He free for real, if free not only from, but also For something.

The goal of socialism, according to Marx, is the liberation of man, and liberation, emancipation corresponds to the self-realization of man within the process of production relations and the unity of man with nature. The goal of socialism for him is the development of each individual as a personality.

About a system like Soviet communism, Marx expressed his judgment in the words “crude communism.” This “crude communism” manifests itself in two images: firstly, the dominance of material property here obscures the view so much that people are ready to destroy everything that is not subject to socialization. They. want to forcefully discard such factors that do not fit into the concepts of real property (for example, talent etc.). Physical, direct possession is the goal of existence for them; the concept of “worker” is not abolished, but is extended to everyone; relations of private property are replaced by relations of public property, which extends to the whole world, right up to the socialization of women...

The kind of communism that denies everything personality, human individuality, is the result of the consistent holding of social property.

“Crude communism” is the implementation of ordinary human envy, which is the other side of the coin called habsucht (greed, hoarding), which does not allow the other to be richer, and therefore calls for equalization.

An extreme form of such leveling can be achieved by moving from culture and civilization back to the community, where everyone works and everyone is equal.

Marx's concept of human self-realization can only be understood in connection with his concept of "labor." For Marx, labor and capital were not only economic categories. They were there for him. largely anthropological and determined by his humanistic values.

The accumulation of capital represents the past; labor, on the other hand (subject to its liberation, i.e. free labor), is an expression of the present and the future.

Marx wrote that in a bourgeois society the past dominates the present, in a communist society the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital has personal freedom and independence, while the active individual in himself is neither a person nor free.

Here Marx follows the idea of ​​Hegel, who understood labor as “a process of self-creation, self-realization.” For Marx, labor is an activity, not a commodity. At first he called work the word “activity” (Tatigkeit) rather than the word labor (Arbeit) and spoke of the abolition (Aufhebung der Arbeit) of labor as the goal of socialism. Later, when he began to draw the line between free and alienated labor, he began to use the concept of “emancipation of labor” (Befreiung der Arbeit).

The essence of the differences between the psyches of animals and humans

There is no doubt that there is a huge difference between the human psyche and the psyche of the highest animal.

Thus, the “language” of animals and human language cannot be compared in any way. While an animal can only give a signal to its fellows about phenomena limited to a given, immediate situation, a person can, with the help of language, inform other people about the past, present and future, and convey to them social experience.

In the history of mankind, thanks to language, a restructuring of reflective capabilities has occurred: the reflection of the world in the human brain is most adequate. Each individual person, thanks to language, uses the experience developed in the centuries-old practice of society; he can gain knowledge about phenomena that he has never personally encountered. In addition, language allows a person to be aware of the content of most sensory impressions.

The difference in the “language” of animals and the language of man determines the difference in thinking. This is explained by the fact that each individual mental function develops in interaction with other functions.

Many experiments by researchers have shown that higher animals are characterized only by practical (“manual”, according to Pavlov) thinking. Only in the process of indicative manipulation is a monkey able to solve one or another situational problem and even create a “tool”. Abstract modes of thinking have not yet been observed in monkeys by any researcher who has ever studied the psyche of animals. An animal can act only within the limits of a clearly perceived situation; it cannot go beyond its limits, abstract from it and assimilate an abstract principle. The animal is a slave to the directly perceived situation.

Human behavior is characterized by the ability to abstract (be distracted) from a given specific situation and anticipate the consequences that may arise in connection with this situation. So, the sailors begin to urgently repair a small hole in the ship, and the pilot looks for the nearest airfield if he has little fuel left. People are by no means slaves to a given situation; they are able to foresee the future.

Thus, the concrete, practical thinking of animals subordinates them to the immediate impression of a given situation, while man's ability for abstract thinking eliminates his direct dependence on a given situation. A person is able to reflect not only the immediate influences of the environment, but also those that await him. A person is able to act in accordance with a recognized need - consciously. This is the first significant difference between the human psyche and the animal psyche.

The second difference between man and animal is his ability to create and maintain tools. An animal creates a tool in a specific visual-effective situation. Outside of a specific situation, an animal never singles out a tool as a tool and does not keep it for future use. As soon as the tool has played its role in a given situation, it immediately ceases to exist for the monkey as a tool. So, if a monkey has just used a stick as a tool for pulling up a fetus, then after a while the animal can chew it or calmly

watch another monkey do it. Thus, animals do not live in a world of permanent things. An object acquires a certain meaning only in a specific situation, in the process of activity1. In addition, the instrumental activity of animals is never performed collectively - at best, monkeys can observe the activity of their fellow, but they will never act together, helping each other.

Unlike an animal, a person creates a tool according to a pre-thought-out plan, uses it for its intended purpose and preserves it. Man lives in a world of relatively permanent things. A person uses a tool together with other people; he borrows the experience of using a tool from some and passes it on to other people.

The third distinctive feature of human mental activity is the transfer of social experience. Both animals and humans have in their arsenal the well-known experience of generations in the form of instinctive actions to a certain type of stimulus. Both of them gain personal experience in all sorts of situations that life offers them. But only man appropriates social experience. Social experience occupies a dominant place in the behavior of an individual. The human psyche is developed to the greatest extent by the social experience transmitted to him. From the moment of birth, the child masters the ways of using tools and methods of communication. The mental functions of a person change qualitatively due to the individual subject’s mastery of the tools of cultural development of mankind. A person develops higher, strictly human, functions (voluntary memory, voluntary attention, abstract thinking).

The development of feelings, as well as the development of abstract thinking, contains a way to most adequately reflect reality. Therefore, the fourth, very significant difference between animals and humans is the difference in feelings. Of course, both man and the higher animal do not remain indifferent to what is happening around them. Objects and phenomena of reality can evoke in animals and humans certain types of attitudes towards what affects them - positive or negative emotions. However, only a person can have a developed ability to empathize with the grief and joy of another person, only a person can enjoy pictures of nature or experience intellectual feelings when realizing any fact of life.

The most important differences between the human psyche and the psyche of animals lie in the conditions of their development. If during

Since the development of the animal world, the development of the psyche followed the laws of biological evolution, the development of the human psyche itself, human consciousness, is subject to the laws of socio-historical development. Without assimilating the experience of humanity, without communicating with others like oneself, there will be no developed, strictly human feelings, the ability for voluntary attention and memory, the ability for abstract thinking will not develop, and a human personality will not be formed. This is evidenced by cases of human children being raised among animals. All Mowgli children showed primitive animal reactions, and it was impossible to detect in them those features that distinguish a person from an animal. While a small monkey, left alone by chance, without a herd, will still manifest itself as a monkey, a person will only become a person if his development takes place among people.

The human psyche was prepared by the entire course of the evolution of matter. Analysis of the development of the psyche allows us to talk about the biological prerequisites for the emergence of consciousness. Of course, the human ancestor had the ability to think objectively and could form many associations. Pre-humans, possessing a limb like a hand, could create elementary tools and use them in a specific situation. We find all this in modern apes.

However, consciousness cannot be derived directly from the evolution of animals: man is a product of social relations. The biological prerequisite for social relations was the herd. Human ancestors lived in herds, which allowed all individuals to best protect themselves from enemies and provide mutual assistance to each other.

The factor influencing the transformation of a monkey into a person, a herd into a society, was labor activity, that is, the activity that is performed by people during the joint production and use of tools.

Labor activity is a prerequisite and result of the development of social relations

The emerging labor activity influenced the development of social relations, society, developing social relations influenced the improvement of labor activity. This shift in the development of the human ancestor occurred due to a sharp change in living conditions. The catastrophic change in the environment has caused great difficulties in meeting needs - the possibilities of easily obtaining food have decreased, and the climate has worsened. Human ancestors had to either die out or qualitatively change their behavior. Out of necessity, the ape-like ancestors of humans had to resort to joint pre-labor actions. As F. Engels emphasized, “hundreds of thousands of years have probably passed, which in the history of the Earth have no more significance than a second in life

man - before human society arose from a herd of tree-climbing monkeys."

The instinctive communication of human ancestors within the herd was gradually replaced by communication based on “production” activity. Changing relationships between community members - joint activities, mutual exchange of products of activity - contributes to the transformation of the herd into a society. Thus, the reason for the humanization of human animal-like ancestors is the emergence of labor and the formation of human society.

Human consciousness also developed in labor - the highest form of reflection in the evolutionary series, which is characterized by the identification of objective stable properties of objective activity and the transformation of the surrounding reality carried out on this basis.

Making, using and preserving tools for future use - all these actions lead to greater independence from the direct influence of the environment. From generation to generation, the tools of ancient people become more and more complex - from well-chosen fragments of stones with sharp edges to specialized, collectively made tools. Such tools are assigned constant operations: stabbing, cutting, chopping. It is in this connection that a qualitative difference arises between the human environment and the animal environment. As has already been said, an animal lives in a world of random things, while a person creates for himself a world of permanent objects. The tools created by people are the material carriers of the operations, actions and activities of previous generations. Through tools, one generation passes on its experience to another in the form of operations, actions, and activities.

In work activity, a person’s attention is directed to the tool being created, and, consequently, to his own activity. The activity of an individual is included in the activity of the whole society, therefore human activity is directed to satisfy social needs. In the current conditions, the need for a person’s critical attitude to his activities is manifested. Human activity becomes conscious activity.

In the early stages of social development, people's thinking is limited in accordance with the still low level of people's social practice. The higher the level of production of tools, the correspondingly higher the level of reflection. At a high level of tool production, the integral activity of tool making is divided into a number of units, each of which can be performed by different members of society.

The separation of operations pushes the ultimate goal - getting food - even further. Only a person with abstract thinking can realize this pattern. This means that high-level production of tools, developing under the social organization of labor, is the most important condition in the formation of conscious activity.

By influencing nature, changing it, man at the same time changes his own nature. “Labor,” said Marx, “is, first of all, a process that takes place between man and nature, a process in which man, by his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature. He himself opposes the substance of nature as a force of nature. in order to appropriate the substance of nature in a form suitable for his own life, he sets in motion the natural forces belonging to his body: arms and legs, head and fingers.By influencing and changing external nature through this movement, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops the forces dormant in it and subordinates the play of these forces to his own power"3.

Under the influence of labor, new functions of the hand were consolidated: the hand acquired the greatest dexterity of movements, due to the gradually improving anatomical structure, the ratio of the shoulder and forearm changed, and mobility in all joints increased, especially the hand. However, the hand developed not only as a grasping tool, but also as an organ of cognition of objective reality. Labor activity led to the fact that the actively moving hand gradually turned into a specialized organ of active touch. Touch is a specifically human property of cognition of the world. The hand is “a subtle organ of touch,” wrote I.M. Sechenov, “and this organ sits on the hand, like on a rod, capable of not only shortening, lengthening and moving in all sorts of directions, but also feeling in a certain way each such movement”4 . The hand is an organ of touch not only because the sensitivity to touch and pressure on the palm and fingertips is much greater than on other parts of the body (for example, on the back, shoulder, lower leg), but also because, being an organ formed in work and adapted for influencing objects, the hand is capable of active touch. That is why the hand gives us valuable knowledge about the essential properties of objects in the material world.

Thus, the human hand acquired the ability to perform a wide variety of functions that were completely uncharacteristic of the limbs of the human ancestor. That is why F. Engels spoke of the hand not only as an organ of labor, but also as a product of labor.

The development of the hand went in conjunction with the development of the whole organism. The specialization of the hand as an organ of labor contributed to the development of upright walking.

The actions of the working hands were constantly monitored by vision. In the process of learning the world, in the process of work activity, many connections are formed between the organs of vision and touch, as a result of which the effect of the stimulus changes - it is more deeply, more adequately recognized by the person.

The functioning of the hand had a particularly great influence on the development of the brain. The hand, as a developing specialized organ, should also have formed a representation in the brain. This caused not only an increase in the mass of the brain, but also a complication of its structure. The developing sensory and motor areas of the human brain, in turn, influenced the further development of cognitive activity, which contributed to even more adequate reflection.

The emergence and development of labor led to an incomparably more successful satisfaction of human needs for food, shelter, etc. However, social relations of people qualitatively changed biological needs and gave rise to new, strictly human, needs. The development of objects of labor gave rise to the need for objects of labor.

Thus, labor served as the reason for the development of human society, the formation of human needs, the development of human consciousness, which not only reflects, but also transforms the world. All these phenomena in human evolution led to a radical change in the form of communication between people. The need to pass on the experience of previous generations, teach labor actions to fellow tribesmen, and distribute individual actions between them created the need for communication. The language of instincts could not satisfy this need.

Along with labor, higher forms of communication developed through the labor process - through human language.

Along with the development of consciousness and its inherent forms of reflection of reality, the person himself as a person changes.

Ovseytsev A.A.
Structural-Functional Construct (SFC)
Constructive display of structure
labor process as a special form
subject – object relationship in the system
public relations.

“... the method of presentation cannot, from a formal point of view, differ from the method of research. The study must become familiar with the material in detail, analyze the various forms of its development, and trace their internal connections. Only after this work is completed can the actual movement be properly depicted. Since this has been achieved, and the life of the material has received its ideal reflection, it may seem that we have before us an a priori design.”

