The term "society" is used in a broad and narrow sense. For example, in everyday vocabulary, society is often called any human collective, regardless of its occupation and size. Among the scientific meanings of the term, two stand out: wide and narrow. In the broadest sense, society refers to that part of the world that is isolated from nature. In this broadest sense, the term "society" means "sociality in general", "acting as the antithesis of nature and the natural", that is, a systemic set of properties and features inherent in the phenomena of both collective and individual life of people, thanks to which they are built into a special world , different from nature and isolated from it. In this sense, the concept of "society" is synonymous with the concepts of "sociocultural reality", "supraorganic world", "society", " social form movement of matter”, with the help of which various socio-philosophical schools convey the substantial specificity of the non-natural realities of our world.

The second meaning is much narrower and seems to be more relevant and applicable to the present study. Society in this sense is a special human collective that is self-sufficient and capable of creating all the necessary conditions for its life, including shaping people as social beings. In this context, society acts as "a joint form of people's activity in the production of material and spiritual values" . It is in this sense that the term "society" is used to denote autonomous centers of sociality, real or typified communities of people.

Turning to the meanings of the term "state", we must note their plurality. Summarizing all possible definitions, we can single out the two most popular interpretations. In the first case (broad interpretation), the state is understood as a country, that is, a real group of people with specific coordinates in space and history, existing on the political map of the world and “under the rule of one specific state machine” . It is this meaning of this term that is meant when they name the number of states in Europe, Asia or Africa. This usage is not accurate. The historical experience of mankind testifies that there were societies without a state and there were societies that lost their own statehood. A good illustration of what has been said is the Indian society of the times of the British colonial empire. During this period of its history, Indian society completely lost its statehood, but continued to exist as a self-reproducing social collective.

The state in the narrow sense of this term, which we will use in this article, acts as a certain social institution, as special organization, which has a unique public authority and a specialized functional mechanism for managing society. Being a part of society, for many millennia the state has been called upon to “monitor the preservation of the viability of society”, “ensure political and administrative integrity, coordinate various areas his life, to perform universal regulatory functions in relation to him, being a kind of tool for solving social problems (although often the tasks and interests of the ruling class act in the status of public ones).

The state is initially a purely functional institution, which, unlike society as an end-to-end system, is created for some reason, for some purpose. The state, as F. Engels wrote, is “invented” by people. People cannot fall asleep in a society in which this institution does not exist, and wake up with a system that comes from nowhere. government controlled. With the emergence of the state, society and the state begin to exist in an inseparable unity.

So, from the definition of the basic concepts, let's move on to an analysis of the interactions that the state and society enter into in the process of their existence.

Society is primary in relation to the state. No one disputes the fact, fully confirmed by various scientific research And social experience that in any part of the globe first appeared and existed, taking on a variety of pre-state forms (phratry, tribe, clan, etc.), human society, and then a state grew on its foundation and from its environment. From the accumulated rich ethnographic material, we know societies that do not have their own statehood and meanwhile really exist.

Such a chronological priority of society in relation to the state in theoretical terms means that society has a certain priority over the state already by virtue of the factors of its genesis.

The state is a product of the development of society and the main system that controls it. The state as a certain institution is created on the basis of society, is born from it, and in many respects is initially determined by its character. Having arisen at a certain stage in the development of human society as a result of social, economic and other laws, the state has become its main political system. In his work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels gives this the following characterization: out of society, but placing itself above it, more and more alienating itself from it, is the state.

The state-organized society received fundamentally new opportunities for its existence: the development of productive forces, social relations, science, and moral principles.

There is a correlation between the level of development of the state and the level of the society that gave birth to it. To substantiate this, it is necessary to answer the question: could a modern capitalist state arise and successfully develop, say, on the foundation of a slave-owning society, or vice versa? It is clear that the answer to this question will be negative, although in history one can find examples of disagreement that testify to the possibility of a symbiosis of bourgeois relations with pre-capitalist structures or a capitalist society with a semi-feudal state. An example of this is the system of slavery in the southern states of the USA in the 19th century, the Russian Empire in the 19th - early 20th centuries.

Another, even more relevant question today: is it possible to imagine modern form democratic political system in a society where the vast majority of the population from an economic point of view does not belong to the middle class and for the most part is the bearer of a political mentality?

The answer to this question is very ambiguous. However, if we keep in mind the problem as a whole, the answer will be negative, since the functioning of each of the above types of society is based on completely different socio-political prerequisites, social and economic bases that differ from each other, different mentalities adapted to certain state specifics.

It should also be noted that the connection between society and the state does not at all mean that the state mechanism is strictly determined by the social environment. Society, in terms of its degree of development, in terms of its norms, can stand significantly higher than the state system within which it is placed or in which it is held by power. A vivid example of this state is the Spanish Netherlands in the middle of the 16th century, France during the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy, etc.

