Throughout the first half of the 19th century. the vast Russian Empire remained an agricultural country. The overwhelming majority of the population (90%) lived in rural areas, and agricultural activities remained the main thing for them. There were also various crafts. Small-scale cougar production was widespread in the village. The industrial sector of the economy during this period occupied a secondary position.
In 1801 Russian Empire there were about 10 thousand industrial establishments (enterprises), which employed about 95 thousand people, producing marketable products worth 25 million rubles. From these data it is clear that on average the enterprise employed only a few dozen people. By 1854, the number of industrial enterprises reached almost 100 thousand, the number of workers - about 460 thousand, and the volume of production was determined at 160 million rubles. If we take into account that by 1854 the population reached 70 million people, and government expenditures amounted to 350 million rubles, then one cannot help but admit that by the beginning of the second half of the 19th century. Russia was still very far from being an industrial power.
There were three main regional centers where the bulk of industry and trade were concentrated. St. Petersburg was the concentration of large industrial enterprises of the country, the main trade gateway of Russia to the outside world. Moscow and the surrounding provinces constituted the second most important industrial hub, where textile industrial enterprises and food-flavoring production were concentrated. The Urals continued to remain a center for the extraction of mineral raw materials and metal smelting.
Since the 1840s The industrial and raw materials region of Donbass began to be developed, which later became the most important center of metallurgy, coal mining and heavy engineering.
The first industrial enterprises equipped with steam engines appeared in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. But their number was small. The most rapidly developing industry was textile. The production of textiles, especially inexpensive ones from cotton and linen, had a wide market, and textile products (often called textiles) could be easily sold anywhere. But raw materials for the cotton industry had to be imported from abroad, since Russia did not have its own cotton. Imported raw materials, dyes, and equipment increased the cost of production.
Over time, a number of “economic emigrants” grew into entrepreneurs on an imperial scale - Gubbard, Knop, Wogau, Nobel, Wachter, Goujon, Giraud, Spahn, etc.
In the chronicles of domestic entrepreneurship, “Russian foreigners” occupy a place of honor next to the names of representatives of primordially Russian merchant families. All together they constituted what, in the language of sociology of the 20th century. called the business elite.
The growth in the number of industrial enterprises contributed to the production of a significantly larger number of products, reducing production costs and lowering the price of goods. If in 1820 440 cotton processing factories produced 35 million arshins of cotton fabric (71 cm arshin), then in 1852 there were already 756 such factories and they produced 257 million arshins of cotton fabrics.
In the textile industry, unprecedentedly powerful enterprises began to emerge. In 1835, the first joint-stock company for cotton production in Russia was established - the Russian Paper Spinning Manufactory with a huge share capital of 1 million rubles at that time, which was increased after some time to 3.5 million rubles. The founders of the company were St. Petersburg and English capitalists, who built a complex of industrial buildings in St. Petersburg on the Obvodny Canal in three years. By the 1850s The company was Russia's largest manufacturer of cotton yarn.
In 1857, the largest not only in Russia, but also in Europe, the Partnership of the Krenholm Paper Spinning and Weaving Manufactory arose. Its founder and main shareholder was the Russified German L.G. Button In a short period of time, the Partnership created a huge industrial textile center on the banks of the Narva River, producing yarn, fabrics and threads. Technological process was built on the use of water energy, for which a system of powerful water wheels was built, which ensured low production costs. The production rate of the Krenholm spinner was 44% higher than the all-Russian figure, and the production rate of the weaver was 20%.
The development of industry and trade contributed to the growth of urban centers. Urban population European Russia from 1811 to 1856 it increased from 2.8 to 5.7 million people. The highest rates of population growth were demonstrated by the largest commercial and industrial centers. Over 15 years, from 1826 to 1840, the population of St. Petersburg increased from 330 thousand to 470 thousand people, and the population of Moscow - from 200 thousand to 350 thousand people.
Cotton products began to dominate the domestic market from the second half of the 19th century. Previously, another material was much more widespread - flax, or, as it was also called, Russian cotton. It was used to make fabrics for various purposes- both for the manufacture of clothing, and for technical needs, and for the needs of the armed forces. The production and processing of flax fiber was carried out mainly by peasants in the central and northern provinces of European Russia. With the hands of their family members, peasants produced flax fiber and wove coarse linen on their home looms. In this production system there was no place for bulky and expensive machines.
Machines could only become widespread in large factories and plants owned by the state or created by private entrepreneurs. It is on them that steam engines and large-scale machine production have been established since the 1830s. The industrial revolution began, which finally ended half a century later with the complete victory of the machine in Russian industrial production.
The development of industry and transport required the supply of various equipment. The most complex and expensive among them at that time were steam engines. They were imported either from England or produced in Russia itself. From the middle of the 19th century. Russian industry almost completely met the needs for such products. As the most important branch of domestic mechanical engineering, boiler making, developed, the cost of products also decreased - from 1830 to 1860, prices for steam engines decreased 5 times.
The largest producers steam engines and steam boilers were state-owned (state-owned) factories located in the St. Petersburg region (Izhora, Aleksandrovsky and Petersburg Foundry - Putilovsky). Particularly large orders were carried out at the Aleksinsky plant, which in the 1830-1840s. produced machines (steam boilers) for shipping companies. Several such machines were manufactured here every year.
Some private companies also produced them.
The largest among them was organized in St. Petersburg at the beginning of the 19th century. Englishman F. Bird and operated under the brand name “Umod F. Bird”. In the 1830s. Here, up to 10 steam engines were produced annually, mainly for steamships.
In 1849, in the Volga region, not far from Nizhny Novgorod, the Sormovo Mechanical Plant was founded, specializing in the construction of river steamers. Initially they were equipped steam boilers from Belgium and England, but after a few years the ships were fully equipped with domestic equipment. In the first decade of its existence, the plant produced 60 steam ships. Subsequently, the Sormovo plant became the largest shipbuilding center in the Volga basin.
Steam engines were also manufactured in the Urals. In the 1830-1840s. here, at the Vyksa factories, several such machines were produced annually by order of private shipping and textile companies.
In total, by the mid-1850s. in Russia there were several thousand industrial enterprises that employed 520 thousand people. The bulk of these enterprises were small workshops, employing from 3 to 50 people, mainly engaged in the production of textiles and processing of agricultural products.
Machine-building plants in the full sense of the word, and these are always more or less large enterprises, then there were only 25, and they provided no more than 30% of the country’s needs for machinery.
In terms of growth rates and production indicators in the field of metallurgy and mechanical engineering, Russia was still far behind the leading industrial power - Great Britain. If from 1800 By 1860, the number of blast furnaces in Russia increased from 142 to 145, while during the same period in England their number increased from 150 to 565.
The needs of domestic trade and industry have always been the focus of attention of the authorities, who have sought to encourage the development of industrial undertakings of private individuals.
“Whoever opens a new branch of trade and industry, invents a new useful machine, starts a factory of a new type or in a better device with greater efficiency or less waste of effort, and, finally, anyone who presents an essay on these subjects based on solid speculation and experience, may he be assured of worthy retribution and reward commensurate with the benefits of his inventions,” said the manifesto signed by Alexander I in 1801.
The state's protective policy towards industry can be traced back to this manifesto. Increased customs tariffs, provision of various tax and other financial benefits and subsidies, encouragement of business people by awarding ranks and noble class rights, a system of government orders and contracts - all this reflected the protective nature of state policy. In the same row were the new class category introduced in 1832 - hereditary honorary citizens to distinguish persons who had distinguished themselves in the field of commerce, and the organization of empire-wide reviews of the achievements of domestic industry.
In 1829, the All-Russian Manufacturing Exhibition was opened in St. Petersburg. For the first time in history, a show of the achievements of domestic industry took place in the capital of the state, where the most famous companies and capitalists presented their products. The unusual nature of the event, as well as the attention of the highest persons to it, attracted a large audience to the exhibition. In total, throughout the 19th century. 16 all-Russian exhibitions took place in Russia. The last one took place in Nizhny Novgorod in 1896.
In 1851, the first World Industrial Exhibition opened in London. The Russian department attracted the attention of both visitors and the press. Products made of silver, fur, leather, brocade, brocade, and wood were highly appreciated. Gold and silver embroidery and beaded embroidery were recognized as incomparable pearls of the world exposition. At the same time, it turned out that in the field of paper spinning and paper weaving production Russian products are not inferior to the quality of products from leading industrial countries, which was evidenced by the awarding of medals to the products of various Russian companies.
Russian law approved provisions and norms that marked the most advanced developments of world economic thought. In this sense, the attitude of the autocratic government towards the joint-stock business is especially indicative.
The joint stock form of organization of capital and entrepreneurial activity has been established in Western Europe"and the USA in the first half of the 19th century. In Russia it also quickly gained a strong position.
A joint stock company, unlike a sole proprietorship, made it possible to collect the capital of many - holders of shares and bonds (company securities). This opened up great opportunities for the implementation of a major economic undertaking.
For the first time, a legislative norm regulating the activities of joint-stock associations appeared when the structures themselves did not actually exist. On January 1, 1807, Alexander I issued a manifesto about new benefits, differences, advantages and new ways to expand and strengthen trade enterprises granted to the merchants. This document formulated the most important principles of joint stock business.
It was allowed to establish companies with any number of participants. The main principle of joint stock business in Russia was clearly formulated. Large enterprise, and a joint-stock company was such a thing, is a matter of national importance, and itself supreme power gives sanction for such an undertaking. In this regard, the charter of each joint-stock company was approved by the tsar.
Over the years, the legislative framework for joint-stock entrepreneurship has expanded and improved.
In December 1836, Nicholas I approved the Regulations on Share Companies* developed by the State Council and signed the prepared one by M.M. Speransky decree to the Senate on the promulgation and implementation of this law. Russia acquired a universal set of joint stock legislation earlier than most other, much more developed capitalist countries. In Prussia this happened in 1843, in England in 1844, in France in 1856.
The introduction of this regulatory code reflected the government's understanding important role associated forms of capital in the development of the country's economy.
A joint stock company was considered as the most convenient form for the production placement of free private capital, including small ones that did not have independent production value: So that everyone would have a free way to participate in the profitable placement of capital on uniform rules common to all.
The proclamation of the principle of equality of all shareholders without distinction of ranks and status was a new element of Russian law. Within the framework of the existing rigid class-hierarchical system, the very fact of recognizing the possibility of such a norm served as a harbinger of future social transformations. Capital denied any traditional subordination, asserting only the hierarchy of money.
The “Regulations...” determined the limits of the rights and obligations of each joint stock company. Its highest body was the meeting of shareholders, which elected a board from among itself.
The “Regulations...” established the procedure for establishing a company, recorded various aspects of its activities, and stipulated the legal side of termination and liquidation of the company.
Mostly joint stock companies of the first half of the 19th century. were busy with regional transport transportation, production of various drinks, construction of small ships, etc. Transport, insurance, trade and intermediary services are the main areas of activity of most firms.
Since 1830 to 1836 About 20 joint-stock companies emerged in the country. In 1835, the first domestic railway company appeared - the Tsarskoye Selo Railway with a capital of 1 million rubles.
Since the 1830s the introduction of the Russian aristocracy, the wealthiest layer of society at that time, to the joint-stock business began. Among the founders and shareholders of the companies there are representatives of the most noble and eminent noble families - princes Yusupov, Gagarin, Kochubey, counts Vorontsov, Stroganov, Komarovsky, Mordvinov, Bludov, Speransky, barons of Corf and others. They were not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the companies; in that case, there were employees and ordinary shareholders.
Gradually, a social stratum of shareholders appeared in Russia, and the stock exchange game was born. Securities of companies became the subject of lively purchase and sale.
A characteristic feature of joint-stock foundation in the 1840-1850s. was the emergence of companies in the field of factory industry. Since 1857 77 such companies emerged in Russia. Russia has never seen such a pace of founding.
W. Sombart's approach to the sociological study of the phenomenon of capitalist entrepreneurship is fundamentally different from the concept of M. Weber. If the latter built an “ideal type”, capturing only the most characteristic and typical features in the purest form, emphasizing the specificity and difference from traditional and adventuristic entrepreneurship, then W. Sombart was interested in the bourgeois entrepreneur as a heterogeneous phenomenon, including various cultural, spiritual, socio-psychological, social principles. It is in the diversity, inconsistency and complex historical dynamics of these principles that the “Sombartian” entrepreneur appears.
The bourgeois personality is based on two mutually opposite principles: the entrepreneurial spirit and the bourgeois spirit.
Sombart describes the entrepreneurial spirit as “a synthesis of the thirst for money, passion for adventure, ingenuity and much more.” The entrepreneurial spirit dominates at the moment of the genesis of capitalism and “in the motley fabric of capitalism, the bourgeois spirit makes up the cotton weft, and the entrepreneurial spirit is the silk warp.” With all the huge variety of personality traits of an entrepreneur, it always includes three components: “conqueror”, “organizer”, “trader”.
An entrepreneur as a “conqueror” does not necessarily have a penchant for aggression and conquest in the literal sense of the word (although military campaigns and expeditions are among Sombart’s possible “enterprises”). Being a “conqueror,” from Sombart’s point of view, means an active attitude towards reality , the ability to look beyond the ordinary, to see new horizons and opportunities where others do not see them, to build new plan and be ready to implement it even despite many difficulties and obstacles. This requires from the entrepreneur such qualities as “ideological wealth”, “spiritual freedom”, “spiritual energy”, “perseverance and constancy” in implementing the plan.
The ability to be an “organizer” is, according to Sombart, an essential quality of a true entrepreneur, who is not only able to come up with new ideas, but also organize people for their implementation, and knows how to force others to serve his will in a non-violent way. Finally, the ability of an entrepreneur to be a “merchant” means for the German scientist more than just running a commercial enterprise: it is the ability to negotiate and negotiate, the ability to persuade rather than coerce, which Sombart called “fighting with spiritual weapons.”
The social groups that carried the “entrepreneurial spirit” were initially robbers, feudal lords, and large speculators.
Robbers and pirates, to whom are equated those who travel for the purpose of discovery, “full of strength, eager for adventure, accustomed to victories, rude, greedy conquerors of a very large caliber,” are declared bearers of the entrepreneurial spirit for their desire for profit, coupled with energy, determination and the ability to plan and organize large expeditions, to subjugate others to one’s will.
The feudal economy gradually, as it loses its focus on direct consumption, develops into a capitalist or semi-capitalist one. This is possible thanks to the significant resources available to the feudal lords - the owners of the land, its subsoil, forests and other lands, who simultaneously had at their disposal significant reserves of labor.
Large speculators had the ability to direct large resources to the implementation of projects of an adventurous type: “He himself, with his passion, lives out the dream of his happily carried out to the end, crowned with success enterprise. He sees himself as a rich, powerful man, whom all his neighbors honor and extol for his glorious deeds, perfect by him, growing in his own fantasy to incredible proportions... He dreams of grandiose things. He lives as if in constant fever. The exaggeration of his own ideas excites him again and again and keeps him in constant motion... And, based on this basic mood ", he accomplishes his greatest work: he drags other people along with him so that they help him carry out his plan." Speculative capital develops on the scale of large enterprises, the real plan of which is difficult to rationally review - large banking scams, overseas expeditions and colonial enterprises, transport enterprises, etc.
In order for the “capitalist spirit” to establish itself in society, Sombart believes, a critical mass of individuals carrying certain psychological properties is necessary. Thus, entrepreneurial natures, in order for the “entrepreneurial spirit” described above to develop, must, according to Sombart, have intelligence, imagination, mobility of spirit, energy and vitality. “Entrepreneurial natures are people with a pronounced intellectual-voluntaristic talent, which they must possess beyond the usual degree...” These intellectually and spiritually gifted people are, according to Sombart’s definition, passionate, “erotic” natures, professing eudaimonic and even hedonistic ethics, those. happiness, enjoyment of life - not only wealth as such, but above all the activity itself, the adventure, the play of passions. This heroic capitalism, according to Sombart, is dominated by the racial-biological properties of the conquering peoples, who dominate others by virtue of their vitality and natural energy.
The petty-bourgeois spirit is the second component of the “capitalist spirit.” By him Sombart understands “all those views and principles (and the behavior and actions guided by them) which together constitute a good citizen and father of a family, respectable and “prudent” business man". V. Sombart considers the personality type and system of values, united by the concept of the bourgeois spirit, as well as the capitalist spirit in general, to be a product of historical development, and dates its emergence to the 14th–15th centuries, and considers the trading cities of Italy to be its homeland. Within the framework of the bourgeois spirit Sombart identifies two main components: “philistine morality” (“holy economics”), which includes the principles of the internal structure of the economy and its management, and “business morality,” which regulates the owner’s relations with the outside world, including with clients and partners.
“Holy housekeeping” (an expression borrowed by Sombart from the 14th-century Florentine merchant and writer L. Alberti) presupposes, firstly, the rationalization of housekeeping. Sombart notes that, unlike the “noble lord,” the rational bourgeois owner does not hesitate to talk about business affairs as something unworthy, and systematically balances income and expenses, not allowing the latter to exceed the former. This means a complete rejection of the seigneurial lifestyle corresponding to the property status, condemnation of unnecessary expenses, often found in merchant memoirs and instructions of the 14th–16th centuries, i.e. a fundamental change in the view of a decent lifestyle and the purpose of wealth, which is no longer associated with costly, but with productive farming. Secondly, bourgeois morality presupposes the economization of farming, i.e. not just balancing, but conscious frugality, focused on accumulation. Moreover, what is new in this period is the appeal of the rich to the idea of frugality and accumulation, the transformation of voluntary (and not stimulated by need) savings of funds and asceticism of the lifestyle into a virtue and moral imperative of the commercial and industrial class. Sombart cites, in addition to L. Alberti, D. Defoe and B. Franklin, as examples of the bourgeois virtues of “holy thrift.”
“Business morality” includes new norms and values that apply in the sphere of relationships between an entrepreneur and partners and clients. Morality in dealing with clients presupposes, first of all, “commercial solidity, i.e., reliability in fulfilling promises, “real service,” punctuality in fulfilling obligations, etc.” This new morality differs from traditional norms of doing business in that it presupposes loyalty to contracts in which the identity of the contracting parties does not matter (in traditional economic culture, the relationship between one's own and another's was very different).
“Business morality” is not only “morality in business”, but also “morality for business”. This means, according to Sombart, that “from now on it becomes profitable (for business reasons) to cultivate certain virtues, or at least at least to wear them for show, or to possess them and show them off. These virtues can be combined in one collective concept: bourgeois decency." It was advantageous to have a reputation as a hardworking, sober and moderate, modest, religious citizen. Finally, a feature of bourgeois morality, according to Sombart, is the ability to calculate, to take into account the diversity and complexity behind a real matter of relations to mathematical calculations of income and expenditure, an ability not developed in the traditional economy, where the barn books of even large merchants resembled diaries rather than modern financial documents.
The social groups that most clearly embodied the bourgeois spirit were government officials, merchants and artisans.
State officials, bureaucrats and rulers, concerned about replenishing the treasury, are declared by Sombart to be one of the first bearers of the capitalist spirit, since they were often the ones who gave impetus to the organization of state enterprises (manufactures, shipyards, mines, etc.). In terms of the scale of invested funds, organizational potential, and most importantly in terms of the rationality of long-term planning, it was state enterprises that had the most significant influence on the formation of capitalism as a type of economic organization.
Merchants, according to Sombart, are those who developed a capitalist enterprise from trade in goods and money, growing from the smallest craft enterprises. The most important way for the development of merchant entrepreneurship was its gradual transformation into manufacturing and factory entrepreneurship through the hiring of small artisan producers. Such small producers were supplied with everything necessary for handicraft production to order, and then gradually enslaved and turned into real hired workers.
Craftsmen are those who, unlike merchants, initially became rich and developed in the field of industrial production - in mechanical engineering, the textile industry, etc. What unites the craftsman and the merchant in the form and methods of their activities is that they completely abandon violent, authoritarian methods; they are traders, i.e. they know how to negotiate (unlike violent robbers and feudal lords). In addition, artisans and merchants had in common something that was not typical of other strata - carriers of the entrepreneurial spirit - thriftiness, the ability to save and calculate their funds.
In their psychological and moral foundations, bourgeois natures are ascetic; they, not possessing the strength and energy of entrepreneurial natures, profess an ethic of duty and methodical hard work. They grow up on the racial-biological basis of peoples doomed to be conquered and forced to work; their destiny is to survive under conditions of external domination, which can only be ensured by patience, caution, hard work, frugality, etc. Their ascetic ethics is initially forced; they simply have nothing better to do, because the “conquerors” leave no other prospects. Then the ethics of duty is interiorized, turning into an internal need, and becomes a natural attribute of bourgeois culture.
Thus, the “capitalist spirit” is composed, according to Sombart, of culturally heterogeneous elements. Moreover, the bearers of these different cultural principles are natures that are opposite in their psychocultural make-up. This internal inconsistency is the key to the dynamics and, at the same time, instability of the “capitalist spirit” and the very personality of the entrepreneur.
In the process of historical development, the ratio of elements and types changes, forming historically specific “styles” of capitalism. He shares the sociocultural and moral characteristics of early and late (i.e., contemporary industrial) capitalism.
For the early capitalist entrepreneur, the “old-style bourgeois,” it is typical, according to Sombart, to preserve the pre-capitalist correlation of production and entrepreneurship with the interests and needs of man. Man still remains the measure of all things, and any entrepreneur has not yet ceased to “measure his commercial activities with the demands of healthy humanity: for all of them, the work remained only a means to the goal of life; for all their direction and measure of their activity are determined by their own vital interests and the interests of other people for whom and with whom they act."
Initially, at the time of the genesis of capitalism, the bourgeoisie was dominated by “entrepreneurial natures”, passionate individuals of an adventurous nature. As capitalism develops and stabilizes, they acquire more and more bourgeois virtues: “the natural, whole person with his healthy instinctiveness has already suffered great damage, had to get used to the straitjacket of bourgeois well-being, had to learn to count. its horns are equipped with leather pads."
The “old style bourgeois” treats wealth as a passionately desired goal, but not as an end in itself; it must serve its owner. The dignity of an entrepreneur lies in the ability to properly manage one’s wealth, to use it to support one’s own business, for the benefit of loved ones and in the interests of virtue. The means of acquiring capital also matter - only wealth acquired honestly is respected (it remains unclear how Sombart interprets the “capitalist” nature of robbers and pirates in this regard). Business morality is full of sedateness and decency, competition is fair: such methods of economic struggle as ruining competitors through sales at low prices have not yet become widespread; it is still considered reprehensible to lure other people’s clients and attract buyers with the help of intrusive advertising. The capitalist, while doing his business, also cares about others: he often refuses to introduce labor-saving technology so as not to deprive his workers of a piece of bread.
According to Sombart, the highly capitalist spirit characteristic of modern economic man is characterized by a fundamental change in value orientations. The goals of economic activity now become profit and prosperity of the business. These two goals are interrelated, because for a business to prosper, net profit is necessary, and the former is impossible without the latter. At the same time, the end point of the entrepreneur’s aspirations is pushed back to infinity, the development of the business and the increase in profits has no goal, no other “human” meaning other than the development of production in itself.
Among the entrepreneurs of mature capitalism, Sombart finds social types, inherent in early capitalism: robbers, speculators, bureaucrats, etc. However, their style, forms and methods of their activities are fundamentally changing. The infinity of their business and its complete isolation from “human” interests and needs leads to the fact that the entrepreneur loses normal feelings, attachments, spiritual life, etc., turning into a machine, into a slave of his business. Farming styles are also changing. It is dominated by rationality and an orientation towards production for exchange, the primary goal of any human production– satisfaction of needs – loses its priority. Hence the desire to reduce the cost of production and expand sales, which no longer knows any moral restrictions. Everything that interferes with maximum profit is ruthlessly suppressed, competition takes on the character of a cruel game without rules. Religious, moral and other prohibitions and restrictions can no longer fetter the development of capitalism.
Philistine virtues undergo significant changes in a highly capitalist culture. During this period, they ceased to be necessary properties of the entrepreneur’s personality, turning into attributes of the business, “they ceased to be qualities of living people and instead became objective principles of farming.” This means that the entrepreneur himself may not be a hardworking, honest, respectable, thrifty person and may not follow these moral standards in private life, but his business, in order to successfully develop and compete, must be conducted on the principles of diligence, economy, rationality , scrupulous execution of contracts, etc. The virtues of modesty and asceticism also disappear from the private life of the “bourgeois of the new style”: he can indulge in luxury, spend money on extravagant entertainment, etc., making sure only that expenses do not exceed income. At the same time, the capitalist enterprise itself is conducted on the principles of the strictest rationality and economy, proven methods of accounting, accounting, personnel management, etc.
Thus, the late capitalist entrepreneur no longer creates capitalism himself through personal energy and character, but capitalism, with its established sociocultural values and norms of activity and behavior, creates the entrepreneur and at the same time opposes him as a huge economic and sociocultural cosmos.
Capitalism appears in Sombart as a passing stage of historical development, which is determined by the duality of its sociocultural nature. It is due to the fact that the bourgeoisie is “getting fat” and losing the passionate energy of the “entrepreneurial spirit.” He begins to unproductively use wealth in the form of rent, gets used to the calm satiety of the rentier and returns to the luxury and wastefulness rejected in the era of his rise and heyday. At the same time, the development of bureaucracy in a capitalist organization also undermines the energetic “entrepreneurial spirit”; management technology gradually takes the place of talent and creative intuition.
§ 2. CAPITALIST ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Genuine entrepreneurial activity in full
volume, what we call business today is associated with capitalism.
Capitalism differs from previous economic
formations primarily due to the fact that producers of basic material
benefits - worker, peasant - become legally
free and can sell their labor, focusing exclusively
for your own interests, without coercion. The owner of the produced
goods and services in this case becomes the one who owns
means of production for their manufacture, components
capitalist private property - capital. Under
capital here refers to material and spiritual values
Property and other property (including intellectual property),
used to produce new values. Others
in words, capital is everything an entrepreneur needs to have
to meet society's needs for goods and services
and making a profit. This is money, buildings and structures, equipment
and transport, raw materials and energy sources, inventions and
discoveries, in short - material and spiritual resources used
in business.
Along with industrial capital, there is widespread development
trading and loan capital. Commodity-money relations
sharply raise the role and importance of money, which is fully
acquire their functions as measures of value, means of circulation,
payment and treasure formation. They are becoming truly global
money.
Exactly availability of capital gives the right to its owner -
entrepreneur to own, manage and use the produced
goods or services and make a profit.
Profit here means the difference between the funds
invested in the business and extracted as a result of entrepreneurial
activities (the difference between revenue and costs). Profit
The most important incentive for an entrepreneur. "History of American
business, its basic premise is that
The main concern of a businessman is making a profit. All of him
other motives seem only secondary,”
writes the famous American economist B. Selichman
in the book " Powerful of the world this."