K.Marx “Capital” vol.I.

Labor is, first of all, a process that takes place between man and nature (subject and object), a process in which man, through his own activity (spiritual and biological), mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature. In this process, a person actualizes the potential capabilities of nature and subordinates the forces awakened by him in the process of influencing nature to his goals.
The main points of the labor process, which we will consider as components that ensure its implementation, are:

• subject of labor
• means of labor, incl. and a person with his ability for purposeful activity,
• labor (the process of purposeful activity itself),
• the result of labor (product).

The logic of the relationships and the structure of the relationship between the indicated components, as the specific material basis of the labor process and, accordingly, the consumption process, can be clearly presented in the form of a mnemonic diagram (see Fig. 1).
The labor process loses all meaning if at least one of these components is missing.
In the process of labor, a person, using means of labor, makes a predetermined change in the object of labor. Then the labor process seems to fade away into its final result, into the product, which is immediately included in the consumption process. In this process, the result of labor (product) acquires the value of use value. The result of labor (product) also loses all meaning if it is not included in the consumption process.
In the process of consumption, the product of labor turns into either an object or a means of labor of the next labor cycle, and, therefore, every object or means of labor that is supplied to the input of this next cycle bears the “imprint” of the previous labor process.
Thus, the labor process and the consumption process are two interdependent processes that determine the structural feature (logical figure) of human activity in the system of social relations.
Taking into account the fact that use value in the process of labor and consumption can perform one of three functions: an object, a means or a product, we introduce the concept of a “functional block” and “direct and feedback”, which, in fact, determine the structure and direction of these processes in a generalized form.
Subsequent consideration of these specific functional blocks will allow us to expand and deepen the analysis by moving from a generalized consideration of processes to an active consideration, highlighting special moments that characterize human activity. Mnemonic diagram 1 will serve as a visual support in this analysis.
The process of labor and consumption, presented in a generalized form in the form of an abstract flow chart, in actual conditions usually unfolds in real space and time. This is due to the territorial location of workplaces in the process of collective labor, where operations are carried out to influence the means of labor on an object, with the sequence of these operations (in the process of giving the product the specified final consumer properties) and, accordingly, the receipt of the results of one operation as a means or object labor for another (their consumption).
Each functional block of the considered production process diagram (as a dialectical analysis of the unity of the labor process and the consumption process) has its own structure, each of which is invariant to the structure of the generalized labor process. This feature of functional blocks is due to the fact that each of them, being the result of a labor process implemented according to a single structural and functional logic, is simultaneously deployed on the time axis: “past-present-future”. So, from the position of the current moment of the labor process (the present), the products and means entering its input are previously materialized processes, the features of which are manifested when consuming their results at each given moment. In the future, they must acquire the form of a product with certain consumer properties.
This circumstance allows us to present the mnemonic diagram 1 we are considering in the form of mnemonic diagram 2.

In this scheme, each of the presented blocks, repeating the structural feature of the simplest moments of labor, simultaneously includes all possible variations of specific types deployed in real space and time.
Thus, the functional block of the formation of the object of labor (P) includes all the features of labor to “snatch” the object from its direct connection with the surrounding nature. These features are usually associated with such types of labor as trade (hunting, fishing), extraction of natural resources (ore, oil, coal, gas, forest), agriculture and livestock raising (grain, vegetables, fruits, meat, milk).
The functional block for the formation of means of labor (C) includes all the features of the labor process of creating tools of labor intended to perform certain operations (relative to the subject of labor) aimed at obtaining a result (product) with given properties. These usually include tools, mechanisms that expand the physical capabilities of a person, machines that can replace a person when performing certain operations, as well as the person himself with his motor and intellectual strength that underlie (T) the processing of an object (a product of previous labor process) coming from block (P).
If in the functional blocks P and S labor processes are implemented to create the entire variety of objects and means of labor necessary in general for the activity of the social organism, then in the functional block of the labor process (T) at each considered moment of its continuous implementation only a certain operation is implemented on the selected object and only by a means that is capable, in the process of their interaction through a person, of acquiring the properties necessary for the subsequent process of consuming its result at the next moment of the continuously ongoing labor process.
The functional block for implementing the result of labor (P) includes all subsequent operations of the labor process, in which the result of the previous process is consumed by subsequent processes as an object or means. (in block P two contradictory moments collide: the desired and the actual).
As we see, in all four functional blocks (mnemo-diagram 2.) the process of changing the form of a substance of nature is carried out in order to adapt it to human needs, realized as an object of labor, a means of labor, a product of consumption in a single system. However, when considering the structure of the means of labor, which is the person himself according to the scheme we have established, we come across a certain contradiction.
So, if, in a certain sense, a person is the result of the “processing” of a certain “biological substance” in order to impart to him by a social organism the corresponding “human properties”, expressed in specific motor and intellectual strength, then this point does not cause any contradiction. A contradiction does not arise as soon as we move on to consider the labor process itself (functional block T), in which a person as a means of labor is realized as a motor and intellectual force, without which the labor process is not able to take place. The motive force purposefully brings into interaction the object and the means, as a result of which the object undergoes the necessary changes. However, any motor force is necessarily preceded by an intellectual process that determines the feasibility and necessity of performing certain operations.

“The spider performs operations reminiscent of those of a weaver, and the bee, with the construction of its wax cells, puts some human architects to shame. But even the worst architect differs from the best bee from the very beginning in that before he builds a cell of wax, he has already built it in his head. At the end of the labor process, a result is obtained that was already in the person’s mind at the beginning of this process, i.e. perfect. Man not only changes the form of what is given by nature; in what is given by nature, he at the same time realizes his conscious goal, which, like a law, determines the method and nature of his actions and to which he must subordinate his will.”

Thus, in the general structure of the labor process, we did not take into account the fact that before receiving a product with the given properties, a person must carry out some work to create an ideal image of this product and, accordingly, determine the sequence of technological operations that will allow him to achieve the desired result .
To take this circumstance into account, we will make the appropriate transformation of mnemonic diagram 1, the result of which is shown in mnemonic diagram 3.

Now from this diagram it is clear that in order to carry out the labor process, not only the object of labor and the means of labor must be submitted to its input, but at the same time an operational image of the future result must be formed, i.e. a list of operations must be determined (selected) that will actually lead the process to the desired result, aimed at satisfying the corresponding need.
The formation of an operational image in an ideal form is carried out on the basis of practical connections and relationships of a person with the objective world included in the process of labor and consumption. This connection is shown in mnemonic diagram 3 as dashed and dotted.
The indicated scheme can be simplified if we keep in mind that the object of labor and the means of labor have the same basis, namely: the product of previous labor, i.e. both of these input elements act as a previously materialized result of labor and can be designated, as shown in a simplified version of mnemonic diagram 4, “material support for the labor process.”

