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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The highest and last socio-economic formation, within which it will unfold true story humanity.

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

6. The highest phase of communist society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. Social justice society.

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

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

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

27. political theory, the basis of which is the idea of ​​a social organization that allows all people to comprehensively develop their abilities in conditions of freedom and the dominance of the public good, as well as the political practice of trying to create such relations in the form of socialism.

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

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

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

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

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

33. A form of society approaching the socialist ideal.

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

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

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

primitive communism

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

Socialism is communism

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

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

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

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

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

P primitive communal

slaveholding

feudal

capitalist

communist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Utopian capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socio-economic formation- the most important category of historical materialism, denoting a certain stage of progressive development human society, namely, such a set of social phenomena, which is based on the method of production of material goods that determines this formation and which is characterized by its own types of political, legal and other organizations and institutions inherent only to it, its own ideological relations (superstructure). The change in production methods determines the change in the socio-economic formation.

The essence of the socio-economic formation

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

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

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

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

Capitalism

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

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

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

The classical path of development of capitalism—the initial accumulation of capital, simple co-operation, manufactory production, and the capitalist factory—is characteristic of a small number of Western European countries, chiefly Great Britain and the Netherlands. In Great Britain, earlier than in other countries, the industrial revolution was completed, the factory system of industry arose, and the advantages and contradictions of the new, capitalist mode of production were fully manifested. The extremely rapid (compared with other European countries) growth of industrial output was accompanied by the proletarianization of a large part of the population, the deepening of social conflicts, and regularly repeated (since 1825) cyclical crises of overproduction. Great Britain became the classical country of bourgeois parliamentarism and, at the same time, the birthplace of the modern labor movement (cf. International labor movement). By the middle of the 19th century. it achieved world industrial, commercial, and financial hegemony and was the country where China reached its highest development. It is no coincidence that the theoretical analysis of the capitalist mode of production given by K. Marx was based mainly on English material. V. I. Lenin noted that the most important distinguishing features of the English language of the second half of the 19th century were there were "huge colonial possessions and a monopoly position on the world market" (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 27, p. 405).

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

In other countries, the genesis of capitalist relations was accelerated by the influence of already existing centers of developed capitalism. joined the ranks of the advanced capitalist countries. Feudalism as a comprehensive economic system did not exist in the USA. A major role in the development of American Cambodia was played by the displacement of the indigenous population into reservations and the development by farmers of the vacant lands in the west of the country. This process determined the so-called American path of development of culture in agriculture, the basis of which was the growth of capitalist farming. The rapid development of American cinema after the Civil War of 1861–65 led to the fact that by 1894 the United States had taken first place in the world in terms of industrial output.

In Germany, the liquidation of the system of serfdom was carried out "from above". The redemption of feudal duties, on the one hand, led to the mass proletarianization of the population, and on the other hand, gave the landlords the capital necessary to turn the Junker estates into large capitalist farms using hired labor. Thus, the prerequisites were created for the so-called Prussian path of development of k. in agriculture. The unification of the German states into a single customs union and the bourgeois Revolution of 1848-49 accelerated the development of industrial capital. An exceptional role in the industrial upsurge in the middle of the 19th century. in Germany, the railways played, which contributed to the economic and political unification of the country and the rapid growth of heavy industry. The political unification of Germany and the military indemnity it received after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 became a powerful stimulus for the further development of China. 19th century there was a process of rapid creation of new industries and re-equipment of old ones on the basis of the latest achievements of science and technology. Taking advantage of the technical achievements of Great Britain and other countries, by 1870 Germany was able to catch up with France in terms of economic development, and by the end of the 19th century. approach the UK. In the East, k. was most developed in Japan, where, as in Western European countries, it arose on the basis of the disintegration of feudalism. Within three decades after the bourgeois revolution of 1867-68, Japan turned into one of the industrial capitalist powers.

By the beginning of the 20th century As a result of the evolution of capitalism, a group of developed capitalist states formed on the world stage and achieved a high degree of economic and military might. A fierce struggle for colonies in Africa and Asia unfolded between them, as a result of which almost all unoccupied territories on the globe were divided. The world system of K has arisen. In the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America involved in the system of the world capitalist economy as markets, sources of raw materials and food, capitalist relations of production also began to emerge. The development of culture in the colonial and dependent countries was accompanied by cruel exploitation, oppression, and violence on the part of the imperialist states.

