Page 2
Imperialism, Lenin emphasized, is nowhere, even in the most developed countries, does not and cannot rebuild capitalism from bottom to top, preserving the vast subsoil of old capitalism under the monopoly elite.
And along with this, in England, in the victorious country, in the country richest in colonies, in the country that has been and was considered a model for the longest time social world, in the country of the oldest capitalism, we see the broad, unstoppable, ebullient and powerful growth of the Soviets and new Soviet forms of mass proletarian struggle - Shop Stewards Committees, committees of factory elders.
This is explained by the fact that countries that later embarked on the path of capitalist development, using the ready-made results of technical progress, have the opportunity not only to catch up, but also to quickly surpass the countries of old capitalism in their development. The spasmodic development of capitalist countries is also intensifying as a result of the export of capital, economic crises and wars, especially world wars.
If the socialist revolution were to triumph simultaneously throughout the whole world, or at least in a number of advanced countries, then the task of bringing into the process a new organization of production the best specialists technicians from the leaders of old capitalism would be extremely relieved. Backward Russia would not then have to think independently about solving this problem, because the advanced workers of Western European countries would come to our aid and take the burden off us. most difficulties in that most difficult task of the transition to socialism, which is called the organizational task.
On the other hand, against this group, mainly Anglo-French, another group of capitalists moved forward, even more predatory, even more predatory - a group who came to the table of capitalist dishes when the places were occupied, but introduced into the struggle new methods of developing capitalist production, better technology, an incomparable organization that transforms the old capitalism, the capitalism of the era of free competition, into the capitalism of giant trusts, syndicates, cartels. This group introduced the beginnings of the nationalization of capitalist production, combining the gigantic power of capitalism with the gigantic power of the state into one mechanism, placing tens of millions of people in one organization of state capitalism.
For old capitalism, with the complete dominance of free competition, the export of goods was typical.
In the 19th century, changes occurred in the balance of power in Europe. The countries of old capitalism - England and France - continue to occupy leading positions in Europe, but due to the problems they faced, their complete and unconditional leadership was shaken. By the end of the 19th century, England was losing its leading position to the United States in the production of steel and cast iron and the volume of capital investments.
The author also opposes vulgar, essentially anti-Marxist ideas about the suspension or general and complete slowdown of technical progress under modern capitalism. Monopoly capitalism, which is a superstructure over old capitalism, does not eliminate competition. Competition exists alongside monopoly. To the extent that competition persists, it pushes capitalists to reduce production costs by introducing new technology. The pursuit of profit even under imperialism plays the role of a stimulus for technical progress. In this regard, production automation, which usually leads to a significant increase in labor productivity and a reduction in production costs, brings great benefits capitalists who use it.
Thus, monopolies do not cover all social production. Lenin called imperialism a kind of superstructure over the old capitalism. He pointed out that pure imperialism without the basic basis of capitalism has never existed, does not exist anywhere and will never exist.
They are based on the desire to prove that the old capitalism has historically outlived its usefulness, and has been replaced by a new, fair society that has lost the shortcomings of the old bourgeoisie. The advancement of theories of the transformation of capitalism testifies to the forced refusal of parts of the bourgeoisie.
Typical of the new methods of imperialism is the waging of a psychological struggle, an attempt, with the help of the theory of convergence, to undermine the bastions of the working class and socialism and to disintegrate the socialist consciousness. The imperialists demagogically portray the scientific and technological revolution as a path supposedly leading to overcoming the old capitalism and to the rapprochement of monopoly capitalism and the socialist system. The scientific and technological revolution and the concentration of productive forces under capitalism actually lead to the further socialization of production. But this only proves that the rule of several thousand monopolists is increasingly becoming an anachronism, and that the agenda is the transition of large monopolies into public ownership and the struggle for socialism.
Strachey, in his book The End of Empire (1959), argues that a new, non-imperialist capitalism has emerged, radically different from the old capitalism. These worked veiled real reasons colonial expansion A.
The export of capital from some countries to others was also carried out at the pre-monopoly stage of the development of capitalism. However, the primary role in international economic relations he begins to play only at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. For old capitalism, with the complete dominance of free competition, the export of goods was typical.
What kind of ideal do the spiritual squires of modern capitalism want to invent in order to disguise the façade of the capitalist edifice, what kind of dynamic faith do they yearn for? IN last years Such a newly invented ideal was the myth of the so-called new capitalism or, as imperialist ideologists increasingly call it, popular capitalism. According to this myth, old capitalism supposedly gave up its life. In the 20th century, as economist Burley writes, there was...
That is why the French people are fed with promises and fairy tales that peace and final victory are about to come. It is impossible to get out of this world under the old capitalism, because such an avalanche of capitalist debts has accumulated, such a pile of ruin throughout the capitalist world caused by the war, that it is impossible to get out without overthrowing the avalanche itself.
In the second half of the 19th century. The "industrial revolution" swept through most European countries. The creation of an industrial production base dramatically increases the economic and military power of the leading capitalist states. The social structure of society is changing, life is becoming urbanized, massive armies and armored fleets are being created. International relations are also changing in accordance with the changing balance of forces in the world.
Development of pre-monopoly capitalism in Europe. Political processes in European countries
Different tempos economic development cause a change in position various countries in the European center.
There is a struggle for a place in it. which causes corresponding processes that change the political map of the world. Leading place in the second half of the 19th century. occupied by England - the “oldest” capitalist country, the metropolis of the vast British Empire. It had 30% of the world's economic output and 60% of its trading tonnage (the "workshop of the world" and the "carrier of the world"). In second place was France, which completed the industrial revolution by the end of the 60s. Both “old” capitalist powers by the end of the 19th century. slow down the pace of economic development and begin to give way to the “young”, rising capitalist countries - Germany and the USA.
The needs of economic development caused unification processes among the divided German and Italian states. The unification of the German states took place “from above” under the influence of Prussia “with iron and blood” (in the words of Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck). Victory in the war with Austria, and then over France in the Franco-Prussian War (1870 - 1871), gave Prussia the opportunity to unite the German states into German Empire. The industrial revolution took place in a short time and ended in the late 70s, which was facilitated by a large indemnity from France. Heavy and military industries developed particularly quickly. Thus, in the center of Europe a powerful industrial German state with a militaristic orientation emerged.
In Italy, unification began “from below” through revolutionary struggle led by Garibaldi. Then the initiative was taken by the king of Piedmont, Victor Emmanuel II, who was declared king of the Italian kingdom in 1861. Capitalism in Italy was gaining momentum, relying on the industrialized north of the country.
Other European countries formed the second echelon of capitalism and were gradually drawn into the economic space of the center. Some of them (Scandinavian countries, individual regions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) are part of the “center”, the other part constitutes the economically dependent “periphery” (Balkan countries, Turkey).
The development of pre-monopoly capitalism in Europe was accompanied by periodic crises, unemployment and brutal exploitation of workers. The emerging industrial working class is beginning to fight for its interests. Various socialist teachings appear in socio-political theory, among which Marxism stands out as the ideology of the working class, based on scientific communism. Created in 1864 International partnership workers - the First International, in the organization of which K. Marx and F. Engels took an active part. During the Franco-Prussian War, the first proletarian revolution took place and the Paris Commune was formed (1871). It lasted 72 days, providing the first historical experience political power proletariat. The counter-revolution brutally suppressed workers' power, the streets of Paris were littered with the bodies of dead and executed communards. The heroic struggle of the French workers had big influence for the development of the international labor movement. In the 70s - 80s. the center of the revolutionary labor movement moves to Germany. In 1889, on the rise of the world labor movement, the Second International was created. A Russian delegation led by G.V. Plekhanov is already present at its congresses.
The establishment of capitalism in the USA and Japan, the emergence of new centers of the capitalist economy
Under the influence of the European economic center, capitalism is also establishing itself in the overseas regions of the world - in North America and Japan. In each of them, where independent economic centers subsequently emerged, the formation and the very nature of capitalist relations had significant differences.
Capitalism in the United States is called “settler capitalism.” Many thousands of people moved to North America from Europe (England, Ireland, Holland, France, Italy, etc.). Some - because of religious persecution, others - in search of better life in "New World". They hoped to buy land, become free farmers and entrepreneurs. This was an enterprising, prepared layer of the European population, which had professional skills; among them were adventurers and criminal elements, overcome by a thirst for profit. Their struggle for ousting the indigenous population - the Indians - from their lands took many years, accompanied by the destruction of the aborigines and their imprisonment on reservations. Import to the south of the continent from Africa huge number black slaves (according to recent studies, up to 10 - 12 million) became the basis of the plantation agricultural system.
During the war of settlers against English colonial rule - the War of Independence 1775 - 1783. - the first bourgeois revolution took place and the independent state of the USA was formed (1783). The Constitution of 1787 enshrined the principles of building a new state based on the ideas of “freedom and independence,” which echoed the ideas of revolutionary bourgeois France. The rapid rise of industrial production in the northern United States in the first half of the 19th century. completed the industrial revolution in the late 50s. The contradictions between the developed North and the plantation South in the United States led to the Civil War of 1861 - 1865. During the war, the second bourgeois-democratic revolution took place. She abolished slavery (in 1863!) and approved the farming form of agriculture (“ american way"), established a number of social and political norms of a bourgeois-democratic nature. The victory of the northerners in the war preserved single state and contributed to rapid economic growth. The revolutionary transition to capitalism with the establishment of the freest forms of bourgeois relations (bourgeois democracy) determined the high rates of capitalist development and the growth of the power of the state. By the end of the 19th century. The United States is emerging as one of the world's leading powers.
In Japan, which had long maintained isolation from the outside world, capitalist relations matured within the feudal system, and independent initial accumulation of capital took place. Confucianism had strong impact to lifestyle. IN mid-19th V. the “opening of Japan” by European powers and the United States takes place. Under threat of force, it opens its ports and enters into trade agreements with the United States and European countries. Foreign goods flooded the Japanese market, national production fell, and anti-feudal and anti-foreign unrest began, which escalated into civil war. The ruling feudal elite brings the 16-year-old Emperor Mutsihito to power using the traditional image of his divinity. Relying on imperial power, it carries out a series of political and socio-economic transformations on the path to capitalism - the “Meiji Revolution” (1867 - 1868). In 1872 - 1873 held agrarian reform. The land was assigned to those who managed it without redemption; the peasants became the owners of hereditary land plots. The land tax from all owners of up to 50% of the harvest became the main source of the state budget.
The state, using budget funds, creates a national industry based on European and American technologies and equipment purchases; private entrepreneurs are given special benefits. In the shortest possible time, an industrial revolution is carried out, an industrial industry is created with the preservation of manufactories and home-based manual labor. Having created a large state-owned industry, the Japanese government since the 80s. changes policy and transfers state-owned enterprises to private firms. Large firms associated with samurai clans take part in the “division” of state property, while the government strictly respected the independence of the national economy. At the end of the 19th century. Japan takes a militaristic path; in 1895, a 10-year economic development program with a military focus is adopted, the level of military spending becomes the highest in the world - 36% of the budget.
Colonial division of the world. Changes in Russia's international position
The Western European center and two new emerging centers (the USA and Japan) are expanding their economic space and geopolitical spheres of influence, seizing new colonies by force of arms (“gunboat diplomacy”), using them as sources of raw materials, a sales market, and multiplying their capital through the robbery of peoples. The old colonial powers England and France increased their holdings. India became the "Jewel of the British Crown"; Egypt, southern Africa and other territories in the second half of the 19th century. “rounded up” the possessions of England by more than 4 million square meters. miles. France expanded its colonies in Africa and Indochina. “Young” capitalist states - Germany, USA, Italy, Japan - barely have time to gain a foothold in previously unoccupied territories independent states. By the end of the 19th century. The colonial division of the world was basically completed, and the colonialists were preparing to redistribute it by force of arms.
The liberation struggle is unfolding in the colonies, the colonialists are leading brutal wars. In South America, the liberation struggle gave national independence from Spanish and Portuguese rule to a number of countries. Colonial and semi-colonial countries formed the “periphery” of the economic centers of the world system of capitalism; their development was dependent on the centers. Modern research shows that a special type of capitalism developed in them, regardless of the initial stage, which did not have prospects for development to the level of the center, which “feeds” on colonial potential.
In countries that were completely economically and politically independent at the beginning of the transition to capitalism, but subject to the influence of the centers, features historical development and the specifics of civilization determined the special nature of their transition to capitalism. The influence of the Western European center “compressed” this process in time. For them, historically it was possible either to enter an independent path of development (as new center, or entry into one of the centers), or transformation into a “periphery” and semi-colony.
This is precisely the historical situation that developed for Russia in the second half of the 19th century. After the defeat in Crimean War Russia has lost its position in the European system of states. Formal lag in the socio-economic sphere, industrial and technical backwardness from Western Europe again created a threat to the Russian state from the West. Economic backwardness in the new conditions inevitably led to military weakness, which, in turn, led to the loss of independence in the fierce competition of capitalist powers on the world stage.
§2^
COUNTRIES OF "OLD CAPITALISM"
The development of capitalism in the 19th century, as before, proceeded unevenly and asynchronously in different regions of the West. In the competition between major powers, the balance of power was constantly changing. The “second generation” of capitalist countries entered the world stage, pushing into the background the powers where capitalism and the industrial revolution began much earlier: Russia, Germany and the USA.
Complex economic processes that determined the place of a particular country in the world were inextricably linked with political life. In most European states, modernization had not yet been completed, and the elimination of the remnants of feudalism or the feudal system itself remained an urgent task.
^
European "periphery" and modernization
You already know how important transformations in political life are for the development of modernization.
^ XIXcentury was a turbulent era of revolutions," they have become, as it were, the norm of Western European life.
Perhaps it was in the 19th century. It became obvious that revolutions do not always solve all problems at once, and therefore can be repeated, making more and more adjustments to socio-political and economic structures. France after the Great Bourgeois Revolution of 1789 survived three more - in 1830, 1848 and 1871. And only last revolution put an end to the monarchical system.
In 1820-1821 and 1848. revolutions took place in Italy. A whole series of revolutionary explosions until the 1870s. shook Spain, but the country still remained semi-feudal. In 1848, a revolution began in Germany, but it did not solve all the problems: the legacy of feudalism continued to affect itself in various areas of life.
In that era, another curious feature of revolutions emerged - their synchronicity. The role of the leader of revolutions was played by France. In 1830, almost simultaneously with the French revolution, the Belgian revolution broke out, and uprisings began in Russian Poland, Italy and some German states. Revolution of 1848 after France it spread to Germany and Italy.
In life peripheral states a lot has changed in the era Napoleonic wars. Napoleon's wars of conquest not only played a negative role, but also positive role. Countries that became part of a huge empire, of course, experienced the material and moral hardships of the vanquished. But the advance of Napoleonic army across Europe was accompanied by the abolition of feudal privileges, the secularization of church lands, the establishment of freedom of the press and civil equality. In a word, the winners tried to implement the new things that the French Revolution brought. True, the destruction of the foundations of feudal society in Italy, Germany, and Spain was carried out in a violent form, which gave rise to national liberation movements in these countries. And yet, the positive results of the transformations were so significant that even the restoration of the old order after the collapse of Napoleon’s empire could not completely erase them.
Thus, a turning point occurred in the development of the countries of the periphery, although its results were far from the same. Germany by the end of the 19th century. made a huge leap, taking a leading position in Europe.
Fragmented Italy still lagged noticeably behind the major powers, and only after 1870, when its unification was completed, greater opportunities opened up for modernization; the pace of development has accelerated. Large capitalist farms were created in Northern Italy and industry grew. The agricultural South lagged behind both because of its weak industrial base and because landowner farms and semi-feudal forms of dependence of the peasantry persisted there longer. However, by the end of the 19th century. Italy became so strong that it was able to take part in the struggle for colonies.
Fate was sadder Spain. Despite a series of revolutions, the absolutist monarchy did not give up its positions; the liberal gains of the revolutions were either completely abolished during the restoration or were preserved in an extremely truncated form.
Having lost most of its huge colonial empire, Spain remained a semi-feudal country. Industry developed extremely slowly. Although at the beginning of the 20th century. The first monopolistic concerns appeared, the country never created its own mechanical engineering industry. Foreign capital occupied key positions in the economy. Spain, in essence, turned into a raw material appendage of the major capitalist powers.
^
European center: redistribution of forces
Countries that made up in the 18th century. center, were forced to retreat under the pressure of young capitalist countries, where industrialization began later, but took place at a higher technical level.
England, birthplace of the industrial revolution beginning in the 1870s. loses its primacy and cedes it to the United States, which produced more steel and cast iron. Germany has also become a dangerous competitor. In the 1890s. cheap German goods no longer penetrated only into England, but also into its colonies. In the last third of the 19th century. The country experienced its first severe industrial crises. One of the consequences that further worsened the economic situation was the outflow of capital: it became more profitable to invest money in the construction of railways and factories in the colonies or in other European countries.
France, revolutionized the whole of Europe, continued to develop very slowly and, as a result, by the end of the century it found itself in fourth place in the world, while back in the 1870s. it ranked second (after England). Our own mechanical engineering was poorly developed; machine tools were mainly imported from abroad. The level of concentration of production remained low: the country retained many small and medium-sized enterprises that employed no more than 100 people. Many of them specialized in the production of luxury goods.
In the village, the majority of farms (71%) were small, and their owners were unable to use technical and agricultural improvements. In terms of wheat yield, for example, France was one of the last in Europe.
In this situation, banking capital flourished in the country. In terms of its concentration, France was ahead of other countries. By the end of the century, 3/4 of finance was in the hands of several large banks. The financial elite quickly grew rich on loans that were provided to foreign countries, including Russia. But the history of Holland has shown how dangerous the path of financial capitalism is for the country. In France, a special type of bourgeois has become widespread - not a hard-working entrepreneur, but a rentier.
At the beginning of the 20th century. There was a revival in French industry, as automobile production began to develop successfully, but the overall lag was very noticeable, especially compared to Germany.
Of course, the countries of “old” capitalism - England and France, despite all the problems they faced, continued to be among the strongest countries of the West and occupied key positions in international relations. But their complete and unconditional leadership was shaken. The industrial era required constant updating of the technical base, and in this sense the industrial revolution could not be “completed” - this process can be compared to a line going to infinity. Any delays and delays on the path of technical progress threatened with the most severe consequences.
^
Questions and tasks
1. Which countries represented “young” and “old” capitalism? What problems did the countries of “young” capitalism face? What were their difficulties and advantages?
2. What role do transformations of the political system play in the modernization process? Give examples (based on materials in this chapter). Which countries by the end of the 19th century were among the strongest capitalist powers in the world? Which of them were the most advanced?
3. Why did countries such as Italy and Spain remain in the “peripheral” position?
4. What were the features of the development of capitalism in France? Why did England lose its primacy in world economic development?
^
THE GERMAN PATH TO MODERNIZATION
The countries of “young” capitalism - Russia, Germany, the USA - were put in quite harsh conditions competition between the great powers, and therefore were forced to choose an accelerated, “catching up” pace of development. However, their task was not only to increase capitalist production: only the United States entered the 19th century unencumbered by the burden of feudal remnants. Russia and Germany had to decide more difficult task: eliminate the remnants of feudalism. The future fate of the country depended on the solution of this problem.
Germany, like Spain and Italy, early XIX V. was conquered by Napoleonic troops. The German states temporarily lost their independence, receiving liberal reforms in return and partially overcoming their fragmentation. After Vienna
^ Economic development of Germany at the beginning of the 20th century.
Location of major industries
Metallurgical and mechanical engineering
Congress of 360 states left only 38. The Holy Roman Empire ended its existence, and in its place arose the German Confederation, in which the role of the leader was played by the Austrian Chancellor Metternich, who mercilessly suppressed any opposition movements.
The reforms carried out by Napoleon, of course, were not sufficient to destroy the remnants of feudalism and carry out deep modernization. After the fall of the Napoleonic Empire, absolutist orders were restored in many German states. Only in the southern and western states - in Baden, Bavaria, Württemberg, where the influence of the French Revolution was more pronounced, was a constitutional system introduced.
In 1848, Germany, like some other countries of Western Europe, was engulfed in revolution, but its consequences were relatively minor: Germany still remained a semi-feudal country. However, since the 1850s. Greater opportunities opened up for the development of capitalism. At the same time, its main features were determined. In the 1870-1880s. Under the “Iron Chancellor” Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), the German version of capitalism was finally formed.
During this era, almost all of Germany was united under the rule of Prussia, the most powerful of the German states. Favorable conditions were created for industrial growth, but the bourgeoisie actually did not gain access to political power. The Reichstag (parliament) had very limited powers, and the electoral system violated the principle of equality.
In the village back in the 1850s. reforms were carried out, but they abolished only secondary feudal duties free of charge. Others, the most profitable for landowners (for example, corvée), were subject to ransom. Thus, in Germany there was a long and painful process of ruin of the peasantry, which could not immediately get rid of the shackles of semi-feudal dependence and lost their land.
Meanwhile, the landowners, who retained most of the land, created large capitalist farms on it, which used machines, chemical fertilizers and other innovations.
In foreign policy, the Prussian path was manifested in active militarism, which Bismarck called politics of iron and blood. Huge funds from the country's budget were spent on rearmament, and the size of the army increased significantly. Plans for simultaneous operations against France and Russia were being developed in military circles. Although Germany joined the struggle for colonies very late, nevertheless, by 1914. its colonial possessions already occupied an area of 2.9 million square meters. km.
A rapid leap forward in about half a century transformed Germany into a strong capitalist power. At the beginning of the 20th century. It moved into first place in Europe in terms of industrial production, in which the leading positions were occupied by ferrous metallurgy, mechanical engineering and the chemical industry. Despite the surviving remnants of serfdom, capitalist-style landowner farms produced high yields. Giant monopolistic unions, closely associated with the largest banks, grew in the country. Behind short term Germany created its own - albeit relatively small - colonial empire, at the same time
Militarism- translated from Latin as “military”, a policy of arms growth and active preparation for wars of conquest. In militaristic countries, economic, political and ideological life are subordinated to this task.
Chauvinism- extreme degree of nationalism, preaching national exclusivity. Chauvinism serves as a justification for wars of conquest and inciting ethnic hatred.
developing economic expansion into the Ottoman Empire, China, and South America.
In a word, Germany by the beginning of the 20th century. turned into a formidable force, while remaining a semi-modernized militaristic country in which weak shoots of democracy were barely emerging, where the standard of living of the people was much lower than, for example, in England, and chauvinistic sentiments covered very wide sections of the population.
Questions and tasks
1. What role did the Napoleonic wars play for Germany?
2. Why Germany in the 19th - early 20th centuries cannot be called a modernized country in the true sense 7 Give examples
3. What goals did the German government pursue when carrying out partial modernization 9
^
RUSSIA AND MODERNIZATION
By the beginning of the 20th century. Russia was one of the largest capitalist powers in the world. The pace of its development was, in general, quite high. Nevertheless, Russia noticeably lagged behind both the United States and Germany in many indicators.
What was this connected with? As a rule, all the blame is placed on the strength and durability of feudal foundations. But such an answer is clearly not enough - after all, Germany also built capitalism on a semi-feudal basis, but its successes were much more noticeable. Of course, traditional structures hampered Russia's development. But something else was also important: the attitude of various social forces and the central government to modernization, the degree of their activity.
^
Russian society and the problem of modernization
Having won the War of 1812, Russia avoided the humiliating fate of many European countries - it did not find itself under the rule of foreign invaders. But it did not experience the impact of Napoleon’s liberal-bourgeois reforms. The ideas of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution at that time were widespread only among a small part of the Russian noble intelligentsia. The bourgeoisie (in Western Europe the force most interested in modernization) was still relatively small in number, unconsolidated and too dependent on state power to lay claim to political leadership and seek the destruction of feudal foundations. Among the peasants, the number of people engaged in trade and entrepreneurial activities increased. But for the most part, the peasantry, which remained in a serfdom until 1861, living a patriarchal communal life (even after the reform), was rather an opponent of modernization, rather than its supporter.
As a result, throughout the first half of the 19th century. - at a time when the countries of Western Europe were experiencing bourgeois revolutions, - in Russia there was only one surge of conscious struggle for modernization - the Decembrist uprising in 1825. It was not the bourgeoisie, but the noble intelligentsia that set the goal of abolishing serfdom, establishing a constitutional monarchy or republic, encouraging entrepreneurship and trade.
The defeat of the uprising (more precisely, the palace coup), of course, did not destroy the social movement for reforms in Russia. On the contrary, the number of its participants grew - especially from the 1840-1850s, when the intelligentsia of the various classes became a serious force. The social movement in the second half of the century became more complex in structure; new groups appeared in it, differing from each other in their programs - from radicals to moderate liberals, but again it developed without the active participation of the bourgeoisie.
Already in this era among the participants social movement Sharp ideological disagreements emerged over what kind of transformations were needed in Russia and how they should be implemented. The question of Russia's identity has divided our intellectual elite into two camps - Slavophiles And Westerners. The dispute between their followers does not subside even today.
Interest in national historical traditions, attempts to determine what makes Russia unique, what brings it closer to other civilizations and what distinguishes it from them - all this was a manifestation of a very important process: growth of national-historical self-awareness. But as a result, for the majority of Russian educated society, the concepts of “modernization” and “Europeanization” merged into one. Modernization was perceived as the forced introduction of an alien Western model into Russian civilization, as a loss of national traditions.
Meanwhile, already in the 1850-1860s. The experience of some eastern countries (Turkey and especially Japan) has shown that modernization is not a unique feature of Western Europe. Europeanization and modernization must be distinguished from each other. Orientation towards the Western European model is a temporary phenomenon in the process of modernization and cannot destroy national identity.
The ideas of the Slavophiles were very strong: they influenced revolutionary democrats, including the Westernizer A. I. Herzen, who after 1848 became disillusioned with the democracy of bourgeois society and began to consider the Russian community as the main basis of a future just system. At the same time, Herzen defended the idea that capitalism is a completely optional stage in the development of Russia. Since the 1870s. the successors of the Slavophiles and Herzen in this regard were populists, who organized famous visiting the people with the goal of preparing the peasants for the revolution. Relying on the patriarchal community and criticizing the negative aspects of Western European capitalism, the populists did not consider the task of modernizing Russia to be urgent.
By the end of the 1870s, when the movement among the people collapsed, the movement found itself in a situation of deep crisis and split into different factions. "People's Will" embarked on the fruitless path of political terror; the Black Redistribution organization continued to conduct unsuccessful propaganda among the peasants; only part of the populists, appreciating the role of politics small things, began to actively work in zemstvos and became close to the liberals.
The creation of the “Emancipation of Labor” group in 1883 marked the turn of part of the Russian intelligentsia towards social democratic teachings. In Russia, the most radical Western ideology began to gain popularity - Marxism, which arose as a response to the contradictions and problems of developed capitalist countries. Its heralds were members of the Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class (1895) led by V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin), who defended the Marxist idea of irreconcilable class struggle, socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus, this group, quite popular among the young and small working class of Russia, was opposed to gradual bourgeois-liberal reforms, for the bourgeoisie was declared a class enemy along with the landowners and the autocratic system as a whole.
Of course, in addition to radicals of various kinds in Russia there were also supporters of peaceful means of struggle. These included part of the populists, disillusioned with the terror and attempts to incite the peasants to revolution, and part of the social democrats (“legal Marxists” led by P. Struve and M. Tugan-Baranovsky, “economists” led by E. Kuskova and S. Prokopovich). All of these groups eventually moved closer to the liberals. Their number gradually grew, but their role in political life countries and the influence on the people were not too significant.
There were very few defenders of the bourgeois system and the associated process of modernization in Russia. And in general, this is not surprising: the struggle for transformation and debate about what the new Russia should be like was led mainly by the intelligentsia. The bourgeoisie, which played the role of the main striking force in Western Europe, remained silent in our country; until 1905 it did not even have its own party.
...The timidity and inertia of the country's wealthy class in the economic sphere were fully manifested in its political behavior. He himself was certainly monarchical and nationalistic, but preferred to remain in the shadows.
^
R. Pipes. Russia under the old regime
On the threshold of the bourgeois revolutions in Russia, a completely unique balance of forces took shape: the radical forces that spoke with the slogan of equalization were practically not opposed by the forces that defended the bourgeois system.
^
Tsarism and modernization
How did the central government, which in Russia often played the role of a catalyst for civilizational processes, feel about modernization? In general, the position of the state can be called inconsistent throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Liberal Tsar AlexanderI (reign: 1801 -1825) limited himself to only a small circle of democratic reforms, without resolving the main issues - the abolition of serfdom and the constitution. Decree on free cultivators was a very timid step towards the elimination of the main evil of Russia, which the progressive nobility, not without reason, called slavery.
Policy NicholasI (reign: 1825-1855) was a clear departure from the moderate liberal course of his predecessor. In addition, under Nicholas I, little attention was paid to the economic development of the country. The government practically did not subsidize heavy industry; by 1851, only one railway was built - Nikolaevskaya, connecting Moscow and St. Petersburg. Meanwhile, the need for change was felt more and more acutely. Russia's weakness in comparison with the powerful, modernized Western European powers was tragically evident in the Crimean War (1853-1856).
The year 1861 was a turning point in the history of Russia: serfdom was abolished. AlexanderII (reign: 1855-1881), who opened new era liberal reforms, made a decisive attempt to remove one of the most serious obstacles to modernization. But this attempt was only partially successful. The reform of 1861 condemned the Russian village to a painfully long path of development of capitalism, preserving the semi-feudal forms of dependence of the peasants. The penetration of bourgeois relations into agriculture was still hampered by the community, which was not only preserved, but even strengthened by the authorities: after all, it represented a lower cell in the state taxation system and with its help it was easy to exercise administrative control over the peasants.
The democratization of political life was also implemented in a truncated form. In 1864, local governments were created in counties and provinces - zemstvos. But the capabilities of these elected representative bodies were small, and most importantly, the zemstvos did not influence the policy of the central government. Only at the end of his reign did Alexander II agree to the establishment of the Zemsky Sobor, an all-Russian representative body. But the massacre of the tsar, carried out in 1881 by the Narodnaya Volya, put an end to the era of democratic reforms.
The government of Alexander III, frightened by a handful of extremists, took hostile actions against the zemstvos, which were the centers of gravity of all liberal forces. As a result, the alienation of liberals from the authorities, who were unable to use the growing activity of society to their advantage, intensified.
True, during this period a significant breakthrough was made in the economic life of Russia (in particular, thanks to the policy of S. Witte, the Minister of Finance). At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. successfully developed in the country
^
Large industry of the European part of Russia at the end of the 19th century.
metallurgical and metalworking A petroleum
mechanical engineering, iron smelting increased 5 times, coal mining in the Donbass increased 6 times, the length of railways reached 60 thousand km. By 1913, Russia ranked 4th-5th in the world in terms of production volume and became the main exporter of grain.
And yet Russia at the turn of the 20th century. cannot be called a modernized country in the true sense. Democratization was never realized. The industrial revolution practically did not affect agriculture; Moreover, 50% of peasants still cultivated the land with a plow rather than a plow. The peasantry suffered from a shortage of land, as due to population growth, allotments were reduced. Large farms of the capitalist type were very few in number. Despite the rapid development of industry, Russia still remained predominantly an agricultural country: 76% of the population was employed in agriculture. The standard of living of the people was 4 times lower than in England, and 2 times lower compared to Germany.
The most decisive turn towards modernization was made only at the beginning of the 20th century; its beginning was the bourgeois revolution of 1905. The people finally received civil liberties, the right to represent their interests in the new central government body - the Duma. Political parties were formed, including bourgeois ones (the strongest among them was Union October 17, which was led by A. Guchkov). Despite the fact that the monarchy remained, a huge step forward was made on the path of democratization.
The revolution gave the modernization process a powerful impetus. From 1909 to 1913, industry in Russia experienced a boom. P. Stolypin, who became the head of the government, tried to deal a blow to the community with his reform - and without the mass dispossession of peasants, which in Western European countries sometimes took place in a very cruel form.
However, all these transformations required time, which Russia no longer had: the European powers were preparing for the First World War, the scale of which surpassed all previous wars.
The development of Russia, which became one of the strongest powers in the world, was uneven. Unevenness is a common phenomenon in countries of “young” capitalism, but in Russia it became too protracted, which led to tragic consequences in the First World War.
Questions and tasks
1. How did Russian society feel about modernization in the 19th century?
2. What government reforms helped bring about modernization?
3. What position did the Russian bourgeoisie take? What was the reason for its weakness and lack of consolidation?
4. What was the peculiarity of the bourgeois revolution of 1905 from the point of view of the social forces participating in it?
Topic: Transition to monopoly capitalism in the leading countries of the world
Type: Test | Size: 32.39K | Downloads: 75 | Added 04/11/10 at 12:53 | Rating: +18 | More Tests
University: VZFEI
Year and city: Moscow 2009
Introduction 3
Chapter 1. Specific features transition to monopoly capitalism in leading countries. Comparative analysis economic
development of England, France, Germany, USA, Japan and Russia by the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries 4
1.1 The transition to monopoly capitalism in England and analysis of its economic development 4
1.2 The transition to monopoly capitalism in France and analysis of its economic development 4
1.3 The transition to monopoly capitalism in Germany and analysis of its economic development 5
1.4 The transition to monopoly capitalism and analysis of US economic development 6
1.5 The transition to monopoly capitalism in Japan and analysis of its economic development 7
1.6 The transition to monopoly capitalism in Russia and analysis of its economic development 8
Conclusion 11
List of used literature 14
Chapter 2. Test 15,
Introduction
The real beginning of modern monopolies dates back, at the earliest, to the 1860s. The first major period of monopoly development begins with the international oppression of industry in the 1870s and extends to the early 1890s." Development of capitalism in the 19th century. went unevenly, asynchronously in different regions of the West. For Europe, it is possible to establish quite precisely the time of the final replacement of the old capitalism with the new: this is precisely the beginning of the 20th century. In the competition between major powers, the balance of power was constantly changing. The “second generation” of capitalist countries entered the world stage, pushing into the background the powers where capitalism and the industrial revolution began much earlier: Russia, Germany and the USA.
