Victor Alexeyevich Vaziulin
Contents
1. Introduction. Posing the Problem
2. The Methodology of Researching the Development of Society
3. Society as an “Organic” Whole
4. The Process of Historical Development of Society
5. In Place of a Conclusion
1. Introduction. Posing the Problem
Our time is a time of great social transformations. Tasks such as the revolutionary transition of various countries from capitalism to socialism, the ongoing scientific and technological revolution, the urgent need to protect the environment, etc. demand an increasingly more accurate and deeper foresight into the development of social life, and the further development of Marxist-Leninist theory. “Marxism-Leninism is the only reliable basis for developing the correct strategy and tactics. It provides us with an understanding of the historical perspective, helps determine the direction of socio-economic and political development for many years to come, and gives us a correct orientation in international events. The strength of Marxism-Leninism lies in its constant creative development”.
Historical materialism provides general methodological guidelines for the activity of working people as conscious creators of history. Within the framework of historical materialism, there are two extremely important aspects in studying the process of social development.[2]
Which aspects are we talking about?
In Marxism-Leninism, the life of society is viewed through the prism of the theory of socio-economic formations. This is one aspect. Many works of Soviet researchers, including those published in recent years, are devoted to problems of socio-economic formations.[3]
Significantly less attention has been paid to the study of the methodology of the types of social development. This is the second aspect. This second aspect primarily includes the division of human history by the classics of Marxism-Leninism into prehistory and actual history, beginning with the Great October Socialist Revolution. With such a division, communism appears not only as a particular socio-economic formation but as actual history, a new type of historical development of humanity compared to all previous history.
Why were the main efforts directed to the development of the theory of socio-economic formations, while the issue of the types of social development was and still is pushed to the background?
The very content of the modern era has forced and continues to force the issue of socio-economic formations to the foreground.
At the same time, in the future, historical development will bring to the forefront the issue of the types of social development, their sequence, interconnections, internal structure, etc. However, the issue of the types of social development is also of great importance for understanding the present, both because it relies on a certain tendency of contemporary development and because the assessment of future prospects influences the understanding and practice of current events.
Why is it that the main content of the modern era currently demands undivided attention to the issue of socio-economic formations, and why is prioritising the issue of the types of socio-economic development important for understanding the future?
“The modern era, the main content of which is the transition from capitalism to socialism, is an era of struggle between two opposing social systems, an era of socialist and national liberation revolutions, an era of the collapse of imperialism, the liquidation of the colonial system, an era of transition to the socialist path by more and more nations, the triumph of socialism and communism on a global scale”. [4] Consequently, the main content of our era is the revolutionary struggle of socialism against capitalism. Capitalism, however, is a particular socio-economic formation. From this perspective, the transition from capitalism to a new society appears primarily as a transition from one formation to another. This is of significant importance for the theory of social development.
When the task of building communism (first its initial phase—socialism) comes to the forefront on a global scale, it will become practically essential to understand that communism is the actual history of humanity in relation to all previous history, i.e., the issue of the types of social development.
The transition to communism means not only the abolition of capitalism, not only the eradication of the features inherent in capitalism as a particular socio-economic formation, but also a fundamental transformation of all social relations that emerged before communism. The transition to communism is a process deeper than just the abolition of capitalism. When the transition to communism is put into practice, social transformations appear much deeper, more significant than when the task of abolishing, negating capitalism is in the foreground.
Consequently, the realisation on a global scale of the transition from socialism to communism will and already does necessitate the further development of the theory and history of society, as well as increases the need for a deeper understanding of the historical process by the broad masses of working people—actively fighting for the new society.
One of the most important methodological issues is the understanding of society as a system.
The development of large-scale industry within the framework of capitalism already necessitates a holistic approach to the research of society. For large-scale industry “… produced world history for the first time, insofar as it made all civilised nations and every individual member of them dependent for the satisfaction of their wants on the whole world, thus destroying the former natural exclusiveness of separate nations.” [5] The formation of the world economic system and the entirety of history as a whole takes place under capitalism as the struggle of opposing tendencies: the tendency towards the formation of a unified world economy, stemming from the social character of production, and the tendency towards the isolation of various countries, various parts, spheres, etc., of the world economy, a tendency rooted in the existence of private ownership of the means of production.
With the establishment of public ownership of the means of production, even in one or several countries, the economy and the whole of society as a specific system rise to a qualitatively higher level. Only in the new, socialist and communist society does it become possible for the first time to plan the development of society as a whole. But the conscious development of society, the management of this development, requires knowledge of all aspects, all spheres of social life and their interconnections, interactions, i.e., knowledge of society as a unified system.
The need for a deeper understanding of the entire history of humanity also sharply increases. Communism is the result of the development of all past history. The result can only be fully understood in connection with the process that led to it. In building communism, the further study of human history is both theoretically and practically important, as the construction of communism presupposes a complete restructuring not only of what had its roots in capitalist society but also of those relations, traditions, habits, etc., that trace their lineage back to pre-capitalist societies.
Thus, when the tasks of building a new society come to the forefront in global social development, the theoretical focus shifts to the study of communism as the true history of humanity in relation to all past history, to the research of the types of social development, to the study of society as a whole, as a system. Moreover, the issue of society as a system and the issue of the types of social development are internally interconnected. For in the first case, it is primarily about the functioning of society in the unity of all its aspects, spheres, etc., while in the second case, it is about the historical development of society as a system, as a whole.
The research of social development as a system is impossible without the use of the methodological heritage of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, primarily without the use of the method of “Capital” by K. Marx.
In “Capital” by K. Marx, for the first time in history, the subject of an entire science (political economy of capitalism) was researched and presented as a developing system through the application of the dialectical-materialist method. Marx’s political-economic research remains an unsurpassed example of a consistent, holistic, and detailed representation of the subject as a developing system. Therefore, the use of the method of “Capital” by K. Marx on the theory and history of society is of exceptional importance.
The method applied by K. Marx in “Capital” is the only possible scientific method for a holistic representation of social development.
But the method, the logic of “Capital,” does not lie on the surface. Dedicated research is necessary to separate it from the politico-economic material and present it specifically. The task of isolating the Logic of “Capital” (Logic with a capital L, i.e., logic in its universal form) was set by V. I. Lenin. Soviet researchers have done significant and fruitful work in fulfilling this testament of V. I. Lenin.
In what follows, we will try to present the results of these efforts and how they can be applied to the research of the theory and history of society.
The next piece of content will be published in future issues.
Notes
[1] Moscow, “Znaniye” Publishing House, 1978 – 2nd edition, 2007. Translated from the second edition.
[2] Materials of the XXV Congress of the CPSU. M., 1976, p. 72.
[3] See, for example, the works of I. L. Andreev, Yu. M. Boroday, V. Zh. Kelle, E. G. Plimak, E. N. Zhukov, E. N. Lysmankin, and others.
[4] Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. M., 1976, p. 5.
[5] Karl Marx, The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach.