Pre-monopoly C. A comprehensive analysis of C. and the specific forms of its economic structure at the pre-monopoly stage was given by K. Marx and F. Engels in a number of works, primarily in "Capital", where the economic law of motion of K is revealed. The doctrine of surplus value - the cornerstone of Marxist political economy - revealed the secret of capitalist exploitation. The appropriation of surplus value by capitalists occurs because the means of production and the means of subsistence are owned by a small class of capitalists. The worker, in order to live, is forced to sell his labor power. By his labor he creates more value than his labour-power is worth. Surplus value is appropriated by the capitalists and serves as a source of their enrichment and further growth of capital. The reproduction of capital is at the same time the reproduction of capitalist production relations based on the exploitation of the labor of others.

The pursuit of profit, which is a modified form of surplus value, determines the entire movement of the capitalist mode of production, including the expansion of production, the development of technology, and the increased exploitation of workers. At the stage of pre-monopoly capitalism, the competition of non-cooperative, fragmented commodity producers is replaced by capitalist competition, which leads to the formation of an average rate of profit, i.e., equal profit on equal capital. The value of goods produced takes a modified form production prices, including production costs and average profit. The process of profit averaging is carried out in the course of intra-industry and inter-industry competition, through the mechanism of market prices and the flow of capital from one branch to another, through the intensification of the competitive struggle between the capitalists.

Improving technology at individual enterprises, using the achievements of science, developing the means of transport and communications, improving the organization of production and commodity exchange, the capitalists spontaneously develop the social productive forces. The concentration and centralization of capital contribute to the emergence of large enterprises, where thousands of workers are concentrated, and lead to the growing socialization of production. However, huge, ever-increasing wealth is appropriated by individual capitalists, which leads to a deepening of the basic contradiction of capitalism. The deeper the process of capitalist socialization, the wider the gap between the direct producers and the means of production that are in private capitalist ownership. The contradiction between the social character of production and capitalist appropriation takes the form of an antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. It also manifests itself in the contradiction between production and consumption. The contradictions of the capitalist mode of production manifest themselves most sharply in the periodically repeated economic crises. Being an objective form of forcibly overcoming the contradictions of capitalism, economic crises do not resolve them, but lead to further deepening and aggravation, which indicates the inevitability of the death of the capitalist society. .

The antagonistic contradictions and historical doom of capitalism are reflected in the sphere of the superstructure of bourgeois society. The bourgeois state, in whatever form it may exist, always remains an instrument of the class rule of the bourgeoisie, an organ for the suppression of the working masses. Bourgeois democracy is limited and formal. In addition to the two main classes of bourgeois society (bourgeoisie and proletariat), classes inherited from feudalism are retained under feudalism: the peasantry and landowners. With the development of industry, science and technology, and culture in capitalist society, the social stratum of the intelligentsia, people of mental labor, is growing. The main trend in the development of the class structure of capitalist society is the polarization of society into two main classes as a result of the erosion of the peasantry and intermediate strata. The main class contradiction of culture is the contradiction between the workers and the bourgeoisie, which is expressed in the sharp class struggle between them. In the course of this struggle, a revolutionary ideology is developed, political parties of the working class are created, and the subjective prerequisites for a socialist revolution are prepared.

Monopoly K. In the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Capitalism entered the highest and last stage of its development—imperialism, monopolistic capitalism. Free competition at a certain stage led to such a high level of concentration and centralization of capital that naturally led to the emergence of monopolies. They define the essence of imperialism. Denying free competition in certain industries, monopolies do not eliminate competition as such, "... but exist above it and next to it, thereby giving rise to a number of especially sharp and sharp contradictions, frictions, conflicts" (Lenin V.I., ibid., p. 386). The scientific theory of monopolistic capitalism was developed by V. I. Lenin in his work "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism". He defined imperialism as “... capitalism at that stage of development when the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has taken shape, the export of capital has acquired outstanding significance, the division of the world by international trusts has begun, and the division of the entire territory of the earth by the largest capitalist countries has ended” (ibid., p. 387 ). At the monopolistic stage of capitalism, the exploitation of labor by financial capital leads to the redistribution in favor of the monopolies of a part of the total surplus value that falls to the share of the non-monopoly bourgeoisie and of the necessary product of hired workers through the mechanism monopoly prices. There are certain shifts in the class structure of society. The dominance of finance capital is personified in the financial oligarchy, the big monopoly bourgeoisie, which subdues to its control the vast majority of the national wealth of the capitalist countries. Under the conditions of state-monopoly democracy, the top class of the big bourgeoisie, which exerts a decisive influence on the economic policy of the bourgeois state, is greatly strengthened. The economic and political weight of the non-monopoly middle and petty bourgeoisie is decreasing. Substantial changes are taking place in the composition and size of the working class. In all developed capitalist countries, with the growth of the entire active population over the 70 years of the 20th century. by 91%, the number of employees increased by almost 3 times, and their share in the total number of employees increased over the same period from 53.3 to 79.5%. In the conditions of modern technical progress, with the expansion of the service sector and the growth of the bureaucratic state apparatus, the number and proportion of employees, who in their social position are approaching the industrial proletariat, have increased. Under the leadership of the working class, the most revolutionary forces of capitalist society, all the working classes and social strata, are waging a struggle against the oppression of the monopolies.

In the course of its development, monopolistic capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism, characterized by the merging of the financial oligarchy with the bureaucratic elite, the strengthening of the role of the state in all areas of public life, the growth of the state sector in the economy and the intensification of policies aimed at mitigating the socio-economic contradictions of K. Imperialism, especially at the state-monopoly stage, means a deep crisis of bourgeois democracy , the strengthening of reactionary tendencies and the role of violence in domestic and foreign policy. It is inseparable from the growth of militarism and military spending, the arms race and the tendency to unleash aggressive wars.

Imperialism extremely aggravates the basic contradiction of capitalism and all the contradictions of the bourgeois system based on it, which can be resolved only by a socialist revolution. V. I. Lenin gave a deep analysis of the law of uneven economic and political development K. in the era of imperialism and came to the conclusion that the victory of the socialist revolution is possible initially in one, separately taken capitalist country (see. Uneven economic and political development of capitalism in the era of imperialism).

World War I (1914–18) and the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917, which abolished k. in Russia, laid the foundation for the general crisis of capitalism, which has a decisive influence, on the one hand, on the internal contradictions of imperialism, on the other hand, on the course of the world revolutionary process. The general crisis of capitalism is characterized primarily by the formation of two opposing socioeconomic systems (capitalist and socialist; cf. World system of socialism) and the struggle between them, in the course of which the forces of socialism are steadily strengthening and the positions of China are weakening; there was a collapse of the colonial system of imperialism; the internal contradictions between individual imperialist states and the world capitalist economy are sharpening, the crisis of bourgeois politics and ideology is intensifying, and the struggle between labor and capital, the working and exploited classes, and the monopoly bourgeoisie is growing.

The general crisis of culture accelerates the development of state-monopoly culture and the further growth of the socialization of production. Such new phenomena as state regulation of the economy, programming, capitalist integration, the transition from the old system of colonial domination to neo-colonialism mean a certain modification of the main features of imperialism, without changing their essence. The culture of free competition, imperialism, and state-monopoly culture are different stages of the same socio-economic formation. In the course of historical development, the structure of production and the mechanism for the appropriation of surplus value change, but the main features of capitalism—commodity production, private ownership of the means of production, and the exploitation of wage labor by capital—remain unchanged.

The peculiarity of modern K. is that he is forced to adapt to the new situation in the world. In modern conditions of economic competition and the struggle of two opposing systems, the ruling circles of the capitalist countries are afraid of the development of the class struggle into a mass revolutionary movement, therefore the bourgeoisie seeks to use more disguised forms of exploitation and oppression of the working people, in a number of cases they are willing to carry out partial reforms in order to keep the masses under its ideological influence and political control. The monopolies use the achievements of scientific and technological progress to strengthen their positions and intensify the exploitation of the working masses. But adaptation to new conditions and processes caused by the general laws governing the development of productive forces and the scientific and technological revolution does not signify the stabilization of capitalism as a system. The general crisis of K. deepens. Even the most developed capitalist countries are experiencing serious economic upheavals, accompanied by rising inflation and unemployment, and a crisis in the monetary and financial system. In the early 70s. 20th century In the countries of developed China, there were about 8 million unemployed people. All the attempts of present-day culture to adapt itself to the new conditions do not eliminate the contradictions between the imperialist states. An economic and political struggle is unfolding between the main centers of imperialist rivalry: the USA - Western Europe - Japan. For a more detailed description of imperialism, see Art. Imperialism.

