues: for the fact that passion does not interfere with the authors ' objective coverage of the points of view of Marx and Engels.

The chapter by Yu. I. Semenov shows that the problem of the" Asian mode of production "is moving from the area of a dispute about five or six epochs of world history to the plane of a discussion about the" way of life " - obviously, within one of the formations. It is unlikely that in this new capacity the category of " Asian mode of production "will be more provable, since so far none of the participants in the discussion has ever even tried to find the structure of the" Asian mode of production " - in the form of an embryo or a relic - within any real socio - economic formation. The absence of such a system in history is just one of the arguments for scientists who deny the formation of the "Asian mode of production", one of the arguments against the possibility of the existence of such a whole formation anywhere, ever. Historiographically, even in the concepts of the XVII - XVIII centuries, the concept of a special Asian system was based on two elements taken from different formations: communities - from primitive society, and the state - from class society, i.e., from societies and structures that existed in reality, but in different epochs.

Yu. I. Semyonov tries to confirm the hypothesis about the existence of a system based supposedly exclusively on the supreme state property, with the class of exploiters completely coinciding with the state apparatus. At the same time, a new name is introduced for this method of production - "polytarny" (p.162). But in real history, such a system is unknown. The emergence of a class society begins, as a rule, with the emergence of the class of slaves and slaveholders, and this line remained leading until the end of the ancient era. The great role of the state machine in ancient civilizations, the numerical predominance, especially in the early stages, of communal farmers over slaves separated from the means of production, today somewhat change the old ideas about a slave-owning society .4 But they do not in any way dictate the need to replace the concept of "slave society" in the scheme of world-historical periodization with something else, generally vague and unproven.

It is characteristic that Yu. I. Semyonov is in a pair of-

2 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 21, p. 25.

3 Archives of Marx and Engels, vol. IX, p. 182.

4 A modern view of the slave-owning system includes, for example, the History of the ancient world. Tt. I-Ill. M. 1982.

page 132

the column " The problem "of the Asian" socio-economic order " failed to convince not only the readers, but also the editorial board of the book: at least in the preface it is recognized that the point of view of Yu. I. Semyonov's opponents enjoys "currently great recognition" and that these opponents prove their views in a "sufficiently reasoned" way (p. 5)..

Despite the controversial nature of a number of its provisions, the book under review generally serves the purpose set for it by the editorial board: to focus on controversial issues and reveal them " in a polemical way (p. 5). It draws attention to the problem of socio-economic formation and provides sufficient food for thought.

page 133

Permanent link to this publication: