Civil society is one of the most important characteristics of the modern state, with which it inevitably coexists and establishes very close and diverse relationships12. The concept of "civil society" has its roots in the concepts of the policy of Aristotle, Cicero and the ideas of the so-called natural law.
According to this tradition, this concept acts as a synonym for the term " political society* and therefore, "the state*. “Civil society* and “political society* in the sense of the state* were interchangeable terms. Thus, among the ancient Greek thinkers, the concept of "political" covered all the most important spheres of society - family, religion, education, artistic culture, art, etc. In antiquity, just like under feudalism, society had a political character. An individual person did not think of himself as an independent person. The whole life of society was permeated with the state, political principle. Until the 18th century in the minds of most researchers, primarily ordinary people, society is still merged with the state, embodied in it, there is no concept of law that precedes the political system and is higher. Thus, the very idea of individual human rights, which should limit state power, is missing. The situation began to change somewhat in the 18th century. during the transition from feudalism to the New Age, but it is interesting that even such well-known thinkers of the New Age as Locke, Rousseau, Kant, who did a lot to develop the ideas of personal freedom and civil status, nevertheless used the concepts of "civil society" and "state*" as synonyms.
The question of the time of occurrence civil society remains largely debatable. There are several radically different points of view on this matter: civil society arose along with the emergence of the state as such, that is, we can talk about the existence of civil society both in antiquity and in the Middle Ages.
Civil society is typical only for the private capitalist liberal stage of development (XVIII-XIX centuries). J. Locke defined it as “a union of owners to protect their property”, M. Weber - as “a set of citizens united in associations * In modern conditions, the border between civil society and the state has been erased, therefore, it is not legal to talk about civil society. Civil society is a historical phenomenon that arises at a certain stage in the development of human society. The community of people and civil society are not the same thing. The emergence of civil society itself is directly related to the emergence of a citizen as an independent and self-conscious individual member.
132 society endowed with a certain set of rights and freedoms. Over time, with the development of the rule of law, the boundary between civil society and the state is not only not erased, but becomes even more tangible.
Researchers identify two definitions of civil society: 1)
the whole system of non-state relations between all members of society who are not under the direct control of the state; 2)
community most active citizens and their associations (movements, pressure groups, collectives of organs local government, professional, environmental, cultural, national associations), capable of defending their interests in an organized manner and, in accordance with the procedure established by law, seek their satisfaction from the state.
Thus, this is not just a certain set of people, but a community of civilized, conscious and active citizens.
The idea of civil society has gone through a long evolution in the history of political thought, while it has almost always been perceived as something opposite to the state.
The founder of the very idea of civil society can be considered the English philosopher, one of the authors of the theory of the social contract D. Locke, whose main idea of creativity was the legally guaranteed protection of freedom and property of a person from possible arbitrariness on the part of the state. To do this, he considered it necessary to maintain control by society over the state, which would not allow him to become uncontrolled and turn into a despot. It should retain in its hands exactly as much authority as it will be delegated to it. social contract. But the solution of such a problem requires, according to Locke, certain efforts on the part of society itself - the majority in it should be free and conscious citizens who actively participate in political life. The experience of subsequent political development shows that the fulfillment of precisely this condition is the most important prerequisite for democracy.
Another tradition in the study of civil society is the approach of G. Hegel, who considered civil society as a set of individuals who satisfy their needs with the help of labor. The basis of civil society is private property. However, not civil society, according to G. Hegel, was the driving force of progress, but the state. This is due to the fact that it is the state that personifies all conceivable virtues and is the highest embodiment of the world self-developing idea (world spirit), and therefore embodies the highest mind. The individual people who make up civil society, guided by selfish material interests and reason, cannot overcome the chaos in relations and come to perfect order. Therefore, civil society, according to Hegel, is only a transitional stage, from which people must move into a state subordinate to the state, completely submit to it and dissolve in it.
The founder of the ideology of communism, K. Marx, viewed civil society in a very contradictory way. Within the framework of the doctrine he created about the economic basis and superstructure, which included the state, law, morality, religion, Marx considered civil society as an object of exploitation by the state, which is in the hands of the bourgeois class, and also as a sphere that is made up of isolated and alienated from each other friend of the bourgeois-proprietors; such a state of society is imperfect, because people are alienated from each other, and a person cannot be truly free. K. Marx associated the possibility of overcoming the gap between civil society and the state with the creation of a new type of society - communism, in which there is no state, and individual rights and interests merge with collective ones within the framework of free association. Thus, selfish aspirations, the exploitation of man by man and alienation between people will be overcome. This presupposes the absorption of civil society of owners by a new collectivist community, since bourgeois society will be absent in principle.
From the point of view of the Italian Marxist A. Gramsci (“Prison Notebooks”), the social purpose of civil society is to ensure effective interaction between the state and the economy. It transmits signals to the state about the needs of the economy and adjusts, taking into account the interests of specific people, those general rules of conduct that the state introduces. In addition, in a situation of acute state (economic, political) crisis, civil society acts as the force that, due to the self-organization of citizens, is able to save society (i.e., society) from decay and degeneration. In this case, it acts as a “reserve state*.
In the modern sense, within the framework of the democratic concept of the state and politics, civil society is a set of voluntary associations of citizens independent of the state, for example, associations of depositors, consumers, farmers, entrepreneurs, etc., whose members, not being professional politicians, are organized and active influence state power in order to achieve the satisfaction of the interests of those social groups whose interests they represent. To solve their problems, they use a variety of means: they are in contact with government officials, political parties and parliament deputies (with a promise of support in exchange for meeting their demands), they try to pass laws and other decisions that are beneficial to them through parliament, they organize mass campaigns in order to draw public attention to their problems, and finally, they themselves participate in elections in legislatures local and national levels, as well as in the composition of local governments.
For the interested groups that make up civil society, such a form of influence on the authorities and public opinion as a political protest in the form of demonstrations, rallies, civil disobedience actions, pickets, etc. is also possible. patriarchal-subject (support
power in exchange for social guarantees) relationship to the state.
But civil society cannot be unified organizational structure, although it includes various organizational-structured mass communities, associations, unions, etc. The meaning of its activity is not in constant struggle, but mainly in the practical implementation of political, economic and other various rights of the population. Some exceptions are state-recognised elements of the structure of civil society, for example, independent trade unions, which are called upon to protect the professional interests of workers by definition. Moreover, in conditions of real democracy and sustainable development, civil society does not show itself much. A certain political activity of civil society is found in cases where the authorities are trying to noticeably infringe on the habitual rights of citizens or upset the balance of power. Moreover, the process of violation of the rights of subjects by the bureaucratic apparatus is natural, since any government strives for self-sufficiency, independence from society and the notorious elitism. Some researchers note that this stems from the very depravity of human nature, which includes the desire to dominate, seize other people's property and restrict the rights of others. With the development of civilization, this desire was combined with the economic interests of the rulers-owners, united in global social class structures, which, according to Marx, are in a permanent class struggle. This objectively conditioned political and social struggle contains, if not the whole essence, then at least an important component of the historical process. Therefore, public pressure on the authorities must be constantly exerted, restraining the authorities and regularly updating the power structures at the expense of the best representatives of the people. The confrontation between the state and civil society should not be acute, of course, if there is no objective need for this. Recently, the political authorities in Russia have assumed the function of coordinating the development of civil society. A number of congresses of civil organizations were held, and the “Public Chamber* was formed. The problem of the formation of a modern civil society in Russia is one of the most acute and controversial. The president, the government parties, the political opposition, and human rights organizations speak about the need to solve this problem, but they all put their own meaning into this concept, and in some cases exactly the opposite. Let's look at some striking examples.
A well-known political strategist and former anti-Soviet dissident Gleb Pavlovsky wrote, in particular, that “civil society is, of course, an invention, like any theoretical concept. The idea is quite old. But in the European tradition from the 17th century. this concept is simultaneously used as a political tool. In the 19th century theory was developed in classical versions - from Hegel to Mill, and in the XX century. the most famous example is the Polish "Solidarity" *, which was interpreted precisely as an uprising of civil society. The theory of civil society is present in the documents of European parties of almost the entire spectrum, except for the most extreme ones. She is considered a sacred cow. Like any sacred cow, she is suspicious*. A number of politicians and researchers generally believe that there is no civil society in principle in Russia.
But Ella Pamfilova, head of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for promoting the development of civil society institutions and human rights, said that opinions about the absence of civil society in Russia are clearly exaggerated. “There is nothing like it, despite many things we don’t like*. According to Pamfilova, civil society exists in Russia and is developing. The created Council for the Promotion of the Development of Civil Society was formed through the transformation of the commission on human rights under the President. The Council sees its main goal in protecting Democratic Foundations, development judicial system and
fight against corruption. And for the Council, the fight against corruption came to the fore. The Chairman of the Council believes that it is necessary to fight corruption in Russia based on independent public organizations who should be helped to develop. The state is obliged to protect their activities so that there are normal independent organizations in the country that are guided by charters, laws *, and not “criminal *.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a major multi-billionaire businessman and now a prisoner, wrote in his letters from prison that “civil society more often hinders business than helps, because it defends the rights of employees, protects against unceremonious interference environment, the openness of economic projects, limits corruption, and all this reduces profits. Entrepreneur - I say it like former leader one of the largest oil companies in Russia - it is much easier to negotiate with a handful of moderately greedy officials than to coordinate their actions with an extensive and capable network of public institutions. Business does not demand liberal reforms in the political sphere, it is not obsessed with the mania of freedom, it always coexists with the state regime that exists, and above all wants the regime to protect it from civil society and hired workers. Therefore, business, especially big business, is doomed to fight a real (not fake) civil society*.
In conditions of ideological pluralism, the existence of different positions is a completely normal phenomenon. Of course, there are figures of all political stripes who are convinced of the existence of the truth known only to them and are making efforts of a totalitarian nature to introduce it into public opinion. They set one against the other, without thinking about the fact that they objectively embody the covenant of Bolshevism “Whoever is not with us is against us!”*. And ultra-patriots, and ultra-liberals, and nationalists, and cosmopolitans, and religious fanatics, and anti-religious fobis, and radicals and extremists - they are all dangerous for the new Russian democracy,
since, to put it mildly, they do not contribute to the achievement of a certain civil consensus, on the basis of which only a genuine civil society in Russia is possible. But at the same time, it is also obvious that adherents of various value systems, united in organizations and groups, political parties and movements themselves are or may in the future be subjects of civil society (with the exception of terrorists, chauvinists, racists, xenophobes, who, if they form, then exclusively anti-civil society). We are deeply convinced that there is a basis for ensuring Russian unity on the basis of patriotism and tolerance, for strengthening the civil Russian nation, recognizing the interdependence of human rights in its individual, collective and state dimensions within the framework of civil society and the rule of law.
Therefore, social scientists are faced with the task of studying the specific Russian civil society in its real state. A priori, it is clear that this society is not civil in the Western sense, but it is also obvious that a certain phenomenon of the civil community in Russia actually existed and still exists today. The same Gleb Pavlovsky noted that “1991 was made by organizations of civil society, still Soviet civil society, and by no means by parties, not by “opposition political forces” (as they now write retroactively): there were simply no such. And it was precisely the uprising of the Soviet civil society against the Soviet political system. Not a structureless uprising, not a blind street revolt, but an uprising first of dozens, then hundreds of thousands of small organizations - down to organizations, microdistricts, municipal organizations *.
V.V. Putin welcomes all associations and associations of citizens, with the exception of those that operate on the funds of foreign funds. In turn, a number of human rights organizations categorically deny the role of the state in the formation of civil society in principle. For its successful and efficient
completion requires the creation of a whole range of tasks, among which the main ones are: 1)
creation of the institution of private (collective and individual) owners of the means of production, development of economic competition, activity, independence, equality of economic entities; 2)
no undivided regime political power, decentralization and redistribution powers of authority; 3)
emancipation of human consciousness, strengthening the sense of personal dignity, faith in one's strengths and capabilities, overcoming passivity in solving social and political issues.
A modern democratic state and civil society are ideally inextricably linked and complement each other. Thus, a state without control by active and conscious citizens would not be democratic, but authoritarian, corrupt and inefficient. At the same time, without a state that actually enforces laws and legal regulations by all members of society, there is not a conscious civil society, but chaos, anarchy and war of all against all.
Along with the legal, in modern political theory and practice, such a concept as “ welfare state*. His very idea is based on a long tradition in the history of political thought, whose adherents Plato, Campanella, Rousseau, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen - sought to create a model of a more just and reasonable society, where everyone would take care of everyone and everyone about everyone. This model is rejected by liberals, who believe that the very idea of such a state is dangerous, since any restriction individual freedom in the interests of greater equality leads to despotism, and the excessive guardianship of society in relation to the individual makes him infantile and wean him from economic and political activity. Supporters of the doctrine of the liberal state proceed from the fact that the state should interfere minimally in the economy and private life of citizens and is
140 a kind of "night watchman", that is, a cheap state with a small bureaucracy that ensures the operation of laws and creates favorable conditions for private entrepreneurship.
However, as the political practice of the 20th century shows, a state of this type in its pure form practically does not exist. Overcoming the consequences of the "Great Depression" of the 1930s, Roosevelt implemented a "New Deal" policy focused on active government intervention in the economy. During the neoliberal economic policy of M. Thatcher in Great Britain and R. Reagan in the USA in the 1980s. their governments did not completely abandon state regulation of the economy. Every modern state, to one degree or another, has to take on the functions of social protection and economic regulation. Without state-directed development of the social sphere, science and education, development and introduction of new technologies into production, the dynamic development of the economy and a high standard of living are hardly possible. Experience shows that the highest level and quality of life has been achieved today in countries that most consistently embody the model of state regulation of the social sphere (France, Finland, Sweden, Canada).
Ideally, a welfare state seeks to achieve equality of starting chances in economic life, to establish in society the principles of social justice, stability and solidarity. To do this, it strives to provide people from various social strata with access to quality education and obtaining a profession that is quoted on the market, implements various social programs to support young talents in various fields, provide employment, etc. The system of social partnership contributes to strengthening social solidarity, in which all economic decisions are accepted by coordinating the interests of three parties: the government, entrepreneurs and trade unions.
The basis of the economic policy of the welfare state is a market economy, free competition, private entrepreneurship - plus the redistribution of income from prosperous to less prosperous social groups through taxes and the state budget in the form of social programs. The redistributed incomes go to public consumption funds, from where they are subsequently directed to the implementation of specific social programs. At the same time, the tax burden can be very high, but most citizens (for example, Sweden) are willing to pay such a price for social guarantees and political stability provided by the state.
Reliance on special legislation is of great importance for the effective functioning of the welfare state model. So, for example, in Germany, where this model was laid down by the economic reforms of the 40s. L. Erhard and enshrined in the subsequent policy of the Christian (CDU / CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD), who successively replaced each other in power, there are a large number of such social laws. There are laws on maximum employment, which the government of the country is obliged to provide, protection of the workplace and working hours of employees, enterprise management, in accordance with which the owner of a private enterprise is obliged to coordinate his actions and decisions (on the development of production, layoffs, lower prices and wages). wages) with a board of representatives of the administration, shareholders and employees acting on it.
At the same time, an effective welfare state must maintain a certain balance between market competition and state regulation. Otherwise, as the experience of active construction of a welfare state in the 60-70s shows. in many Western countries, excessive state intervention and patronage will entail very negative consequences: the growth of the budget deficit, inflation, reduced investment, reduced business activity and increased dependency.
In the USSR, there were state social guarantees for workers, which were eliminated after the transition to market relations in society, and state of the art the country does not have to create a socially oriented statehood. AT modern Russia there is a huge gap between the wealthy and socially disadvantaged strata of society, the absence of traditions of social partnership, poverty and underdevelopment of the social sphere. Ongoing reform social security and health care clearly did not lead to positive results. It may be necessary to take into account the experience of social states in Northern Europe, the best experience from the social policy of the socialist USSR, the traditions of state regulation of the economy and social care, this will create elements of a socially oriented economy.
Control questions 1.
How is the nature of the state understood in modern political science? What are the main hypotheses of the origin of the state in political, historical and economic sciences? 2.
What are the main socio-economic and political processes associated with the emergence of a Western European state of the modern type? 3.
What are the functions of the modern state? How do the states of the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America differ from it in terms of their goals and objectives? four.
What are the main forms of government (and their varieties) in modern world? What are their strengths and weaknesses? What form of government has established itself in modern Russia? 5.
What role does the referendum play in the political life of modern states? What are the differences in the mechanism of its implementation in different countries peace? 6.
Describe the main forms territorial arrangement modern state. What are their relative advantages and disadvantages? 7.
Define civil society. What are its main character traits and the main prerequisites for the emergence? How is its relationship with the state built? What factors hindered and hinder the process of formation of civil society in the previous and modern history of Russia? eight.
What are the main characteristic features and institutions of the modern legal state. What are the necessary conditions for its approval and effective functioning? 9.
What is the meaning of the concept of "welfare state" today? What functions is it intended to perform? What are the objective difficulties of establishing a certain model in modern Russia?
For the first time the concept of "civil society" appeared in the XVII century. in the works of T. Hobbes, G. Grotius, J. Locke and developed in the 18th century. S. Montesquieu, V. Humboldt, D. Vico and other researchers.
With the variety of essential characteristics of modern civil society by various authors, it is indisputable that: a) it is based on law; b) purposefully aimed at ensuring the realization of the interests of a citizen, a person; c) individuals in it are equal; d) they enter into a relationship by their own mutual will; e) are the initiators of the creation of their formations in the process of realizing their own interests. So modern
legal civil society - it is a system of relations in which equal individuals and the associations formed by them, in accordance with their free will on the basis of law, realize their interests. In civil society, the free will of the individual is realized, his private interests in all areas of life and activity, but above all and mainly in the defining sphere - economic.
The entire history of civilization testifies to the fact that private property lies at the heart of economic progress, and hence of society as a whole, and civil society is nothing but the contractual relations of private owners. Only in the presence of private property can people enter into relationships with each other as independent both from each other and from the state.
structural elements civil society are: property, free labor, entrepreneurship, public associations, family, education, science, culture, upbringing, free media.
Civil society is the most important prerequisite for the formation of a social legal state. The state is conditioned by civil society. Without a civil society there is no rule of law, just as there can be no civil society without a rule of law. In relation to civil society, the state should issue legal laws providing for economic and political pluralism, parity of forms of ownership, multi-party system, equality of subjects of law, international recognized rights rights, their guarantees, to implement social programs, to carry out due protection of everything that relates to ensuring the well-being of citizens, their decent standard of living.
Structural economic elements civil society are: private property along with other parity forms of ownership, joint-stock companies, concerns, consortiums and other business associations; social divisions - classes, nations, other strata; public formations - political parties, other public organizations created by the free will of members of society, traditional - families, interest clubs and other communities.
Civil society is based on law, which cannot be identified with current legislation. Civil society cannot exist outside of law. Three main criteria predetermine the existence of a civil society - political, legal, socio-economic. The political indicator of civil society is the presence of a democratic regime for the exercise of state power, the legal one is legal legislation, socio-economic - the middle class.
The reasons for the emergence of civil society and its development are rooted in the objectively determined social needs of people, primarily economic, spilling out in contradictions. Reasonable, fair resolution of contradictions gives rise to civil society. Even Democritus argued that all changes in society are associated with need. The need, the contradictions that have aggravated in the natural state of people in connection with the satisfaction of vital needs, have necessitated a way out of the crisis by establishing a fair order obligatory for all - a legal order protected by the power of such a unity of people, which can be called a state-society.
Civil society was born long before it began to be theoretically comprehended as such. Civil society as a system of relations in which equal individuals and the associations formed by them, in accordance with their free will on the basis of law, realize their interests, is based on private property middle-income and is born with its emergence. It is with the advent of private property that the genesis of civil society begins. According to J. J. Rousseau, the first who, having fenced off a piece of land, said: “This is mine!” Was the true founder of civil society.
Conceptual ideas about the essence of civil society, or rather, the foundations of its theory, were formulated by Aristotle. The great analyst, without resorting to the concept of "civil society", in fact, substantiated its economic, social, political and legal prerequisites in his ethical and political-legal doctrine of the golden mean as the main virtue, of moderation in human behavior, of the average private property and average income, about the middle class as the social, economic and political basis of the policy (society-state), its correct forms of exercising state power, pursuing the common good, regulating relations between people in accordance with law, embodying political justice, due to the action of natural laws . Aristotle paid special attention to the middle class, the average private property. Too rich he called insolent and scoundrels, and the very poor - ship's mob. Extreme poverty, Aristotle believed, corrupts no less than wealth; both extreme classes are equally dangerous for the state. Sufficient citizens, whose position occupies the middle between the two extremes, serve as the natural support of the state.
For the first time, civil society really emerges in Ancient Greece - the birthplace of democracy - in the 6th century. BC e. with the establishment of democratic reforms initiated by the famous sage Solon, and then Pericles, in which a person is legally endowed with the relevant rights as the basis of his life, including individual freedom, equality before the law, the right to a land plot, the right to participate in the affairs of the state, in its elected bodies , in the establishment of laws, in the administration of justice.
The second stage in the development of civil society is associated with a significant expansion of the circle of subjects of civil society and the range of their more complicated relations in ancient Rome, directly predetermined by the high level of development of the system of Roman law, which, according to K. Marx, was the classical law of a society based on private property. In ancient Rome, all the free were subjects of civil society, and natural law (jus naturale) as component private law extended to all slaves. Roman jurists, whose works were given the force of law by the law of Valentinian III on quotation, recognized the ability of slaves to enter into transactions, to have the rights and obligations provided for by contracts.
The third stage of civil society begins in England in the thirteenth century. with the approval of parliamentarism, the adoption of the Magna Carta in 1215 and is rapidly developing with the expansion of individual rights provided for by the Petition of Rights of 1628, the document called the Habeas Corpus Act (1628), the Declaration of Rights of 1688, the Bill of Rights of 1689 .
characteristic feature English civil society is its gradual separation from the state (monarchical power), which began in the XIII century. and significantly manifested in the course of the bourgeois revolution in the 17th century, fixed in the relevant legal acts.
The fourth stage in the development of civil society began with the famous French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789, adopted by the National Assembly of France, which proclaimed justice, freedom, equality, security, fraternity, resistance to oppression, religious tolerance, control of the state by society, inviolability of private property, equality of all citizens , allowing them everything that is not prohibited by law, providing for guarantees of human rights and other legal foundations of civil society. These rights and freedoms were acquired as a result of the French Revolution of 1789-1794.
The fifth stage of civil society, which continues to the present, is associated with the fall of dictatorial, fascist, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes during the Second World War and after it, with the creation of the United Nations and other interstate structures actively contributing to the proclamation of universal human rights, building them on international legal level. The beginning of the formation of modern international civil society should be considered the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948, which resulted in more than fifty declarations, acts, conventions, fixing a significant expansion of human rights, their universalization and guarantee. Among these acts, the most significant international act about economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and political rights, which entered into force in 1976. Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these acts, one might say, formed the international bill of universal human rights.
Modern civil society in the legal aspect is characterized by the consolidation of universal human rights, starting with the child, in all important areas of people's lives and activities, raising them to the international legal level with an appropriate mechanism for their protection; in the political - multi-party system, political pluralism; in the ideological - the absence of a dominant ideology, humanism; in the economic - the variety of forms and types of ownership, competition, anti-monopoly, wages according to work, ensuring the conditions for its security; in the social - the predominance of the middle class, general prosperity, special care for children, the disabled, those with many children, the low-income.
(Click on the picture)
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
FEDERAL STATE BUDGET EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
"TYUMEN STATE UNIVERSITY"
BRANCH OF TYUMGU IN TOBOLSK
Faculty of History, Economics and Management
Department of Economics, Management and Law
Work program of the discipline
"FOUNDATIONS OF THE WELFARE STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY"
040400.62 - "Social work"
Qualification (degree) of the graduate
Bachelor
Form of study
full-time, part-time
Tobolsk 2014
APPROVAL SHEET OF UMK (website for downloading UMK umk3. utmn. en)
Reg. room: _______________________________
Discipline:Fundamentals of the welfare state and civil society
Academic plan:Social work
Chair: Economics, management and law
Goals and objectives of mastering the discipline……………………………………………………………..4
The place of discipline in the structure of EP HE………………………..…………………………………4
Requirements for the results of mastering the discipline ……………………………………………….4
The structure and content of the discipline………………………………..………………………...5
The structure of the discipline ……………………………………………………..…………………..5
Educational technologies ………………………………………………….……………….....7
Independent work of students………………………………………………….…….……8
Competence-oriented assessment tools………………………………………8
Evaluative means of diagnostic control ……………………………………………..8
Evaluation means of current control: module-rating technology for evaluating students' work…………………………………………………………………………………...8
Course objectives:
The acquisition by students of basic theoretical knowledge about the foundations of the formation of a social state, about models of a social state;
Studying the experience of creating a social state in domestic and foreign practice and the main factors influencing its development;
Studying the main topical problems of the modern welfare state;
Formation of students' scientific ideas about the essence of the concepts of civil society;
Obtaining theoretical knowledge about the processes of development of the main institutions of civil society, as well as practical skills in the analysis of social movements and civil society organizations;
Development of research skills;
Formation of a persistent interest in acquiring further knowledge and skills in the field of the future profession;
Formation of skills and abilities to use the acquired knowledge, both in theoretical and practical purposes.
2. The place of discipline in the structure of the OOP:
The discipline "Fundamentals of the welfare state and civil society" is included in the basic part of cycle B1 "Humanitarian, social and economic cycle" of the main educational program of the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education in the direction 040400.62 "Social work". The discipline is intended for second-year bachelors. To master the discipline "Fundamentals of the welfare state and civil society", students use the knowledge, skills, methods of activity and attitudes formed in the course of studying the disciplines "History", "Sociology", "Philosophy", "Social work".
Mastering the discipline "Fundamentals of the Welfare State and Civil Society" is a necessary basis for the subsequent study of the disciplines "Social Policy", "Political Science", "Social Statistics", disciplines of students' choice, as well as internships.
3. Requirements for the results of mastering the discipline:
The process of studying the discipline is aimed at the formation of elements of the following competencies in accordance with the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education and EP HE in this area of training (specialty):
– be able to use normative legal documents in their activities (OK-5);
– have the ability to understand and use in professional and social activities a modern combination of innovative and traditional, socio-historical and everyday pragmatic, sociogenetic and actual network, technological and phenomenological (OK-18);
– be able to use the specifics of the ethno-cultural development of their country for the formation and effective use of socio-engineering and socio-technological practices to ensure psychosocial, structural and complex-oriented social work(OK-19).
As a result of studying the discipline, the student must
Know:
- the history of the formation, formation and development of the welfare state;
– bases of functioning of the social state;
– principles, goals and directions of the social policy of the state;
– the essence and significance of social information in development modern society;
- the main methods, methods and proposals for solving social problems;
– modern ideas about civil society;
- the main features of civil society and the conditions for its formation;
– Experience in the development of civil society in the modern world.
Be able to:
– freely operate with the conceptual apparatus of the discipline;
– to explore the theoretical foundations of the formation of a social state and its model;
- to use the main provisions and priorities of the social policy of the state in solving social and professional problems;
– comply with the basic legal and legal laws of the Russian Federation regarding social policy;
– evaluate the degree of effectiveness legal regulation social state.
Own:
- legal and legal knowledge, the ability to generalize, analyze, perceive information, set goals and choose ways to build a social state;
– skills of working with normative legal acts in the field of the social state;
– skills to increase the social responsibility of a citizen of a welfare state;
– the skills of an adequate analysis of the social transformations being carried out in Russia at the stage of the formation of a welfare state;
- methods, ways and means of assessing the effectiveness of the social policy of the state;
methods of analysis of various phenomena and processes arising in modern civil society.
4. Structure and content of the discipline
The total labor intensity of the discipline is 2 credit units (72 hours), of which 36 hours are allocated for contact work with the teacher.