In this work we will find out what caused the transition to monopoly capitalism leading countries of the world by the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. The specific features of the transition to monopoly capitalism in England, France, Germany, the USA, Japan and Russia will be examined, as well as a comparative analysis of their economic development will be carried out.
In connection with the outbreak of the global financial crisis in the 21st century, it is no less interesting to learn about the relationship of world economies in the era under review, as well as to get a “vaccine” by learning about the methods of struggle that monopolistic unions used.
Chapter 1. Specific features of the transition to monopoly capitalism in leading countries. Comparative analysis of the economic development of England, France, Germany, USA, Japan and Russia by the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries
1.1 The transition to monopoly capitalism in England and analysis of its economic development
At first, England became, before others, a capitalist country and, by the half of the 19th century, having introduced free trade, claimed to be the “workshop of the whole world,” a supplier of manufactured goods to all countries, which were supposed to supply it, in exchange, with raw materials. But this monopoly of England is already in its last quarter of the XIX century was undermined, because a number of other countries, protected by “protective” duties, developed into independent capitalist states. The process of monopolistic unification of English industry proceeded more slowly than in other countries, especially in old industries where a large number of small and medium enterprises. Among the English monopolies of that time, the dominant form was cartels and syndicates. In the last third of the 19th century. The country experienced its first severe industrial crises. One of the consequences that further worsened the economic situation was the outflow of capital: it became more profitable to invest money in the construction of railways and factories in the colonies or in other European countries. After the First World War, when British industry had to face increased competition in the world market, an accelerated growth of monopolies began, covering all key sectors of production.
1.2 The transition to monopoly capitalism in France and analysis of its economic development
France, which revolutionized all of Europe, continued to develop very slowly and, as a result, by the end of the century it found itself in fourth place in the world, while back in the 1870s. it ranked second (after England). Our own mechanical engineering was poorly developed; machine tools were mainly imported from abroad. The level of concentration of production remained low: there were many small and medium-sized enterprises in the country, which employed no more than 100 people. Many of them specialized in the production of luxury goods. In the village, the majority of farms (71%) were small, and their owners could not use technical and agricultural improvements.
In this situation, banking capital flourished in the country. In terms of its concentration, France was ahead of other countries. By the end of the century, 3/4 of finance was in the hands of several large banks. The financial elite quickly grew rich on loans that were provided to foreign countries, including Russia. In France, a special type of bourgeois has become widespread - not a hard-working entrepreneur, but a rentier.
At the beginning of the 20th century. There was a revival in French industry, as automobile production began to develop successfully, but the overall lag was very noticeable, especially compared to Germany.
Of course, the countries of “old” capitalism - England and France, despite all the problems they faced, continued to be among the strongest countries of the West and occupied key positions in international relations. But their complete and unconditional leadership was shaken.
1.3 The transition to monopoly capitalism in Germany and analysis of its economic development
The countries of “young” capitalism—Russia, Germany, the USA—were placed in fairly tough conditions of competition between the great powers (England and France), and therefore were forced to choose an accelerated, “catching up” pace of development. However, their task was not only to increase capitalist production: only the United States entered the 19th century unencumbered by the burden of feudal remnants. Russia, Germany and Japan had to solve a more difficult task: to eliminate the remnants of feudalism. The further fate of these countries depended on the solution of this problem.
In 1848, Germany, like some other countries of Western Europe, was engulfed in revolution, but its consequences were relatively minor: Germany still remained a semi-feudal country. In the 1870-1880s. Under the “Iron Chancellor” Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898), the German version of capitalism was finally formed.
As in the United States, Germany played a certain role in the economic rise
the later beginning of industrialization, not limited by the presence of obsolete equipment and using the achievements of scientific and technical thought of the last third of the 19th century. German industrial enterprises in the 70s were created on the latest technical base at that time. German
engineering thought of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. in terms of quantity and quality of developments it was second only to the American one. Industrial growth rates in Germany were higher, and wage worker - lower than in England and France. The process of monopolization in Germany had its own characteristics. Unlike the USA, it did not take place on the basis of trusts, but mainly on the basis of cartels and syndicates - agreements between firms and individual enterprises on uniform monopoly prices for products, markets, distribution of raw materials, etc. Due to the country's lack of certain types of industrial raw materials , especially oil, and due to the discrepancy between the developed production apparatus and the payment capabilities of the domestic market, for the German monopolies it had special meaning external market. Unlike England, which exported its capital mainly to the colonies, Germany exported capital to where there were markets for German industry.
1.4 The transition to monopoly capitalism and analysis of US economic development
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. The United States is experiencing an upswing in its economic development and is emerging as number one in the world.
The victory of the capitalist North over the slave-owning South opened these lands for the accelerated development of capitalism. A large domestic market began to grow rapidly in the United States. Main role The free distribution of “free” lands seized from the Indians, carried out under the Homestead Act of 1862, played a role in its formation. The farmer's path to the development of capitalism won in agriculture. As a result, a large domestic market was formed, characterized by high solvency. It was based on farmers. The ever-increasing army of hired workers was constantly replenished with immigrants. The history of US monopoly capital begins with the railroad companies. Railways The United States provided the basis for the emergence of huge joint stock companies, which contributed to the concentration of capital.
The trusts were specific form American monopolies. These were either legally independent companies or groups joint stock companies, led by a holding company - a special holding corporation that itself did not produce anything, but was the owner of controlling stakes in other enterprises. Trusts embodied a form of capital centralization that made it possible to carry out a unified technical and economic policy, concentrate investment in critical areas. At the same time, trusts personified the most shameless, crude form of monopolies and the dominance of finance capital.
1.5 The transition to monopoly capitalism in Japan and analysis of its economic development
The growth of Japanese industrial production was facilitated by monetary reform and the introduction of the gold standard. The country's domestic market was very narrow, which predetermined the one-sided nature of industrial production: the textile industry predominated. Until the end of the 90s. XIX century There was practically no production of iron and steel.
In the 80s Monopolies arose in Japan. Among the first were the trading and banking companies Mitsui (mining and textile industries), Mitsubishi (navigation, transport engineering).
Other companies also monopolized (Asano, Fundjita, Okura, Furakawa, Kawasaki). All of them received support from the government. Monopolies arose mainly in the form of cartels, syndicates and concerns.
In the 70s and especially in the 80s, intense industrial engineering. In 1868-1877 489 were created, and in 1878-1885. - 800 new industrial enterprises
But only rich merchant houses that had formed in the feudal era (Mitsui and others) had the capital to create large factory enterprises, which preferred to engage in credit and trade-usury operations that brought large profits.