The opposite situation is also possible, which also often happens in history, when the government directs society into state forms for which it is not yet prepared. Good example such a situation - radical and rapid reforms in Russia in the 90s. 20th century or modern Iraq and Afghanistan, in which the United States is trying to build a modern model democratic state on a public substratum, completely unprepared for this.

Summarizing the above, we can notice the obvious presence of direct and feedback links between the state and society. Being a relatively independent institution, possessing greater material, organizational and other resources compared to an individual, the state has a strong impact on society, being in turn subject to the reverse influence of society.

There is another major problem in the line of relations "state - society". We are talking about the fact that in the process of mutual development there is an alienation of the state from society. Having society as its maternal substratum, having arisen on its basis, the state begins to play a special role in it, gradually alienating itself from it, acquiring its own existence and development trends. From the point of view of Marxism, the "bourgeois state" is the power of an exploiting minority. Supporters of this trend believe that the creation of a state established on socialist principles will eliminate social foundations alienation. Although it is specifically noted that alienation cannot be completely eliminated. From this it is concluded that the problem of alienation can be removed only with the withering away of the state itself - in the conditions of the created stateless communist government. At that moment, society, according to Engels, "will send the entire state machine to where it will then have its true place: to the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and with the bronze axe."

There are also alternative views on the problem of alienation to the Marxist one. These include anarchism, with its rejection of the state as such, and various liberal theories, according to which modern state, built on the principles of democracy, broad exercise of individual rights and freedoms and possessing a strong civil society, as a whole objectively perceives and expresses the interests of the public majority, due to which the problem of alienation of the state from society is overcome and loses its former severity.

The history of relations between the state and society can be represented as a search for optimal forms of mutual correspondence. In this context, the entire history of mankind can actually be presented not only as a desire of a person to improve himself and the surrounding social environment - the human community, but also as constant attempts to find more effective form organization of their lives - a more perfect form of the state. Currently, in the context of the globalization of the world and the global financial crisis, there is a search for new forms of organization of the human community in the form of interstate and supranational institutions. Moreover, it is important to note that the search for new forms of organization of social life, regardless of whether it is a state or supranational form, throughout the history of the existence of human civilization did not occur spontaneously, but in close interaction with the process of developing their social content, that is, with taking into account the nature and level of development of society.

Considering the nature of the relationship between the state and society from the point of view of form and content, one cannot, of course, excessively underestimate or vice versa - exaggerate, absolutize the forces and role of the state in relation to society, on the one hand, and society in relation to the state, on the other.

Summing up, let's say that both the state and society are multifaceted and historically changing phenomena that exist in an inseparable unity, but nevertheless have relative independence in relation to each other. The concept of "state" is political concept, it is the core of political philosophy. The concept of "society" has a broader meaning and includes all spheres of life, including political.

Engels, F. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. In connection with the research of Lewis G. Morgan. - M., 1978. - S. 190.

The global problems of mankind affect our planet as a whole. Therefore, all peoples and states are engaged in their solution. This term appeared in the late 60s of the XX century. Currently, there is a special scientific branch that deals with the study and solution of global problems of mankind. It is called globalization.

Scientists working in this area various areas: biologists, soil scientists, chemists, physicists, geologists. And this is no coincidence, because the global problems of mankind are complex in nature and their appearance does not depend on any one factor. On the contrary, it is very important to take into account the economic, political, as well as social change occurring in the world. Life on the planet in the future depends on how correctly the modern global problems of mankind will be solved.

You need to know: some of them have existed for a long time, others, quite “young”, are connected with the fact that people began to negatively influence the world. Because of this, for example, the environmental problems of mankind have appeared. They can be called the main difficulties of modern society. Although the problem of environmental pollution itself appeared a long time ago. All varieties interact with each other. Often one problem leads to another.

Sometimes it happens that the global problems of mankind can be solved and completely get rid of them. First of all, this concerns epidemics that threatened the lives of people on the entire planet and led to their mass death, but then they were stopped, for example, with the help of an invented vaccine. At the same time, completely new problems are emerging that were previously unknown to society, or already existing ones are growing to a world level, for example, the depletion of the ozone layer. The cause of their occurrence is human activity. The problem of environmental pollution allows you to see this very clearly. But in other cases, too, there is a clear tendency for people to influence the misfortunes that befall them and threaten their existence. So, what are the problems of humanity that have planetary significance?