4.1. Structure of the discipline
Table 1
table 2
section number | Name |
(didactic units) |
Essence, principles and models of the welfare state | The state as a social institution. The emergence of the state. Signs, functions of the state and forms of their implementation. State form. The process of emergence, formation and development of the welfare state: Short story world experience. Modern ideas about the welfare state. The main goals and objectives of the welfare state. The main functions of the welfare state. Principles of the welfare state. The most important features of the welfare state. Prerequisites for the formation of a welfare state. Models of the welfare state. The main trends in the development of the welfare state in the context of the globalization of the world economy. The most important factors and conditions for the formation of a social state in Russia. |
|
Conditions and mechanisms for the functioning of the social state | Constitutional and legal foundations of the social state: Constitutional system: concept and main elements. Characteristics of the bases constitutional order RF. Basic requirements for legal support activities of the social state. Democratization public relations as an expression of the needs of the welfare state. Social partnership. Social audit. The role of the welfare state in ensuring the legal protection of man and citizen. Signs of the rule of law. The most important characteristics of a social legal state (from the experience of developed countries). Rigorous Compliance international norms and agreements in the social sphere. State guarantees rights and freedoms of man and citizen. Mutual responsibility of the state and the citizen for failure to comply with the norms of the current legislation. Formation process legal basis social state in the Russian Federation. Social legislation: assessment of the state. Actual problems creation in Russia of the regulatory framework of the social state and ways to solve them. Economic basis of the welfare state: Social market economy as a resource base of the welfare state. Basic elements of the social market economy. The most important functions and criteria for the effectiveness of the social market economy. Participation of the welfare state in the regulation of the activities of subjects of market relations (from the experience of developed countries). Pursuing a policy of income and expenditure of the state in the interests of the whole society. Features of budgetary, tax and price policy. The role of the welfare state in the regulation of monetary relations. Substantiation of the strategic course for the innovative development of the Russian economy. Formation of an innovative economy as necessary condition improving the level and quality of life of the population. Search for a reasonable compromise between economic growth rates and the dynamics of social indicators. Formation of a social market economy in Russia: main trends. Assessment of the current level of the Russian economy. Social policy of the welfare state: main goals, directions and mechanisms: The essence of the social policy of the welfare state. Principles of implementation of the social policy of the welfare state. Subjects of the social policy of the welfare state. Levels of social policy of the welfare state. The most important directions of the social policy of the welfare state. Criteria for the effectiveness of the social policy of the welfare state. State social standards in the field of wages and employment, education and science. State social standards in the field of healthcare, pensions, social protection and social services for the population. State standards in the field of culture. State social standards to ensure the environmental safety of the population. The system of social standards as the basis of the social policy of the welfare state. Modern ideas about state social standards (from the experience of developed countries). Social policy of the Russian state in the medium and long term: the most important goals and mechanisms for their implementation. Social policy at the stage of formation of the welfare state in Russia: analysis of trends. The main reasons hindering the implementation of an effective social policy in Russia. |
|
Formation and functioning of civil society | Historical roots of the theory of civil society. Formation modern concept civil society. Development of the idea of civil society in Russia. Conditions for the formation of civil society. Stages of development of the relationship between civil society and the state in the process of history. Signs of civil society: high consciousness of people; their high material security on the basis of property ownership; wide ties between members of society; the presence of state power under control, overcoming alienation from society; decentralization of power; transfer of part of the power to self-government bodies; the use of compromise, coordination of positions as the main ways to resolve conflicts; a developed sense of collectivity (but not a herd), provided by the consciousness of belonging to a common culture, nation; the personality of civil society is a person focused on creation, spirituality. Civil Society Institutions. Subsystems of civil society. Development of civil society in the Russian Federation. |
5. Educational technologies
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF RUSSIA
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution
higher professional education
"Khakassian State University them. N.F. Katanov"
(KhSU named after N.F. Katanov)
Department of Theory and History of State and Law
Lecture notes
B1.B.4. Fundamentals of the welfare state
(index and name of the discipline according to the curriculum)
Direction of training 030500. 62 "Jurisprudence"
SECTION 1. IDEA FORMATIONWELFARE STATE
1. Relevance of the study of the essence of the welfare state.
2. The concept, features, functions of the welfare state
3. Formation of the theory of the welfare state
4. Social policy of the state.
1. Relevance of the study of the essence of the welfare state.
In the early 90s. 20th century In Russia, the problems of the welfare state began to gradually enter into scientific circulation. The theoretical development of the problems of the welfare state in domestic science is currently just beginning. Therefore, the subject boundaries of research are not yet clearly fixed.
The political aspects of the phenomenon of the welfare state have not yet been sufficiently studied. Among the authors actively investigating this problem should be mentioned: M.P. Bocharova, V.D. Dzodziev, V.D. Roika, V.A. Torlopova, V.P. Miletsky, S.V. Kalashnikov, V.P. Pugacheva, A.I. Solovyova, A.F. Khramtsova and others.
Social problems occupy a key place in the theory of the welfare state. The issues of the specifics and content of social relations of social policy are given an important place in the works of such scientists as: V.S. Afanasiev, L.V. Afanasiev, N.A. Volgin, N.N. Gritsenko, F.I. Sharkov, R.G. Gostev, S.F. Nikitin, Yu. Volkov, A.V. Gurleev and others.
The development of a wide range of problems related to the study of the theory and practice of the welfare state, the identification and demonstration of the features and problems of its formation in modern Russia acquire an undoubted scientific relevance.
According to N.S. Vetrovaya, “modern social policy is a vast and branched area state activities, including the formation and regulation of social insurance and welfare systems; programs in the field of health care, education, housing construction, assistance to cities and regions affected by depression; regulation of relations between labor and capital, as well as policy in the field of civil rights.
An analysis of ideas about the welfare state allows us to present the following periodization of its development: the first stage (from the 70s of the 19th century to the 30s of the 20th century) is socialist; the second stage (from the 30s of the XX century to the end of the 40s) - the legal social state; the third stage (from the end of the 40s to the 60s of the twentieth century) - the state social services; the fourth stage (from the end of the 50s to the middle of the 80s) - the welfare state; the fifth stage (from the beginning of the 80s to the middle of the 90s) - the destruction and crisis of the welfare state; the sixth stage (from the mid-1990s to the present) is a liberal welfare state.
Today, many researchers interpret the concept of "welfare state" differently. One of the first definitions of the concept of "welfare state" is found in the encyclopedic dictionary and expresses "the ability of the state to implement a modern social policy: take care of the employment situation of the population, human rights, create health care systems, social security, support the poor."
A more meaningful interpretation of the nature of the welfare state is suggested by V.P. Pugachev and A.I. Solovyov. In their opinion, this is “a state striving to provide every citizen with decent living conditions, social security, participation in the management of production, and ideally, approximately the same chances in life, opportunities for self-realization of the individual in society.” “The activity of such a state is aimed at the common good, the establishment of social justice in society. It smooths out property and other social inequalities, helps the weak and disadvantaged, takes care of providing everyone with a job or another source of subsistence, of maintaining peace in society, and creating a living environment favorable for a person.
According to V.D. Dzodziev, the welfare state is “a state that guarantees worthy living conditions for each of its citizens and strives to create approximately equal life chances in the field of education, employment, healthcare and self-realization of the individual as a whole, this is a state that implements social justice in society.”
ex-speaker State Duma G. Seleznev gives the following definition: “The welfare state is a type of state in which public policy the main priority is the social well-being of each person and the whole society”. Scientific development of the essence, the concept of the welfare state continues.
2. The concept, features, functions of the welfare state
The word “social” in Latin means “general”, “public”, that is, relating to the life of people in society. Therefore, “social” in the broadest sense of the word is any state, being a product of social development. However, in this case the “welfare state” is understood as a state with special qualities and functions. The existence and activity of the welfare state is closely connected with such social phenomena as democracy, civil society, constitutional state, freedom and equality, human rights.
In view of the foregoing, we can conclude that the conditions for the existence of a social state and its characteristic features are:
- Democratic organization of state power.
- High moral level of citizens and, above all, state officials.
– A powerful economic potential that makes it possible to carry out measures for the redistribution of income without significantly infringing on the position of the owners.
- A socially oriented structure of the economy, which is manifested in the existence of various forms of ownership with a significant share of state ownership in the necessary areas of the economy.
- The legal development of the state, the presence of the qualities of a legal state.
– The existence of a civil society, in whose hands the state acts as an instrument for carrying out a socially oriented policy.
- A pronounced social orientation of the state policy, which is manifested in the development of various social programs and the priority of their implementation.
- The state has such goals as establishing the common good, establishing social justice in society, providing each citizen with: a) decent living conditions; b) social security; c) equal starting opportunities for self-realization of the individual.
– The presence of developed social legislation (legislation on social protection of the population, for example, the Code of Social Laws, as is the case in Germany).
- Fixing the formula "welfare state" in the country's constitution (for the first time this was done in the Constitution of Germany in 1949).
Speaking of functions social state, the following circumstances should be borne in mind:
a) it has all the traditional functions due to its nature of the state as such;
c) within the framework of the general social function, specific areas of activity of the social state can be distinguished - specific functions. The latter, in particular, include: support for socially vulnerable categories of the population; labor protection and human health; family support, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood; smoothing social inequality through the redistribution of income between different social strata through taxation, the state budget, special social programs; encouragement of charitable activities (in particular, by providing tax incentives to business structures engaged in charitable activities); financing and support of fundamental scientific research and cultural programs; combating unemployment, providing employment for the population, paying unemployment benefits; finding a balance between a free market economy and the degree of influence of the state on its development in order to ensure a decent life for all citizens; participation in the implementation of interstate environmental, cultural and social programs, solving universal problems; concern for maintaining peace in society.
It is believed that among the fundamental laws, the idea of a welfare state was first reflected in the Weimar Constitution of 1919. It is often called the first social constitution. Such constitutions after the First World War began to replace the former instrumental constitutions, which contained mainly, if not exclusively, articles on the organs of the state, as well as on political and personal (but not socio-economic) rights of man and citizen. The Weimar Constitution stated that private property must “at the same time” serve the common good (Article 158), that a person must ensure a decent existence, it was said about workers' councils in enterprises, and there was a chapter on education.
