State, main gun political power in a class society. In a broader sense, government is understood as a political form of organizing the life of society, which develops as a result of the emergence and activity of public power - a special control system that governs the main areas of public life and, if necessary, relies on the force of coercion. Since the state is based on the territorial principle, this term is sometimes inaccurately used as a synonym for the concept of "country". known Various types G. - slave-owning, feudal, bourgeois, socialist; various forms organizations G. - monarchy, republic.

The main features of G.: 1) the presence of a special system of organs and institutions that together form the G. mechanism; relations, as well as the structure and procedure for the operation of the state mechanism; 3) the presence of a certain territory, within which the given government. Acting as a territorial organization, Georgia actively contributed to the formation of nations.

G. - the main, but not the only political institution of class society; along with the government in a developed society, there are various parties, unions, religious associations, etc., which, together with the government, form the political organization of society. G.'s difference from others. political institutions class society is that he owns the highest power in society (sovereignty of state power). The supremacy of state power is concretely expressed in universality (its power extends to the entire population and public organizations of a given country), prerogatives (state power can cancel any manifestation of any other public power), and also in the presence of such means of influence that no other public power does not have (for example, monopoly of legislation, justice).

G. is social phenomenon limited by certain historical boundaries. The primitive communal system did not know G. It arises as a result of the social division of labor, the emergence of private property, and the split of society into classes. In order to protect their privileges and consolidate the system of exploitation, the economically dominant classes need a special power mechanism of political domination, which was precisely the state and his apparatus. With the advent of government, this mechanism no longer coincides with society, as if it stands above it and is maintained at the expense of society (taxes, fees). No matter how different the historical forms of government, state power, and organization of the government apparatus, its essence, the nature of its relations with society, is the political power of the ruling class (the dictatorship of the class). The classes that own the means of production become politically dominant with the help of the state, and thereby consolidate their economic and social dominance and the leading role within the given society and in its relations with other states and countries.

G., therefore, is ultimately due to the nature industrial relations and the way of production in general. In the course of history, G. acquires independence. Its independent impact on the main spheres of society, historical and social processes is very significant and is carried out in different directions, i.e. G. can contribute to the development of social relations or, conversely, slow it down. As the state-organized society becomes more complex, the role of this influence increases.

44.Functions of the state. The concept of political power. Forms of power.

State- this is a system of organs of society that ensures an organized internal legal life of the people as a whole, protects the rights of its citizens, carries out the normal functioning of the institutions of power - legislative, judicial and executive, controls its territory, protects its people from an external threat, guarantees the fulfillment of obligations to others states, preserves the natural environment and cultural values, contributing to the survival of society and its progress. Signs: 1) Separation of public authorities from society, 2) Territory bounded by a clearly defined border, 3) Sovereignty, 4) The right to levy taxes and fees from the population, 5) Mandatory citizenship. Functions of the state (internal): 1) Political

2) Economic

3) Social

4) Ideological

5) Cultural and educational

6) Environmental

7) Protection of the rights of citizens (According to lectures: 1 Regulation of relative between layers, 2 Management of the general affairs of citizens living in a given territory and organizing in a state, functions are carried out through tasks 1-7)

1) Border protection

2) Integration into world economy

3) Protection of international security

Policy - represents participation in the affairs of the state, in determining the direction

its functioning, in determining the forms, tasks and content of activities

states. The aim of the policy is to maintain or create the most acceptable

for certain social strata or classes, as well as society as a whole conditions and

ways to exercise power. Political power is a fine art

government controlled. It is a collection of elements

who are officially recognized executors of political power (the state apparatus,

political parties, movements, trade unions). These are the main elements of an extensive mechanism, with

through which political power is exercised in society.

Power- it is always the organized will and power of any subjects, aimed at

people, regardless of their attitudes regarding such influence.

There are monarchical and republican forms of government. Monarchy- This

a state headed by a monarch; there is an autocratic or

limited power of one person (king, king, emperor), which is usually

is inherited and birth determines who will be the ruler. Republic -

a form of government exercised by elected bodies, i.e. legal source

the popular majority is in power. Republic assumes legal order,

publicity and separation of powers.

Oligarchy - form of government in which state power is vested in

a small group of people, usually the most economically powerful.

Despotism- form state structure and government, under which the autocratic

the ruler unlimitedly disposes of the state, acting in relation to

subjects as lord and master.

Democracy- state form in which the supreme power belongs to everything

Theocracy- a form of state in which both political and spiritual power

concentrated in the hands of the clergy (church).

