Suchergebnisse

The article studies the original conception of convergence of capitalism and socialism proposed by well-known American (USA) economist and sociologist John Galbraith in connection with 50-th anniversary of publishing his world-wide known book «The New
Industrial State», which actuality is connected with current problems of implementation the newly industrialization of economy, including – and especially – in Russia. The article proves that the «epoch of industrial state» has not been finished yet neither in the middle of last century, nor in our century. The Galbraith's conception is been compared with
J. Schumpeter's and J. Keynes's theories of economic development of capitalism. The article gives critical analysis of the evolution of Galbraith's views, his explanation of «new socialism», which, according to Galbraith's point of view, has come to industrially developed western countries and Japan. There are also suggested some thoughts about the content of the newly industrialization, as far as it's special features and tasks in Russia.

The article comments on the concept of «socialism with Chinese specificity», which forms the ideological basis of the «Chinese miracle». The ideological origins of this concept, starting with Confucianism, are revealed. It has evolved to become increasingly pragmatic and to adapt to the realities of national and global development. The relation of this concept with the Marxist concept of socialism is shown. The article substantiates the fundamental theoretical thesis that in the objective-essential sense (in the elimination of, in particular, national specifics) Chinese society is a transitional form to socialism (a certain analogue of the Soviet society of the NEP period). The author talks about a «heterogeneous», «mixed» socio-economic system, the vector and nature of the future evolution of which will depend crucially on the strategic course of the CPC.

The article analyzes the conceptual foundations of "prophetic" socialism by Max Scheler (1874–1928). The main principles of a new political and ideological doctrine at that time, designed to become, according to the plan of its creator, an "antidote" to Marxism, are considered. The author analyzes Scheler's argumentation, directed, on the one hand, against socialism in the Marxist interpretation, and on the other, at proving the legitimacy of using the terms "Christian socialism" and "Christian prophetic socialism". Scheler opposes socialism, first of all, to individualism, which he interprets in social and moral-philosophical senses, and only secondarily to liberalism and capitalism. Socialism and individualism, which now appear as antagonistic tendencies of sociocultural development, are for him two equally necessary and interrelated essential principles of the social being of a person, understood as a spiritual-bodily social being. Individualistic tendencies, according to Scheler, prevailed over socialist tendencies in the West in modern times, therefore socialism in its Marxist interpretation turned out to be so in demand in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But the destruction of private property is contrary to Christianity. "Forced communism" does not bring with it heaven on earth, but catastrophe and cultural degradation, he foreshadows. Based on the teachings of the Church Fathers and starting from the Catholic social doctrine, Scheler offers his vision of an ideal society in the form of a "personal community" (Personengemeinschaft), corresponding to the true destiny of a person. In it, the individual and social principles are in harmony and interdependent development. Scheler opposes the "prophetic" method of comprehending socio-historical reality, applied proceeding from the Christian solidarism ideal, to the materialistic understanding of history. He points to three advantages of his methodology: it takes into account human freedom, the uniqueness of a historical event, combines all types and methods of human cognition, without absolutizing the scientific form of knowledge. The author reveals the deep content of Scheler's definition of Marxism as "the protest ideology of oppressed classes", drawing on the analysis of the "sociological doctrine of idols" of the late Scheler. In it, he reveals the pre-reflexive prerequisites for the formation of class ideologies. The author points to the essential kinship of the class prejudices about which the German philosopher wrote, and the national-mental prejudices of the political elites of the leading Western countries. In conclusion, he raises the question of how relevant the problems raised in Scheler's article are today in the context of modern Russian realities. ; В статье анализируются концептуальные основы «пророческого» социализма Макса Шелера (1874–1928). Рассматриваются основные принципы новой по тем временам политически-идеологической доктрины, призванной стать, по замыслу ее создателя, «противоядием» марксизму. Автор анализирует аргументацию Шелера, направленную, с одной стороны, против социализма в марксистской трактовке, с другой – на доказательство правомерности использования терминов «христианский социализм» и «христианский пророческий социализм». Социализм Шелер противопоставляет в первую очередь индивидуализму, который он истолковывает в социально- и нравственно-философском смыслах, и лишь во вторую – либерализму и капитализму. Социализм и индивидуализм, предстающие ныне как антагонистические тенденции социокультурного развития, – это для него два одинаково необходимых и взаимосвязанных сущностных начала общественного бытия человека, понимаемого как духовно-телесное социальное существо. Индивидуалистические тенденции, считает Шелер, возобладали над социалистическими на Западе в Новое время, поэтому социализм в его марксистской трактовке и оказался столь востребованным в конце XIX и начале XX вв. Но уничтожение частной собственности противно христианству. «Принудительный коммунизм» несет с собой не рай на Земле, а катастрофу и культурную деградацию, предвещает он. Опираясь на учения отцов церкви и отталкиваясь от католической социальной доктрины, Шелер предлагает свое видение идеального социума в форме «личностной общности» (Personengemeinschaft), соответствующей истинному предназначению человека. В нем индивидуальное и социальное начала находятся в гармонии и взаимообусловленном развитии. «Пророческий» метод постижения социально-исторической действительности, применяемый, исходя из христианско-солидаристского идеала, Шелер противопоставляет материалистическому пониманию истории. Он указывает на три преимущества своей методологии: она учитывает свободу человека, неповторимость исторического события, соединяет в себе все виды и способы человеческого познания, не абсолютизируя научную форму знания. Автор раскрывает глубокое содержание шелеровской дефиниции марксизма как «протестной идеологии угнетенных классов», привлекая к анализу «социологическое учение об идолах» позднего Шелера. В нем он выявляет дорефлексивные предпосылки формирования классовых идеологий. Автор указывает на сущностное родство классовых предрассудков, о которых писал немецкий философ, и национально-ментальных предрассудков политических элит ведущих стран Запада. В заключение он ставит вопрос о том, насколько проблемы, поднятые в статье Шелера, актуальны сегодня в контексте современных российских реалий.

Th e author focuses on a one-of-a-kind debate "On Socialism", which took place in the House of Lords of the British Parliament in the spring of 1935. For a long time, the upper chamber served as a barrier to the implementa-tion of bold social and political legislation. Until the beginning of the 20th century socialists had never been represented in the Parliament. As the Labor Party came into political spotlight and gradually strengthened its positions in the 1920s–1930s, the House of Lords was forced to adapt its composition to changing reali-ties. In 1924, the Labor faction was formed here for the fi rst time. A decade later, the Lords were prepared to seriously discuss the merits and demerits of the social-ist system. Th e article analyzes both the main arguments of the Laborites, who promoted transition to a new social system, and the theses put forward by Con-servatives and Liberals, supporters of the capitalist system. Particular emphasis is placed on the coverage and feedback which the discussion held in Westminster received on the pages of the British press of various political stances. Th e author comes to the conclusion that the arguments put forward by both supporters and opponents of socialism were in many respects similar to the theses that appeared in the course of the discussion in the Lower house of the UK Parliament in 1923. Th is discussion had a similar nature and was the fi rst of this kind in the British history. At the same time, the analyzed debate which took place in the House of Lords more than a decade later, bore an unmistakable imprint of a new era. Th e "Great Depression" of 1929–1933 had an important impact on the worldview of the generation, as it strengthened the conviction of left -wing politicians that capitalism was not the subject to improvement. Opponents of socialism, on the contrary, argued that a socialist future for Britain was not only economically un-tenable, but also dangerous, and incompatible with the unique English national character, based on individualism.