An operational image, which, as a certain mental product of the thought process, is also a product of labor, like all its other moments.
Labor created man as a thinking being. In this regard, the operational image as a necessary functional element in the general structure of labor can be presented in the form of a functional block, the structure of which (as well as other blocks) is invariant to the structure of the labor process as a whole due to the fact that the thought process as a specific active form of reflective a process that characterizes the internal state of the human body and, accordingly, the social “organism”, must carry within itself the form of external processes that are realized in the conditions of direct interaction between humans, means of production and means of consumption.
Taking into account this circumstance, mnemo-diagram 4 will again be presented in the form of interconnected functional blocks (mnemo-diagram 5), where the structure of each of them repeats the structure of the process as a whole, including the block in which the thought process that precedes the process of directed physical influence is implemented person on the corresponding object with the help of tools.

In the new version of mnemonic diagram 5, the functional block (0), while retaining the structure of the labor process (just like it), includes certain actions (operations) subordinated to a conscious goal, as well as certain means that ensure the implementation of these actions ( operations). For example, logical.
The functional block (O) carries out, as it were, the objectification of ideas that encourage and regulate the activity of a person (subject) in relation to an object (interacting object and means). In the final product of the labor process, mental processes seem to acquire a new form of existence in the form of external, sensually perceived objects, the ideal existence of which is expressed in the correlation of ideas and the actually manifested properties of the object and means in the process of their consumption by labor. As a rule, the result of such a correlation leads to the determination of meaning, which takes the form of a sign or word (language), which determines the specifics of information processes in the system of the social organism.
Thus, “behind verbal meanings lies the social activity crystallized in them, in the process of which only objective reality is revealed to man.” Together with that “...they still boastfully flaunt only what production owes to science, but science owes infinitely more to production” .
The thought process, the end result of which is an operational image of the product of labor, is a type of purposeful actions and logical operations, the structure of which must be adequate to the following three tasks that underlie purposeful human activity:

• analysis that serves as a prerequisite and determines the choice of goals;
• synthesis, which determines the logic of technological processes for obtaining a product with given properties (the logic of achieving the goal);
• management, which determines the conditions for the coherence of actions of a team of people in conditions of cooperation of labor conditions aimed at objects, the scale of which, the existence in space and time, significantly exceeds the capabilities of an individual.

The absence of these three points in the structure of the functional block (O) and, accordingly, in all other blocks where the thought process is also carried out, taking into account the specifics of these blocks (mnemo diagram 5), indicates the incompleteness and insufficiency of disclosing the structure of activity as a whole in the mnemo -scheme 4.
One of the ways to eliminate this shortcoming is the path of research (analysis and generalization) of the structural features of modern scientific and production systems, characterized by a wide variety of elements of modern production: scientific research, technical developments, equipment, technology, main and auxiliary production, management practices, in which all the features of the forms of human activity (forms of subject-object relationship) aimed at obtaining and continuous reproduction of a socially useful necessary product are realized in the greatest completeness.
A similar analysis and relevant research were carried out at one of the modern enterprises in the period 1970-1975. As a result of these studies, a generalized structural and functional diagram was obtained that defines the main generalized components of production activity in their interrelation and interdependence (The structural and functional diagram is presented in the form of a mnemonic diagram 6).

Comparison of the resulting generalized structure of the labor process (mnemo-diagram 6), reflecting the real conditions of human production activity in modern conditions, carried out within the framework of the subject-object relationship, and mnemo-diagram 4 and 5, allows us to make clarifications and show them in a more complete and logically completed form (see mnemonic diagram 7).

From the comparison it is clear that the intellectual ability of a person as part of a social organism, which we designated in mnemonic diagram 5 as a functional block (O), breaks down into four blocks:

• Control block,
• synthesis block,
• analysis block,
• block defined as “Bringing into correspondence the ideal and material aspects, the desired and the actually achievable” i.e. block of overcoming dialectical contradiction.

In addition, seven additional elements are introduced in mnemonic diagram 7. Five of them (conventionally as Ko, K1, K2, K3, K4) characterize the functional aspects associated with standardizing the choice of means when carrying out the synthesis (design) of a product, when forming the necessary conditions for its technological implementation and obtaining the required consumer properties (quality control and evaluation result of labor), and two blocks: “Problems of consumption” and “Problems of the labor process” are associated with the presence of a problem of discrepancy between what is desired (required) and what is actually obtained in the process of product formation (technological losses, defects), as well as in the process of its consumption (low quality, lack of need, failure to achieve the goal). In these two blocks, the process of forming the conditions for perceiving and distinguishing (taking into account and evaluating) these problems is carried out.
If the functional blocks for identifying problem situations determine the direction of the analysis, on the basis of which data for decision-making is generated in the structure of the “Management” block in relation to the “Synthesis” and “Reconciliation of the ideal and the real” blocks, then Ko, K1, K2, K3 ,K4 determine the standards (adequate to the goal) within the framework of which these decisions must be implemented. With respect to these standards, in the functional blocks Ko, K1, K2, K3, K4, control is carried out, which is based on a measurement process that ensures the proportionality of different quality means, the formation of different quality means for the formation of a given property and, accordingly, an adequate reflection of these properties in thinking during design (synthesis).
From the point of view of the established everyday (rational) concept, this refined version of the flowchart in the modern language of industrial relations can be simplifiedly interpreted as follows.
In accordance with the technical specifications (K1), the design (R) of the product is carried out. A project describing the design of a product and the method of implementing this design, having passed standard control (Ir.K2), enters production (P). Simultaneously with the development of the project, production preparation is carried out, during which the starting material and technological equipment that meet the requirements (K4), determined by the technical specifications and the project, are supplied from the functional block (M). Then, according to the technological documentation established by the project, the product is manufactured in the functional block (P).
The manufactured product undergoes technical control (K3) for compliance with technical specifications that meet the consumer’s requirements, and then goes into operation to the consumer (E). During operation, the consumer carries out a qualitative assessment of the product. If the product for some reason does not meet the requirements of the specifications, the consumer submits a complaint to the manufacturer (A3). And if the characteristics that meet the requirements of the specifications cease to satisfy the consumer for some other reason, then he puts forward new requirements (To), which are taken into account when drawing up a new technical specification.
The complaint (A3) submitted to the manufacturer is subject to analysis (vvA) to determine the causes of poor quality manufacturing. The analysis of the reasons is carried out on the basis of a simultaneously carried out analysis of the reasons for the formation of defects in production, technological losses and failures that occur during the production process and during acceptance tests (A1, A2).
The results of the analysis and proposals for eliminating deficiencies in the project or in the production process itself are sent to the control unit (vA). The management team reviews proposals at a joint meeting of developers and manufacturers (RP), where the results of the analysis are discussed from the point of view of the project's compliance with the production capabilities of its implementation. After that, an action plan is formed to eliminate the causes of the complaint and then the work of both (R) and (P) is restructured in accordance with the established action plan.
Endowing the block (vvA) with the functional features of science allows, in comparison with other functional blocks, to highlight the special aspects of science, expressed (primarily) in its analytical and explanatory functions.
In the considered variants of schemes corresponding to the structural and functional features of human activity in the structure of the social organism, the most significant and difficult point is not the interpretation of certain schemes in terms of “everyday” representation, but the disclosure of structural features and the “mechanism” of action, interaction and mutual transition of functional blocks filled with a certain material content, taking into account the characteristics of the subject-object relationship. These features (essence) of the subject-object relationship are usually characterized by a certain system of concepts that reflects the spatio-temporal (historical) development of the accumulated experience of human activity in a generalized form (at the general level) in the corresponding field of activity. For example:

• in the field of analysis (science, research);
• in the field of creativity (synthesis, design, construction, planning);
• in the field of production (equipment, technology, product manufacturing);
• in the sphere of consumption (economics, distribution, life support);
• in the field of computer science (communication, data processing);
• in the field of education (training, upbringing, transfer of experience);
• in the field of regulation and standardization (metrology),
• in the field of management (policy, organization, automation);
• in the field of cultural development of the individual and society as a whole (culture, socio-cultural restructuring).

All these spheres are invariant to the structure of the activity of the social organism as an integrity, abstractly displayed in the form of a visual mnemonic diagram of the SFC (Structural-Functional Construct), the symbolic structure of which is shown in Fig. 1

Notes

Ovseytsev A.A. Structural-Functional Construct (SFC) // “Academy of Trinitarianism”, M., El No. 77-6567, pub. 10635, 08.18.2003

ON THE ISSUE OF STUDYING THE CONCEPT OF “LABOR”

Khoroshkevich Natalya Gennadievna
Ural Federal University
Associate Professor of the Department of Sociology and Social Technologies of Management, Candidate of Sociological Sciences

annotation
The article examines the interpretation of the concept of “labor”. The analysis of interpretations was carried out mainly on the basis of dictionary sources, because they usually present this concept. To study the concept, explanatory and dictionaries of various disciplines (both humanities and non-humanities) were used, where definitions of this concept are presented.
Most definitions of labor are presented in explanatory, philosophical, economic and sociological dictionaries. The article notes the features of the definition of the phenomenon being studied in each of the disciplines within which the definitions of labor are given.
During the study, the characteristics of labor given in the literature used for analysis were identified, namely: labor is one of the main types of activity, the basis for the emergence and existence of society; depends on the level of development of social relations; depends on the level of technical development of society; expedient activity; carried out for the purpose of creating objects; labor is the process of creating material and spiritual values; objects are created to satisfy needs; objects are created using tools; human development occurs; it is the process of interacting with objects.
The article highlights two approaches used in interpreting the phenomenon under study. In the first group of definitions of labor, its historical aspect is not noted, in the second, it is shown how labor develops throughout social development. The author proposes two interpretations of the concept of labor in accordance with both approaches.

ON THE NOTICE OF "LABOUR"

Khoroshevich Natalia Gennadievna
Ural Federal University
Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Social Techniques of Control, Candidate of Sociological Sciences

Abstract
The paper studies representations of the notion of “labor.” The interpretations are analyzed based primarily on dictionary sources as such sources usually contain this notion. Explanatory dictionaries and dictionaries of various branches (of both liberal arts and sciences), which provide definitions of this concept, are used.
Labor is mostly defined in explanatory, philosophical, economic and sociological dictionaries. The paper describes specifics of the subject’s definitions in each of the branches where the definition of “labor” is given.
During the research, characteristics of labor are marked out as specified in the literature used for the analysis, specifically: labor is one of the main activities, the basis of origin and existence of the society; depends on the state of social-relations development; depends on the state of the society’s technical development; reasonable activity performed with the purpose of creating objects; labor is the process of creating material and spiritual values; objects are created in order to satisfy needs; objects are created using tools; a person develops; this is a process of interaction with objects.
The paper describes two approaches used for interpretation of the subject at hand. The first group of “labor” definitions does not take into account its historical aspect, whereas the second one demonstrates the evolution of labor during the society’s development. The author proposes two treatments of the notion of “labor” in accordance with both approaches.

Labor is one of the main types of human activity. Currently, representatives of various sciences are studying it. Despite the fact that this phenomenon is studied from the perspective of different disciplines, its study remains constantly relevant, because the labor process is constantly changing under the influence of events occurring in society.

Sociology, a science that studies interaction in society, also studies this phenomenon. Today in sociology there is a separate direction that studies labor - the sociology of labor. But, as noted above, changes constantly occur in the labor process, so it is necessary to replenish and update knowledge (even already studied aspects of a given industrial sociology) in this industrial sociology.

This article presents an analysis of the concept of “labor”, carried out mainly on dictionary literature. Here we consider modern interpretations of labor, proposed in explanatory dictionaries, dictionaries in various disciplines, including dictionaries on sociology. And, although this is dictionary literature (an extensive study of the phenomenon under study is not intended here), nevertheless, these definitions were developed by well-known specialists in these sciences.

All definitions of the concept “labor” given in the dictionary literature can be divided into two groups. These are definitions presented in explanatory dictionaries, where this concept is given in the most general interpretations, and interpretations of this phenomenon - in dictionaries for a particular discipline, where work is considered from the point of view of a particular science, in the plane in which it deals research of this phenomenon.

Definitions of labor are usually present in all dictionaries of the first group. The earliest of them are presented in V.I. Dahl’s explanatory dictionaries. Here labor is understood as “work, occupation, exercise; everything that requires effort, diligence and care; any tension of bodily and mental strength; everything that tires." Only in V.I. Dahl’s dictionaries, along with other interpretations, work is also considered as something that tires.

In later dictionaries, if such an understanding of this phenomenon is given, it is always emphasized that this is an outdated interpretation. But this interpretation is given quite rarely in Soviet and post-Soviet dictionaries.

In the 1947 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, labor is understood as “... a process taking place between man and nature, in which man, through his activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature.” In the same encyclopedia, but published in 1956, labor is considered as “a purposeful human activity, during which, with the help of tools of labor, he influences nature and uses it to create consumer values ​​necessary to satisfy his needs.” The last of these definitions emphasizes that work is performed in order to satisfy needs.