environmental disaster

It is caused by daily environmental pollution, depletion of terrestrial and water resources. All these factors together can accelerate the onset of an environmental catastrophe. Man considers himself the king of nature, but at the same time does not seek to preserve it in its original form. This is hindered by industrialization, which is proceeding at a rapid pace. By negatively influencing its habitat, mankind destroys it and does not think about it. No wonder pollution standards have been developed that are regularly exceeded. As a result, the environmental problems of mankind may become irreversible. To avoid this, we must pay attention to the preservation of flora and fauna, try to save the biosphere of our planet. And for this it is necessary to make production and other human activities more environmentally friendly so that the impact on the environment is less aggressive.

demographic problem

The world's population is growing at a rapid pace. And although " population explosion' has already subsided, the problem still remains. The situation with food and natural resources is deteriorating. Their stocks are shrinking. At the same time, the negative impact on the environment is increasing, it is impossible to cope with unemployment and poverty. There are difficulties with education and health care. The solution of the global problems of humanity of this nature was undertaken by the UN. The organization created a special plan. One of his items is the family planning program.

Disarmament

After creation nuclear bomb, the population tries to avoid the consequences of its use. For this, treaties between countries on non-aggression and disarmament are signed. Laws are being adopted to ban nuclear arsenals and stop the arms trade. The presidents of the leading states hope in this way to avoid the outbreak of the Third World War, as a result of which, as they suspect, all life on Earth can be destroyed.

Food problem

In some countries, the population is experiencing food shortages. The people of Africa and other third countries of the world are especially affected by hunger. To solve this problem, two options have been created. The first is aimed at ensuring that pastures, fields, fishing zones gradually increase their area. If you follow the second option, it is necessary not to increase the territory, but to increase the productivity of existing ones. For this, the latest biotechnologies, methods of land reclamation, and mechanization are being developed. High-yielding varieties of plants are being developed.

Health

Despite the active development of medicine, the emergence of new vaccines and drugs, humanity continues to get sick. Moreover, many ailments threaten the lives of the population. Therefore, in our time, the development of methods of treatment is actively conducted. Substances of modern design are created in laboratories for effective immunization of the population. Unfortunately, the most dangerous diseases of the 21st century - oncology and AIDS - remain incurable.

The ocean problem

IN Lately this resource is not only actively explored, but also used for the needs of mankind. As experience shows, it can provide food, natural resources, energy. The ocean is a trade route that helps restore communication between countries. At the same time, its reserves are used unevenly, military operations are conducted on its surface. In addition, it serves as a base for the disposal of waste, including radioactive waste. Mankind is obliged to protect the wealth of the World Ocean, avoid pollution, and rationally use its gifts.

Space exploration

This space belongs to all mankind, which means that all nations should use their scientific and technical potential to explore it. For the deep study of space are created special programs which use all modern achievements in this area.

People know that if these problems do not disappear, the planet may die. But why do many do not want to do anything, hoping that everything will disappear, “dissolve” by itself? Although, in truth, such inaction is better than the active destruction of nature, the pollution of forests, water bodies, the destruction of animals and plants, especially rare species.

It is impossible to understand the behavior of such people. It would not hurt them to think about what to live, if, of course, it is still possible, on a dying planet their children and grandchildren will have to. You should not count on the fact that someone will be able to rid the world of difficulties in a short time. The global problems of humanity can only be solved jointly if all of humanity makes an effort. The threat of destruction in the near future should not frighten. Best of all, if she can stimulate the potential inherent in each of us.

Do not think that it is difficult to cope with the world's problems alone. From this it seems that it is useless to act, thoughts appear about powerlessness in the face of difficulties. The point is to join forces and help the prosperity of at least your city. Solve the little problems of your habitat. And when every person on Earth begins to have such responsibility to himself and his country, large-scale, global problems will also be solved.

The relationship between the individual and the state is largely determined by the relationship between the individual and civil society. The structure of civil society includes: public associations, political parties and organizations, family, church, socio-economic institutions, etc. Civil society arises as a result of the separation of the state from social structures. Civil society was formed as a result of liquidation estate structures, denationalization of public relations. The main obstacle to the development of civil society is the dominance of the state over society. The gradual formation of civil society is associated with the establishment of nationwide representative institutions of the parliamentary type. Formal legal equality is the basis for the formation of civil society as a horizontal system of connections and relations between citizens and their associations.

The personality acquired stable rights with the advent of the category of human rights. Personality is a stable system of socially significant properties of a person that characterizes an individual as a member of society. The nature of the relationship between the state and the individual is the most important indicator of the state of society as a whole, the prospects for its development. The stable relationship between the individual and the state is expressed in the institution of citizenship. This connection expresses the legal belonging of a particular person to the state, the existence of mutual rights and obligations of the individual and the state. The state cannot artificially overestimate or underestimate the scope of rights and freedoms: overestimation makes the rights a fiction, and the restriction leads to the erosion of the foundations of its legal status. Relations between the individual and the state are primarily mediated by the institution of citizenship. Universal rights, as a rule, are divided into human rights and civil rights, which is largely the result of a compromise between legal positivism and natural law theory. States that recognize this division proceed from the premise that inalienable rights must be recognized and enshrined at the level of legislation. Relations between the individual and the state reflect the rights of a citizen who need guarantees of their implementation by the state.



