Suchergebnisse

The subject. The article is devoted to the study of the relationship between property and the state-building in socialist States.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that the socialist practice of state-building, depending on the combination of interaction of the main ways of organizing property, has a different social nature of existence. Methodology. The work provides the author's methodology for studying the structure of the state, depending on the combination of interaction of the main ways of organizing property. The main results of the research. There are some possible basic options for the existence of a socialist practice of state building. After the disappointing results of the Soviet experience, the quite logical question is: what will be the future of the socialist concept of state-building and does it even exist? Socialist practice of state-building, depending on the combination of the interaction of the main ways of organizing property, has a different social nature of existence. The Soviet model was based on the liquidation of the private way of organizing property and the monopoly dominance of the forms of the general (collective) way of organizing it. The Chinese model, in which the monopoly of the forms of the general (collective) way of organizing property, corresponds to the legislative assumption of a private way of organizing it. The European Social Democratic model, where the private way of organizing property as the main system-forming one, acts in combination with forms of general (collective) and mixed (corporate) ways of organizing it.If we take into account that each method of organizing property is determined by the need to perform a specific social function, then in each model of socialist construction, depending on the particular combination of methods of organizing property, it is clear which of the social functions is dominant in the practice of construction. For example, if the main system-forming way of property organization is private, then this is a function of social development; if general (collective), then the function of social security, and finally, if mixed (corporate), then the function of social compromise (convergence). Such determination, in our opinion, is sustainable. Conclusions. Socialist practice of state-building has a different social nature of existence. This nature can be described provisionally as the Soviet, the Chinese and the European Social Democratic models. ; Исследуется социалистическая практика государственного строительства, которая в зависимости от комбинации взаимодействия основных способов организации собственности имеет различную социальную природу существования. Делается вывод, что советская модель была основана на ликвидации частного способа организации собственности и монопольном доминировании форм общего (коллективного) способа её организации; в китайской модели монополия форм общего (коллективного) способа организации собственности корреспондируется с законодательным допущением частного способа её организации; в европейской социал-демократической модели частный способ организации собственности в качестве основного системообразующего действует в комбинации с формами общего (коллективного) и смешанного (корпоративного) способов её организации.

The subject. The relevance of the article is stipulated by the gap in the study of property and the state as a consistent system.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that each way of organizing property such as private, mixed (corporate) and general (collective) potentially stimulates the existence of a certain state structure.The methodology. The author uses normative structuralism. This methodology is created by the author and is based on the idea that property as the main system-forming goal of the state's existence genetically predetermines principles of rationing its structure.The main results of the research. Each way of organizing property in a particular social time period can acquire the quality of the main backbone in the organization structure of the state. Each way of organizing property provides proper social function: private way of organizing property provides function of social development; mixed (corporate) way provides function of social compromise (convergence); general (collective) way provides function of social security in the broadest sense. If private way of organizing property genetically programmed for the production and reproduction of social competition, mixed (corporate) and common (collective) ways are determined by the idea of its limitations and leveling. When the private way of organizing property becomes the main system-forming one it begins to fully stimulate the existence of a democratic structure of state organization. In turn, when mixed (corporate) and common (collective) ways of organizing property become the main system-forming ones, they stimulate the existence of a wide structural range of state functioning: from various regimes of democratic orientation to specific non-democratic regimes. Conclusions. The study of property as the main system-forming goal of the state existence through the normative structuralism concept allows us to conclude that that each way of organizing property stimulates the existence of a certain state structure. ; Актуальность статьи обусловлена существованием пробела в исследовании собственности и государства как единого системного отношения. Цель статьи – показать на примере постсоветского правоприменения, что каждый способ организации собственности – частный, смешанный (корпоративный), общий (коллективный) – потенциально стимулирует существование определённой структуры государства. Используется авторская методология исследования государства – нормативный структурализм. Обосновывается теоретическая концепция авторского исследования собственности как основной системообразующей цели существования государства, которая позволяет расширить спектр инструментальных средств изучения российской государственности.