The relationship between the economy and the social structure of society. Social structure and economic development: problem statement. The interaction of economics and politics

Slide 1

Economy and social structure of society. Performed by a student of the 11th grade "A" of the secondary school №22 Valgasova Zarina.

Slide 2

Interrelation and mutual influence of the social structure of society and its economic life.

Slide 3

Study of the relationship between the total population and the rate of its growth with the economic development of society. The economy affects: Population affects: The birth rate; To the level of the economy; Depends: Depends: From material wealth; From the total population; Providing housing; Population density; Women's involvement in production Population growth rates

Slide 4

For example, the birth rate in European countries with economies in transition (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic) in the 1990s. fell sharply, which is associated with the deterioration in living standards, accompanying economic reforms. In Russia too.

Slide 5

In addition, one of the reasons for a sharp decrease in life expectancy is the prevailing social conditions (a decrease in the population's income, increased nervous stress due to socio-economic changes, instability in society)

Slide 6

In turn, population also affects the economy. For example: In regions with a small population, the division of labor is difficult, subsistence farming will remain longer.

Slide 7

The health status of the population is also a factor in economic development. Its deterioration leads to a decrease in labor productivity in the household, a reduction in life expectancy.

Slide 8

In the context of socio-economic transformations in Russia, the collapse of former social relations, people and groups are trying to master new niches of social and economic survival. A feature of recent years of development was growing. The about-va is a tendency of increasing economic differentiation, expressed in the division of about-va into groups with different incomes, living standards and consumption.

Slide 9

The complication of social The structure manifested itself in the formation of new social. Groups and layers: entrepreneurs, financiers, stock brokers, merchants.

Slide 10

Excessive income inequality poses a major threat to political and economic stability in the society. Development of Russia in the 1990s. led to significant differences in the income of the population. The market system gives preference to some social strata and, conversely, punishes others. If this system is not corrected, then it acts in the interests of the minority of the society (elite) and against the majority.

2.4. The social structure of society and the economy. “Non-economic” factors of social differentiation

A deeper understanding of "social", "social relations" is that the latter are also considered as the relationship of groups that form a social structure and play a certain role in the organization of social production. This role, in turn, is determined by the place of the group in a complex system of property, functioning through real economic mechanisms of ownership, use and disposal of various elements of property.

The social structure is formed not only through the relationship of classes - social groups, whose position in society is that some of them are the owners of the means of production, while others are not. Accordingly, the first in the process of the functioning of production have the opportunity to use the labor of others to maintain and increase their own wealth. The social structure of a society is a more complex formation. It is also due to the differentiation of the part of the population that does not belong to any class (for example, artist, teacher, cashier, etc.), and intraclass division. This is evidenced by the historical analysis of the social structure of past societies (which has already been discussed), and the social differentiation of modern societies. The diverse nature of the use of the means of production, the disposal of them, as well as the disposal of people carrying out this or that activity, the various possibilities of appropriating various goods and services, as well as the variety of characteristics that determine the property status - all this determines the nature of the social subject and the social position of the group to which it belongs. The totality of such groups, their connections and interactions form the social structure of society, which is not reducible to class relations.

The attitude towards the means of production can also be varied. Even the use of the means of production can be of a different nature and, accordingly, differently determine the social status of the user. The modern sociologist T. Zaslavskaya drew attention to the double meaning of the notion “use of the means of production” under the conditions of state ownership. Firstly, this is the use of means of production by various professional groups, characterized by the quantity and quality of these means, their technical perfection. The need and ability to use complex and unique technical devices in the labor process increase the social status of certain groups of workers. Secondly, it is the use of the means of production (semi-legal) or part of the finished product for personal needs or sale to the outside. Contemporary sociologists also pay attention to social-class characteristics and their “operationalization”. Under the conditions of the widespread functioning or the predominance of state property (as was the case, for example, in Soviet society), the decisive factor determining the position in the social hierarchy was the mechanism for disposing of property: who, how, on the basis of what and to what extent it disposes of it. This is the essence of the issue of the relationship between the management hierarchy and real economic power and, accordingly, with social differentiation.

However, the nature of the disposal of property can also be different, which should be taken into account when figuring out how the disposal affects the mechanism of management and its efficiency. Distinguish, for example, an unconditional, sovereign order and a conditional one - the operation of property on behalf of and by proxy of the owner by authorized persons and groups. The hierarchy of conditional managers accountable to the owner and superior managers can be formed by both managers and ordinary employees. Good management, as is commonly believed, requires sovereign power, effective control of the owner over the conditional managers and their (managers) incentives.

The sad experience of the functioning of the so-called public property in the USSR was that there were no procedures for the exercise of sovereign powers by the workers (the people seemed to be the owner!). There was no sovereign disposition of property, property was in fact “nobody's”. This gave rise to the "oddities of the subjectless world" inherent in that society: "each social group experienced an acute deficit of the right to decide what was due to it in terms of its rank in the management hierarchy." The absence of a sovereign owner who would control and stimulate conditional managers led to the fact that the so-called conditional managers (as a rule, representatives of the state-party apparatus), firstly, quite often used state property for personal enrichment; secondly, they actually did not bear responsibility for mistakes in management and illiterate leadership. This also determined the nature of denationalization and privatization carried out in the post-Soviet period: neither one nor the other led to the expected increase in economic efficiency. Former conditional managers, that is, those who illegally disposed of state property as personal, ultimately only legalized their economic domination (this is the essence of the so-called nomenklatura privatization). The social position of the former conditional managers who are becoming owners has also changed: they now enter into other than relations with representatives of groups that are not owners.

Further, it is important to dwell on the characteristics of the aspect of sociality, which, as noted, is sometimes interpreted as its distinctive feature: sociality as a connection, as a joint nature of life, as a characteristic of integrity. It is this meaning of the concept of "sociality" that is often indicated in the literature. The emphasis on this meaning and the fixation of attention on it are not only justified, but also necessary. However, it is unreasonable to oppose these meanings (differentiation based on different possibilities of appropriation and unity, integrity). Unity, connection, integrity, community of various groups are formed in the conditions of the social division of labor. It is in these conditions that there is an objective need for unity and interdependence, which are the basis of any other unity and integrity. This circumstance is pointed out in the classical Marxist and non-Marxist sociological literature. K. Marx and F. Engels believed that the interdependence of individuals between whom labor is divided is precisely the consolidation of social activity. French sociologist E. Durkheim, referring the division of labor to the “fundamental foundations of the social system,” considered it as the basis of social solidarity.

Let us also pay attention to the correlative nature of social status (position) *, defined as “place” as a whole, as the ratio of some groups to others, which necessitates the use of a comparison operation to characterize social statuses. Karl Marx pointed out this: “If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the capitalist's profit rises incomparably faster. The material position of the worker is improving, but at the expense of his social position ”. The described situation also testifies to the illegality of the identification of economic and social.

The empirical fixation of the social position of various groups in certain concrete historical conditions (fixing the social structure of society) is a very difficult task. Its solution presupposes, first, the allocation of those material conditions and means of subsistence and vital activity, which in concrete historical circumstances are necessary for the reproduction of man as a subject of social life. Secondly, it is necessary to determine the real possibilities of appropriation of conditions and means available to different groups. But this very place and the “possibilities of appropriation” do not lie on the surface (especially in the context of the discrepancy between the social and the legal). This “place” needs to be identified through certain research procedures. For example, researchers faced particular difficulties when trying to characterize the social structure of the former socialist society. At that time, it was rightly noted that the tool available for the analysis of social structure could not be used. As R. Ryvkina figuratively characterized this research situation in the Soviet popular literature of the perestroika period, "the structure is fading into the shadows." Indeed, a deep study of the social structure of the former Soviet Union presupposed the identification of various, and most importantly, specific factors for this particular society, which determine the place of the group in the system of diverse conditions of existence, conditions and means of production, its results, for example, the availability of the so-called deficit. At the same time, many questions arose: what criterion should be used to determine the place of this or that group in the hierarchical social structure? What is the reason for the distance between the positions? How to assess the existing differences in terms of the degree of social equality – inequality?

In the literature (mostly journalistic) of the early perestroika period, there were discussions about how legitimate it is to judge the level of well-being on the basis of the received wages. After all, a significant part of the population had either illegal sources of income, or semi-legal benefits that provided access to high-quality goods and services. As E. Panfilova, the former chairman of the commission on privileges of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, put it, “we are talking about a fundamentally different life support system”. Accordingly, an attempt to stratify the population primarily by fixing wages and other officially recognized government payments led to slightly different results than those calculated on the basis of the availability of diverse goods and services. With the same three-layer division, in one case it turned out that in the country 7.1% belong to the “upper” stratum, 31.3% to the “middle”, 61.6% to the “bottom”, in the other case to 2.3% were classified as “rich” (while only 0.7% had legal sources of wealth), 11.2% were middle-income, and 86.5% were poor.

In the world sociological literature, the term “stratification” is widely used to denote social structure. As a rule, it is understood as the structure of inequality in society. Stratification is the division of society into groups located at different levels of the multilayer hierarchical system of their interaction. However, there was heated debate about the conditionality of stratification (which determines the entry into one or another stratum), various points of view were expressed. A tradition that goes back to the views of the German sociologist M. Weber is to consider stratification as a multidimensional formation conditioned by three dimensions: economic (wealth), social (prestige) and political (power). M. Weber interpreted the “social dimension” and “social status” accordingly. In contrast to the economic position, the latter was determined by the rank of the group, prescribed by the system of values ​​of society, that is, by the respect and honor that fell to the share of certain groups. As you can see, M. Weber put a completely different meaning into the “social” than the one stipulated. Therefore, using the term “social stratification”, it is necessary to clarify what is meant and what “dimensions” are used to divide society into strata.

Of course, stratification (stratification) of society into groups, which expresses unequal position in it, is possible on various grounds. It is clear, however, that social stratification proper should be distinguished from any other, for stratifications conditioned by different grounds can correspond to one degree or another. So, involvement in political power, a place in the political hierarchy can also determine a position in the system of social stratification. This is clearly manifested when the appropriation of material goods and services (including the means of production) is analyzed by the Soviet nomenclature and the modern neo-nomenclature, conquering not only political, but also dominant economic positions in the reformed post-Soviet society.

The same can be said for prestige. The latter is intended to subordinate objects, to evaluate them using the scale of values ​​accepted in society. The prestige of a group comes from the concept of a “reference” group, which is assigned various desirable and desirable qualities. Respect and authority can, in certain concrete historical conditions, be a means of acquiring social advantages, condition a position in the social hierarchy. But they may not influence it or not correspond to it. Thus, in the pre-perestroika period in the Soviet Union, well-known scientists, doctors, and artists, to one degree or another, were “included” in the distribution system of the nomenclature. Prestige, as it were, became a factor determining a position in the system of social stratification. However, the unauthority of state and party officials, their unpopularity in the public opinion of the stagnant and especially early perestroika periods, did not in the least prevent them from occupying disproportionately high positions in the system of social hierarchy.

The question arises: are power and prestige factors that determine a social position, a place in the system of social stratification (if, of course, we have in mind the specially stipulated meaning of the social)? This question can be answered only on the basis of a specific analysis carried out by sociological means and involving taking into account the action of various social factors in a particular society. But if you do not single out the social factors proper and do not specify social stratification, then such an analysis is not required. Returning to the problem of the relationship between prestige and wealth, one can also refer to the dispute about the specifics of the historically established Russian mentality, which is allegedly characterized by disrespect for wealth and admiration for asceticism and poverty. There is, however, evidence that at least in the late XIX - early XX century. the highest value for the Russian peasantry was prosperity, which was understood not as hoarding, but as the presence of a strong economy.

This nuance (the difference between a strong economy and wealth in general) is also important in the following respect: in non-Marxist sociological literature, the peculiarity of the Marxian concept of class is seen in one-dimensionality (as opposed to, for example, M. Weber's multidimensional understanding of class). At the same time, K. Marx is credited with using only the “economic dimension”, characterized by wealth and income, to distinguish a class. This characterization of Marx's position is incorrect in at least two respects. For Karl Marx, class is not only an economic, but also a social category, which, as noted, is expedient to distinguish. But, what is also important to consider, wealth and income characterize the place in the distribution system, which is not only the economic, but also the social position of a class, any group located at one level or another of the stratification hierarchy. Wealth and income are more likely to be external, surface signs of social stratification.

A deeper, essential stratification characteristic, testifying to the social position (status), is, as noted, the place of the group in the organization of social production, the function that some groups perform in it in comparison with others. For example, in American society, lawyers and doctors are at one of the highest levels of social stratification **, which indicates the objective significance of their activities for modern social production in general and material production in particular: the treatment of expensive labor and its legal support are necessary conditions for it. functioning and development. Accordingly, the assessment of the activities of representatives of these professions, expressed in the final analysis in their incomes, testifies to their relevance. The low level of income of domestic representatives of science, education, culture, specialists in general who are not employed in commercial structures is explained in a similar way. In the conditions of the economic crisis, in fact, the complete destruction of production, their activity turns out to be unclaimed and, accordingly, low-paid. This, in turn, determines the limited range of opportunities for their appropriation of various goods and services.