The Historical Place of Culture As a natural stage in the historical development of society, culture played a progressive role in its time. He destroyed the patriarchal and feudal relations between people, based on personal dependence, and replaced them with monetary relations. K. created big cities, sharply increased the urban population at the expense of the rural population, destroyed feudal fragmentation, which led to the formation of bourgeois nations and centralized states, and raised the productivity of social labor to a higher level. K. Marx and F. Engels wrote as early as the middle of the 19th century: “In less than a hundred years of its class domination, the bourgeoisie created more numerous and more grandiose productive forces than all previous generations put together. The conquest of the forces of nature, machine production, the use of chemistry in industry and agriculture, shipping, railways, the electric telegraph, the development of whole parts of the world for agriculture, the adaptation of rivers for navigation, whole masses of the population, as if summoned from underground, - what of the former centuries could have suspected that such productive forces were dormant in the depths of social labor!” (Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 429). Since then, the development of the productive forces, despite the unevenness and periodic crises, has continued at an even more accelerated pace. The end of the 20th century was able to put many of the achievements of the modern scientific and technological revolution at its service: atomic energy, electronics, automation, jet technology, chemical synthesis, and so on. But social progress under the conditions of culture is carried out at the price of a sharp aggravation of social contradictions, the waste of productive forces, and the suffering of the masses of the people all over the globe. The era of primitive accumulation and capitalist "development" of the outskirts of the world was accompanied by the destruction of entire tribes and nationalities. Colonialism, which served as a source of enrichment for the imperialist bourgeoisie and the so-called. labor aristocracy in the metropolises, led to a long stagnation of productive forces in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, contributed to the preservation of pre-capitalist production relations in them. K. used the progress of science and technology to create destructive means of mass destruction. He is responsible for the huge human and material losses in the increasingly destructive wars. More than 60 million people perished in the two world wars unleashed by imperialism alone. and 110 million were injured or disabled. At the stage of imperialism, economic crises became even more acute. Under conditions of a general crisis, the sphere of its dominance is steadily narrowing, due to the rapid development of the world socialist economic system, the share of which in world production is steadily growing, and the share capitalist system of the world economy decreases.

K. cannot cope with the productive forces created by him, which have outgrown the capitalist relations of production, which have become fetters for their further unhindered growth. In the depths of bourgeois society, in the course of the development of capitalist production, objective material prerequisites for the transition to socialism have been created. Under communist rule, the working class grows, unites and organizes, which, in alliance with the peasantry and at the head of all working people, constitutes a mighty social force capable of overthrowing the obsolete capitalist system and replacing it with socialism.

In the struggle against imperialism, which is the personification of modern culture, three revolutionary currents have united—world socialism, the anti-monopoly forces in the developed capitalist countries, led by the working class, and the world national liberation movement. “Imperialism is powerless to regain the historical initiative it has lost, to turn back the development of the modern world. The main path of human development is determined by the world socialist system, the international working class, all revolutionary forces” (Mezhdunarodnoe soveshchenie kommunisticheskikh i rabochnykh partii, M., 1969, p. 289).

Bourgeois ideologists, with the help of apologetic theories, try to assert that contemporary culture is a system devoid of class antagonisms, that in the highly developed capitalist countries there are allegedly no factors at all that give rise to a social revolution (cf. "Welfare State Theory", Convergence Theory, "People's" Capitalism Theory. However, reality breaks such theories, more and more exposing the irreconcilable contradictions of K.

V. G. Shemyatenkov.

Capitalism in Russia. The development of culture in Russia proceeded largely according to the same socioeconomic laws as in other countries, but it also had its own peculiarities. The history of capitalism in Russia is divided into two main periods: the genesis of capitalist relations (second quarter of the 17th century–1861); approval and domination of the capitalist mode of production (1861-1917). The period of the genesis of capitalism consists of two stages: the emergence and formation of the capitalist way of life (second quarter of the 17th to the 1860s) and the development of the capitalist way of life (70s of the 18th century to 1861). The period of K.'s domination is also divided into two stages: progressive, ascending development (1861 - the end of the 19th century) and the stage imperialism(beginning of the 20th century - 1917). (The question of the genesis of capitalist relations is complex and controversial in the history of Russian capitalism. Some historians adhere to the periodization outlined above, others begin the genesis of capitalism from an earlier time, from the 16th century, while still others, on the contrary, attribute its beginning to more late period, by the 60s. 18th century). An important feature of the development of capitalism in Russia is the slow genesis of capitalist relations, which stretched out under the dominance of feudal relations in the economy for more than two centuries.

From the 2nd quarter of the 17th century. simple capitalist co-operation is gaining more and more development in industry. At the same time, a stable and increasingly growing form of production is becoming manufactory. Unlike the Western European countries, which knew mainly capitalist manufacture, Rus. manufactory in its own way social nature were divided into three types: capitalist, which used wage labor, serfs, based on forced labor, and mixed, which used both types of labor. At the end of the 17th century there were more than 40 metallurgical, textile, and other manufactories of all types in the country. Capitalist relations have received significant development in river transport. In the 1st half of the 18th century. simple capitalist cooperation develops, the number of manufactories grows. At the end of the 60s. 18th century there were 663 manufactories, including 481 in manufacturing and 182 in the mining industry. The nature of social relations in industrial production during this period undergoes important and contradictory changes. In the first two decades of the 18th century in the manufacturing industry, mainly enterprises of the capitalist type were formed. However, the narrowness of the labor market and the rapid growth of industry caused a shortage of free labor. Therefore, the government began to widely practice the registration of state peasants in factories. The decree of 1721 permitted the merchants to purchase serfs to work in enterprises. This decree was especially widely used in the 1930s and 1940s. 18th century At the same time, laws were issued according to which civilian workers were attached to the enterprises where they worked, and the registration of state peasants increased. The industrial activity of peasants and townspeople is limited. As a result, the leading position in the mining industry, which prevailed until 1861, was occupied by serf manufactory. Increases in the 30s and 40s. 18th century the use of unfree labor in the manufacturing industry. However, in this sector, the feudal-serf system slowed down the development of capitalist relations only for a short time. From the beginning of the 50s. the use of civilian labor in the manufacturing industry again began to grow rapidly, especially in newly built enterprises. From 1760, the registration of peasants to manufactories ceased. In 1762, the decree of 1721 was canceled. Restrictions on the industrial activities of peasants and townspeople were gradually lifted. Therefore, already in 1,767 out of 43,600 workers employed, according to official statistics, in the manufacturing industry, 17,900 (41%) were civilian employees and 25,700 forced laborers (59%). The use of civilian labor in river transport continued to increase. In the 60s. 18th century 120 thousand civilian workers worked on the ships. On the whole, in industry, the number of civilian workers, including those employed in small industry and in water transport, was in the 60s. about 220 thousand people From the 2nd half of the 17th century. capitalist relations were born in agriculture - the process of stratification of the peasantry in Russia began. Among the rural population, a small group of wealthy peasants stands out, organizing commodity production of agricultural products. products and at the same time using the hired labor of impoverished peasants. An indicator of stratification was also the appearance of otkhodnik peasants who went to work at industrial enterprises and river transport. The capitalist stratification of the peasantry during this period is most noticeable in the regions of Pomorie and the Urals. A significant share of wage labor in industry, new trends in the economic policy of the government in the 50-60s. 18 century, increased stratification of the peasantry, changes in the sphere of ideology, expressed in the awareness of the advanced circles of society of the need to mitigate and even abolish serfdom - all this allows us to assert that in Russia in the 60s. 18th century the capitalist elements had already taken shape in a system of social relations, that in the depths of the feudal-feudal system a capitalist structure was formed.

The prevailing feudal order hindered the process of the formation of new capitalist relations, but could not stop it. By the end of the 18th century there were up to 2294 manufactories, including 2094 in manufacturing and 200 in the mining industry. In the 70-90s. small-scale production is intensively developing into capitalist manufacture. The number of fishing villages is increasing, especially in the central provinces of the country. The rich peasant becomes a prominent figure among capitalist entrepreneurs. In the manufacturing industry in 1799, according to official figures, 81,747 workers were employed, including 33,567 civilian workers (41.1%) and 48,180 forced laborers (58.9%). And the total number of civilian workers in the industrial production of the country, compared with the 60s. increased almost 2 times and amounted to at the end of the 18th century. 420 thousand people The departure of peasants for industrial and agricultural earnings in some industrial provinces covered up to 20% of the male population. In the 1st half of the 19th century. capitalist relations developed even more intensively. An important feature in the development of large-scale manufacturing industry was the further increase in the number and proportion of civilian workers: in 1799 - 33.6 thousand (41.1%), in 1825 - 114.6 thousand (54.4%), in 1860 - 462 thousand (81.8%). The cotton industry became the leading capitalist branch of industry: 92.1% of the workers in it were civilian employees. Capitalist relations were established in linen, silk and cloth production. Here the number of civilian workers was about 65%. Forced labor remained dominant in the sugar beet industry, as well as in the mining industry. In the gold mines in Siberia, which were developed precisely during this period, civilian labor was already used.