45 Political and legal consciousness, their role in the life of society.

Political consciousness arose in antiquity as a response to real need in understanding such new phenomena as the state and state power, cat. first arose with the split of society into anthological classes. Since the social division of labor leads to the emergence of classes, and hence to sharp differences in the conditions of their lives and activities, it becomes necessary to maintain the existing class structure through state power, a cat. most often, naturally expresses the interests of the ruling class. Thus, political consciousness is a reflection of the production, economic and social relations of classes in their total relation to state power. In this conditioning by immediate economic and class interests lies the specificity of political consciousness. The structure of state power is the central problem of political thinking. The political struggle for determining the structure, tasks and content of the state's activities has historically been clothed in forms of various quality, starting from a public discussion social problems, from parliamentary discussions and economic demands leading to private reforms, and ending with violent coups d'etat, social revolutions.

(2var) Exactly political interests most often they are the core of all socially active associations, and even more so, social clashes. Not only the socio-political, but also the spiritual life of society is dependent on political interests.

Until classes disappear (=the problem of state power), all the aspirations of the human spirit will be involved consciously or forcibly in political contradictions. Legal consciousness- this is the form of public consciousness in which knowledge and assessment of the normative socio-economic activities of various subjects of law (individual, enterprise, labor collectives, organizations, officials, etc.) accepted in a given society as legal laws are expressed. Legal consciousness as if intermediate between political and moral consciousness. If political consciousness is formed depending on objective socio-economic interests. then legal consciousness is more oriented towards rational and moral assessments.

The inner closeness of legal consciousness with rational and moral categories has historical reasons. In a classless primitive society with its mythological worldview, laws were seen as a moral tradition, they "were in the form of institutions sanctioned by the gods" (Hegel).

The legal consciousness of society is always support for the very idea of ​​regulated relations between the individual and the state, a cat. recognized as necessary to sustain society against the forces of anarchy. cat. must be known and observed, but cannot be considered absolute, that is, free from critical evaluation. Political and legal consciousness exist both at the social-practical and theoretical levels.

There is a state political organization society with the apparatus of power.

The state serves society, solves the problems facing society as a whole, as well as tasks that reflect the interests of individual social groups, territorial communities of the population of the country. The solution of these problems of the organization and life of society is the expression of the social purpose of the state. Changes in the life of the country, society, for example, industrialization, urbanization, population growth, put forward new tasks for the state in the field of social policy, in developing measures to organize the life of society in new conditions.

Among the most important tasks, in the resolution of which the social purpose of the state finds expression, is ensuring the integrity of society, fair cooperation between various social groups, timely overcoming sharp contradictions in the life of society and its constituent communities and groups.

The social purpose and active role of the state are expressed in ensuring a stable social order, scientifically based use of nature, in protecting the environment of human life and activity. And the most important thing in describing the social purpose of the state is to ensure a decent human life, the well-being of the people.

The ideas of the social purpose of the state were concretized and developed in the concept (theory) " welfare state". Provisions on the welfare state are enshrined in a number of constitutions of democratic states.

The democratic welfare state is called upon to provide all citizens with constitutional rights and freedoms. Ensure not only material well-being, but also cultural rights and freedoms. A welfare state is a country with a developed culture. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted on December 16, 1966, states that the ideal of a free human being, free from fear and want, can be realized only if conditions are created under which everyone can enjoy his economic , social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights.

In modern conditions in Russia, the urgent tasks in the social policy of the state are to ensure the right to work and measures to overcome unemployment, labor protection, improve its organization and payment. It is necessary to multiply and improve measures to strengthen and state support family, motherhood and childhood. Social policy needs to stimulate assistance to the elderly and the disabled, to strengthen health care and other social institutions and services. The great tasks of the state's social policy are in the field of regulating the demographic processes of society, stimulating the birth rate, and raising the role of women in the life of the state's society.

(V.D. Popkov)


Show answer

The correct answer must contain the following elements:

1) the answer to the first question: the political organization of society, which has a power apparatus;

2) the answer to the second question: the system of institutions that has supreme power over certain territory.

Elements of the answer can be given in other formulations that are close in meaning.

What is the preparation for the Unified State Examination / OGE in the Tetrika online school?

👩 Experienced teachers
🖥 Modern digital platform
📈 Track progress
And, as a result, the result guarantee is 85+ points!
→ Sign up for a free introductory lesson ← in ANY subject and assess your level now!

The state is a political organization of society that has an apparatus of power.