An important problem discussed in connection with the study of stratification is the relationship between its so-called vertical and horizontal varieties. The first, consisting in the hierarchization of society, the determination of people's activities "by their position in the system of property / power relations," in different ways (which is always determined by specific historical circumstances) is associated with the second, due to ethnodemographic, regional and other differences. But ethnic or demographic characteristics, living in a particular region can become signs of social stratification if they also determine the role in social production, the amount of material goods and services received, that is, if the presence or absence of these characteristics entails belonging to a certain social status. So, P. Sorokin argued that the so-called "national inequality is only a particular form of general social inequality." Greater or lesser social difference may be due to living in a certain region, the specific conditions of which form, in particular, the social infrastructure of the economy. In the conditions of, for example, the USSR, these differences were especially significant.

The methodological principles of taking into account the vertical and horizontal section of stratification, the imposition of various features on those that characterize the social-class status proper, were proposed by the scientists T. Zaslavskaya and R. Ryvkina. Singling out in the “sociology of economic life” such substructures of society as ethno-demographic, socio-territorial, professional-official, social-labor and family-economic, these sociologists tried to characterize the integral socio-stratification formation, which they called the “economic and sociological structure of society”. In their opinion, the social-labor and professional-job aspects are of decisive importance in this structure (in relation to the USSR). Whereas, one should also take into account belonging to such substructures as socio-territorial, ethno-demographic and family-economic. Summing up the arguments about the economic and sociological structure of society, T. Zaslavskaya and R. Ryvkina point out that the elements of the latter “are groups that differ markedly not only in functions in the social organization of labor, in its division and specialization, but also occupying different positions in at least in a few private substructures ”. It is these groups that are the social subjects of the economic life of society, and also have different needs and interests, different behavior in the economic sphere.

The dominant role in the economic life of Soviet society was played by the party-Soviet bureaucracy, which predetermined the social appearance of the post-Soviet reform. The decisive positions in economic life during the period of transformation and the so-called social reform were also occupied by the bureaucratic apparatus, with the only difference that the convertibility of political capital into economic capital *** received during this period legal formalization and an unprecedented scale. This feature of the post-Soviet reform, according to many researchers, was predicted by L. Trotsky. The Soviet bureaucracy, in his opinion, will seek support in the property situation, seeking to legitimize its dominant position in the economy. “Privileges are only half the price if they cannot be left to children. But the right to bequeath is inseparable from the right to property. It is not enough to be a director of a trust; you need to be a shareholder. The victory of the bureaucracy in this decisive area would mean its transformation into a new possessing class ”.

So, social stratification is the differentiation of people and groups according to their place in the historically specific system of the social division of labor in accordance with the possibilities of appropriating the means of production, labor power, material goods and services. Different social characteristics can determine this place and the corresponding opportunities: power and prestige, professional affiliation, ethnic, demographic and territorial characteristics. The significance of various characteristics for the differentiation of people and groups on a social basis for social stratification is specific. This significance, like the system of social stratification specific to a particular society, is described and explained by sociological means. Its analysis is one of the most important tasks of the sociological study of society.

* The term "status", which was introduced into sociology in the mid-30s of the XX century. R. Linton, was used in two meanings: as a social position, understood as a real position independent of assessments and values, and as a rank, prestige of a position, conditioned by a set of rights and obligations, the dominant system of values ​​of society. Hereinafter, by social status we mean a social position that characterizes the place of the subject (personality, group) in the system of activity, and the real possibilities of appropriating material goods and services.
** Stratification status was calculated based on income.
*** An expression widely used at the present time when characterizing transformation processes, borrowed from the modern French sociologist P. Bourdieu, who understands by “capital” of various types of power (political, economic, social, cultural, symbolic), which determines the position of the subject in the social space ...

As for the views of sociologists on the social structure of the economy, in many respects the Marxist theory was taken as the basis for mimes, and was subjected to significant revision. Thus, the concept of "social class" has been adopted by sociologists, which makes it possible to identify and analyze the socio-economic structures of national economies.

Weber's Contribution to Consideration of the Social Structure of the Economy

According to M. Weber, the belonging of an individual to any class reflects his economic position in society. Along with this criterion, people in society are divided by the amount of power they have, that is, their political status, and by prestige, by which their social status is directly determined. Thus, Weber paints a more detailed picture of social stratification, introducing, in addition to class (economic status), the concepts of "power" (political status) and "prestige" (social status).