Since the mid 30s. 19th century The industrial revolution began in Russia. Manufactory, based on manual labor, is replaced by a factory. The development of capitalist relations in agriculture continued. According to rough estimates, on the eve of the 1861 reform, about 4 million civilian workers were employed in industry and agriculture. With the development of capitalist relations, the process of formation of the main classes of capitalist society - the proletariat (see. Working class in Russia) and the bourgeoisie (see Art. Bourgeoisie, section Bourgeoisie in Russia); the all-Russian market was formed. At the same time, there was a gradual decomposition of the feudal-serf system, which from the 30s. 19th century entered a period of deep crisis.

The victory of K. as a formation occurred in Russia as a result of peasant reform of 1861, not in a revolutionary way. This led to the preservation of the remnants of serfdom in the field of economics and politics (landlordism, autocracy, etc.) and determined a number of features in the further development of culture.

After the abolition of serfdom, the development of industry accelerated. Enterprises that worked on forced labor are transferred to free labor or closed. New, purely capitalist branches of large-scale industry appear: in the Donbass - mining hard coal and metal smelting, in Baku - oil production, in St. Petersburg - mechanical engineering. Construction has reached a huge scale railways. A capitalist credit system is being created (cf. Banks in pre-revolutionary Russia). In the 80-90s. 19th century increased inflow of foreign capital into Russia. Crisis phenomena arise in the Russian capitalist economy (1867.1873). A sharp rise in industry began in the 1990s. 19th century and continued until the end of the century: coal production increased more than 3 times, oil production and iron smelting increased almost 3 times, the length of railways almost doubled, etc. Russia's industry during these years developed at a faster pace than in Germany and the United States. The process of formation of the proletariat accelerated. At the end of the 19th century there were about 10 million workers in the country, including about 3.5 million agricultural workers. workers. Together with families, the number of the proletariat amounted to at least 22 million people, that is, 18% of the total population of the country.

The development of agriculture from 1861 to the end of the 19th century. characterized primarily by the growth of commodity production, domestic and foreign markets. Socially, the most important phenomenon in the countryside was the process of disintegration of the peasantry into the rural bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat. At the end of the 19th century the rural bourgeoisie in a number of regions accounted for about 20% of all peasant households, but economically it dominated the countryside. It owned from 34 to 50% of peasant lands, including half or more of the leased land, from 38 to 62% of working livestock, from 70 to 80% of improved tools of production. The rural poor made up about 50% of the peasant households, but they owned only 18 to 32% of the land, 10 to 30% of working livestock, and 1 to 3.6% of improved tools of production. About 30% of the households were the middle peasantry, whose position was very unstable, there was a process of its decomposition. The landowners, having lost the gratuitous labor of the peasants under the reform of 1861, were forced to reorganize their economy in relation to capitalist conditions. At the end of the 19th century the capitalist system of agriculture prevailed in 19 provinces of European Russia. The economy of these provinces was more closely connected with the domestic and foreign markets and was distinguished by more developed capitalist relations (the Baltic States, Western and Central Belarus, the Right-Bank and Steppe Ukraine, Bessarabia, the Don and the Lower Volga region). In 17 provinces of the Central Chernozem region, the Non-chernozem zone and the Middle Volga region, where huge landlord latifundia were preserved and which were removed from sales markets, the labor system prevailed. In 7 provinces of the Left-Bank Ukraine, Eastern Belarus and neighboring Russian regions, a mixed system of landowner farming was widespread.