Under such conditions, government intervention played an important role in Japan's industrialization. Large funds, mobilized by the government through a set of huge taxes on the population, were invested in the construction of industrial enterprises. The government began the construction of military factories and arsenals, large shipyards and ironworks. In other industries, so-called “model enterprises” were built: large paper-spinning, silk-winding, weaving, match-making and other factories. In the 1980s, most of the “model enterprises” were sold at very low prices to private entrepreneurs.
1.6 The transition to monopoly capitalism in Russia and analysis of its economic development
By the 80s. XIX century The industrial revolution is being completed in the most important branches of Russian industry - metallurgical, mining, coal (wool, cotton, beet-sugar industries. Important role Railway construction, which developed intensively in the late 60s and early 70s, played a role in the post-reform economic development of the Russian Empire. It opened the most remote and closed areas to capitalism - Central Asia, Siberia, the Caucasus. Moreover, Russia already (late 1860s-early 1880s), using the experience of the West, speeding up railway construction, the growth of factories and factories, managed to sharply reduce (compared to the West) the “long incubation period for the development of machine production.” And also (as a fixation of fact-proof of the possibility of a shortened version of capitalist development): “the Russian bourgeoisie in the 60-70s managed to immediately introduce the entire mechanism of exchange (banks, credit societies, etc.), the development of which required entire centuries in the West ".
A feature of the development of Russian capitalism is the early emergence (by Western European standards) of monopolistic tendencies. The first conclusion regarding monopoly capitalism in Russia, formulated in the mid-to-second half of the 1950s, stated that the main patterns of development of domestic monopoly associations are similar to Western European ones. At the same time, deepening and clarifying this conclusion showed that monopolization in Russia occurred at a level of development of productive forces that in the countries of classical capitalism corresponded to the period of free competition. The consequence of this situation was an extreme increase in the unevenness of economic development of different industries and different regions of the country: the contraction and concentration of the productive forces of society in some points led to the denudation of other fragments of the economic space. And if “Prodvagon” and “Prodparovoz” monopolized up to 90 percent of the production and sales of the corresponding products, then in bridge construction monopolization covered about 37 percent of sales, in agricultural machine building - about a third of production and sales, and the machine tool industry was generally almost unaffected by these processes. In addition, the emergence of monopolies of the second type (trusts, concerns) in Russia occurred simultaneously with the formation of cartels and syndicates, i.e. monopolies of the first type, which broke the classical sequence of monopolization processes. At the same time, using Russian material, Soviet researchers also established a certain general pattern, apparently, of the wave-like movement of the life of monopolies: in conditions of crisis and depression, the tendency towards horizontal concentration (cartels, syndicates) prevailed, and during the period of economic growth - the desire for combination, i.e. . to vertical concentration. (Russia)
Conclusion
The First World War, together with the enormous theft of productive forces and the exacerbation of class contradictions, led to further concentration of industry and the strengthening of monopoly capital. The lack of raw materials and labor, significant costs associated with the switching of a number of industries to military production, and a number of other factors caused by wartime conditions, contributed to the concentration of production on the largest, best technically equipped and organizationally most powerful enterprises. During the war, big capital received huge profits while at the same time unprecedented impoverishment of the working masses and the ruin of many small entrepreneurs. During the war, the monopolies further subjugated the state apparatus and used it to enrich themselves.
It is instructive to look at the list of those means of the modern, newest, civilized struggle for “organization” that monopolistic unions resort to: 1) deprivation of raw materials (“one of the most important methods for forcing one to join a cartel”); 2) deprivation of workers through “alliances” (i.e. agreements between capitalists and workers’ unions so that the latter will only accept work in cartelized enterprises); 3) deprivation of transportation; 4) deprivation of sales; 5) an agreement with the buyer on conducting trade relations exclusively with cartels; 6) systematic reduction of prices (to ruin “outsiders”, i.e. enterprises not subordinate to monopolists, millions are spent to known time sell below cost); 7) deprivation of credit; 8) announcement of a boycott.
The main results of the history of monopolies: 1) 1860 and 1870 - the highest, maximum stage of development of free competition. Monopolies are only barely visible embryos. 2) After the crisis of 1873, there was a wide development of cartels, but they were still an exception. They are not strong yet. They are still a passing phenomenon. 3) The rise of the end of the 19th century and the crisis of 1900-1903: cartels become one of the foundations of all economic life. Capitalism turned into imperialism.
It should be noted that there are four main types of monopolies or the main manifestations of monopoly capitalism characteristic of the era under consideration - late XIX and the beginning of the 20th century.
Firstly, monopoly grew out of the concentration of production at a very high stage of its development. These are monopolistic capitalist unions, cartels, syndicates, and trusts. They play a huge role in modern economic life. By the beginning of the 20th century, they gained complete predominance in advanced countries, and if the first steps along the path of cartelization were taken earlier by countries with high protective tariffs (Germany, America), then England with its free trade system showed only a little later the same basic fact: the birth of monopolies from the concentration of production.
Secondly, monopolies led to an increased seizure of the most important sources of raw materials, especially for the main, and most cartelized, industries of capitalist society: coal and iron. Monopolistic possession of the most important sources of raw materials has greatly increased the power of big capital and aggravated the contradiction between cartelized and non-cartelized industry.
Thirdly, the monopoly grew out of banks. They have transformed from modest intermediary enterprises into monopolists of financial capital. Some three to five largest banks of any of the most advanced capitalist nations have carried out a “personal union” of industrial and banking capital, concentrated in their hands the control of billions and billions, constituting the majority of the capital and monetary income of the entire country. A financial oligarchy that imposes a dense network of relationships of dependence on all economic and political institutions of modern bourgeois society without exception. Fourthly, the monopoly grew out of colonial policy. To the numerous “old” motives of colonial policy, finance capital added the struggle for sources of raw materials, for the export of capital, for “spheres of influence” - that is, areas of profitable deals, concessions, monopoly profits, etc. - and finally for economic territory in general. When European powers occupied, for example, one tenth of Africa with their colonies, as was the case back in 1876, then colonial policy could develop non-monopolistically according to the type of, so to speak, “free-conquest” occupation of land. But when 9/10 of Africa was captured (by 1900), when the whole world was divided, the era of monopoly ownership of colonies inevitably began, and, consequently, a particularly intensified struggle for the division and redivision of the world.
Bibliography
- Zhamin V.A. Economic history capitalist countries. M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 1986. pp. 170-182. (11/17/2008).
- Lenin V.I. Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism http://evrika.tsi.lv/index.php?name=texts&file=show&f=371 (11/16/2008)
- Leontyev L. A. "Capitalist mode of production." M., 1961 http://www.kredit-moskva.ru/lit02.html (11/16/2008).
- Khachaturyan V.M. History of World Civilizations from ancient times to the end of the 20th century http://alleng.narod.ru/d/hist_vm/hist003.zip.(11/16/2008).
- Shepeleva V.P. Tutorial"Revolutionology. The problem of prerequisites revolutionary process 1917 in Russia based on materials from domestic and foreign historiography." Part three. http://www.humanities.edu.ru/db/msg/25656 (11/15/2008).