The problem of the rights of the individual and its relations in the state with its various institutions and other subjects of the political system is central in the science of the theory of state and law. The content of the political and legal state of the individual includes the following elements Key words: legal personality, legal status of a person, legal guarantees. Mutual responsibility of the state and the individual is the basic principle of relations in the rule of law. The position of the individual finds expression, first of all, in its legal status or in the totality of rights, freedoms, duties, legitimate interests. Any individual(citizen, foreign citizen, stateless person) realizes his subjective rights in legal relations, in connection with the emergence or termination of citizenship. So, the civil state of a person manifests itself in the following forms or states: a citizen, a foreign citizen, a stateless person, a person who has received political asylum. Citizenship acts as a kind of subjective right. Legal status concrete personalities is determined, first of all, by the relations of citizenship.

Social personality type and typology of political behavior

The social type of personality can be defined as a product of the interaction of historical, cultural and socio-economic conditions of life.

Types of personality are distinguished depending on their value orientations:

traditionalist (personality is focused on the values ​​of duty, discipline, law-abiding, with low level independence, ability to self-realization);

idealistic (a person is critical of traditional norms, with a focus on self-development);

frustrated (a person with low self-esteem, depressed well-being);

Realistic (personality combines the desire for self-realization with a developed sense of duty, skepticism with self-control);

consumer (personality is focused on satisfying consumer desires)

Political behavior is a subjectively motivated process by a political actor of one kind or another. political activity conditioned by the needs of the implementation of his status political position, orientations and attitudes.

The most common is the following typology of forms political participation:

I. Conventional forms:

2. Reading about politics in newspapers

3. Discussing political topics with friends and acquaintances

5. Work to promote the image of a political party or candidate

7. Participation in rallies and meetings

8. Appeal to the authorities or their representatives

9. Activity as politician(nomination of a candidate, participation in elections, work of a representative of the leadership of a party or other organization, work of a deputy, minister, etc.)

II. non-conventional forms.

1. Signing petitions

2. Participation in unauthorized demonstrations

3. Participation in boycotts

4. Tax waiver

5. Participation in the seizure of buildings, enterprises and sit-ins within their walls

6. Traffic blocking

7. Participation in wildcat strikes

Political culture

Political culture - a part of the general culture, including historical experience, memory of social and political events, political values, orientations and skills that directly affect political behavior. Political culture is one of the basic concepts of comparative political science, allowing to carry out comparative analysis political systems of the world.

The functions of political culture include:

integration of the political sphere and general culture, philosophy, religion;

· Preservation and development of the foundations of political activity;

verification of the truth of the official ideology; elimination and compensation of gaps (uncertainty of norms) and gaps (absence or violation of the logical connection of the norms of law) of law;

manifestations, prevention and resolution of latent conflicts;

prophetic, prognostic in relation to development;

Approbation and verification of political personnel;

Synthesis of ways to respond to unexpected threats, etc.

The role of political culture is to reduce political risks - the risks of unfavorable, worsening the conditions for the activities of socio-economic subjects of the decisions of the authorities.

The most famous typology of political cultures belongs to G. Almond and S. Verba:

Parish culture

dependent culture

Participatory culture

Parish culture characterized by an indifferent attitude to the national political system, which is expressed in the absence of a reaction of citizens to the actions political institutions, in the absence of interest in the central government and, conversely, the interest in political life "on the ground".

Dependent political culture is more interested in the activities of the authorities. Citizens have their own idea of ​​power, but they are submissive to it, even with the negative nature of its activities. With this type of political culture, citizens do not hope to change anything in the activities of the authorities by their personal participation, being only “observers”.

Participatory culture characterized by participation. Citizens consider themselves entitled to influence the authorities, they carry out this "intervention" by participating in elections, in the activities of parties, pressure groups. With this classification, it is understood that democracy is the ideal regime that should be taken as a model, but this provision is not indisputable for everyone.

Peculiarities modern world entering the 21st century lies in the fact that, on the one hand, it is embraced by a general scientific and technological revolution and scientific and technological progress, has achieved fundamental social changes, is largely guided by the theory of new political thinking, and, on the other hand, is motley, many-sided , is permeated with opposing tendencies, sharp contradictions, reaching a conflict. This is a complex, integral world, striving for stabilization on the basis of solving exacerbated global problems.