Most characteristic feature In the history of Kazakhstan in the post-reform period, there was a contradiction between the bourgeois production relations that had become dominant, which contributed to the development of productive forces, and the remnants of serfdom in the form of noble landownership and autocracy, which hampered this process. The country combined the most advanced industrial and financial culture with the most backward agriculture. Second feature was the development of capitalism not only in depth (i.e., the further growth of capitalist agriculture and capitalist industry in a certain territory), but also in breadth (i.e., the spread of capitalist relations to new territories and regions - the Caucasus, Central Asia, Siberia, etc.). China's development in breadth followed different paths, and the degree of its penetration into the economy of the national outlying districts was also not the same. But as capitalism grew, the economic and all other ties between the national border regions, both with the center of the country and among themselves, grew wider and stronger, and they became an organic part of the capitalist economy of Russia. The rapid development of culture in breadth slowed down the development of culture in depth in the old territories, as a result of which the sharpness of the contradictions inherent in culture and the contradictions generated by it weakened and their resolution was hampered. On the whole, the development of China was uneven: capitalist industry was concentrated mainly in the center of European Russia, in the south, and in the Baltic states. The third important feature of Rus. To. was an extremely high degree of concentration of production in the main industries, which predetermined a relatively short term its progressive development and rapid development into a monopolistic capital.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Conservatism in Russia is entering a monopoly stage, the stage of imperialism. In the course of its development, the necessary prerequisites for a socialist revolution were created. The concentration and centralization of production and capital have reached the point where their socialization and transfer into the hands of the people have become an urgent social necessity. Imperialism sharpened the contradictions characteristic of China to the extreme. Strength also grew. capable of resolving these contradictions is the Russian proletariat, which, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, having united around itself all the working and oppressed masses of Russia, overthrew the Communist Party in October 1917 and opened a new, socialist era in the history of mankind.

I. A. Bulygin.

Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F. „Manifesto of the Communist Party, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4; theirs, German ideology, ibid., vol. 3; Marx K., On the Critique of Political Economy, ibid., vol. 13; his own Wage , price and profit, ibid., vol. 16; his own, Critique of the Gotha Program, ibid., vol. 19; his, Capital, vol. 1-3, ibid., vol. 23-25, parts 1 and 2; his, The Theory of Surplus Value (Volume IV of Capital), ibid., vol. 26, parts 1-3; Engels F., The situation of the working class in England, ibid., vol. 2; his own, Anti-Dühring, ibid., vol. 20; Lenin, V.I., Concerning the so-called question of markets, Poln. coll. soch., 5th ed., vol. 1; his, What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?, ibid., vol. 1; his own, On the Characteristics of Economic Romanticism, ibid., vol. 2; his, Development of capitalism in Russia, ibid., vol. 3; his own, Capitalism in agriculture (On Kautsky's book and on Mr. Bulgakov's article), ibid., vol. 4; his own, Karl Marx, ibid., vol. 26; his, On the slogan of the United States of Europe, ibid., vol. 26; his own, Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, ibid., vol. 27; his, State and Revolution, ibid., vol. 33; International Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties. Documents and materials. Moscow. 5-17 nurse, M., 1969; Program of the CPSU, M., 1971; Materials of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU, M., 1971, p. 3-31; New phenomena in the accumulation of capital in the imperialist countries, M., 1967; Economic theory of Marx - Lenin and modern capitalism, M., 1967; "Capital" by K. Marx and the problems of modern capitalism, ed. Edited by N. A. Tsagolov and V. A. Kirov. Moscow, 1968. Inozemtsev N. N., Problems of the economy and politics of modern imperialism, M., 1969; his, Modern capitalism: new phenomena and contradictions, M., 1972; Political economy of modern monopoly capitalism, vol. 1-2, M., 1970; Plekhanov G.V., Our differences, in his book: Izbr. philosophical works, vol. 1, M., 1956; Khromov P. A., Economic development of Russia in the XIX-XX centuries. 1800-1917, M., 1950; Yatsunsky V.K., The main stages of the genesis of capitalism in Russia, "History of the USSR", 1958, No. 5; Strumilin S. G., History of ferrous metallurgy in the USSR, in his book: Selected. Prod.. M., 1967; Rubinshtein N. L., Some questions of the formation of the labor market in Russia in the XVIII century, "Questions of History", 1952, No. 2; Ustyugov N.V., The salt industry of the Kama Salt in the 17th century, M., 1957; The transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia. Materials of the All-Union discussion, M., 1969; Bulygin I. A. [et al.], The initial stage of the genesis of capitalism in Russia. "Questions of History", 1966, No. 10; Pavlenko N.I., Controversial issues of the genesis of capitalism in Russia, "Questions of History", 1966, No. 11; Zaozerskaya E.I., At the origins of large-scale production in Russian industry of the 16th-17th centuries. , M., 1970; Druzhinin N.M., Features of the Genesis of Capitalism in Russia in Comparison with the Countries of Western Europe and the USA, "New and Contemporary History", 1972. No. 4.