The main figure in a market economy is the entrepreneur.
businessman, one who is based on the property he owns
creates new goods and services and extracts
A capitalist market emerges - a set of social
economic relations in the sphere of production, distribution,
exchange and consumption. The basis of market relations
becomes economic freedom, i.e. for an entrepreneur -
26 Section I. General basics of entrepreneurial activity
choice: what, to whom, where and at what price to produce and sell, and
for the consumer - what, where, from whom and at what price to buy. This
correspond to equal relations between the entrepreneur and
consumer of goods, competition between entrepreneurs in
the fight for the consumer’s wallet, freedom of choice of workplace
work and working conditions.
Thus, at the center of a market economy are
a person-consumer and producer of goods with his interests, and
its main task is to best satisfy the needs
person. Evidence of the success of such satisfaction
and is the making of profit by an entrepreneur. Hence,
profit is not only an incentive for an entrepreneur (about which
already mentioned), but also the most important indicator of the success of its activities
in the interests of man and society.
The sphere of market activity of the entrepreneur becomes
both the creation of goods and services and their sale, first of all -
trade. Entrepreneurship also covers such areas of life
product cycle, such as research and design required
for their creation, transportation, operation and consumption,
recovery and recycling.
The concept of “entrepreneurship” is increasingly becoming modern
meaning. Already in the explanatory dictionary of V. Dahl (1863-1866) it is written:
“To undertake means to undertake, decide, carry out something
or a new business, to start doing something significant
"; enterprising means “inclined, capable of
enterprises, large turnover, bold, decisive, courageous
in fact of this kind.” Since this period, entrepreneurship has been inextricably
is associated with the availability and use of capital, and
the entrepreneur is identified with the capitalist.
Gave a powerful impetus to the development of entrepreneurship industrial
revolution of the 18th century, which marked the transition to large
enterprises. Instead of a craftsman, a master virtuoso of the central
the figure became the hired worker, often without sufficient
qualifications. English political economy in
face A. Smith And D. Ricardo paid considerable attention to issues
management in new conditions: factory division
labor, organization of production control, etc.
Great interest in managing the labor of people in a capitalist
factory were shown by utopian socialists, in particular
Robert Owen. He paid special attention to the fact that today we
We call it the “human factor”. Owen didn't limit himself to pure
theory. At the beginning of the 19th century. at his textile factory he
conducted a bold experiment, during which the enterprise
Chapter 2. Overview of Entrepreneurship Development 27
food was organized for the workers, and a
new school and landscaping. Our today's
aspirations for a strong social policy thus have
deep historical roots and worthy predecessors.
Owen owns and attempt to use for promotion
labor productivity moral incentives: natural desire
a person to be no worse than others he realized in the organization
healthy competition in production: among the best workers
red ribbons appeared on the machines, green ribbons appeared on the middle ones,
bad ones are yellow.
Entrepreneurial activity motivates businessmen
to a constant search for forms and ways of doing business. Along with
individual and family capitalist enterprises
associations of capital owners appear - joint stock
companies. Their predecessors were trading societies,
which began to take shape in Europe in the 16th century. One of
such societies - "Moscow Company" worked in our country
already in 1555
Pooling capital into joint stock companies made it possible
increase efforts to solve major business problems
tasks. At the beginning of our century, at the largest enterprises
such societies in the United States employed about a quarter of all workers and
employees who produced up to 40% of industrial output
At the same time, small-scale
enterprises employing up to several hundred people.
They enjoyed government support and benefits
in the field of taxation, lending, etc.
Due to the growth of entrepreneurship, the development of trade
colossal trading enterprises, supermarkets,
capable of clothing and feeding the population of an entire small
A banking system is being organized, the basis of which is
private commercial banks. They accept money for safekeeping,
paying a certain percentage for this, at the same time
lend money at higher interest rates to their clients -
entrepreneurs. There are also so-called banking
houses, or "business banks", engaged in buying and selling, and
sometimes by issuing securities. Special banks - they are called
mortgage - carry out transactions with real estate: buildings,
housing, land, roads, etc.
2. Capitalist enterprise
What distinguishes the capitalist enterprise as an organized establishment is the isolation of business operations, which thus means the elevation of an independent economic organism above individual living people; the unification in one economy into a logical unity of all one-time and sequential economic phenomena, and, however, this association itself then acts as the bearer of individual economic acts and leads its own life, longer than the life of individual individuals.
In a capitalist enterprise - in a “business” (Gesch?ft), as in the totality of individual affairs, economic relations are freed from everything personal. Individual economic acts no longer relate to a specific person, but precisely to an abstraction full of purely economic meaning, as if to themselves, as a whole: property relations are depersonalized, reified. Trade knows this abstract entity called “firm”. This designation, like education itself, is the creation of a modern Western European, rational spirit: not a single previous generation, not a single culture has created anything like our capitalist enterprise, our company.
The isolation of “business” is the essence of the capitalist enterprise. This becomes obvious as soon as we understand that in this way a form of economic institution was first created, which realized the ideas inherent in the capitalist economic system.
Only in such an impersonal income-generating mechanism as a capitalist enterprise could the principle of profitability be freely applied. Only the materialization of economic acts makes it possible to carry them out without consideration of other interests, but only in view of income; and only the isolation of business opens a wide road to the boundless desire for profit.
But just as the principle of profitability receives full development only in a capitalist enterprise, so the idea of complete streamlining of all economic phenomena, planning and expediency are translated into reality only within the framework of this form of production. Only in a “business” called to independent life is the continuous constancy of the economic process ensured, after it has already been submitted to the principle of profitability. This constancy is given to the entire natural-organic world by circumstances that are inherent in the very conditions of economic life: caring for food, with the goal of satisfying needs, becomes constant, thanks to the incessant need to satisfy the natural need for material goods: and in the natural unions of the family, the workshop, forms are created, in which continuous activity corresponding to the state of affairs can be carried out. A method of management, separated from the need to satisfy immediate needs and aimed at a roundabout path of profitability, has no guarantee of uninterrupted duration; individual acts for making a profit in the form of business transactions occur in it rather in spurts. But in the end they merge together in the “business”, which is then a guarantee that it will be constantly carried out in the future. But once already created in the form of an independent business, constant business enterprise The profit-seeking organization turns out to be a superior organization because it is more permanent and better able to apply rational guidelines. The duration of the existence of a business is no longer connected by any personal accident, just as its organization can be carried out exclusively from the point of view of the highest economic feasibility.
Over time, to implement this expediency, a skillful, scientifically based system of business techniques has developed. Like a clock mechanism, this system can be introduced into every enterprise, and its content becomes completely independent of the will and capabilities of an individual economic entity.
The unity of a capitalist enterprise is, in fact, triune: it contains legal, technical and commercial unity.
Legal unity is created by the unity and independence of the company. It rests on the fact that now all legal acts relate to a single legal entity– to the enterprise.