Global problems are considered to be those covering the population of the entire globe, universal, i.e. relating to each and every state, which cannot be solved by one single state. They possess the following signs: firstly, these problems affect the interests of all mankind, and in the future, the future existence of human society, i.e. have a planetary character; secondly, these problems manifest themselves as objective characteristics of the development of society in all or most regions of the world; thirdly, their unresolved poses a threat to the future of mankind, impedes the progress of society, which makes them urgent; fourthly, they can be solved only thanks to the efforts of the entire world community, the majority or many states; fifth, they presuppose the primacy of international law, i.e. strict observance by all states international norms, increasing the role of institutional mechanisms of modern international law, awareness by all of the importance of the international court as the final authority for resolving international disputes of a legal nature and the importance of international negotiations based on mediation or partnership in resolving disputes of a political, territorial, national and other nature.

It is customary to distinguish several groups of global problems:

  • international cooperation and consolidation of peace;
  • ensuring human rights and freedoms;
  • national and international security;
  • ecology;
  • population or the establishment of the demographic equilibrium of the planet;
  • the scientific and technological revolution and the use of its results to overcome backwardness;
  • international cooperation in the fight against crime and other antisocial phenomena.

These groups of problems are closely related to each other, and therefore their solution is interdependent and should be comprehensive. Their content can be specified as follows:

  1. prevention of a world nuclear catastrophe, cessation of the arms race, nuclear weapons testing;
  2. ensuring international cooperation and partnership in the economic, political, environmental, spiritual, cultural and other fields;
  3. overcoming the gap in the level of economic growth between developed and developing states;
  4. elimination or reduction of energy, raw materials, food, demographic crisis(or pre-crisis state), compliance with environmental requirements, joint development outer space etc., i.e. creation of conditions for survival and normal existence related to the relationship between man and the environment;
  5. using the achievements of scientific and technological progress to improve health care and education systems, social and spiritual development of the individual, etc.;
  6. international cooperation in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, aircraft bombings, attempts by criminals to escape justice abroad, the sale of stolen goods or the "laundering" of criminal proceeds abroad, drug trafficking, cultural property and weapons, etc.

New thinking statesmen offers to step over what the world shares, for the sake of common human interests, for the sake of life on Earth. The normalization of international relations in the economy, in the field of information, in ecology can be carried out on the basis of broad internationalization, partnership, and the search for a balance of interests of states, since without this stability on the planet is impossible. The main starting principle of relations between states and in domestic politics every state is simple: nuclear war cannot be a means to achieve political, economic, or any other goals, which means a radical departure from traditional ideas about war and peace. In a global nuclear conflict there would be neither winners nor losers, and the entire civilization would inevitably perish. Accordingly, the basis international politics universal human moral and ethical principles and norms capable of humanizing interstate relations should be laid down. In this context, the solution of global problems of economic development, ecology, etc. should serve to ensure a lasting and just peace, on the one hand, and the development of the individual, society and state, on the other. The priority of universal human values, above all the survival and progressive development of mankind, has been proclaimed and is being implemented. Hence the conversion, the closure of nuclear test sites, the civilized solution of economic and environmental problems.

Russian legislation on global issues is being brought into line with international standards. But, unfortunately, in Russia there are great difficulties associated with Chernobyl and the events generated by the transitional period in the development of society and the state. As a result, not all state programs are fully funded, not all legislation is materially and organizationally supported.

In essence, all the global problems of our time are included in the content of the economic, political, social, spiritual and cultural functions of each state, but they are implemented in life to varying degrees and degrees.

The state of affairs with the environment, food, energy resources, etc. dictates the need to increase the responsibility of the world community for solving global problems or moving towards their solution. Scientific methods for solving global problems and social conditions for their implementation are needed, which is also included in the content of the functions of states. At the same time, the central link of the strategy should be the development of international cooperation between states, the unification of the efforts of all mankind by expanding political, economic, humanitarian and cultural ties, improving the means of communication on the basis of approval in international relations new political thinking, proceeding, as already noted, from the priority of universal ideas of justice and solidarity.

The general theory of law and state cannot focus on the prospects for the evolution of individual legal systems. This science raises the question of the fate of law and the state in general. And in solving it, it is easy to fall into a utopia, to go into transcendental distances. If we do not break away from world realities, we should state the following points:

1. An increasing complication of social relations, which, naturally, dictates the need for such tools as the state and law.

2. Globalization of a number of problems (some of which were discussed in the previous sections), requiring in their resolution the strengthening of the role of law and the state.

3. Growth social conflicts, suggesting state-legal tools to overcome them.

4. The increased desire of people for freedom, which is only possible within the framework of law and with the support of state institutions.

5. The main direction of the evolution of law and the state is in the convergence of national systems due to the limited space on earth, the proximity of peoples and the need for common solutions.