The state serves society, solves the tasks facing society as a whole, as well as tasks that reflect the interests of individual social groups, territorial communities of the country's population. The solution of these problems of the organization and life of society is the expression of the social purpose of the state. Changes in the life of the country, society, for example, industrialization, urbanization, population growth, put forward new tasks for the state in the field of social policy, in developing measures to organize the life of society in new conditions.

Among the most important tasks, in the resolution of which the social purpose of the state finds expression, is ensuring the integrity of society, fair cooperation between various social groups, timely overcoming sharp contradictions in the life of society and its constituent communities and groups.

The social purpose and active role of the state are expressed in ensuring a stable social order, scientifically based use of nature, in protecting the environment of human life and activity. And the most important thing in describing the social purpose of the state is to ensure a decent human life, the well-being of the people.

The ideas of the social purpose of the state were concretized and developed in the concept (theory) of the "welfare state". Provisions on the welfare state are enshrined in a number of constitutions of democratic states.

The democratic welfare state is called upon to provide all citizens with constitutional rights and freedoms. Ensure not only material well-being, but also cultural rights and freedoms. A welfare state is a country with a developed culture. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted on December 16, 1966, states that the ideal of a free human being, free from fear and want, can be realized only if conditions are created under which everyone can enjoy his economic , social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights.

In modern conditions in Russia, the urgent tasks in the social policy of the state are to ensure the right to work and measures to overcome unemployment, labor protection, improve its organization and payment. It is necessary to multiply and improve measures to strengthen and state support for the family, motherhood and childhood. Social policy needs to stimulate assistance to the elderly and the disabled, to strengthen health care and other social institutions and services. The great tasks of the state's social policy are in the field of regulating the demographic processes of society, stimulating the birth rate, and raising the role of women in the life of the state's society.

(V.D. Popkov)


Show answer

The correct answer must contain the following elements:

1) an example of the task facing society as a whole, let's say:

Ensuring a lasting public order;

Environmental protection of human life and activity;

2) an example of a task that reflects the interests of individual social groups, let's say:

State support for the family, motherhood and childhood;

Help for the elderly and the disabled.

Other tasks may be given

What is the preparation for the Unified State Examination / OGE in the Tetrika online school?

👩 Experienced teachers
🖥 Modern digital platform
📈 Track progress
And, as a result, the result guarantee is 85+ points!
→ Sign up for a free introductory lesson ← in ANY subject and assess your level now!


Various social forces(classes, nations, other social groups and strata), expressing their fundamental interests, unite in various political organizations: parties, unions, associations, movements. Some of these organizations have a fairly rigid command structure, they do not allow a variety of opinions and positions, and thus resemble, as it were, a knightly order. Other political organizations, on the contrary, seek to integrate and express the interests of various social groups. Each of these organizations, parties sets as its main task the development of strategic and tactical questions of the theory and practice of politics, and therefore seeks to come up with some specific intellectual and political initiative. Reflecting group (corporate) interests and goals in their activities, each of these organizations (parties) is an amateur, and not a state organization, because it is based on the principle of participation, involvement, voluntary membership. All these organizations act on the basis of certain norms and rules established in society in order to realize their interests, to influence and influence the functioning of public power concentrated in the state. This is not accidental, because it is the state that is the main, main political organization of society, since only it has the most powerful levers of power capable of determining and regulating political life society as a whole, to manage all the processes of its development.

The question of the state, admittedly, is one of the most complex and controversial. There are many contradictions in the definition of its nature and essence. Some, like Hegel, consider him an "earthly deity", others, like F. Nietzsche, a "cold monster". Some (anarchists: M.A. Bakunin, P.A. Kropotkin) demand its immediate abolition, others (Hobbes, Hegel), on the contrary, believe that the state is necessary for man and society, and they can never do without it. There are just as many disagreements in identifying the reasons for the emergence of the state and the foundations for its existence and development.

Perhaps the most ancient theory of the state is organic. Already Aristotle proceeded from the fact that the state is a polyunity of its constituent people (citizens), which realizes itself in a multitude of individuals. Since individuals are not equal by nature, because there are always people who are slaves by nature, that is, those who are born to obey, but there are also those who are born to command, insofar as the state becomes organically necessary for people to streamline their lives and relationships together.

A later version of the organic approach to the state was reflected in the teachings of the nineteenth-century English philosopher G. Spencer. G. Spencer defines the state as Joint-Stock Company to protect its members. The state is called upon to protect the conditions for the activities of people, beyond the established limits, which they should not go beyond. This Spencerian doctrine, just like the Aristotelian one, proceeds from the individual, his organic individualistic interests of the state as necessary tool realization of these interests.