After the Second World War, the first constitutions that had a distinctly social character were the Constitutions of France of 1946 (not valid, except for the preamble, which contains provisions on socio-economic rights) and Italy of 1947, which proclaimed Italy a republic based on labor (art. . one). It should also be noted that social constitutions All Soviet constitutions, starting with the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918, were in force before and after World War II. Later Soviet constitutions, starting from 1936, proclaimed a wide range of socio-economic rights of citizens. These basic laws proceeded from the postulates of the class struggle, the elimination of private property and "exploiters", the "dictatorship of the proletariat", and the state of totalitarian socialism (especially in its practical activities) was essentially the antipode of the welfare state.
The phrase “welfare state” first appeared in the Constitution (Basic Law) of Germany in 1949. Later it was included in the Constitution of France in 1958, Spain in 1978, Romania in 1991, Slovenia in 1991, Ukraine in 1996, Colombia in 1991 ., Peru 1993, Ecuador 1998, Venezuela 1999, a number of other countries. There is this term in Art. 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993. But in many of the latest European constitutions (for example, Poland 1997, Finland 1999, Switzerland 1999) it is not. The content of this term, as a rule, is not disclosed. Usually, it is only stated that the given state is a social state (although in further articles, a more or less full scope of socio-economic rights inherent in modern conditions, talks about some measures of targeted social protection of certain groups of the population). In the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the content of the term “welfare state” is revealed through goal-setting: “ Russian Federation– a social state whose policy is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of a person” (Article 7).
3. Formation of the theory of the welfare state
The idea of social statehood was formed in the late XIX - early XX centuries. (that is, later the idea of a legal state) as a result of objective socio-economic processes taking place in the life of bourgeois society, when two of its most important principles came into conflict - the principle of freedom and the principle of equality. Theoretically, there are two approaches to the relationship between these principles. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Benjamin Constant, John Locke and others defended the theory of individual human freedom, imputing the state as the main duty to protect this freedom from any interference, including from the interference of the state itself. At the same time, they understood that in the end such freedom would lead to inequality, but they considered freedom to be the highest value.
Another approach is personified by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who, without denying the importance of individual freedom, believed that everything should be subject to the principle of equality, which is the task of the state to ensure.
The principle of individual freedom, which liberated the initiative and self-activity of people, contributed to the development of private enterprise and the market economy, thus had an economic basis in the period of strengthening the economic power of bourgeois states. However, to late XIX in. as wealth developed and accumulated, the property stratification of bourgeois society began to occur, its polarization, fraught with a social explosion. And in this situation, the principle of individual freedom lost its relevance and gave way to the principle of social equality, requiring the state to move from the role of a "night watchman" to active intervention in the socio-economic sphere. It is in such a historical and political environment that the concept of a welfare state begins to form, an understanding of its special qualities and functions.
Of great importance for the theory and practice of the welfare state was the teaching of the English economist J. Keynes, under the influence of whose views the concept of the welfare state was formed, based on the increase in the social function of the state.
It should be noted that the emergence of the Soviet state, which constantly declared in its constitutions and other legislative acts social orientation of the policy. And, although the political theory and declarations of socialism were in conflict with the realities of the absence of democracy, civil society, the rule of law and private property as economic basis these institutions, one cannot deny the real achievements in the social policy of the socialist states. Of course, in these socio-economic conditions, socially oriented activities socialist state could only have a paternalistic (paternal) character, associated with the establishment of wretched equality.
A truly social state is possible only in conditions of democracy, civil society, and should be legal in the modern sense of this characteristic. At present, the rule of law must be social, and the welfare state cannot but be legal.
In addition, it should be taken into account that the implementation of a socially oriented policy by the state is a difficult process, a kind of political balancing act, due to the need to take into account contradictory, almost mutually exclusive factors. The welfare state must constantly strike an elusive balance between the freedom of a market economy and the need to influence distributive processes in order to achieve social justice and smooth out social inequality.
4. Social policy of the state
State social policy is the actions of the state in the social sphere, pursuing certain goals, correlated with specific historical circumstances, supported by the necessary organizational and propaganda efforts, financial resources and designed for certain milestone social results.
Social policy is not so much a system of measures and activities as a system of relationships and interactions between social groups, social strata of society, in the center of which is their main ultimate goal - a person, his well-being, social protection and social development, life support and social security of the population as a whole.
The object and subject of this policy coincide with the main elements, blocks and structures included in a large single complex - the social and labor sphere (STS) - a system of interrelated components and parts, including:
- branches of the social sphere (education, health care, culture, sports, tourism, housing and communal sector, etc.;
– labor market, employment, unemployment;
– social partnership;
- social protection;
– pay and labor protection;
- social insurance;
– pension system, etc.
Social policy and the social and labor sphere are not passive. Requiring significant financial resources for self-startup and development, they at the same time actively influence the economy, economic growth, GDP dynamics, and the trajectory of society's movement towards progress. Without effective employment, organization of a system of powerful labor incentives, systems of education, healthcare, culture, etc. it is impossible to develop production, increase the volume of goods and services, other micro- and macroeconomic indicators, which requires an appropriate attitude to social and labor sphere and social policy on the part of the state, its legislative and executive bodies, employers, entrepreneurs and owners.
The main blocks of the STS are:
- social sphere, i.e. sectors of the socio-cultural complex (education, healthcare, culture, etc.);
– labor market, employment services, retraining of personnel (including the unemployed);
- the sphere of motivation for productive labor (organization of wages, stabilization of the standard of living of the population, etc.).
- groups of relations and components that arise in the process of reproduction of the labor force and providing conditions for the interaction of the employee with the means and objects of labor: - the system of social protection of the population, the system of social partnership, the social insurance system, the pension system, labor protection, etc.
Types of social policy
The types of states of society as an integral system underlie the typification of social policy on a large scale and make it possible to single out the following types of it:
1) social policy in socially stable societies (social formations);
2) social policy in societies in systemic crises (in revolutionary situations);
3) social policy in societies that are in a state of deformation (permanent crises public system);
4) social policy in societies emerging from a systemic crisis through radical (revolutionary) reforms, i.e. social policy of the transitional period.
Social formations are such states (bands) of social development when social and economic structures are reproduced on their own, socially stable basis and retain their qualitative certainty. These are periods of relatively "smooth" development.
The features of social policy in socially stable societies are:
- stable (established and become habitual for the majority of the population) order of relations between the most important social groups (and classes);
- the formation of significant strata more or less satisfied with their social position (often called the "middle class");
- balance of the general class interests of the ruling class and the interests of its individual parts (subordination of the interests of the parts to the general class interests);
- establishing and maintaining a system of peaceful social coexistence of the ruling and subordinate classes;
- weakening of the feeling of social injustice, a decrease in the level of mass prevalence of this feeling in society, a decrease in the influence of protest, reformist and especially revolutionary ideologies, the weakening and decline of the labor movement, social movements, protest and liberation movements.
The crisis of a social system (systemic crisis) is a state of society when it becomes necessary to make a historical choice of a new version of the future and, as a rule, a new social order (a new type of power). It is no longer possible to develop in the old, habitual way, because the existing authorities are unable to set new realistic goals and organize effective social actions to achieve them, and the "lower classes" do not want to put up with the established forms of life. The inconsistency of social forms of life with a new level of needs and opportunities is not only felt, but must be overcome.
Features of social policy in a systemic crisis are:
- activation of public consciousness in many social groups, the designation of a real diversity of opinions and socio-psychological types, ideological diversity;
- the growth of a critical attitude towards the established social orders, alienation in relation to them;
- identification of the fundamental contradictions of the existing social structure, awareness, on the one hand, of the need to overcome them, and, on the other, the inability of the existing state to cope with this historical task;
- the formulation of social group interests and requirements, the formation (or renewal, linking to topical historical tasks) of social group ideologies, the formation of social group subjects-representatives (organizations, movements, parties, political unions and coalitions, etc.);
- putting forward political and social programs, specific demands for a radical improvement in the socio-economic situation of classes and numerous social strata, i.e. essentially demanding significant political and social reforms.
Overcoming a systemic crisis always takes the form of a revolution, the essence of which is a change in the type of power and a radical change in the social structure. A revolution ripens in different ways in deformed societies and in social formations, but if it started and took place, then its principal tasks are more or less similar. These tasks boil down to the need to carry out a system of revolutionary reforms covering all the most important spheres of society and establishing a qualitatively new viable social order in each of these spheres.
The transition period is the historical period, and during which there is a transition from the former stable social system to a qualitatively new sustainable one. social system. The system of revolutionary reforms in the social sphere in ensuring the basic conditions for the life of the population as a whole and its most important social groups is the essence of the social policy of the transition period. The social policy of the transitional period is a social policy corresponding to the transitional states of society. Its main feature is that it is formed in the conditions of the historical combination of the processes of radical renewal of both society and the state.
The social policy of the transitional period reflects the intensification of the struggle for change in all the key conditions for the formation of a social position. The struggle for the degree of exploitation, for access to political power, for the redistribution of property, for maintaining or lowering the standard of living and the level of social security, for working conditions has intensified. The outcome of this struggle is determined by the ratio of political strength and political organization of different social groups (classes). The type and directions of state action are so essential in solving basic social issues that the struggle for state power becomes the central point of influence on social policy.
Functions of social policy.
First one of its main functions is to ensure the social stability of society, the social security of society. The social structure must have the properties of stability and self-renewal (dynamics), otherwise the given society collapses, falls into decay, ceases to exist. The social structure must be so stable as to withstand both internal and external dangers of its destruction and at the same time bear in itself the prospect and potential for qualitative renewal through reforms and revolutions.
All existing societies and the modern world order are based on the forced social donation of some social groups and countries in favor of other social groups and countries (ie exploitation).