A negative attitude towards the state and non-legal laws emanating from it can only take place where legislation and the state are characterized negatively. But such a characterization cannot be extended to the state and law in general. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the reasons why the state appeared, why its will began to be given universally binding significance. And if among these circumstances we see some general social (universal) needs, then it is with them that the fate of law and the state should be connected. It is good to compare the invention of law with the invention of the wheel. The latter, as you know, could be used for the executions of people (wheeling), but to a much greater extent it is used to ensure the progressive development of society. The science of the general theory of law and the state must model the progressive role of the state-legal mechanism.

The relationship between a person and the state as the most important social institution has always been in the center of attention of world political and legal thought from the very moment of its inception. Moreover, the content, forms and nature of these relationships to a certain extent provide grounds for assessing the state of ensuring and guaranteeing human rights and freedoms in a particular society, a particular state. Therefore, the analysis of the methodological foundations for the knowledge of these components, the whole complex of relations between the state and the person that has developed to date, has only great importance for a more informed discussion of human rights and to avoid the stereotypes so often encountered today when discussing this issue. Unfortunately, the use of these templates, acquiring the character of cloning, is now too common, which cannot but be disturbing. Most seminars, meetings, conferences, scientific and educational publications discuss the issue of human rights based on one main thesis: human rights, like himself, are the highest value that the state (collective, community, society) is trying to ignore or infringe on. However, any pattern that is beneficial for the time being begins to outlive itself and cause ever-increasing harm.

An analysis of the existing conceptual approaches to the knowledge of the relationship between the state and a person from the standpoint of interpreting understanding and recognizing freedom in relation to themselves and a partner, allows in the very general plan to single out two main ones, which have become widespread both in the philosophical and theoretical aspect, and in practical terms. We are talking about the etatist and liberal approaches, which proceed from directly opposite methodological premises in establishing the primacy-secondary nature of the interests and wills of the state and the individual in relation to each other.

However, there is another approach, attention to which, in our opinion, despite, it would seem, for all its obviousness, does not receive its scientific and especially practical development in the conditions of Russian reality. We are talking about the concept of the optimal ratio of the state and personal (individual) principles, or, in other words, the doctrine of the optimum.

Etatist doctrine (from the state to the individual)

The main provisions of the modern etatist doctrine, which is based on priority state beginning in relation to the personal (individual) beginning, are connected mainly with the Marxist doctrine of the state and can be reduced to the following.

The main driving force of society is the class struggle. This struggle must end with the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a new social system - socialism and, ultimately, communism. It will be impossible to achieve this without the destruction of the state itself, which is an instrument of violence against a person. However, artificially such destruction is impossible. The state will wither away gradually until classes disappear. Therefore, the new socialist (proletarian) state that emerges after the proletarian revolution must solve this problem of the gradual elimination of class differences. Based on this global challenge, new type the state is regarded as the most important factor in socialist transformations, to which everyone and everything in society must be subordinated. The state is primary in society, everything else is secondary, derivative. Man is an object of state influence.

Democracy is a class phenomenon. Not everyone is included in the democratic processes (the bourgeoisie is excluded). Rights and freedoms relate only to the victorious class - the proletariat. There is no talk about the universality of rights and freedoms. The power of the proletariat, and thus its rights and freedoms, can only be ensured by violence against those who do not recognize this (the "enemies of the people"). There is no "pure democracy", that is, democracy for all, and there never can be, these are all bourgeois inventions" (V.I. Lenin).

Marxism sees the emancipation of the individual who will be able to live under communism in overcoming individualism, in the dissolution of the individual in the state, and individual interests in the class (state). The driving force of society is not the interests of an individual, but class interests. Therefore, "civil society" is the enemy of communism, the enemy of the proletarian, socialist state, because in civil society the individual feels himself to be a personality, an independent force opposing the state. Personality in Marxism is a "generic personality", that is, not individuality, but something vague and included in the class relation. Hence the rejection of the concept of "rule of law", which cannot but recognize the importance of a single person, an individual person in and of itself.

The attitude towards private property in Marxism is sharply negative. Private property is the main evil for society, the state and the individual. It is precisely in it that the main danger lies, therefore its destruction is the main task after the victory of the proletarian revolution. The assertion and protection of state property is the goal of the new state.

This, almost purely totalitarian, characterization of the primacy of the state to the individual, of course, does not cause positive emotions Moreover, as history (and not only Russia) testifies, there are more than enough facts of this kind. At the same time, it is often argued that the founders of Marxism (and then their numerous followers, the brightest of whom V.I. Lenin), considered the individual as a cog in the state machine, did not see his individuality (humanity, personal principle) behind the individual. Without setting in this case the goal of entering into a debate on this issue, we only note that, firstly, an objective reading of the heritage of K. Marx and F. Engels, nevertheless, apparently, is still ahead, and, secondly, not it should be forgotten that the real embodiment of any social theory, no matter how great or seemingly "human" it may be, always differs from its theoretical propositions.