Considering the state as a territorial organization of their life directly fused with people, the followers of the organic theory of the state talk about it as a living (biological) organism. They assure that, as in any living organism, where the cells are merged into one solid physical body, so in the state, individual people form a whole, despite the spatial distance from each other. Identifying the state with a living organism, they talk a lot and often about its illnesses, death, rebirth. They compare individual organs and tissues of a biological organism with elements state organization society. (For example, they believe that state institutions are the same nerves of a biological organism.) Consequently, as we see, the organic theory considers the state as a necessary form of organization of society, an administrative committee of public affairs.

Another widely known doctrine of the state is the contractual theory. This is an even more individualistic concept than even organic theory states, since the authors of this doctrine are T. Hobbes, D. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau proceed from the postulate of freedom and equality for all people. According to this doctrine, society, being an aggregate of equal individuals, cannot function without power, and all people agree with this. It is this fact of consent (agreement) of all individuals that underlies the theory of the social contract, since it is possible to overcome the war of all against all, that is, anarchy, only with the help of an agreement - by carrying out the general will (power) implemented by the state. If people, T. Hobbes wrote, would be able to lead themselves, living according to the natural laws of nature, then they would not need a state. However, people do not have this quality, and therefore each of the people needs a state, or the establishment of an order that would ensure the safety and peaceful existence of all. After all, outside the state, according to T. Hobbes, everyone has an unlimited right to everything, while in the state, the rights of everyone are limited.

Social contract theorists did not explain how the power of the state actually came about, but they showed that state power relies not only on the strength, authority and will of its representatives, but also on the will of subordinates (their consent and approval). In other words, the state power must carry out the general will of the people in the state. The general will, according to J.-J. Rousseau, is not a simple sum of all individual wills (desires). The general will is a unanimous decision of people when discussing an issue, when each individual decides this issue, taking into account the common interests and on behalf of everyone.

So, the theory of the social contract explains the nature of state power by the aspirations of each of the individuals to secure their lives, to create equal conditions for the implementation of their interests. For this, the consent of each and every one of the people is necessary. In this regard, it is argued that all people are equal and the common will of all individuals should be equal to the will of each individual. As you can see, this is almost completely inconsistent with historical reality, since the state power has never been, and is unlikely ever to be, the slave of all its subjects. However, many modern scientists and politicians consider the social contract to be the ideal that a real democratic state should strive for and follow in order to take into account and implement the individual interests of as many of its citizens as possible.

Individualism in views on the state was overcome by Hegel. From his point of view, the state is the basis and focus of specific aspects of people's life: law, art, morals, religion, and therefore it is its form of community. The defining content of this form of community is the very spirit of the people, for the real state is animated by this spirit. This means that the state is such an association that has universal power, because in its content and purpose it carries a community of spirit. It is in the state that individuals are destined to lead a universal way of life. As for the private features of people's activities (special satisfaction of needs and interests, special behavior), according to Hegel, this is not the sphere of the state, but of civil society. As you can see, Hegel separates the state - the area of ​​general interests of people and civil society - the area of ​​manifestation of private interests and goals of individuals. He believed that if you confuse the state with civil society and to suppose the purpose of the state in securing and protecting property and personal liberty, it means to recognize the interest of individual people, as such, as the ultimate end for which they are united. The consequence of such a recognition, Hegel believed, could be a situation where everyone begins to determine purely arbitrarily whether or not to be a member of the state. The state, Hegel emphasized, is an objective spirit, and, consequently, the individual himself is objective, true and moral insofar as he is a member of the state.

7 See: Hegel G. Philosophy of Law. M., 1990. S. 279-315.

Thus, the state, according to Hegel, is the highest stage in the development of the objective spirit, which means the restoration of the unity of individuals and groups of the population, violated in civil society.

K. Marx and F. Engels in their doctrine of the state and its essence, like Hegel, reject the individualistic approach of organic and contractual theories. At the same time, they also criticize the Hegelian idea of ​​the state as a form of community where the single spirit of the people (nation) is concentrated. According to K. Marx and F. Engels, the state is imposed on society, and it is a product of the irreconcilability of class contradictions. The state arises in connection with the split of society into antagonistic classes, and therefore, according to Marxism, it is not a general will, but a machine (apparatus) for suppressing one class by another.