Technical or accounting unity (ratio, raison, ragione) is formed by systematic, i.e., predominantly double-entry bookkeeping. It consists in the fact that all business phenomena are reduced into a single system of receipts and issues.
Commercial unity or unity of credit (ditta) is formed through the reflection of the unity of the enterprise in the outside world. After an enterprise has developed from the inside into a legal unity and a financial unity, it receives, as it were, initiation from the outside in that “third parties” recognize it as such and recognize it because the enterprise is considered creditworthy by them as such, without consideration of a specific person.
We have seen that the goal of a capitalist enterprise is the pursuit of profit. The proper means to achieve this goal is to enter into agreements for paid mutual services. Within a capitalist enterprise, every technical problem must be able to be solved by contract; all thoughts and desires of the capitalist entrepreneur are aimed at the profitable implementation of this agreement. Whether labor services are exchanged for material services or material services for material services is all the same: what is meant, in the end, is the retention in the hands of the capitalist of that plus in exchange value (money), for which all his activity is designed to obtain. In this way, all economic phenomena lose their qualitative coloring and become pure quantities, expressed and expressed in money. Skillfully handling them is the task of a capitalist entrepreneur. The real content of a capitalist enterprise is not the production of iron, the transportation of people or property, the marketing of goods, the organization of theatrical performances or the promotion of credit, etc., its content is calculation.
From the book Introduction to Marxism by Emil BurnsChapter III. Capitalist society Marx devoted a significant part of his life to the study of capitalism - the mode of production that replaced feudalism in England and over the past century has established itself throughout the world. The goal of Marx's research was to discover
From the book Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Book 1. Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze Gilles10. Capitalist representation Writing has never been a part of capitalism. Capitalism is deeply illiterate. The death of a letter is like the death of God or a father, it happened a long time ago, but this event takes a long time to reach us, so that the memory of it remains in us.
From the book Love author Precht Richard DavidCapitalist reproduction In general, evolutionary biology and economic science have a long-standing, truly stainless love. And it didn't start in 1968, when William Hamilton wrote in economic university his doctoral dissertation. The fire of this passion
From the book Volume 26, part 1 author Engels Friedrich[a) The productivity of capital as the capitalist expression of the productive power of social labor] We have seen not only how capital produces, but also how it itself is produced and how it, as a significantly changed relation, arises from the process
From the book All the best that money can't buy. A world without politics, poverty and wars by Fresco Jacques From the book Leader's Workshop author Meneghetti Antonio4.1. Know how to use the enterprise and the manager Society is becoming increasingly complex, and sometimes it seems that it is severely limited in the form of legal and tax issues. But in fact there is nothing to be afraid of - all the best bears the imprint of individuality.
From the book State by Yasai Anthony deChapter 2
CAPITALIST ENTREPRENEURSHIP
AS AN EXTENSION MECHANISM
2.1.
The rise was long, full of patience, constantly postponed until the age of children and grandchildren. And so it seemed endlessly." Capitalism begins to triumph when it identifies itself with the state, when it becomes a state. In this regard, F. Braudel argues that “the true fate of capitalism was in fact dissipated in the sphere of social hierarchies” 2. The game began with the bloodless hoarders declaring a fierce war on the powerful aristocracy against any kind of family hereditary privileges. This struggle was especially tough in England, where the new rich consisted mainly of refugees. The struggle was for political rights, for complete equality with the local powers that be, for space for their own unlimited capitalist enterprise on foreign land. It is those who came from other lands as a result of the persecution of the church (V. Zombard points first of all to the rampant Spanish Inquisition, which caused a flow of refugees to England from Spain, France, Portugal) and freed from all prejudices “new people” become the most ardent advocates of the principle of unfettered private property, private initiative and unrestricted commodity relations. The emphasis was initially placed on the freedom of private initiative of an “abstract person”, divorced from natural roots - ancestral, tribal and community ties, which were replaced by a universal commodity-money relation, where a person’s dignity was determined by the amount of accumulated capital. At the same time, the source of the struggle for rights was the emotions of the humiliated nouveau riche - a psychological attitude that was greatly strengthened as a result of persecution and forced relocations and related ordeals. “The foreigner is not limited by any framework in the development of his entrepreneurial spirit, by any personal relationships... profitable deeds at first were generally carried out only between strangers, while they helped their fellow man; they lend money for interest only to strangers... Only the mercilessness shown towards strangers could give the capitalist spirit its modern character. But no material limits have been placed on the entrepreneurial spirit in a foreign land. No tradition! No old business! Everything must be created as if out of nothing. There is no connection with the place: in a foreign land, every place is equally indifferent... One feature must necessarily follow from all this, which is Braudel F. Dynamics of capitalism. - P. 74. 2 Ibid.-S. 71.
Chapter 2.
This is inherent in all the activities of a foreigner... This is the determination to complete the development of economic and technical rationalism” 1. The entrepreneurial spirit, being the driving force of the era of primitive accumulation, is characterized, in essence, by a rigid orientation against tribal traditions, absorbing all the rigidity of the “friend-foe” relations characteristic of inter-tribal and inter-community relations, and is associated with a fierce ethical attitude, the carriers of which turned out to be “foreigners”. Free from local communal “prejudices,” the “foreigners” sought to eliminate the landowning community, to establish new ways of organizing society on the principles of private property, unequal commodity exchanges, etc. But the capital accumulated by the new hierarchs would have remained a dead treasure if it had not been in demand by the economy. The conditions for reorganizing the economy arose when a massive supply of free hands appeared on the market. In this sense, as K. Marx showed, capitalism begins not with accumulation and not with the emergence of the bourgeoisie, but with the merciless and cruel agrarian revolution that unfolded after it seized power, first in England, and then in other European countries, when the land was taken from the peasants by force. Deprived of their only means of production - land, the peasants were forced to trade with themselves, turning into hired workers. This process of violent separation of peasants from the land resembles in its results a war of extermination. Thus, becoming an economic form of sociocultural confrontation between “friend and foe,” unequal exchange, dynamizing and universalizing people’s relationships, “saturates” them with rigidity and cynicism, and penetrates into everyday material life. But, apparently, the opposite statement is also true: the development of a market on the basis of unequal exchange necessarily provokes conflicts, since as a result of unequal exchange one group receives advantages over another.; If traditionalist existence seems to stop the unfolding co-evolution of man and nature the process of socio-anthropogenesis, then capitalist society, figuratively speaking, turns it back to the times of wild (animal) competition. Capitalist entrepreneurs change priorities in the system of instruments of human struggle for better adaptation: not cooperation and mutual assistance, but struggle with each other for existence. Sombart V. Bourgeois. - M„ 1994. - S. 235, 236.