Second one of the main functions of social policy is to ensure the political stability of power. Such stability is achieved in different ways in different types of societies and in different specific historical ones, but the essence always comes down to such a distribution of the real participation of social groups (and classes) in political decisions that would keep the dominant influence in the power of the same ruling class, otherwise case, the class type of power changes and revolutionary transformations become inevitable. Among these transformations, again, the priority is to ensure political stability, but already the new government.
Third the main function of social policy is to ensure such a distribution of power in the economy (property) that would be recognized by the majority as fair, not requiring a struggle for redistribution.
4th the main function of social policy is the establishment of such a system of distribution of economic resources and economic effect, which more or less suits the overwhelming majority of the population. From the distribution of economic resources to a decisive extent depend material conditions life of people in society, opportunities for solving the problems of different social groups, investments and their structure, level and differentiation of income, total size and structure of annual social spending, conditions and sizes social assistance and support.
Fifth the main function of social policy is to provide society and the state with the necessary and sufficient level environmental safety.
sixth the main function of social policy is to provide society and the state with the necessary and sufficient level of social protection for both the population as a whole and each of its social groups.
SECTION 2. FOREIGN EXPERIENCE IN CREATING SOCIO-ORIENTED STATES
1. The totalitarian model of the welfare state in Nazi Germany (1933-1945)
2. Formation and development of the welfare state in the United States in the twentieth century.
3. Modern models of the welfare state in Western Europe and Asia
1. The totalitarian model of the "welfare state"in Nazi Germany (1933-1945)
The Reich Ministry of Labor, headed by Franz Seldte, was responsible for the social sphere in the III Reich.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “The National Socialist entrepreneur must know that the prosperity of the national economy will ensure both his well-being and the well-being of the people. The National Socialist employer and worker must work together for the good of the nation. Class prejudices and contradictions must be peacefully resolved to the general satisfaction in the chambers of estates and in the central parliament.
Hitler attached great importance to the creation of a SOCIALLY HOMOGENEOUS SOCIETY: “We want to educate the German people in such a way that they get rid of insane class arrogance, a dark faith in class order, a false belief that only mental labor should be valued. It is necessary to make our people appreciate any work, so that they believe that any work ennobles, so that they realize that it is a shame not to do anything for their people, not to contribute in any way to strengthening and multiplying the heritage of the nation. Those desired changes towards the improvement of the German economy and society, which could not cause theories, declarations, wishes, must now follow as a result of the participation in the creative work of many millions of workers, and we must organize them.
After coming to power, Hitler ordered that social programs be generously financed: until the end of 1934 alone, the government invested about 5 billion marks in various employment programs - three times more than during the same time it invested in industry. On February 1, 1933, Hitler announced that unemployment would be eliminated in four years, and he kept his promise: when the Nazis came to power, there were 25.9 million unemployed in Germany (in the USA - 35.3 million, in France - 14.1 million ), in 1934 in Germany - 13.5 million (in the USA - 30.6 million, in France - 13.8 million), in 1935 in Germany - 10.3 million (in the USA - 28.4 million , in France - 14.5 million), in 1936 in Germany - 7.4 million (in the USA - 23.9 million, in France - 10.4 million), in 1937 in Germany - 4.1 million (in the USA - 20 million, in France - 7.4 million), in 1938 in Germany - 1.9 million (in the USA - 26.4 million, in France - 7.8 million). Judging by these dynamics, while in other countries unemployment was still HIGH, in Germany it has practically disappeared. In Germany, THE CRISIS WAS OVERCOME FASTER than anyone expected. Abroad, the “German economic miracle” was already talked about in 1936: it was in this year that industrial production surpassed the pre-war level. First, the situation improved in industry, and then in the agricultural sector.
The slogan put forward by Goebbels of a "general offensive against unemployment" produced an unheard-of public outcry and had the strongest impact on the German people. Of great importance for the elimination of social tension and the reduction of unemployment were extensive and generously funded public Works, among which a special place was occupied by the construction of autobahns. On February 11, 1933, Hitler said: "If before the standard of living of the people was measured by the length of the railways, then in the future it will be determined by the length of the highways." Hitler ordered the construction of roads to be financed from unemployment insurance funds, and other sources were involved. Appropriate orders were given, and the work began to boil. In June 1933, Hitler appointed the artistic engineer Fritz Then "general inspector of roads." 600,000 unemployed were employed under the autobahn construction program. Another 200 thousand people were employed in the industry serving the construction of roads.
Under Hitler, the "people's car" program was adopted. On behalf of Hitler, Ley created the "Society for the preparation of the creation of a German people's car (Volkswagens)", the leadership of which was entrusted to W. Laffer. Factories were built near Wolfsburg, where the production of Volkswagens began. Numerous bridges along the path of the autobahns, on the orders of Hitler, were built either in the form of Roman aqueducts, or in the form of medieval fortifications, or in the style of modernism. All this was done so that travelers could enjoy the beauty of the landscape, perceive the beauty of nature. Therefore, special importance was attached to the location and architecture of numerous bridges. Therefore, the German autobahn network was considered the most beautiful in the world. The German autobahns consisted of two lines of solid pavement 7.5 m wide. Between them there was a three-meter strip intended for green spaces. Each line was divided into two canvases, to the right of each of them was a parking lane.
The fundamental document that determined the development of the social sphere was the "law on the organization of national labor" of January 20, 1934. This law, which proclaimed the equality of rights of employers and workers, retained its significance during the war. The law spoke of labor planning, according to which the owner of the enterprise was accountable to the state arbiter of labor, and in his person to the state in the name of the general welfare of the nation. Such an interpretation of private property, oriented towards social welfare, WAS NOT KNOWN in the “democratic” Germany of the 1920s. To the center of the organization production process the law put the "leader of the enterprise." The interests of the labor collective, which was referred to in the law as a "team", were represented by a trust council having advisory functions; its most important function was to overcome social conflicts in order to most fully realize the national community. The "druzhina" swore allegiance to the "leader of the enterprise" and pledged to obey unquestioningly. In accordance with the principle of "fuhrership", the main responsibility for the organization and conditions of production fell on the "leader of the enterprise." The Nazis believed that the entrepreneur had to behave differently than during the years of the class struggle: first of all, he had to wisely use his economic and socio-political power for the benefit of the German community. From the workers, however, no special activity was required - only loyal behavior. Especially active and enterprising "leaders of enterprises" were morally encouraged by the Nazi leadership, awarding them the honorary title "labor innovator".
The activities of the "leader of the enterprise" in the social sphere were controlled by the "imperial arbitration of labor", which had regional authorities and was subordinate to the Ministry of Labor. The purpose of the arbitration was to resolve contentious issues and formation general rules organization of the production process. Arbitration was a kind of head socio-political instance, the main task of which was to monitor the legality and the unreal need for mass layoffs of workers, to monitor the maintenance of an acceptable minimum in working conditions, gradually transforming the latter in the direction of improvement; to issue and approve new tariff schemes for remuneration. Arbitration itself was a structural part of the Ministry of Labor, which was the main institution regulating labor Relations.
The second most important labor administration (after arbitration) was the government's "Works Operations Administration," which financed public works and other employment programs. With the proclamation of the four-year plan in 1936, state intervention in labor relations intensified: it was from 1936 that the direct state control over the movement of wages and the labor market. A prerequisite for expanding control over the structure of employment was the introduction work books and compiling databases of all employees.
The head of the DAF, Lei, sought to expand the scope of DAF's competence as much as possible. With their help, Lei sincerely wanted to create a conflict-free and friendly people's community. The main components of his creed were: the development of the welfare state, the improvement of opportunities for social growth for each person, and the achievement of social cohesion by strengthening the unity of the people. As a true follower of Hitler, Ley sought to end political pluralism and class struggle; he was a committed Nazi who took party doctrine almost like a religion and treated Hitler like a prophet. Hitler completely trusted Leia.
The leadership of the DAF often put pressure on entrepreneurs, demanding higher salaries. DAF demanded longer holidays and better working conditions. On the initiative of the DAF, a decree was adopted, according to which, from December 5, 1933, workers were exempt from taxes if their salary did not reach 183 marks.
Before the war, he constantly expanded the scope of his competences, and gradually the DAF turned into a super department, a whole bureaucratic state, the main tool for establishing "brown collectivism." DAF's achievements in the social sphere have been significant. He really raised the social status of the worker. In the prewar years, the DAF did a lot of organizing material assistance; propaganda played an important role in the work, with the help of which the DAF tried to increase the dignity of the workers, create better living conditions for them and get rid of the feeling of the pariahs of society left alone with their problems among the proletariat. The organization and control of vocational training meant that the DAF had in its hands an important means of influencing the social growth of workers (this was considered by Ley as one of the priorities). Of course, in addition to caring for the workers, the DAF also performed certain protective functions: its ranks included the so-called “working squads” - Ley’s ideological militia at the enterprises, as well as trust councils, courts of honor and legal advisers of the DAF.
The activity of DAF in some areas gave positive results: for example, the Beauty of Labor program led to easier working conditions at enterprises. At a DAF meeting in Magdeburg in 1937, Ley said: “I will try to inspire the people with such a working ethos that would help them see something beautiful and sublime in work. I will strive to ensure that our plants and factories become temples of labor, I will strive to make workers the most respected estate in Germany. The Nazis showed exceptional ingenuity in the cultural education of the workers, in the aestheticization of labor. At the same time, the rationalization of labor went hand in hand with functionalist aesthetics. It is interesting to note that the Bolsheviks, on the contrary, did almost nothing in this direction, relying on the fact that the improvement of working conditions would come by itself. The Germans tried to do the opposite.