8 See: Lenin V.I. State and Revolution // Lenin V.I. Poly. coll. op. T. 33.

Revealing the essence of the state, Marxists always emphasize that the state is the organization of the economically dominant class into the politically dominant class, and that is why it is an instrument of dictatorship (power) of one class over another, an organ of violence and oppression. The state never exists to appease classes, but only to suppress one class by another. By the way, we note that violence in the activities of state power cannot, of course, be ruled out. M. Weber writes about this, for example, who defines the state as an organization within society that has a monopoly on legitimate violence. The modern English researcher E. Gellner also agrees with this, who also believes that the state is a specialized and concentrated force for maintaining order. However, in Marxism violence is given, perhaps, an absolute (self-sufficient) value. IN AND. Lenin, for example, gave this question Special attention in his work "State and Revolution", when he analyzed various historical types states. He carefully examines the mechanism of state power. Along with public authority - the state bureaucracy (authority separated from society), V.I. Lenin identifies as a necessary and extremely important link in the system of any state administration the so-called detachments of armed people (punitive organs) - the army, police, gendarmerie intelligence, counterintelligence and their appendages - courts, prisons, correctional camps, etc. These punitive bodies, as well as public authorities, according to V.I. Lenin, are separated from society, stand above society and always ensure the strict implementation of the will of the ruling class. Let's say right away that during the development period of V.I. Lenin of these questions (the beginning of the 20th century), these conclusions of his did not differ from the real state of affairs. The state really acted as a committee for managing the affairs of the economically dominant class, and therefore all its might almost entirely served the interests and goals of this class.

In the Marxist theory of the state great attention focuses on its development. Marxists, unlike many other schools that consider the state to be an eternal and unchanging entity, always emphasize its historical character. They believe that the state machine, having arisen in connection with the split of society into classes, is, after all, doomed to be scrapped in the course of socialist revolution. F. Engels in his work "Anti-Dühring" seriously argued that the first act of the new proletarian state - the law on the nationalization of the means of production will be at the same time its last act as a state. Now, instead of managing people, he wrote, there will be management of things. No less optimism was characteristic of V.I. Lenin. In his program of action after the seizure of power by the proletariat, he believed that in the new Soviet state there would be "payment to all officials in the election and replacement of all of them at any time not higher than the average salary of a good worker" (April theses, 1917). At the same time, at a party conference, he proclaims that soviet state will be a new type of state without a standing army and without a privileged bureaucracy. He quotes F. Engels: "A society that organizes production in a new way on the basis of a free and equal association of producers will send the state machine to where it will be its true place: to the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe."

Having come to power, the Bolsheviks could not but admit that the state was indispensable, that a long historical period of existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat was necessary as new form state power. They believed that with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the essence of the state changes fundamentally, since the main function of the proletarian state is creative - building socialism in the interests of the absolute majority of people. That is why the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat V.I. Lenin no longer considered the state itself, but a semi-state, although at the same time the standing army, the police, the security service, and privileged officials, whose salary was many times higher than that of the average worker, were preserved. However, at the same time, neither V.I. Lenin and his followers never parted with the idea that with the disappearance of classes, the state would also disappear, which, as was usually said, would wither away as unnecessary.

K. Popper, evaluating the Marxist theory of the state in his book "The Open Society and Its Enemies", emphasized that the idea of ​​the state as a political superstructure over the economic basis, which must be broken, is true only for unregulated and legally unlimited capitalism, in which Karl Marx lived . However, this theory is not at all consistent, according to K. Popper, with modern reality when state power becomes more and more institutional, that is, an organization based on general legal forms of action for managing the affairs of society. This point is emphasized by many other modern scholars who consider the state political form organization of society that regulates people's relations through law.

9 Popper K. Open society and its enemies. M., 1992. T. 2. S 189

Such a liberal approach to understanding the state as a form of political organization of society, which has been established today in science, considers it the bearer and executor of a certain general function (public power) that belongs to society and is carried out in order to maintain it. This approach presupposes the existence not only of the state - a public space dominated by the political unity of people based on law, but also of a civil society that is not politically organized. This means that society, acting as a prerequisite for the state, has a complex and mobile structure of its own, and it is a mass society. It is precisely these signs (its own structure and mass nature) that are implied by the concept of civil society. Even Hegel, and later P.A. Kropotkin showed that the state did not fully absorb public life even in a pre-capitalist society. P.A. Kropotkin wrote in this connection that there were almost always public forms fully or partially independent of the state and its institutions. Consequently, we can say that modern civil society is a relatively independent entity, separate from the state, which is the sphere of activity of diverse private interests of people.
Hegel, who developed the theory of civil society, believed that the line separating the state and civil society is conditional and relative. He emphasized that, even apart from the state, civil society remains its organic part. In this regard, we note that when Hegel wrote about this, civil society had not really yet sufficiently thoroughly separated from the state. Considering the state as the spirit of the people, Hegel believed that the spirit of the people penetrates (penetrates) almost all relations between people.