The largest number of interpretations of labor are presented in dictionaries of the Soviet period, where the interpretations of labor are the same as in the post-Soviet period, but one of the outdated interpretations of labor is also used - difficulties, hardships. In the Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language, 1963. here labor is considered as 1. “The process of human influence on nature, human activity aimed at creating material and cultural values..; 2. Work that requires physical or mental energy...; 3. Effort, diligence aimed at achieving something; 4. The result of activity, work; work; 5. Outdated Difficulties, hardships; 6. Academic subject.

In modern dictionaries (post-Soviet period) there are from three to five interpretations of the concept of labor. In the interpretations of this period, there is no emphasis on the fact that labor is an interaction between man and nature. This is quite justified, because labor can be carried out both in relation to the “second nature” and in relation to man and man. In one of the interpretations of labor, this phenomenon is considered as a purposeful human activity. However, here they stop noting that this activity is aimed at satisfying needs, which is an important fact. In the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language Ozhegova S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. five interpretations of the concept of “labor” are given. Labor is 1. “Practical and socially useful human activity, requiring mental and physical stress; 2. Occupation, work; 3. Effort aimed at achieving something; 4. The result of activity, work, work; 5. Instilling skills in some professional activity as a subject of school teaching.” The same interpretations of the concept of “labor” are given in a number of other explanatory dictionaries. In dictionaries, where fewer interpretations of labor are given, the first three or four interpretations are most often given, as in the definition presented above.

So, work is characterized as: a) activity, b) it has a goal, c) it is aimed at creating material and spiritual values, d) values ​​serve to satisfy needs, e) it involves a result, f) it requires effort.

If we consider the interpretation of labor within the framework of scientific disciplines, they can also be divided into two groups. These are interpretations of labor from the perspective of non-humanities and humanities.

If we consider the concept of “labor” within the framework of non-humanitarian sciences, it can be noted that in the natural sciences it is considered quite widely. Starting from the definition of work as “the process of overcoming resistance along a certain path”, and ending with the consideration in its definitions of the constitution of the body and the workplace. In the natural sciences, labor is understood not only as human activity, but also as the activity of animals and natural forces. Changes in nature are noted here, but without taking into account the meaning of this change, without taking into account the specifics of labor.

Physiology emphasizes the physiological stress in the labor process, that this process requires energy when performing various physiological functions. Labor is a necessary human need. If an individual's organs do not function for a long time, they atrophy.

Quite often you can find definitions of the concept “labor” in economic dictionaries. Definitions of types of labor can also be given here.

In economics, labor is viewed from the point of view of obtaining benefits, an element of the production process. Very often, work is understood as “the purposeful activity of people to create material and spiritual goods necessary to meet the needs of an individual, enterprise, people or society as a whole.” Sometimes work is not only characterized as a purposeful activity, but it is also given other characteristics. For example, according to the Modern Economic Dictionary, labor is “a conscious, energy-intensive, generally recognized as expedient activity of a person, people, requiring the application of effort, the implementation of work; one of the four main factors of production."

Thus, labor is a) one of the main factors of production, b) an activity aimed at producing material goods, c) carried out in order to satisfy needs, d) energy-consuming, e) conscious, f) requiring effort.

From the point of view of the humanities, work is always meaningful. In philosophy, work is always a purposeful activity, where there is an active subject striving to achieve a goal. For example, labor is “the purposeful activity of people, which has as its content the transformation, mastery of natural and social forces to satisfy the historically established needs of man and society; it is “...first of all, a process taking place between man and nature, a process in which man, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature. He himself opposes the substance of nature as a force of nature. In order to appropriate the substance of nature in a form suitable for his own life, he sets in motion the natural forces belonging to his body: arms and legs, head and fingers. By influencing and changing external nature through this movement, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops the forces dormant in her and subordinates the play of these forces to his own power.” This is the most complete interpretation of labor in philosophical dictionaries. Most often, only the definition of labor is given there.

Some philosophical dictionaries define labor in several senses. Thus, in the New Philosophical Encyclopedia, work is “a purposeful human activity, considered 1) from the point of view of the exchange of man with nature - in this case, in work, a person, with the help of tools, influences nature and uses it to create objects necessary to satisfy his needs ; 2) from the angle of its socio-historical form. In this case, it appears in social utopias as a transitory form of activity.” Or, labor is “the process of people creating conditions and means of subsistence; embodiment of human strength, skill and knowledge; transformation and adaptation of natural material to human needs. Labor is a way of reproduction and accumulation of human experience; in a narrower sense - a way of multiplying benefits, wealth, capital. In a philosophical sense, labor “is characterized as an aspect of activity in which human forces and abilities are objectified, taking on the form of appearance, materiality, objectivity, independent of the individual who created it, at the same time suitable for its appropriation by other people, for moving it in the space and time of society” .

Quite rarely, but you can find other definitions where work is considered most of all from some angle. Thus, work can also be understood as “an ethical phenomenon is the same as participation, expenditure, application: the individual finds application for himself, expends strength, gives his energy.” Here we take a more detailed look at what happens to an individual during the labor process. In this definition, labor is considered where the starting point is the individual. In other definitions, the starting point is reality, which includes the individual, nature, and other objects.

If we analyze the philosophical interpretations of the concept of “work”, then this phenomenon can be characterized as: a) purposeful activity, b) impact on nature, c) activity aimed at satisfying needs, d) activity requiring tension, e) human experience, f) objectification of human forces in the labor process.

In other dictionaries of the humanities (except sociology), definitions of labor are quite rare. However, they most often present fairly similar interpretations in comparison with those discussed above, although they are also supplemented by differences due to the angle of consideration of certain processes inherent only to these disciplines.

Also, in some dictionaries, such components of labor are distinguished as a) purposeful activity, b) motives for this activity, c) objects, d) tools, e) results of labor. Sometimes in the definition of labor, in addition to the above interpretation, you can find other interpretations of the concept. For example, labor is 1) purposeful human activity aimed at creating, using the means of labor, material and spiritual values ​​necessary for people’s lives; 2) work, occupation; 3) effort aimed at achieving something; 4) the result of a person’s activity or work.”

In social studies dictionaries you can find similar definitions, where work is considered as a purposeful activity of people aimed at creating material and spiritual values. But there are other definitions. For example, labor is “a purposeful human activity. According to the evolutionary point of view, cosmic evolution led to the emergence of terrestrial life, the biosphere as a whole; the evolution of the latter ultimately “created man; in the course of social (and cultural) evolution, the development of man and society took place from primitive times to our scientific and technological age.”