Subsequently, this understanding of the class differentiation of society was established in Western sociology. At the same time, in comparison with Marxism, the very understanding of the class has changed. If in Marxist and near-Marxist concepts the belonging of a person to a certain class is determined by his attitude to the means of production, then in tradition. Laid by Weber, the basis of the class division of society is the differentiation of its members by income level.

L. Warner's Approach

Thus, in the United States, the author of the first typology of the class system was the American sociologist Lloyd Warner in the 40s of the last century. According to her, the social structure of the United States consisted of:

• upper upper class,
• lower upper class,
• upper middle class,
• lower middle class,
• upper lower class,
• lower lower class.

Moreover, the class at the top of the social hierarchy consisted of the so-called "old families". This segment of society consists of successful businessmen and highly paid professionals who live in privileged urban areas.

The class, which is a step below the highest, differed from it not in the level of material well-being, but only in that it did not consist of old high-born families. This situation indicates the elements of the class type of social stratification, when statuses are inherited. It is precisely belonging to a certain family that separates the highest class from those who are lower in status.

This is followed by the middle class, divided into two strata, which have in common the availability of vocational education and a level of prosperity that makes it possible to ensure a normal quality of life. They differed in that the upper stratum in this class consisted of owners and professionals, who have less material wealth compared to classes occupying a higher social position, and the lower one consisted of lower employees and skilled workers. In addition, the upper middle class actively participated in public urban life and could choose to live in fairly comfortable areas.

Further in the social hierarchy were low-skilled workers employed in local factories and having a relatively sufficient level of well-being (upper lower class). And at the very bottom of the social structure, according to L. Warner's theory, there were the homeless and the poor, now called the marginalized.

V. Sombart's approach

The class picture of Germany by Sombart was presented as follows: at the beginning of the 19th century, German society consisted of two large classes, including internal subclasses:

1. feudal landowners with dependent and serf peasants;
2. artisans with apprentices and apprentices.

Remark 1

In the second half of the 19th century, the classes of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat were added to them. But the old classes have retained both their composition and their political influence. As a result, with each historical turn, the social structure of society became more complicated and at the beginning of the 20th century in Germany, according to Sombart, one can find Junkers, the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeois philistinism, the proletariat.

Before Peter I, industry and trade in Russia were poorly developed. The reason for this situation was quite objective circumstances - the slow development of agriculture (low productivity, unproductive animal husbandry) due to difficult natural and climatic conditions, the growing severity of government taxes, and low population density. Therefore, to meet the state needs in weapons, gunpowder, cloth, the Moscow government created its own enterprises, which by the end of the 17th century. there were about 20. Already under Alexei Mikhailovich, no taxes were taken from such factories and entire villages were attributed to them to provide labor. It was then difficult for private individuals to develop their industries because of state taxes and a large number of state farms, monopolies for the most profitable goods, as well as the narrowness of effective demand among the broad masses of the population for manufactured products (the peasants were mainly subsistence farming).

Peter I essentially continued the policy of his predecessors in the field of industry and trade, but on a much larger scale. The number of manufactories increased by about 10 times, amounting to about 200. Peter I spent a lot of energy on promoting the search for minerals, especially iron and copper ores, gold, silver, for setting up mining factories, arms, cloth and other manufactures. He built factories with state funds, encouraged the establishment of private enterprises, up to violent measures, transferred state-owned factories to private hands, invited foreign craftsmen and sent Russians to study abroad, etc. Tramps, "walking" people, peasants were sent to manufactories; from 1721, merchants received the right to buy peasants in villages to work in factories. And this is no coincidence.

There were very few free workers in the country, it was impossible to completely tear the peasants off the land and send them to work at the factory, since, having become workers, they could hardly feed themselves on one salary if this phenomenon had taken on a wide scale.

In his industrial and commercial policy, Peter I was based on the principles of mercantilism (that is, benefits, benefits), which boiled down to the fact that each nation, in order not to become impoverished, must produce everything it needs and export more than import. Therefore, Peter I introduced high customs duties on imports, especially on goods produced in Russia, and limited the activities of foreign merchants in Russia. But this led to an even greater lack of capital (foreigners were afraid to invest in Russian enterprises), to the low quality of many Russian goods intended for a wide market, due to the lack of competition. Therefore, after the death of Peter I, the new government revised its trade policy and lowered import duties.