As you know, K. Marx used the concept of "civil society" in his early work, but then he abandoned it, considering it "Hegelian rubbish." For K. Marx and his followers, civil society is a bourgeois society. Since the Marxists opposed the bourgeois mode of production and advocated a new socialist society, they reasonably believed that this new society, which is entirely built on public property, does not need any special sphere of private interests and goals, independent of the general interest of the whole society. its individual members. After all, if you recognize civil society, it means agreeing that, firstly, there must be freedom of property (the freedom to sell and buy it by private individuals), and secondly, there must be freedom of human rights (his inviolability), freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, etc. It is clear that the Marxists, who argued that only socialism with its social ownership of the means of production represents true freedoms and human rights, considered the concept of civil society superfluous, and therefore the very idea of ​​civil society was rejected by them.

Today at scientific literature two main approaches to the consideration of civil society are distinguished: 1) civil society as a special system of relations between people, opposed to the state in any of its forms; 2) civil society as a civilized form of a market democratic system modern society. If we bring these formulas together, it becomes clear that in addition to the state there is and should be a certain degree of independence of a person from the state (for example, a person should be able to get his bread not only from the hands of the state), that people can have different, not always associated with public space - the state, other private goals and interests of life (for example, obtaining individual education, special medical care, etc.). At the same time, these formulas simultaneously show that under a democratic regime, civil society should optimally come into contact with and interact with the state. The system of private interests of various social communities and individuals of civil society is faced with the need to streamline and harmonize them. It is quite clear that this can be done by the state, which, using unified management mechanisms, becomes an arbiter in emerging conflicts between people, guaranteeing an unbiased solution to their disputes in society.

The process of formation of civil society relations began in modern Russia. True, this process is very difficult, extremely slow and contradictory. People gradually, not without difficulties, are increasingly winning back from the state the opportunity to independently and freely conduct personal and business life. After all, civil society is a space of freedom, and it should be such a space for the personal, family, and business life of every citizen. Even I. Kant believed that only a person who has his own social rights and civil independence can be an active citizen. The existence of a person should not depend on the arbitrariness of the state or someone or something else, it is determined, subject to its own rights and powers, unless, of course, it goes beyond the norms and rules established in this society.

At the same time, people live and act simultaneously in the common space of the state for them. After all, the state is a form of political association of people within a certain territory (state borders). The state is based on the principle of formal equality, the organization of public power of individuals - their citizens. The state and civil society constitute, as it were, two opposite, but equally necessary and bound friend with another element, each of which forms its own special world of human relations. Being a sphere of free (economic and other) interaction of equal citizens, civil society delegates to the state the task of ensuring the integrity of society through the regulation of economic, political and cultural forms of human behavior. With the help of legal and other levers of public power, the state creates conditions for the life of not only society as a whole, but also the activity of each individual. After all, the state is an organization purposefully created by people living together for the purpose of uniform management to solve the common affairs of all citizens of society. That is why the state almost always has the ability to politically (in the interests of the whole) regulate the economy, social sphere, culture. Of course, in some places this can be done well. The state and civil society coexist peacefully, mutually complementing each other's actions for the benefit of the people. But sometimes this interaction leads to a certain confrontation, since the state seeks to maintain, and under certain conditions even strengthen its power over society. Of course, cooperation or confrontation in the interaction of civil society and the state is the result of a whole range of socio-economic and political conditions in the life of a people, a country. However, it must of course not be forgotten that state regulation there should not be petty guardianship of everything and everyone, limiting and restricting the activity and initiative of the citizens themselves.
The state has always assumed and carried out various functions of managing and regulating relations in society. It continues to do this at the present time, constantly completing in its "machine" (the system of governing bodies) the missing elements (ministries, departments, committees, etc.).

One of the main functions of the state is the creation of political conditions for the development of the social life of people, the protection of the constitutional order (the execution of common affairs, the maintenance of order, the conduct of foreign policy).

Today, in almost all industrialized countries, in one form or another, there is a regulatory influence of the state on the economic life of society. With the help of various political means and legal laws, it tries to regulate relations between entrepreneurs and workers, between individual enterprises and monopolies. The state helps its national firms and corporations to penetrate the foreign market, because it is the state that establishes certain import and export duties and taxes. For example, a flexible tax policy pursued by the state allows not only filling the treasury, but also stimulating technical and economic progress. State orders to entrepreneurs make it possible to provide employment for the population and regulate unemployment, as well as adjust the distribution of productive forces. All this indicates that even with full-fledged market relations, state intervention in the functioning of economic enterprises cannot be ruled out.