The motto of the German department "Beauty of Labor" was the words: "German working days should become beautiful" - in this way, the workers wanted to regain their self-esteem, a sense of the significance of their work. On January 30, 1934, within the framework of the DAF, the KDF was created, in which there was a department "Aesthetics of Labor", headed by Speer. In this department, Speer and his colleagues worked with entrepreneurs, and they converted factory buildings, arranged flower pots, washed windows and expanded their area, established canteens at plants and factories, which were previously very rare. The department designed simple functional factory tableware, furniture for workers' canteens (which began to be produced in large quantities), obliged entrepreneurs to consult with specialists on ventilation and lighting of workplaces.
The task of the department "Beauty of Labor" included not only caring for a favorable mental atmosphere at work, but also about cleanliness and colors in the workplace, about natural and artificial lighting. All this was designed to increase the self-esteem and self-esteem of workers. Although the department had only a consultative status, if necessary, it could put pressure on the entrepreneur; in particular, the department was engaged in organizing a competition for the title of "national socialist exemplary enterprise" (this title was awarded by the KDF for one year). Having concluded an agreement with the Imperial Chamber of Fine Arts, the Beauty of Labor department attracted artists to design the buildings being built. industrial premises. The department has been actively involved living conditions workers in production - hygiene (showers or washstands), nutrition (quality of products, prices and design of canteens or buffets), as well as housing conditions in those industries where people had to work away from home for a long time. The Beauty of Labor agency proposed to improve the living conditions of construction and road (employed on the autobahn) workers through the creation and use of collapsible houses. A whole DAF institute was engaged in these and similar projects - the Institute scientific organization labor.
In general, the activities of the department were extensive and varied: the decoration of village streets and research in the field of functional industrial aesthetics; improvement of workplaces in mines and in river navigation; production of functional and comfortable furniture for design offices and good plumbing and carpentry tools and putting things in order in the factory yards. From the side of the leadership of the DAF, calls were constantly made to arrange flowers in the factory shops, to build outdoor pools and sports grounds for workers at the enterprises. In 1935, the action "good coverage of workplaces - good work" was carried out, in which the improvement of labor hygiene was associated with an increase in labor productivity, in which entrepreneurs were also interested. Campaigns followed: “clean people in a clean factory”, “clean air in the workplace”, “hot food in a factory”. In 1935, the department "Beauty of Labor" noted 12 thousand enterprises, which significantly improved working conditions; for these purposes, entrepreneurs spent 100 million Reichsmarks.
All these events had clear social goals, which boiled down to the elimination of social tension. On the industrial enterprises for the workers they made showers, changing rooms, neat toilets, pools. In addition to the practical significance of the events being held, they tried to instill in the workers the impression of party concern for the common man.
The “Beauty of Labor” agency actively used the concept of aestheticization of labor and technical aestheticization in its policy: functional industrial buildings, steel functional structures, streamlined forms of racing cars, submarines and aircraft were cultivated. The garden city movement, rationalization, architectural modernism, the cult of technology, the ideology of efficiency were aimed at creating an industrial society without class struggle, which was the goal of the Nazis.
In 1936, the Beauty of Labor department estimated that 70,000 enterprises had been audited, tens of thousands of kitchens and canteens, recreation rooms, swimming pools, and sports grounds were built at factories for a total of 1 billion Reichsmarks.
“Civil Society in the Structure of the Welfare State
and as an instrument of government"
Question # 1. Theory and Origins of Civil Society
Civil Society Theory
Civil society in the works of foreign scientists has been considered and described since ancient times.
Even the great philosopher of antiquity, Aristotle, said that man is a social being. This means that it is quite understandable that a person, especially a modern one, does not think of himself outside of society. Human society itself arose in ancient times and it preceded the state. In the future, society developed in close and inseparable unity with the state. Consequently, civil society has developed at a certain stage historical development Western civilization. But one thing is clear - it is possible to talk about civil society only from the time of the emergence of a citizen as an independent member of society, endowed with a complex of inalienable rights and freedoms. But at the same time he is responsible to society for all his actions.
At the heart of the modern successes of Western countries is the development and activation of civil society. A high level of economy, democracy, social security of a person are associated with a high activity of citizens. And this, in turn, is possible only in a civil society.
The idea of civil society emerged in the middle of the 17th century. For the first time the term "civil society" was used by G. Leibniz (1646 - 1716), a German philosopher, scientist and public figure. A significant contribution to the development of the problems of civil society was made by T. Hobbes, J. Locke, S. Montesquieu.
The concept of civil society in the works of these thinkers was based on the ideas of natural law and the social contract.
A person, as a person, strives for freedom and the realization of his natural rights. But as a social being, a person cannot live outside society, and especially outside the state, which means that the realization of his natural rights is hampered by the state, by the authorities. Civil society implies the voluntary transfer of rights by a person to the state, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the restriction of state power in the interests of citizens exercising their freedoms. The main condition for the effectiveness of civil society is the voluntariness and reciprocity of such an agreement between citizens and the state.
The origins of the theoretical development of the problems of civil society go back to ancient philosophy.
Plato is named among the first thinkers who "noted" civil society as an independent substance. He was the first to notice elements of civil society within the framework of his general theory of the "ideal state". Sharply criticizing state power, Plato created the doctrine of the "ideal human society". The doctrine of virtues, wisdom, courage, an enlightened emotional state was the basis of the concept of "civil society". Plato in the general theory of civil society was the first to make a very important conclusion that, in addition to the state-organized, there are other forms of society's life.
Aristotle repeatedly emphasized that a person is not only a social being, but to a greater extent a political one, and therefore the state is a natural product of the development of a society of political citizens and analyzed in this regard the life of free citizens in other areas - economic, marriage and family, spiritual, moral ... He came to the conclusion that state intervention in these areas up to a certain level of development of productive forces and production relations is simply not required. Aristotle, speaking about the essence of civil society, emphasized the role of property in such a society, noted - whoever has property, he also has virtue, and before distributing anything, it is necessary to produce it. Aristotle was also among the first to introduce the concept of the middle class. According to Aristotle, the middle class is the basis of the stability of any society. So, Aristotle considered property and the presence of a middle class as the main features of civil society.
The most noticeable trace in the formation of the theory of civil society was left by the Italian thinker N. Machiavelli. He considered the state as the highest manifestation of the human spirit. A person sees the goal, meaning, happiness of life in serving the state. However, at the same time, Machiavelli says that the state should not abuse it and not violate the property and personal rights of its subjects, so as not to arouse their hatred against itself. Machiavelli's reasoning about morality, work, love and other areas of private life show that he shared the state and non-state spheres of society. Here in question already about the signs of civil society. Machiavelli already clearly distinguishes between the state and civil society. He wrote that political power and political activity are immoral. He considers work, family, love, satisfaction of personal needs as signs of civil society. He formulated his main conclusion as follows: in addition to the state, there is something else independent, living according to its own laws, not in everything subject to the state. This is civil society.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes for the first time introduces the concept of "civil society" into scientific circulation and proclaims its primacy over the state. Hobbes emphasizes the duality of civil society:
1) the state is not connected with civil laws, customs, law. It is, as it were, separated from civil society;
2) the state subjugates everything and everyone through the concept of civil society. Hobbes distinguishes between the concepts of "state" and "civil society".
J. Locke, the founder of classical liberalism, actively using the concept of civil society, proclaims to a certain extent its primacy over the state. Therefore, the state arises only when there is a need for it in society. Consequently, the state is not an eternal attribute of society. The basis of society, including civil society, Locke considers property. According to him, political power is understood as the right of people to create laws to regulate and preserve property. Therefore, the state and political power are not an eternal attribute of society, but arise only at a certain stage in the development of civil society, when members of society need it. He emphasizes the main dominant of civil society - for no person who is in civil society, an exception can be made from the laws of this society.
C. Montesquieu considers civil society as the result of historical development, as the fourth stage of human history after the natural state, family, heroic time. In his opinion, civil society is the enmity of people with each other. To neutralize this enmity, civil society is transformed into a state. Montesquieu distinguishes three types of laws in civil society: civil, state, political. Civil laws regulate relations, the principles of civil society. These are relations of property, voluntary associations of citizens. State laws - regulate mainly the political rights and freedoms of these same citizens. Montesquieu directly points out that civil society is the most important guarantee of society from arbitrariness and dictatorship on the part of power structures.
J.J. Rousseau shows civil society as a society transformed into a state with the help of a social contract. He, proclaiming popular sovereignty, justifies the right of the people to overthrow absolutism and alienate a democratically elected government from power.
I. Kant significantly deepened the understanding of civil society and identified the main way of formation of civil society - the combination of the freedom of each with the freedom of others. According to Kant, civil society is based on the following a priori principles:
1. Freedom of a member of society as a person;
2. His equality with others as a subject;
3. Independence of a member of society as a citizen.
Hegel enriches the understanding of civil society with fundamentally new provisions - civil society acts as a system of individuals who, with the help of labor, satisfy their own needs and the needs of others. Hegel sees the foundation of civil society in the following:
1. Private property;
2. Community of interests;
3. General equality of citizens;
4. Protection of a person from accidents.
Unlike others, Hegel considers civil society and the state as independent institutions. Civil society does not take place inside, but along with the state, Hegel noted, and it depends on the state and is to some extent absorbed by it. In the state, the general will of citizens is represented, and in civil society it is presented as a sphere for the realization of special, private interests of individual individuals. The sphere of the state is government power, administration, and the sphere of civil society is police and service power. Hegel formulated his main conclusion as follows - if the state, in order to maintain the rule of law, invades the boundaries of civil society or interferes in the activities of the judiciary, then it, as it were, opposes civil society. The state and civil society are a contradictory unity. They can exist only on the basis of many estates, i.e. developed social structure of society. Hegel considers civil society and the state as independent institutions. The state represents the general will of citizens, while civil society is the sphere of special, private interests of individual individuals. According to Hegel, civil society and the state can exist only on the basis of a developed structure of society.