For many decades, there have been disputes about the significance of the activities of Peter I in the field of industry and trade, about whether it gave impetus to the development of capitalism in Russia or not. Some believe that it is not, since serf manufactories, and even state ones, cannot be considered capitalist enterprises. Others believe, pointing to a large number of private factories, that there were elements of capitalism. The mistake lies in the fact that both of them identify the construction of plants and factories and the emergence of capitalism as market relations. Capitalism, or the market, envisages, first of all, the development of free market relations between producers and consumers, and especially the existence of a free labor market. None of this on any serious scale at the beginning of the 18th century. did not have. Supporting individual breeders who worked for the state, Peter I ruined the bulk of merchants and artisans with extortions and state monopolies, preventing them from accumulating capital sufficient to establish enterprises.

At the same time, he exhausted the bulk of the population - the peasants, preventing them from becoming consumers of industrial products.

In the absence of natural conditions and normal preconditions for the development of industry and trade, the economic policy of Peter I in this direction inevitably had to be in the nature of an artificial whip, and after the solution of major foreign policy tasks and the disappearance of the energetic influence of the reformer, many of his undertakings had to decline. What happened: from the Peter's manufactories by the end of the 18th century.

only about 20 survived. In general, the Petrine era remained in the history of the Russian merchants as a real hard times. A sharp increase in direct taxes on merchants as the most wealthy part of the townspeople and various state "services" at customs, drinking fees, etc., the forcible formation of trading companies - these are only part of the means and methods of coercion that Peter I applied to merchants with the main purpose - to extract as much money as possible for the treasury.

In the first quarter of the 18th century. the most prosperous part of the Russian merchant class, the "living room of a hundred", was ruined, after which the names of many owners of traditional trading houses disappeared from the list of wealthy people. Rough state intervention led to the destruction of loan and usurious capital, on the basis of which capitalist industry developed in the West.

At the beginning of the 18th century. the final formation of the noble estate takes place, which enjoyed the exclusive rights of soul and land ownership. The process of forming the nobility was the result not only of a long development of the service class, but also of the conscious activity of Peter I. Instead of the principle of origin, which allowed noble service people to immediately occupy a high position in society, in the army and in the civil service, the main principle that determined the position of a service person became personal length of service, the conditions of which were determined by laws.

Thus, the path to the top opened up the most capable representatives of the lower strata of society, and the principle of length of service, promotion up the career ladder for merits, enshrined in the Table of Ranks in 1722, strengthened the nobility at the expense of people from other classes. But, on the other hand, this was not the ultimate goal of the transformations. Introducing the principle of personal length of service, the conditions for raising the ranks of the ranks strictly stipulated in the Table of Ranks (the most important of the conditions was the obligatory service from an ordinary soldier or a clerk), Peter I strove to turn a rather amorphous mass of servicemen "in their homeland" (by origin) into a military bureaucratic corps, completely subordinate to him and dependent only on him. Of course, at the same time, the formation of the estate of the nobility as a corporation endowed with special rights and privileges, with corporate consciousness, principles and customs went on, but this process finds its completion only by the middle of the 18th century, when the nobility is gradually freed from compulsory service. Peter I tried to associate the very concept of "nobleman" as closely as possible with the obligatory, constant, service requiring knowledge and practical skills.

Peter I inspired his subjects that only that nobleman was worthy of veneration, who served. And in fact: all the nobles were assigned to various institutions and regiments, their children were sent to schools without fail, were sent to study abroad, it was forbidden to marry those who did not want to study, the estates of comfort were taken away, who avoided service.

In 1714. Priority was introduced - the principle of inheritance, according to which all the estate went to the eldest son, and the rest had to look for sources of livelihood in the service.

Great changes took place during the reign of Peter I in the position of the non-serf rural population; in fact, the estate of state peasants was created. It included the black-moored peasants of the North, the yasak peasants - the foreigners of the Volga region, the one-households of the South. In total - at least 18% of the taxable population. One-courtiers by origin were service people, but smaller, who, as a rule, owned one yard, but had the rights to have serfs (and some had them) and not to pay taxes. Now they were "put in tax", which blocked their way to the nobility. Belonging to the taxable estates now meant unprivileged, and state policy was aimed at limiting the rights and opportunities that taxable people possessed as personally free from serfdom.

There were also changes in the position of serfs. The difference in the position of serfs and slaves was eliminated - until that time slaves did not pay taxes, now they were also turned into tax. Elimination of servitude in the 18th century led to an increase in the corvee labor of serfs, since earlier it was the serfs who cultivated the lordly fields.