A necessary function of any state has always been to strengthen its defense capability. Any modern state continues to pay close attention to this activity, since its costs for improving the army and the military-industrial complex as a whole are not decreasing.

important activity modern state becomes its unified demographic and environmental policy, the regulation of the processes of population development and the protection of life and health of people. The need for this activity of the state is dictated, first of all, by the crisis nature of the current environmental situation in the world. Due to their global nature, environmental and demographic problems can only be resolved at the state and interstate levels. That is why these problems acquire a pronounced political character. The state is forced to resort to a number of measures in order to ease the socio-ecological and demographic tension in its own country. With the help of various kinds of medical and educational programs and their financing, the state achieves an appropriate solution to the problems that arise here.

By exerting its influence on society, the state seeks to take on a social function - taking care of its citizens, so that through the provision of constant assistance to them become a social state. Of course, the state is not intended to stoop to the private interest of an individual, considers the outstanding Russian philosopher I.A. Ilyin, but it is called upon to elevate every spiritually true and just interest of an individual citizen to the interest of the entire state. It is clear that there are many such interests in every society: the elderly, the disabled, children. There are many different kinds of situations where charitable help state is urgently needed: those affected by natural disasters, fundamental Scientific research, promising educational, medical and other programs. If the state takes care of this, if it regularly deals with issues of culture, health, education of its citizens, then it becomes a social state through this. In other words, the most important task modern state as a public institution is no longer only a guarantee of social rights of man and citizen, but also their implementation.

True, there is a slightly different point of view on the question of the need for the state to be social. So, I. Kant was, for example, an opponent of the welfare state. According to I. Kant, concern for the well-being of citizens should not be among the duties of the state. He believed that forced charity leads to despotic paternalism (all-encompassing guardianship) of the state in relation to a person. By the way, this position of I. Kant is shared by many prominent representatives of modern economic liberalism (F. Hayek, M. Friedman and others). They also believe that the intensive and systematic concern of the state for the well-being of citizens contributes to the development of dependency among people, undermines the initiative and extinguishes the entrepreneurial spirit of citizens.

These arguments, of course, are reasonable, and therefore, perhaps, we can say that the idea of ​​a welfare state is justified only if it does not undermine the principle of freedom of civil society, if state assistance is strictly targeted and tight control is established over all its social expenditures. . However, social protection and the assistance of the state to the people is especially necessary in the context of a radical reform of social relations.

The state, all its institutions will be able to effectively fulfill their role in politics, economics, social relations, cultural life of society, if they are strictly guided in all their activities by legal (constitutional) norms and laws. The state, whose administrative activity is entirely based on the priority of law in resolving any issue, can be considered legal.

The idea of ​​legal, more precisely, universal rule of law not new. Carrying a general democratic content, it was actively used in the struggle against despotism and fascist dictatorships. Now it receives a new sound and becomes the guarantor of the implementation of universal human values.

The rule of law is determined not so much by the goals that it sets for itself, but by the ways and forms of its permanent activity. For a rule of law state, the main question is not where this activity is directed, but how it is carried out, what means and methods state power relies on, whether it uses violence, terror or allows freedom and is based on respect for the individual. The spirit of any legal state is expressed by the well-known formula: "What is not forbidden is allowed." This implies that the person himself, and not the state and society, chooses and fulfills the goals and methods of his activity, refusing only those that are prohibited by laws. In a state governed by the rule of law, laws should not limit the scope of human choice, they should not prescribe a strict rule for people: to act this way and not otherwise. After all, if the law prescribes the purpose and mode of activity for people, it ceases to be an abstract norm, and then it becomes at the service of one or another political expediency. Accordingly, the law in this case turns from an end into a means of politics, and then there is no point in talking about the rule of law at all. After all, the principles of the rule of law triumph where there is a real opportunity for the manifestation of the whole variety of initiative and creativity. human activity where reality is not reshaped to please the law, but, on the contrary, life itself dictates adequate norms of law to it.