Liberal doctrine (from the individual to the state)

The liberal doctrine of the relationship between the state and the individual, being very heterogeneous in its content and the nature of the ideas and provisions included in it, is far from homogeneous; in its classical version it was developed and developed in the works of Hugo Grotius, Charles Montesquieu, John Locke, Benedict Spinoza and many others. thinkers - representatives of the natural law school of legal thinking. The modern interpretation of Western liberalism, having its originality, due to the current level of civilizational development of mankind, still does not fundamentally differ from the classical approach. But still, the main thing in it, which constitutes the actual liberal core of the doctrine, is the idea of ​​individual freedom, its autonomy in relation to the state, the ability to enjoy the inalienable rights to life, property, freedom of self-determination, etc. Indeed, having arisen in the bosom of natural law views, in Subsequently, the liberal doctrine was gradually accepted by representatives of legal positivism. This, in particular, is expressed in the fact that the natural rights of a person, and thereby a certain priority of individual freedom over the state, are embodied in legal documents- from the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The main provisions of the doctrine under consideration are as follows.

For a person, the main thing is freedom. It is freedom that is both the human habitat and the most important life value for him. In the sphere of freedom, a person chooses the vector of his life, realizes his interests and passions. If earlier a person acted in relation to the state as its subject, then the recognition of freedom implies a break with such an attitude. It is freedom that turns a subject into a citizen, who now has completely new principles of relations with the state. A person (citizen) is now equal in rights with the state.

The freedom of the individual is organically linked with equality, inseparable from it. Freedom and equality are necessary conditions for the possession by all people of inalienable, inalienable rights.

Human rights are a system of benefits and conditions, without which it becomes simply impossible for the normal life of a person, his individual development, his free choice and self-determination.

The desire for personal autonomy, freedom of self-determination in the sphere of civil society led to the promotion of the problem of the goal of the state and the boundaries of its activities. The state is now declared as an instrument for ensuring the "common good", a defender of human rights and freedoms from any encroachment from anyone, including from the state itself. At the same time, the issue of limiting the power of the state (the activities of the state), which is capable of exceeding its powers while ensuring the protection of rights and freedoms, and thereby intervening at its own discretion in this area, is sharply raised.

Of course, the liberal doctrine is not limited to the presented provisions. But, in any case, the quintessence of the liberal worldview is the postulate of man as the highest value. At the same time, it clearly follows that everything else, including the state, is just tools, means of protecting and protecting that very highest value. At the same time, liberals, as a rule, do not ask themselves the question of what kind of person, what kind of person is being discussed in this or that particular case. For an orthodox liberal, a person as such is valuable in itself; as an abstract, whose rights, freedoms, interests, in any case, are primary in relation to the public, collective, state. The state, from the point of view of liberal human rights activists, always strives to infringe, restrict human rights and freedoms, bring them into line with its own - state - interests. In this sense, a person always needs to be on his guard in relation to the state, the state for a person is an enemy seeking to defeat him, to suppress him.

But is it really so, and is it supposed to be so? Let's try to answer this question by referring to the approach that, in our opinion, it is appropriate to call the doctrine of the optimum. Modern liberalism: Rawls, Berlin, Dvorkin and others. Moscow: Dom intellect. Books, 1998. Alekseev S.S. Climbing right. Searches and solutions. M.: NORMA, 2001; Nersesyants V.S. Philosophy of Law: A Textbook for High Schools. M.: Ed. group INFRA-M - NORMA, 1997.

Doctrine of Optimum (Man for the State and State for the Man)

So far, there are no special studies devoted to the formation of systemic components of such a doctrine. Here, as we have already noted, they usually manage either to characterize the first two concepts, or limit themselves to pointing out the need to weaken their radicalist provisions. One could appeal to the concept of the rule of law, which, it would seem, has all the necessary elements to mitigate the extremes of the etatist and liberal doctrines, however, even here everything is far from being so simple, if we keep in mind the existing, sometimes sharply different, models and types. legal statehood. Without going into all this extremely complex and extensive problematics, we will try to outline the main parameters of our vision of the doctrine of the optimum relationship between the state and the individual.

The essence of this doctrine is the need to achieve an optimal combination of state and individual principles of social life in order to ensure the integrity of society and its normal civilizational development. The task of achieving the optimum consists in the inadmissibility of extremes of a twofold kind.

On the one hand, excessive individualization of human relations and ignoring the interests of the public, including primarily the state, are unacceptable. On the other hand, it is just as unacceptable to recognize the overwhelming and all-consuming role and significance of the state and the state in all spheres of people's life.

The main principles of optimizing the relationship between the state and the individual in modern conditions can, in our opinion, be reduced to the following.