Peter I carried out the unification of the social structure of the cities, to which the Western European city institutions were transferred: magistrates, workshops and guilds. Having deep historical roots in their homeland, these institutions were transferred to Russia by force, administratively. The Posad population was divided into two guilds: the first guild was made up of the "first-class" ones, which included the tops of the posad, rich merchants, artisans, townspeople of intellectual professions, and the second guild included small shopkeepers and artisans, who, in addition, were united in workshops for professional sign. All other townspeople were not included in the guild and were subject to a general check in order to identify fugitive peasants.

The division into guilds and the union into workshops turned out to be a pure fiction, the European municipal authorities on Russian soil turned into bodies for extracting taxes from the townspeople. The old system of distribution of taxes according to wealth was also preserved, when the richest citizens were forced to pay for tens and hundreds of poor, which led to the preservation of backward social structures and hindered the development of market relations and entrepreneurship.

In general, the social policy of Peter 1 was aimed at unifying the estate structure of society (to what has been said, the introduction of clergy staff with a clear distribution of rights and responsibilities according to the Spiritual Regulations should be added), which was aimed at creating a so-called "regular state" - an autocratic, military-bureaucratic and police officer.

You already know that within the framework of society as a complex social system, various communities and groups are formed and operate - clans, tribes, classes, nations, families, professional groups, etc. The social structure of a society is an integral totality of all communities taken into their interaction. The subject of further consideration will be the relationship and mutual influence of the social structure of society and its economic life.

One of the significant communities is the population, which is the most important condition for the life and development of society. The pace of social development, crisis or prosperity in many ways depends on indicators such as the total population, the rate of its growth, health status. In turn, all these indicators are very closely related to the economic life of society. Thus, the birth rate is influenced primarily by the level of material well-being, the provision of housing, the degree of involvement of women in social production. For example, the birth rate in European countries with economies in transition (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc.) has fallen sharply over the past 5-10 years, which is associated with a decline in living conditions that accompanied economic reforms. In Russia in the 1990s. also, the number of births per 1,000 people of the population has dropped significantly.

There is also an inverse relationship when the population affects the economy. Acceleration or deceleration of the rate of economic development depends on the total population, population density (in a region with a small population, the division of labor is difficult, subsistence farming remains longer), the rate of population growth (low rates impede the reproduction of labor force and accordingly reduce the volume of production, too high rates population growth is forced to devote significant resources to its simple physical survival).

The health status of the population is also a factor in economic development. Its deterioration leads to a decrease in labor productivity in the economy, a reduction in life expectancy. In addition, one of the reasons for the sharp decline in life expectancy, for example, among men in Russia (in the 1990s from 64 to 58 years old) were the prevailing social conditions (a decrease in the population's income, an increase in nervous stress due to socio-economic changes and instability in Russia). society).

The influence of the economic life of society on the formation of professional social communities is noticeable. In traditional societies, where the social structure is the most stable, social and professional groups associated with subsistence farming and small-scale production remain. In the developed countries of the West, under the influence of the scientific and technological revolution, a new middle class (intelligentsia, managers, highly qualified workers) is growing. At the same time, structural changes in the economy lead to a reduction in the industrial working class, the disappearance of clear boundaries between it and other social groups.

In the context of socio-economic transformations in Russia, the collapse of former social relations, people and groups are trying to master new niches of social and economic survival. A feature of the recent years of the development of Russian society is the tendency of increasing economic differentiation (differences), which is expressed in the division of society into groups with different incomes, living standards and consumption. The complication of the social structure manifested itself in the formation of new social groups and strata: entrepreneurs, financiers, stock brokers, merchants, etc.

The economic interests of various social groups are heterogeneous and often oppose each other. For example, in modern Russia, the economic interests of workers, entrepreneurs, and the intelligentsia are not the same. All of them are opposed by the interests of mafia groups. The social stratification of society exacerbates the contradictions of interests of various social groups, including economic ones. In modern society, there is a problem of harmonizing these interests.

Income inequality poses a particular threat to political and economic stability in society. Development of Russia in the 1990s. led to significant differences in the income of the population. The market system, left to itself, gives preference to some social strata and, conversely, “punishes.) Others. If this system is not corrected by a specific social policy, then it tends to degenerate into a system that acts in the interests of the minority of society (elite) and against the majority.