2.1. The Genesis of Capitalist Entrepreneurship
They are brought onto the historical stage as leading factors of adaptation. The era of development of the socio-physical world and such rational consciousness begins, which is hopelessly indifferent to the fundamental problems of human existence. But it is precisely this cynicism of a soulless-rational attitude towards each other that becomes a factor of progress, relegating socioanthropogenesis to the periphery of history. It is the basis of the production life and activity of individuals, which practically completely captures their entire daily existence. It is also important to note that capitalist entrepreneurs also drag the state into this struggle, using it as a means of realizing their interests. Since then the authorities have been playing big role not only in political struggle, but also in the creation of material values and profits based on unequal exchange. This is noted, in particular, by E. Toffler, who criticizes those modern economists who are trying to “portray the economy as a faceless machine of supply and demand” 1 . Not only excessive or ill-gotten, but any profit depends partly (or completely) on the factor of power more than on productivity. “Even firms with low productivity can make a profit by using power and imposing their conditions on workers, suppliers, sellers or consumers” 2. It is obvious that capitalism and production based on wage labor cannot arise through a smooth evolution - the consistent development of the “very logic” of commodity production and a market economy. The market itself is not identical to capitalism. For the establishment of capitalism, it is necessary that a special kind of product appear on the market - free labor, and in mass quantities. As a starting point, therefore, capitalism requires a gigantic socio-political cataclysm, which is associated with the robbery of the majority of the population by a minority and which appears as historical process separation of the producer from the means of production. Having gained a foothold in the hierarchy and committed violence against the peasants, capitalist entrepreneurs introduce the speculative logic of unequal exchange of goods into economic activity itself, into the “guts” of the production process. Destroying natural economy and 1 Toffler E. Beyond the era of stars // Russia 2010. Journal. interre-
regional statehood. - 1994. - No. 3. - P. 169. 2 Ibid.
AS A MECHANISM FOR SOCIAL INCREASE - OF THE REAL WORLD
By turning its subjects into hired workers of mass production, they implement an unequal exchange of “labor power” for “wages” in this production itself for the sake of making a profit and accumulating capital. Thus, capitalism, in addition to speculative “games of exchange,” is also the accumulation of capital (self-increase in value) through the exploitation of wage labor (thanks to the surplus value obtained as a result of the unequal exchange of “labor power” for “wages”) for the production of goods . By developing commodity-money relations, capitalism stimulates the development of means of production, producing machines (scientific and technological progress). This is due to the fact that in the production system of an economic unit, oriented towards exchange and requiring more and more goods, organizational and technical rationalization began to be carried out. In this sense, capitalism is only early stage industrial society. In general, capitalism autonomises the economy, liberates it from social and cultural norms in favor of greater subordination to economic laws and rational norms. An economic rationality of exchange arises between economic units and an economic space similar to a political one is formed (see Diagram 1.3). As already mentioned, the economic entity began to operate in two spaces: organizational-technical and economic, overcoming two boundaries that it itself introduced. One of them, internal, is an organizational norm. The other, external, limits economic sovereignty, i.e. the subject's ability to exchange in accordance with its goals. Achieving these goals is ensured by reflexive entry into the economic space of the market, which overcomes and restores the economic sovereignty of an economic entity, when freedom of exchange is limited only by the ability of this entity to agree with others on the conditions and content of the exchange. But the exchange itself now becomes clearly dependent on the rational organization of the economy itself. This creates incentives for organizational and technical improvement of the economy, for constant output and reflection of organizational and managerial conditions. At the same time, as M. Weber showed, in Europe the development of the ability to reflect and its transformation into the norm of economic culture was facilitated by mass religious education, especially Puritanism, which was widespread in the 16th-17th centuries. From an early age, a person was charged with the responsibility of monitoring compliance
2.1. The Genesis of Capitalist Entrepreneurship
Your thoughts and actions are the main goal in life - the salvation of the soul (in Protestantism) or the increase in the glory of the Lord (in Calvinism). As a result, a unique system has developed in the West spiritual production, which M. Weber called “the spirit of capitalism.” It includes not only rational production ethics, but also a rational system of life behavior in general. Its basis is an organic spiritual and moral orientation towards everyday activity, understood as serving God in the world. M. Weber connects this attitude with the ethics of ascetic Protestantism and the corresponding picture of the world. In accordance with this picture the main content of the professional activity of a Protestant entrepreneur cannotbe the accumulation of capital as such. True capitalism inWeber's understanding is associated with rational regulationentrepreneurial activity. The main essential characteristic of the “spirit of capitalism” is the desire for rational economic management and profitability. At the same time, it is subordinated to the idea of salvation through ascetic worldly service to God. The most reliable confirmation of salvation is economic success and income. Failures, defeats, and mistakes are perceived as signs of abandonment by God. The Protestant takes these signs into account, constantly balances “salvation” and “destruction”, like income and expenses in an account book. Thus, the whole life of a Protestant turns into a business enterprise, it is all considered from the standpoint of assessing what is pleasing to God - the strictest professional asceticism is combined with moral, everyday and sexual asceticism - everything is aimed at serving God, no excesses are allowed. Rationality as a universal way of relationship with God determines the appropriate attitude towards the world. It does not allow sensory-emotional, irrational phenomena to interfere in the lives and activities of people. The influence of miracles and magic on a person’s destiny is completely excluded. Church sacraments (including prayer) are also rejected as a meaningless and blasphemous attempt to influence Divine Providence. What is happening, as M. Weber puts it, is “the disenchantment of the world.” The basis of the “disenchanted world” is the belief in the absolute transcendence of God and the inaccessibility of his providence to human knowledge. This makes mystical insight into the meaning of existence impossible for a Protestant, and he, unlike mystics, is not concerned with “eternal questions.” Empathy for others, “psychic identity” becomes reprehensible. But it is necessary
Chapter 2.CAPITALIST ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A MECHANISM FOR INCREASING THE SOCIO-MATERIAL WORLD
The desire to be an instrument of God, to transform the world to His glory, forces us to actively learn the real laws of nature and, moreover, to apply them in practice. This is how the final displacement of arche-types of mental identity, mystical penetration (including through prayer), which were the spiritual basis of man’s connection with the world, nature and the Cosmos, to the periphery of the collective unconscious; The dominant position is now occupied by the archetypes of worldly asceticism, ascetic rationalism, in which nature is seen as a workshop sent by God. Now it is the spirit of ascetic rationalism that provides the psychological motivation for life behavior. The formation of worldly asceticism meant the dismemberment of the syncretic sensory-supersensible existence of individuals and the transition to organizing the existence of people, first on the basis of economic and then technogenic rationality. This is how it arises new philosophy economy and its anthropological model: the individual as an atom of humanity, acting in production itself and in the market as a rational economic agent. Such individuals “from relying on other people’s talents instead of their own”, characteristic of traditional society, move to self-centrism and self-activity. So, at the first stages, the formation of an amateur personality is associated with the “disenchantment of the world”, with overcoming traditional relations on the basis, in particular, of “worldly asceticism”, which, as was shown, becoming an essential value component of economic ethics, ensured separation of capital from consumption and pleasure, its reorientation towards production purposes. Thus, a true revolution of meanings is associated with the emergence of capitalism in the West: from now on, wealth ceases to serve as a sign social status and a prerequisite for noble idleness, it becomes a condition for economic growth, production development and requires selfless labor from the owner. As V. Sombart noted, the desire for profit is combined with economic activity. Thus, the “adventuristic”, speculative capital that arises in games of exchange is replaced by capital that arises in economic activity. The traditional economy, in which a person focused on the reproduction of his established way of life and did not seek to change it (he worked only to satisfy his usual needs and did not seek to earn more than necessary for this), is being replaced by a capitalist economy. production for which