A democratic rule of law exists inextricably linked with civil society, and one can even say that it is its product. Naturally, such a state and all its governing bodies must unquestioningly fulfill all the rights of the citizens who elected it. The mandatory separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers that exists in a state governed by the rule of law makes it possible not only to carry out their consistent execution, but also to exercise control so that these rights are not violated. Of course, the rule of law (the strict obedience of all to the law) is created by the people themselves. Nothing significant can happen without the participation of citizens, without their knowledge and approval. And it is people who are responsible both for the laws that exist in a given society, and for how they are implemented in society. This applies, of course, to all citizens, but especially to those of them who must guard the law. The legal state should be absolutely alien to the bureaucratic psychology, in which "if you feel that the law puts an obstacle for you, then, having removed it from the table, put it under you. And then all this, having become invisible, makes it much easier for you in actions." (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin). Laws in society are obliged to comply with everything, and here there are no and cannot be any exceptions for anyone.

In a state governed by the rule of law, the exercise of rights and freedoms is inseparable from the fulfillment by each citizen of his duty to society. human personality with its special individual needs and interests always remains a member of society and the state. That is why every citizen must be able to measure their interests with the interests of society, conscientiously fulfill their duties, bear a share of responsibility for the affairs and fate of the state. And it is the responsible approach of each citizen to his duty, organization and discipline that create a reliable basis for the most complete implementation of the principles of a democratic legal state and society.

Historical practice convincingly proves that high Civil responsibility, strengthening legal public discipline, compliance with the laws of the hostel are necessary conditions effective development of the state and society, and hence the growth of people's well-being, and more and more complete satisfaction of their material and spiritual needs.

All scientists note that it is impossible to define the concept of the state, which would reflect all, without exception, the features, properties of the state, characteristic of all its periods in the past, present and future. At the same time, as world science has proven, any state has a set of universal features that manifest themselves at all stages of its development. These features have been identified above.

Summarizing them, we can formulate a definition of the concept of the state. State- this is a single political organization of society, which extends its power to the entire territory of the country and its population, has a special administrative apparatus for this, issues decrees binding on all and has sovereignty.

The essence of the state. Correlation of universal and class principles in the state.

To reveal the essence of the state means to reveal the main determining factor that determines its objective necessity in society, to understand why society cannot exist and develop without the state. When considering the essence of the state, two aspects must be taken into account:

2. Whose interests - class, universal, religious, national, does this organization serve.

There are two approaches to the study of the essence of the state:

1. class approach .

The class approach is that the state is seen as a machine for maintaining the rule of this class over another, and the essence of such a state lies in the dictatorship of the economically and politically dominant class. Such a concept of the state reflects the idea of ​​the state in its proper sense as an instrument of the dictatorship of the ruling class. This position is directly or indirectly proven by world science and historical practice. Thus, the slave-owning state in its essence was a political organization of slave-owners, the feudal state was an organization of feudal lords and other wealthy estates, the capitalist state at the first stages of its development acted as an organ for expressing the interests of the bourgeoisie. The state is used here for narrow purposes, as a means of ensuring mainly the interests of the ruling class. The priority satisfaction of the interests of any other classes cannot cause resistance from opposing classes, so the problem arises in the constant removal of this resistance with the help of violence and dictatorship. Speaking of the socialist state at the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it should be noted that the state must exercise this dictatorship in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population. Unfortunately, many theoretical propositions about the socialist state remained a theory, since in practice the state apparatus served not the broad strata of the working people, but the party and nomenklatura elite.


2. General social or universal approach .

Another approach of the state is to consider the essence of the state from the universal human and social principles. The peculiarity of the slave-owning, feudal, capitalist states at the first stages of development is that they, first of all, expressed the economic interests of a minority of slave-owners, feudal lords, and capitalists. However, as society improves, the economic and social base of the state expands, the coercive element narrows, and due to objective reasons, the state turns into an organizing force of society that expresses and protects the personal and common interests of members of society. Contrary to the predictions of political scientists about the crisis and "decay" of capitalism, about imperialism as the eve and threshold of the socialist revolution, capitalist society withstood and managed to successfully overcome the crisis and the decline in production. capitalism as social order gradually strengthened, changed significantly. He was able to accept and actually implement progressive ideas of social development into practice. The society that was formed after the Second World War in developed countries Western Europe and Asia has already become qualitatively different. It differed significantly from the capitalist society of the times of Marx and Engels and the imperialist society studied by Lenin. Modern Western society is sometimes more oriented toward socialism than countries that call themselves socialist. The state mechanism has turned from a tool, a means of predominantly implementing common affairs, into an instrument for reaching agreement and compromise. In the activities of the state, such important general democratic institutions as the separation of powers, the rule of law, publicity, pluralism of opinions, and so on, begin to come to the fore.

Thus, in the essence of the state, depending on historical conditions, it can come to the fore as a class principle, which is typical for exploitative states, or a general social principle, which is increasingly manifested in modern post-capitalist and post-socialist states.