Marx considered civil society as a sphere of material and economic life of people, and civil society is a social organization that develops directly from production and circulation, a set of economic and production relations corresponding to a certain level of productive forces. According to Marx, civil society is primary in relation to the state. The relationship between civil society and the state manifests itself as a relationship between individual freedom and public authority. And the differences between civil society and the state are most evident in the political life of society. If the state is included in the structure and life of society as the most important element of its political organization, then civil society is not included in its structure. According to Marx, there is an undisguised contradiction between the state and civil society - this is the representation of civil society in state bodies. Civil society, endowing itself with political functions, essentially denies itself and denies itself and is not realized. Revolutionary changes are taking place precisely in civil society - the displacement of private property. In general, Marx essentially denied the place of civil society in the new political regime - the dictatorship of the proletariat, which happened in Soviet reality. Civil society here was replaced by an imaginary "state of the whole people."
Antonio Gramsci, the Marxist theorist, considered civil society in a triple historical context:
1. When it is destroyed by the state (pre-revolutionary Russia);
2. When the state is its "external" form (Italian state);
3. When there is a balanced relationship between the state and civil society (developed Western countries).
He imagined civil society as a society that in the future will absorb the state and grow into self-government of the masses. Gramsci noted that civil society and the state are two levels of politics and the meaning of civil society is most fully expressed by political parties and other social movements.
Various aspects of modern ideas about civil society are outlined and substantiated in the works of modern scientists.
In domestic social science, the theory, especially the practice of civil society, has long been a taboo topic for research. For the first time they started talking about him in the 60s during the “Khrushchev thaw”. But only since the end of the 80s the concept of "civil society" has been gradually entering the scientific circulation of Russian social science.
Origin of civil society
In modern political science, society is seen as a combination of civil society and the state as the main institution of political power. Civil society acts as a link between the citizen and the state. It carries out the daily political life of the people. Political power, in order to consolidate itself, creates a political system and its basis - the state.
The history of the development of the state clearly distinguishes two trends:
The state is democratic, legal;
Which way the development of the state will go depends largely on the level of development of civil society. Let us try to deal with the essence of civil society, the history of its emergence and the role that civil society plays in the political life of the country.
Civil society is a non-state part of social and political life; it is a set of social relations, formal and informal structures that provide the conditions for a person's political activity, the satisfaction and realization of the various needs and interests of the individual and social groups and associations.
Among scientists there is no single view on the origin of civil society:
1. With the emergence of mankind;
2. The emergence of the state;
3. In a bourgeois society with the values of liberal democracy.
Some see the beginnings of society already at the primitive communal stage of development, when family and tribal communities begin to form.
Others believe that with the advent of private property and exploiting classes, civil society creates the state as an organ of the ruling class.
Still others believe that civil society appeared as a protest of citizens against the omnipotence of the state, as a desire of people to realize their rights and freedoms.
Historically, civil society is formed much earlier than the state, at the dawn of mankind. Researchers identify the following stages of formation civil society:
The first- the beginnings of civil society are formed by the emergence of the simplest, few and unstable associations of people for the joint procurement of food, housing construction, protection from animals and enemies;
Second- with the emergence of the production sphere of life, associations of people become more numerous, functionally diverse. At this stage, a community is formed and civil society essentially coincides with the community;
Third- at a certain stage in the development of the human community, a state arises. Consequently, the scope of civil society is narrowed to the extent that part of the members of society - slaves, serfs are deprived of civil rights. Weak civil society at this stage is absorbed by the state. The state becomes the sole arbiter of the destinies of all citizens;
Fourth- as social contradictions aggravate, the formation of civil society accelerates. The formation of various, especially protective structures of civil society is being activated. At this stage, civil society seeks legislative streamlining and regulation of relations between it and the state. Civil society forces the state to create certain guarantees for the most disadvantaged part of the population. Civil society establishes a consensus in society on the basis of basic social values: freedoms, political rights, economic independence of a person;
Fifth- associated with the approval of capitalist production relations and, most importantly, with the elimination of non-economic dependence on the owners of the means of production and the introduction of legal equality. All this expands the scope of civil society to the extent of now the entire state.
The beginnings of a civil society are formed by the emergence of the simplest, few unstable associations of people for the joint procurement of food, construction of housing, the manufacture of household items and clothing, protection from enemies and wild animals.
Over time, in connection with the development of the production sphere of life, associations of people become more numerous, functionally diverse, stable. Communities are formed, and people understand that within the community they can provide for their needs, and work for the benefit of the community gives the right to participate in community affairs. Civil society, in essence, coincides with the community.
At a certain stage of its development, civil society creates a state to protect its interests, maintains the state apparatus, controls it to a certain extent, which the state actively resists.
While civil society remains in an amorphous state, the state, gaining strength, absorbs it to a certain extent and becomes the sole arbiter of the destinies of all citizens. ("Kings can do everything ... and sometimes they decide the fate of the whole earth ...").
But precisely because civil society is immature, the state itself is not stable.
With the passage of time, civil society achieves legislative ordering and regulation of relations between it and the state, forcing the state to create certain guarantees for the most disadvantaged, to establish and maintain a certain consensus in society based on basic social values: freedoms, rights, economic independence of a person.
Under the conditions of developed capitalist relations, civil society again, as at the dawn of its development, expands its scope to the scale of the whole society, to the scale of the whole country.
Modern civil society began to take shape as a result of bourgeois revolutions in the countries of Western Europe. Its real functioning began with the adoption of the Bills of Rights in England and the United States and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in France.
Civil society does not arise immediately; certain conditions are necessary for its formation and formation. Western practices and general theory civil society make it possible to single out the following most universal or objective conditions for the formation of civil society.
1. Civil society creates the society itself, moreover, in two ways - through states or in spite of it. Through the state - this is through certain laws, the formation of democratic structures, strict observance by the state of generally accepted norms and procedures. Contrary to the state - by creating mass socio-political movements, the media.
2. The possession by each member of civil society of specific property in its various forms and the right to use it as you wish. According to Western researchers of this problem, the existence of property is considered as a basic condition for individual freedom in civil society. However, there is another opinion of scientists on this issue. So the Russian political scientist D.P. Zerkin is inclined to completely different views on private property as the basic value of civil society. He writes that private property separates people, makes them antagonists, and therefore all existing forms of property should be included in the basis of Russian civil society. D.P. Zerkin believes that the basis of civil society is the totality of economic relations, and the criterion for its functioning is the system of various social interests generated by it.
3. An important condition for the formation of civil society is the presence in society of a developed, diverse social structure. It reflects all the richness and diversity of interests of representatives of various groups and strata of citizens of the state.
4. A high level of social, intellectual, psychological development of the individual, his inner freedom and ability to complete self-activity.
Question number 2. The concept, features and structure of civil society
In modern political science, taking into account the findings of foreign researchers, the following definition is given: “Civil society is a human community, including voluntarily formed primary non-state structures in the economic, political, social and spiritual spheres of society; it is a set of non-state relations and the sphere of manifestation of free individuals, organizations and associations of citizens.
Civil society and the state complement each other and depend on one another. Without a mature civil society, it is not possible to build a legal democratic state, since it is conscious free citizens who are able to create the most rational forms of human community. Thus, if civil society acts as a strong mediating link between a free individual and a centralized state will, then the state is called upon to counteract disintegration, chaos, crisis, decline and provide conditions for the realization of the rights and freedoms of an autonomous individual. The division of civil society and the state is rather arbitrary, this is done in order to understand the mechanisms of social life, the degree of freedom and lack of freedom of individuals, the level of political development.
Civil society exists and functions in a contradictory unity with the state. So, under a democratic regime, it interacts with the state, and in a totalitarian regime, it stands in passive or active opposition to the state.
In the modern view, civil society is:
1. The totality of non-political relations of people, social communities that are outside state structures and fix private, group interests.
2. Social interaction of the population of a given territory in the economic and social areas on the principles of self-regulation, self-government, based on personal equality and the norms of a traditional hostel. State regulation operates here only in order to control anti-social actions.
3. The highest modern stage and form of human community, including as structural elements voluntarily formed primary communities of people: families, public organizations, cooperations, associations, professional, creative, sports associations, excluding state and political structures.
Political scientists identify the following historical types of civil society :
Social formations (estate, social group, class);
Society as a set of citizens of the country;
The global community of citizens.
in economic sphere - such structural elements: non-state enterprises and associations, cooperatives, collective farms. Economic attributes of civil society - natural integration, competition, free market relations;
in socially in the first sphere - these are families, public organizations and movements, non-state media, self-government bodies, a mechanism for the formation and expression of public opinion and interests in a civilized form without violence;
in political sphere - political parties, socio-political organizations, clubs created as necessary. It is a struggle to uphold democratic principles, traditions and procedures;
in spiritual sphere is the presence of freedom of thought, conscience, speech. This is independence and independence from state and political structures of the activity of creative and other associations of citizens in the spiritual sphere.
Thus, civil society is a civilized, amateur and full-fledged citizen; the formation of civil society is associated with the formation of the idea of individual freedom, the inherent value of each person; the emergence of civil society led to the delimitation of human rights and the rights of a citizen, human rights are provided by civil society, and the rights of a citizen - by the state; in civil society, the unity of politics and religion, politics and ideology is abolished, and the bifurcation of public and private, society and state, law and morality is affirmed.
The formation of a civil society means the formation of such a community of people in which an optimal ratio of political and non-political principles has been achieved, mutual equality of rights, freedoms and duties of a citizen, society and the state is ensured.