In modern industrialized countries, welfare states are being created, that is, incomes are redistributed in favor of the poorer and disadvantaged groups, social security systems are created (pensions, health insurance, poverty benefits, etc.). For example, in Sweden and the Netherlands, social redistribution accounts for about 30% of national income. The social policy of the Russian government presupposes: social support for low-income citizens, regulation of labor relations and assistance in employment of the unemployed population, freedom of choice of profession, sphere and place of work, ensuring the availability of education and assistance in retraining personnel, ensuring freedom of entrepreneurship, etc.

The problem of harmonizing the interests of various participants in the economic life of society remains relevant, therefore, the economic and social spheres should complement and mutually support each other.

ECONOMY AND POLITICS

Let's see how its main political institution, the state, affects the economic development of society. One of the public functions of the state is to use the available opportunities for economic development. Each country is faced with the problem of choosing the best option for such development, and here the role of state policy is essential. In recent decades, this policy has undergone a major reorientation.

Due to the collapse of the economic, political and social system based on central planning, market forces and free enterprise came to be seen as the basis for the viability of the socio-economic system.

In most countries that have chosen the path of market reforms in the economy, privatization and a decrease in the regulatory role of the state have become a prerequisite for economic growth. This is accompanied by a reassessment of the functions and policies of the state. Governments tend to intervene less in areas where the market operates more efficiently. However, this does not mean the elimination of public administration, but rather a change in its forms and improvement of quality.

In a market economy, the main functions of the state are to facilitate and stimulate the action of market forces through government policy measures. The most general, important condition for the existence of a market economy is the realization by the state of such political goals as the free development of society, legal order, external and internal security (highlighted by Adam Smith).

The free development of society is understood as both a social and an economic category. The more valuable the freedom of an individual in society is recognized, the more significant is the perceived economic freedom in the state.

The state is interested in ensuring the legal reliability of economic activity in order to use its results. The creation of a legal order presupposes, first of all, ensuring, through laws, the right to property and its protection, to freedom of entrepreneurial activity, to a system of economic contracts.

Ensuring external and internal security by the state presupposes the creation of institutions to maintain public order within the country and the presence of a professionally trained army capable of protecting the country from outside attack.

An important task of the state is to protect and maintain competition in the national economy, to combat the desire of firms to monopolize. For example, for the developing market economy of Russia, this is one of the pressing problems. (Remember and give examples of the antitrust regulation of the economy by the Russian government.)

And finally, in a market economy, the most important function of the state is to develop an optimal national strategy for economic development, to unite the efforts of state bodies, private companies, and public organizations for its implementation. This function cannot be provided to automatic market mechanisms. Thus, state policy plays an important role in financing education, health care, national culture, etc.

The goals of state policy can be: ensuring full employment, equitable distribution of income, protection of the natural complex, etc. Each government chooses the economic priorities necessary for society in its policy. (What, in your opinion, are the priorities of the policy of the modern Russian state in the economy?)

The economic life of society is also influenced by various political parties and associations.

As you can see, the political institutions of society actively influence the economy. Is the economy interested in supporting, for example, political democracy, the rule of law?

The experience of developed countries shows that a market economy provides a basis for supporting democracy, the rule of law, and civil society. The existence of a variety of political and economic structures in a competitive environment reduces the risk for a person to fall under the authority of an irresponsible employer or organization, giving him the opportunity to choose who and what to obey.

The conditions of market competition teach people a more responsible attitude to their business, those around them, and decision-making. Freedom of entrepreneurship convinces a person that he can change his life for the better by his own choice of activity and initiative.

The market economy is interested in functioning within the framework of the rule of law. Thus, it is important for an entrepreneur to start his own business knowing the “rules of the game” in the market space, that is, according to what known laws he can act, what taxes to pay. And such important issues for the economy as the establishment of taxes, laws on environmental protection, regulations governing relations between employers and employees, should be openly discussed taking into account the views of various parties.

In turn, the rule of law relies on civil society, which is made up of citizens who independently make personal decisions that pursue private interests. The structural units of civil society in the economic sphere are private enterprises, cooperatives, joint stock companies and other production units created by citizens on their own initiative.

PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS

1 Follow the main trends in the country's economic development, current problems of the modern economic and social policy of the Russian government. This will help you competently defend your economic and social rights and interests.

2 Use knowledge of the interests, needs of various social and professional groups and the possibilities of their implementation in modern economic conditions. This will give you the opportunity for informed professional self-determination.

3 Determine your position in relation to the economic policy of the state in order to choose the form of influence on this policy (participation in elections, in the work of parties or associations).

4 Try not just to analyze the positive or negative consequences of economic transformations in the country, but to look for ways of civilized forms of your participation in economic life.