FOREWORD


The XX century is the century when a new phenomenon appeared on the Earth. This phenomenon arose at the turn of XIX century and since then it strides imperiously over the planet not reckoning with the state boundaries, national and language differences, social and political systems. This phenomenon is the scientific and technological revolution.

What is the scientific and technological revolution? There are a lot of definitions, but most researchers hold the opinion that the modern scientific and technological revolution is a revolution in the development of the societys productive forces. However, this simple answer raises at least two new questions.

Question one: if the scientific and technological revolution is a revolution in the development of modern societys productive forces, is there cause-effect relation between it and the socialist revolution, which takes place in the development of modern societys social relations?

Question two: if the scientific and technological revolution is a revolution in the development of modern societys productive forces, were there any other revolutions in the development of the productive forces at different stages of the societys historical development? If there were, what did they represent?

The authors long-term research has resulted in the affirmative answer to both these questions. First, modern scientific and technological revolution is in the very direct cause-effect relation with modern socialist revolution. If before the scientific and technological revolution the socialist revolution was just a possibility, then, with its origin and beginning, the socialist revolution becomes a socio-historical necessity, it is an essential consequence of the scientific and technological revolution. Second, a thorough study of the objective laws governing the historical development of the societys productive forces makes it possible to reveal three more revolutions in their development: the first revolution in the development of the societys productive forces, in this research called the hunting-technical revolution, took place approximately from 4035 to 2015 thousand years ago; the second revolution in the development of the societys productive forces, which we call the agrarian-technical revolution, happened approximately from 7 to 43 thousand years ago; the third revolution in the development of the societys productive forces, which we call the industrial-technical revolution, took place approximately in XI to XIX centuries AD. Thus, both in the development of the societys productive forces and in the social relations development, there are four revolutions. In the development of productive forces, they are the hunting-technical, the agrarian-technical, the industrial-technical and the scientific and technological revolutions. In the development of socio-productive relations, they are slave-holding, feudal, bourgeois and socialist revolutions.

It might seem that only one simple conclusion should be drawn. Since the fourth revolution in the development of the societys productive forces is in cause-effect relation with the fourth social revolution and theres a dialectical interrelation between the societys productive forces and the productive relations, we should draw a conclusion that each of the four social revolutions is in cause-effect relation with corresponding revolution in the development of the societys productive forces, their number being also four. But its the point where the main difficulties arise.

If we compare chronological bounds when social revolutions and revolutions in the development of the societys productive forces took place, it turns out that in historical development they do not stand in such order that the first social revolution conforms to the first revolution in the development of productive forces, etc., they stand a different and a bit unexpected way. Chronological coincidence is found only for the third and the fourth revolutions in the development of productive forces and productive relations, i.e. the industrial-technical revolution coincides with the bourgeois-social revolution, and the scientific and technological revolution coincides with the socialist revolution. The first revolutions in the history of society correlate a different way. Thus, it is the second, not the first revolution in the development of productive forces, i.e. the agrarian-technical, not the hunting-technical revolution that conforms to the first social, i.e. slave-holding revolution. And the feudal-social and the hunting-technical revolutions have no pairs at all. What is the reason?

The study of socio-economic history of medieval society led us to the conclusion that feudalism did not exist as an independent socio-economic structure at all. So-called feudalism of V-XVII centuries is an artificial combination of the last phase of the development of slave-holding (slave-holding - serf) society and the first phase of the development of bourgeois-capitalist society. If we assume this principle, then it turns out that two generally accepted phases of capitalist society (pre-monopolistic and monopolistic capitalism) are preceded by one more phase the phase of trade capitalism. Thus we should think that capitalist society has three phases of its development: the phase of trade capitalism, the phase of industrial capitalism and the phase of monopolistic, or joint-stock capitalism; or trade, productive and usurious phases, if we proceed from the forms of exploitation of the labour by the capital prevailing in them.

If we take up the economic development of slave-holding society, time bounds of which being shifted from V to XIV XV centuries, in Eastern Europe even up to XIX century, it turns out that it has three phases in its development as well: trade, productive and usurious. Thus, both class socio-economic formations (slave-holding serf and bourgeois-capitalist) have the same phases in their development; they seem to copy one another. The historic bound dividing these formations is the abolition of serfdom, which is the essence of bourgeois-social revolution that took place in Western Europe in XIV XV centuries, and in Eastern Europe in XIX century.

Having got rid of feudal-social revolution, for which theres no corresponding revolution in the development of the societys productive forces, we should look to the primitive-communal society, in the depths of which the first revolution in the development of productive forces, i.e. the hunting-technical revolution takes place. Close analysis of socio-economic development of primitive-communal society led us to the conclusion that primitive-communal society, as well as feudal one, is also an artificial combination of two different societies: primitive (primitive-tribal) and communal (communal-clan). If communal society is the first socio-economic structure in the development of the formed and highly developed society, the primitive society is then a society being formed, it is the period of transition from biological to social form of development of matter, period of formation of society, which precedes the first, communal socio-economic structure. Besides, primitive society is separated from communal-clan society by the hunting-technical and, interconnected with it, communal-social revolution being the first social revolution in the development of society.

Taking all the aforesaid into consideration one can see a well-balanced scheme of the development of societys productive forces and socio-productive relations: the first, communal-social revolution in the development of socio-productive relations conforms to the first, hunting-technical revolution in the development of productive forces; slave-holding-social revolution (the second) conforms to the agrarian-technical revolution (the second); bourgeois-social revolution (the third) conforms to industrial-technical revolution (the third); the socialist revolution, which is the fourth revolution in the development of society conforms to the scientific and technological revolution (the fourth). At that, the revolutions in the development of the societys productive forces are the reason (the first cause) of the social revolutions conforming to them, and it is under their direct influence that social revolutions take place, because the new productive forces, becoming such as a result of just another revolution in their development, require new socio-productive relations and new social system for their further progressive development.

We will not dwell here upon the conception suggested to the reader, which is stated in more detail further in this research. We should only note, that it has some rather significant deviations from views generally accepted in Marxist literature, as the readers have already noticed. But we think, that it is erroneous to consider these deviations as a refutation of Marxist doctrine. Our conception is not a refutation of Marxist doctrine; it is its creative development.

Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma - its a guide to action. In the course of further development of the society, the revelation of its new features, phenomena and laws, getting and accumulation of new and unknown before historical facts, a further development of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, its improvement, refusal of some obsolete or erroneous principles and an addition of new principles to it should also inevitably take place, for Marxist-Leninist theory is a reflection of an objective development of society and matter, and since the society develops and changes, social science should develop as well.

If any creative development of Marxism is identified with revisionism, then the greatest revisionists are considered to be Marx, Engels and Lenin, who during all their lives developed, changed, refined, improved and supplemented their doctrine, many principles of which were rejected by them without any hesitation the moment their fallacy was understood.

The guiding principle of this research is in the following remarkable words by V.I. Lenin: We never regard Marxs theory as something finished and inviolable; on the contrary, we are sure that it put only the corner-stone of the science, which should be moved by socialists further in all directions, if they do not want to fall behind the times. (V.I. Lenin, Works vol. 4, p. 184) The author set himself a rather limited aim, i.e. to study the historical development of the societys productive forces and socio-productive relations in their dialectical unity and interrelation. Besides, the author tried not to reiterate in his research all that well-known verities, which had already been covered explicitly enough in social literature.

Author

[Table of contents]

Copyright © 2005 parshakov.com
Created by Pictograph