Quite rarely, but definitions of labor can be found in dictionaries of other sciences. For example, in the Dictionary of Social Pedagogy, labor is understood as “the purposeful activity of people aimed at creating consumer values; one of the main types of human activity, along with play, cognition, and communication.” Or, work can be considered as “a human activity that meets the requirements of the following principles: awareness (means that a person, before starting the labor process, is aware of the result of the upcoming work); expediency (a person thinks through an algorithm of actions before proceeding with the implementation of his intentions."

Thus, examining the concept of “labor,” we can identify the following characteristics of labor: a) purposeful activity, b) aimed at creating material and spiritual values, c) these values ​​are necessary for the process of life, d) one of the main types of human activity, e) this activity, f) effort, g) work is always conscious, h) presupposes a goal and result.

From the standpoint of sociology, work is studied as a social phenomenon, the interaction between people in the labor process, and a person’s attitude to work are studied.

Typically, in sociological dictionaries, the definition of labor is considered as “expedient, meaningful activity, during which a person, with the help of tools of labor, masters, changes, adapts natural objects to his goals.” In dictionaries on the sociology of labor, labor is interpreted as “the purposeful activity of a person, during which he, with the help of tools of labor, influences nature and uses it to create objects necessary to satisfy his needs.” They also note that labor “represents the unity of three moments: 1. Purposeful, purposeful human activity or labor itself; 2. Objects of labor; 3. means of labor."

Labor is characterized quite fully in the work of D. Markovich “Sociology of Labor”. Labor is “a conscious, universal and organized human activity, the content and nature of which are determined by the degree of development of the means of labor and the characteristics of social relations within the framework of which it is carried out; a person asserts himself in it as a genetic being, creating material and spiritual values ​​that serve to satisfy his essential needs.” needs." This is a very broad definition. The development of labor throughout the existence of society is noted here. It can be noted that definitions can be divided into two groups: these are more “capacious”, but more universal, where the historical aspect of the development of the phenomenon is not considered; and more “expanded” definitions, which talk about changes in the phenomenon during the development of society. The above definition belongs to the second group of definitions.

In some of the above definitions (not only sociological), work is considered as a process of interaction between man and nature. But it should be noted that work can also be performed in relation to another person. Today, the service sector is also developed, where labor activity is also expected, but not related to the transformation of natural resources, but related to the provision of services. For example, the provision of medical services to a patient is a service sector. Here, an object of labor is not created from natural resources. However, the health worker also works in relation to the patient. In this case, the subject of labor can be not only what something can be made from, but also some qualities, characteristics, etc. man, and the object of labor is man.

It should also be noted that in the process of work a person develops, new conditions appear that determine new needs.

So, in sociology, work is characterized as:

This is one of the main types of activity, the basis for the emergence and existence of society;

Depends on the level of development of social relations;

Depends on the level of technical development of society;

Expedient activity;

Carried out for the purpose of creating objects;

Labor is the process of creating material and spiritual values;

Items are created to satisfy needs;

Objects are created using tools;

Human development occurs;

This is the process of interacting with objects.

Studying the definitions of labor, we can distinguish two approaches to its interpretation. For example, work – This is one of the main types of human activity, conscious, purposeful, requiring effort and involving the creation of material or spiritual values ​​with the help of tools in the process of interaction with other objects.

Or - from the standpoint of the second approach: work – this is one of the main types of human activity, conscious, determined by existing social relations and the level of technical development of society, during which the development of the person himself occurs, requiring effort, and involving the creation of material or spiritual values ​​with the help of tools in the process of interaction with other objects, aimed at meeting people's needs.

In the first case, the influence of social relations on this type of activity is not noted and the fact that these actions are carried out in order to satisfy needs is not emphasized. The second version of the interpretation of labor is more complete. The above-mentioned features of this type of activity that are absent in the first version of the definition are noted here. These are not unimportant characteristics, although it is well known that human activity, directly or indirectly, is always carried out in order to satisfy his needs and is determined by objective factors. And it would be more appropriate to note these features of the phenomenon under study.

Economic Dictionary / Ed. A.N.Azriliyan. – 2nd ed. – M.: Institute of New Economics, 2008. – 1152 p.

Modern economic dictionary / Comp. B.A. Raizberg, L.Sh. Lozovsky, E.B. Starodubtseva. – 4th ed., revised and supplemented. – M.: INFR-M, 2004. – 480 p. – (IFRA-M Dictionary Library).

Philosophical Encyclopedia. Ch. ed. F.V. Konstantinov. "Soviet Encyclopedia" In 5 volumes. T.5, “signal systems – yashty”. M., 1970.

Marx K. Works / Marx K. and Engels F. 2nd ed.. T.23.

New philosophical encyclopedia: In 4 volumes / Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Scientific Society. – scientific foundation; Scientific ed. Council: subject V.S. Stepin, deputy chairmen: A.A. Guseinov, G.Yu. Semigin, academic secretary A.P. Ogurtsov. – M.: Mysl, 2010. T.IV. T-Ya. – 736s.

Social philosophy: Dictionary / Comp. and ed. V.E. Kemerov, T.Kh. Kemerov. – M.: Academic Project, 2003. – 560 p. – (“Summa”). P.478.

Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. – M.: INFRA-M. 2011. – 570 p.

Dictionary of terms and concepts in social science / author-compiler A.M. Lopukhov; will enter. Words by A.S. Streltsov. – M.: Iris-press, 2007. – 448 p.

Yatsenko N.E. Explanatory dictionary of social science terms. Series “Textbooks for universities. Special literature". – St. Petersburg: Publishing house “Lan”, 1999. – 528 p.

Volkov Yu.G. Man: Encyclopedic Dictionary / Volkov Yu.G., Polikarpov V.S. – M.: Gardariki, 2000. – 520 p.

Dictionary of social pedagogy: Textbook. A manual for higher education students. establishments / Auto-comp. A.V. Mardakhaev. – M.: Publishing Center, Academy, 2002. – 368 p.

Personnel management: encyclopedia / Ed. Prof. A.Ya.Kibanova. – M.: INFRA-M, 2010 – VI, 554 p.

Sociology: Encyclopedia / Comp. A.A.Gritsianov, V.L.Abushenko, G.M.Evelkin, N.Sokolova, O.V.Tereshchenko. – Mn.: Book House, 2003. – 1312 p. – (World of Encyclopedias).

Sociology of labor. Theoretical and applied explanatory dictionary / Otv. Ed. V.A. Yadov. – St. Petersburg: M., Nauka, 2006. – 426 p.

Sociological encyclopedic dictionary. In Russian, English, German, French and Czech. Editor-coordinator – Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences G.V. Osipov. – M.: Publishing group INFRA-M – NORMA, 1998. – 488 p.