- Shigalin G. I. Military economics first world war. - M.: Military Publishing House, 1956. http://militera.lib.ru/research/shigalin_gi/14.html (11/15/2008).
Chapter 2. Test
Task: Establish the correspondence of the economic program to its nationality and chronology:
IN. Modern period(70-90s of XX century)
Answer:
|
1. John May's economic plan |
After World War I and the interwar period (1919-1939). |
|
|
2. F. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” |
After World War I and the interwar period (1919-1939). |
|
|
3. “New Order” by A. Hitler |
After World War II (40-60s of the XX century) (I would like to note that the idea of the New Order arose before 1939, and its implementation began in 1939) |
Germany |
|
4. Marshall Plan |
After World War II (40-60s of the XX century) |
|
|
5. L. Erhard program |
After World War II (40-60s of the XX century) |
|
|
6. “Reverse Course” - Dodge Shopa |
After World War II (40-60s of the XX century) |
representatives of the American monopoly - bankers J. Dodge and K. Shoup - developed a “reverse exchange rate” program in order to restore the Japanese economy after the Second World War Important! All submitted Tests for free downloading are intended for drawing up a plan or basis for your own scientific works. Friends! You have a unique opportunity to help students just like you! If our site helped you find the job you need, then you certainly understand how the job you add can make the work of others easier. If the test, in your opinion, Bad quality, or you have already come across this work, please let us know. |
From a small private farm. As long as human society had primitive tools that made it possible to somehow cultivate the land, there could be no talk of any capitalism. The capitalist mode of production began to emerge with the invention machine production, when machines began to replace the labor of a significant number of small individual producers - peasants and artisans. But the machines required workers - those who would be ready to work for a capitalist for a bowl of stew for days on end. There were no such people in feudal society until the peasants forcibly They did not deprive them of their land and drive them out of their homes. Only when the beggars appeared, who did not have at their disposal the means of production - land, plows, horses, etc., allowing them to produce everything they needed for life on their own, people appeared who were ready to give part of their labor for free to the owners of the machines - the bourgeoisie. These people began to be called proletarians or working class. As capitalism developed, it destroyed the remnants of the old feudal mode of production (landownership, feudal estates, etc.), and gradually subjugated all spheres of economic activity of human society. From the many small capitalist enterprises, in the course of fierce competition, first medium-sized enterprises emerged, and then large enterprises. Economic crises (crises of overproduction), periodically shaking the capitalist world, contributed to the further concentration of capital and the emergence of super-large enterprises - monopolies, dominating in one or another area of the economy and including many interdependent enterprises and even entire sectors of industry and agriculture. The era of monopoly capital began - imperialism, in which capitalist competition was largely replaced by the policy of monopolies based on the power of the bourgeois state.
Not all countries in the world simultaneously transitioned to capitalism. In some, the new social system began to develop earlier, in others - later. Those countries in which feudal production relations were still preserved naturally became dependent on more advanced, capitalist countries, becoming their colonies, from where the latter received raw materials, often labor, and sold their goods there. Those countries that switched to capitalism earlier than others (for example, England, France, the USA) received a clear advantage over countries where capitalism finally won later (Germany, Japan, etc.). But the laws of capitalist competition operated not only within each individual country capitalist world, but also between countries, forcing them to constantly fight with each other for the best markets for raw materials, sales, investment of capital, etc. As a result, by the end of the 20th century, the capitalist world seemed to be divided into two parts - the countries of the capitalist center and dependent countries, between which there is a clear division of labor - the first, as we said above, produce the means of production, and the second - they serve them in a wide variety of ways. Therefore, machine tool and mechanical engineering in developed capitalist countries with private ownership of the means of production has not only been preserved, but also exists quite decently (if we consider the existence of a dying social system decent), because these enterprises were already organized and built by large capital.
In Russia and other post-socialist countries the situation is completely different. Modern Russian capitalism arose from socialism– a higher social system, where the basis of production relations was public property for the means of production. Russian capitalism - the result temporarily the victorious bourgeois counter-revolution in socialist society, a consequence of the colossal social regression- a step back along the path of social development, and not a product of the natural progressive development of society, like the capitalism of Western countries, which emerged from the depths of feudalism.
Yes, the laws of capitalism in the countries of the capitalist center and in capitalist Russia are now the same, but starting conditions the formation of their and our today's capitalism different. And the eras when Western capitalism developed and the current Russian one are also different. Therefore, it is impossible to mechanically transfer to Russia the picture that takes place today in the developed capitalist countries of the world. The capitalism of Western countries developed its productive forces from hand tools, replacing them with increasingly more advanced machines. Modern Russian capitalism, having emerged from a higher social system, in order to strengthen itself and break socialist production relations, was forced to destroy part of the powerful productive forces of socialism, which were initially based not just on large-scale machine production, but on super-large production - working within the framework of the entire society. They were based on social ownership of the means of production and the planning that directly follows from it, and not competition, as under capitalism, therefore the productive forces of socialism were organized in a way that was most convenient for the socialist production relations that existed in society, focused not on profit, but on useful to the whole society.
To put it simply, Soviet socialism is one huge monopoly the size of the entire USSR, the owners of which were all citizens of the Soviet country. In order to make all the property of this “super-monopoly” the private property of a narrow layer of people (the current big Russian bourgeoisie and oligarchy), it should not have been consolidated, as capitalism, which had been developing spontaneously for centuries in Europe, the USA and other countries of the world, had done in its time, but on the contrary – split into small parts and transfer them to private individuals. With private property, unified centralized planning is impossible, the market and its laws begin to operate there - the laws of the capitalist mode of production, the most important of which are the laws of anarchy and the competition directly resulting from it again lead to the consolidation of enterprises (concentration of capital) and the formation of monopolies, concentrating the main property in the hands few super-rich individuals - oligarchs. The laws of social development clearly showed the unfortunate reformers that their action is objective and does not depend on the will of individual people. That these laws should have been taken into account and not harbored naive illusions. Pink capitalism with many small owners cannot exist forever - the very laws of capitalism inevitably lead it to the state of mature, monopoly capitalism, thereby preparing all the conditions for a new socio-economic system - socialism.
Today Russian economy is largely monopolized, and our country again faces a new socialist revolution, the main task of which is to destroy the old one, no longer suitable for further development society private ownership of the means of production. Another thing is that this process of learning long-proven scientific truths in practice was not without costs. The temporary transition from socialism to capitalism had to be paid for by the destruction of the productive forces of the USSR - its enormous means of production, unique technologies and qualified scientific, engineering and technical personnel.
No one was going to give up a place in the capitalist center for the new capitalist Russia. Its destiny was predetermined in advance - a semi-colony country, a raw materials appendage of the leading capitalist powers of the world. Predetermined not so much by the desire of the world oligarchy, but also by the very laws of capitalism. It was the laws of capitalism that forced a significant part of the newly minted Russian capitalists to destroy the enterprises that they inherited during the division of the Soviet national property, and not their personal inability or lack of professionalism.
Loading...