  • 1. Since the basis of legal understanding in general and human rights, in particular, are the ideas and principles of freedom and equality, the latter should be interpreted as attributes (immutable, permanent features) of both an individual human individual and the state.
  • 2. The state, being the most important social institution and created, ultimately, by the socio-political will of the people themselves, cannot but have freedom of action as a condition for ensuring the security of society as a whole and its individual member in particular. Therefore, an encroachment (in any form) or an actually carried out attempt of such encroachment (encroachment) on the part of an individual on the interests (freedom) of the state should be considered as an encroachment on the interests of other individuals who are also under the protection of the state. In the same way, the encroachment of the state in the face of bureaucracy, law enforcement, the armed forces to the freedom of expression of the will of an individual, if this will does not pursue the goals of violating the integrity of society, cannot be justified. At the same time, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the concepts of encroachment as arbitrary, extra-legal (extra-legal) volitional influence from the restriction (and even deprivation) of the rights and freedoms of the individual by the state, if this is provided for by current international and national legislation.
  • 3. This situation will be achieved when individual legal consciousness and public legal consciousness ( we are talking, first of all, about the legal consciousness of the state, more precisely, the legal consciousness of the representatives of the state) will be imbued with all their rational-ideological and emotional-psychological components with understanding and recognition of freedom in relation to each other. The greatest difficulty lies in the fact that, on the one hand, each person could understand and recognize that the state also "has the right" to its own - state - freedom (freedom, of course, limited by legitimate law) of action in the interests of the whole society, and therefore, in relation to this person himself. On the other hand, the state, represented by all its government agencies, represented by every official (civil servant), must officially recognize the freedom of each individual as one of the most important, civilizationally significant values ​​not only for this individual, but also for the state itself and society as a whole, and therefore consider oneself called ( obligated) to ensure, protect and protect this freedom. It is in this sense that most often people talk about a truly legal and truly democratic state.
  • 4. In the legal consciousness of an individual and the state legal consciousness, the unity and organic inseparability of freedom and equality of a person and the state must necessarily be “fixed”. In their relations, from the point of view of natural law, a person and states should act as equal subjects. It is another matter that in practice such equality is extremely difficult to achieve for the sole reason that the possibilities for ensuring and protecting their interests in the state and the individual are different, and often simply incomparable. But it is precisely in this sense that it is necessary to ensure such a state consciousness that the understanding of one's own strength, inherent in the state, does not stand in a pose of confrontation with the social weakness of a single individual. The state, as it were, should come to an understanding that it is precisely the protection of such a weak person that is evidence of his true social strength, his prestige and authority. On the other hand, an individual cannot consider the state as an object in relation to which it is possible, "speculating" on its weakness, to make various kinds of attacks, trying to humiliate (ideologically, psychologically) the state. In both cases (the state humiliates the individual, the individual humiliates the state), equality is violated, partnerships are destroyed, and thus this leads to ignoring the freedom of both parties. The consequence of all this is a violation of the balance between the interests of the state and the individual. And this balance, as history shows, is by no means violated in favor of the individual for the very reason that has already been mentioned: the state, by definition, has great social power. Therefore, in solving this problem, the main vector of the mutual desire for agreement (and cooperation) is the vector of the state's desire to ensure such agreement, such a balance. Simply put, momentum must go from strong to weak. But the weakness of an individual does not mean at all that he is weak-willed, incapable of any actions or actions stimulating the state. On the contrary, activity - the social and state activity of a person is simply necessary. It is this kind of activity that sends signals to the state to take any specific actions to ensure a balance of rights and freedoms. In other words, the state and the individual must, in order to avoid encroachment from both sides, strive for cooperation, joint activities and social co-creation, mutual tolerance.
  • 5. Of exceptional importance is not only the formal consolidation of equality and freedom of man and the state in positive law, but also the real implementation of these fundamental principles. In practice, it is very often observed that such a provision is indeed enshrined in the norms of the current legislation, but only formally. In fact, there are at least two circumstances that discredit the idea of ​​a balance between the state and the individual. This is, firstly, the presence of contradictions in the legislation (either between laws of the same order, or between laws and by-laws), or the presence of gaps in it, lead to an actual violation of the optimum, and this violation, as noted above, occurs in favor of a stronger - states. Secondly, the absence of often clear legal mechanisms for ensuring the equality of the state and the individual in resolving any contradictions that systematically arise between them. The absence of such mechanisms leads to the emergence, growth, aggravation and painful resolution of various kinds of conflicts, in which the state is most often the winning side. Thus, in solving the problem of ensuring the optimum relationship between the state and the individual, the main word still belongs to the state, but on condition that the person will show his incentive to achieve such an optimum. social activity. Academic legal journal N 3 (5) (July-September) 2001.