Markovich D. Sociology of labor: Transl. from Serbian Croats / General Ed. And afterwords. N.I. Dryakhlova and B.V. Knyazev. – M.: Progress, 1988.

Number of views of the publication: Please wait

The core of the materialist concept in Capital itself is the theory of material labor as the functioning of material productive forces. K. Marx defines labor as follows: “Labor is, first of all, a process taking place between man and nature, a process in which man, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature. He himself opposes the substance of nature as a force of nature.” This is a fundamental point. Marx emphasizes that man, as a direct element of the productive forces, is himself a concrete force of nature, the animate substance of nature. From this side, the social process acts as a direct continuation of the natural process. The labor process as a process of functioning of productive forces is the essence of the mode of production. Marx emphasizes that “economic eras differ not in what is produced, but in how it is produced, with what means of labor” [ibid., p. 191]. Although in different eras in society there are different means of labor and, therefore, different labor processes, nevertheless, it is the labor process that takes place everywhere, while the process of creating value is not universal. At the same time, Marx’s presentation of the labor process from a modern point of view cannot be considered completely consistent. He defines labor as “purposeful activity” and, speaking about the difference between animal-like instinctive forms of labor from human labor itself, writes: “But even the worst architect differs from the best bee from the very beginning in that, before building a cell of wax, he already built it in my head. At the end of the labor process, a result is obtained that was already in a person’s mind at the beginning of this process, that is, ideally” [ibid., p. 189]. Of course, in the process of material activity a person acts as a conscious being. However, in the fabric of such activity it is necessary to separate at the level of abstraction the plan for the ideal construction of the future situation and the plan for the actual material transformation of nature. The first is ideal activity, the second is labor itself. Another thing is that in conditions of an undeveloped division of labor, both plans are merged and in Marx’s “Capital” there are only guesses that in the future society the machine will completely displace man from the sphere of material production itself.

Marx, realizing that the progress of society directly depends on the division of labor, carefully analyzes the technical side of production in Capital. He considers forms of cooperation, manufacture, and machine production itself as an adequate basis for capitalism. Marx emphasizes that “machine production did not initially arise on a material basis corresponding to it” [ibid., p. 393]. Machines were initially made in a factory environment. It is only when machines begin to be produced by machines that the industrial revolution is completed and bourgeois society begins to develop on its own basis. Let us note in passing that this circumstance is extremely important. The new society does not immediately begin to develop on its own basis. The same is typical for the early socialist society, which, due to the immaturity of the technical basis, turned out to be capable of its own Restoration. However, the latter became only a painful and ugly form of transition to the adequate foundations of a new society. The machine technical basis, according to Marx, tends to constantly change. He wrote: “Modern industry never considers or treats the existing form of the production process as final. Therefore, its technical basis is revolutionary, whereas all previous methods of production had an essentially conservative basis” [ibid., p. 497-498]. Marx approaches the idea of ​​a technical limit to capitalist production purely logically and at the same time gropingly. Living long before the actual automation of production, he predicted a phase of technical development that would exclude actual physical labor. Thus, he wrote: “It is clear that if the production of a certain machine costs the same amount of labor as is saved by its use, then a simple transfer of labor occurs, i.e., the total amount of labor necessary for the production of a commodity does not decrease, or the productive power of labor does not increase. But the difference between the labor which a machine costs and the labor which it saves, or the degree of its productivity, obviously does not depend on the difference between its own value and the value of the implement which it replaces. The first difference continues to exist as long as the labor costs of the machine, and therefore that part of the value that is transferred from it to the product, remain less than the value that the worker with his tool would add to the object of labor" [ibid., p. 402]. Thus, Marx predicts a future technical state, when the costs of producing a product of labor will be entirely reduced to the costs of past labor. Although this idea was expressed by Marx in a complex form, since it was difficult for him to rely on living practice, its significance is great for the materialist understanding of the prospects for the development of production and the historical limits of the value economy [see. 57,58].

However, Marx, without living empirical experience before his eyes, simplified some phenomena of production. Thus, his interpretation of the law of labor change boiled down to the fact that machine production, making the technical basis extremely dynamic, also makes the worker dynamic. Having lost work in one place, he is ready to start it in another. Along with the negative side of the matter, there is also a positive aspect here - the opportunity to change activities, which is so necessary for the comprehensive development of the individual. Marx largely believed that if machine production was transferred to public ownership, then the law of labor change could be realized in full. However, subsequent practice has shown that more complex production requires deep specialization, and a change in activity is apparently possible at later stages of production during the transition to the actual automation of technological processes. Thus, Marx partly shared the historical illusions caused by the initial stages of machine production. Marx paid particular attention to the technical difference between city and countryside. He emphasized that large-scale industry revolutionizes the countryside, turning the peasant into a wage worker, and at the same time prepares the way for the elimination of significant differences between city and countryside. Marx's economic analysis appears to be an analysis of class relations in bourgeois society. Classes act as subjects of production relations, between which a wide range of class relations unfolds - material and ideological. Marx brilliantly shows that the proletariat has its own competition. Proletarians, as owners of the commodity “labor power,” strive to sell their goods more profitably, alienating their fellow class members. However, the logic of capitalist production relations is such that the poles of social polarization - labor and capital - are increasingly diverging from each other, and the illusions of wage workers are dispelled. Marx writes: “Consequently, the capitalist process of production, considered in general connection, or as a process of reproduction, produces not only goods, not only surplus value, it produces and reproduces the capitalist relation itself - the capitalist on one side, the wage worker on the other.” [ibid., p. 591]. Marx could not foresee the entire historical complexity of capitalist relations in the 20th century, the influence of the victorious socialist revolution in Russia on the capitalist countries, therefore, as it turned out, he simplified the dialectics of class relations, believing that the economic situation of wage workers would constantly worsen. However, developed capitalist countries in the 20th century increased attention to issues of social protection of the population under the influence of the social gains of socialist states. At the same time, Marx was and remains right that the gap between capital and labor continues to grow. The rate of surplus value in living labor increases, further alienating the capitalist and the worker. This means that alienation in modern bourgeois society is stronger than it was before.

The objective logic of capitalist relations, revealed by Marx, showed the historical limit of the bourgeois system. Such a limit should be the technical socialization of production: “The centralization of the means of production and the socialization of labor reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist shell. She explodes. The hour of capitalist private property is striking. The capitalist mode of appropriation, resulting from the capitalist mode of production, and, consequently, capitalist private property, is the first negation of individual private property based on one’s own labor. But capitalist production, with the necessity of a natural process, generates its own negation. This is the negation of the negation. It restores not private property, but individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era: on the basis of cooperation and common ownership of land and means of production produced by labor itself” [ibid., p. 773]. Marx understood that capitalism ends the prehistory of human society.