2.1. The genesis of capitalist entrepreneurship
The typical attitude is towards the infinite, with the goal of production being the desire for profit. Profit becomes the meaning of existence of a pious Christian. This desire for profit is not limited by the natural needs of a person and goes far beyond the limits of not only ordinary, but also prestigious consumption. As M. Weber notes, “the fundamental feature of capitalist private economy is that it is rationalized on the basis of strict calculation, systematically and soberly aimed at realizing the goal set for it: in this it differs from the economy of peasants living today, from the privileges and routine of old guild masters and from “adventuristic capitalism” focused on political luck and irrational speculation.” The development of a capitalist economy on the basis of unequal exchange stimulated world economic ties and increased the differentiation of the economic world, primarily within world-economies, and also accelerated territorial displacement - the movement of world-economies. By world-economy, F. Braudel, for example, understands the economy of a certain part of the planet to the extent that it forms an economically unified whole. It always, to the extent that it forms an economically unified whole, has a center, represented by the dominant city, and a number of concentric zones: a middle zone, an intermediate zone and a very extensive periphery, “which, in the division of labor that characterizes the world, economy turns out to be not a participant, but a subordinate and dependent territory.” “Brilliance, wealth, joy of life,” writes F. Braudel, “are united in the center of the world-economy, in its heart” 2. It is here that “banks and the best goods”, the most profitable industries are concentrated, “from here long-distance trade routes diverge and converge. Here, the most advanced technologies are usually developed and their constant companion is fundamental science” 3. This hierarchy of economic development (arising as a result of unequal exchange) leads to uneven development of different territories. At the same time, the currently leading center is trying to impose its development models on the periphery. In modern times, the scale of these impacts has become global 1 Weber M. Protestant ethics and the “spirit of capitalism” // Weber M. Iz-
abusive works. - M., 1990. - P. 94. 2 See: Braudel F. Dynamics of capitalism. - P. 86, 90. 3 Ibid. - P. 95. ;.
Chapter 2. CAPITALIST ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A MECHANISM FOR INCREASING THE SOCIO-MATERIAL WORLD
Character, so that, for example, for several centuries the whole world can be represented by the West-East dichotomy. The changes described above erode the communal way of regulating the behavior of individuals, causing the transition from traditional society to civil society with its fundamental dominant - freedom and independence of an individual not only from the ruler, but also from the community (people). This is the freedom of the individual from the community (from direct relationships), but not for himself, but for society. The individual stands out from the web of immediate social dependencies; his connection with society, the group, and other people ceases to be direct, tangible, and contact. This connection, having separated from the person, becomes a social connection foreign to him, a social relationship that functions as if apart from him. But becoming free from external corporate ties, independent from the dictates of microsocium and acquiring autonomous goals, opportunities and potentially unlimited scope of activity, the individual finds himself placed in responsible conditions of mutual competition, which requires the tension of all his forces beyond the limits dictated by personal needs. This transition in its classical version necessarily presupposes the development of private property. As Hegel noted, “from the point of view of freedom, property as the first existence the latter is an essential goal in itself” 1. History has shown that where there is no diversity and variety of sources of life support and freedom of economic choice, there cannot be freedom of the individual. It is obvious that civil society presupposes not only a distinction between the community and the individual, but also between the individual owner and the state, society and the state. In this regard, civil society also acts as a mechanism that ensures individual rights, while the state ensures the rights of citizens. This distinction is due to the fact that the sphere of private interests, economic activity, and hired labor is freed from political control. Consequently, the most important condition for the emergence and establishment of civil society is the distinction between economic and political power. Actually, the imperatives of classical civil society unfold in connection with the liberation of individual goals both from the norms of communal control and control 1 Hegel G.V. F. Essays. T. VII. Philosophy of law. - M, 1936. - P. 72-73.
2.1. The Genesis of Capitalist Entrepreneurship
States as their (individual goals) non-coercive coordination through the market. There is a gap between socio-cultural and economic life individuals. As a result, a form of rationality arises, “which no longer establishes socially binding, universal goals (values), striving to implement them socially at the lowest cost" 1 . “Formal rationality, which strives to achieve with the least cost any socially and culturally unestablished individual goals, becomes socially determining. Society and economy no longer operate value-rational, those. in relation to material and value requirements, uniting with the least cost through social values into a kind of symbolic unity, and purposefully and rationally in accordance with all individual goals, uniting through price signals into a single market. At. In this case, value-rational actions can easily do without coercion if the values are generally accepted, but their criteria of rationality are derived not from subjective, but from objectified goals” 2. A subject in such a society, building his economy by entering a reflexive economic space, strives to organize this space by introducing into it rationally constructed rules common to all. This is an external unity, it is based on the principle of pluralistic freedom, according to which individual egoisms and vices must restrain each other without absolute values on the basis of law and “equality of resistance” (A.I. Solzhenitsyn). “This is freedom from - freedom against others” 3. Hence, as N.V. Kireevsky wrote back in 1831, “holiness external forms and relationships, the sanctity of property and conditional regulations” 4. In this regard, notes V.N. Sagatovsky, “the core of Western culture is my will coming from within, and freedom is the right to its implementation, limited only by rationally constructed external - general rules" 5 . 1 Kozlowski P. The Ethics of Capitalism: Evolution and Society: A Critique
sociobiology. - St. Petersburg, 1996. - P. 21, 22. 2 Ibid. - P. 22. 3 Sagatovsky V. K Conciliarity and freedom: Understanding freedom in
Russian and Western cultures // Russian civilization and conciliarity. - M.,
1994.-S. 166. 4 Quoted. By: Sagatovsky V.N. Conciliarity and freedom... - P. 166. 5 Ibid. ;.
Chapter 2. CAPITALIST ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A MECHANISM FOR INCREASING THE SOCIO-MATERIAL WORLD
In this context, civil society constitutes the form in which economic development takes place. As K. Marx believed, a person in this society does not go beyond the boundaries of an egoistic person, “a person as a member of civil society, i.e. as an individual, withdrawn into himself, into his own private interests and private arbitrariness, and isolated from the social whole” 1 . In so-called human rights, a person is not considered as a generic being - on the contrary, “tribal life itself, society is considered as an external frame for individuals, as a limitation of their original independence. The only connection that unites them is natural necessity, the need for private interest, the preservation of their property and selfish personality” 2. Such a system of relationships between the individual and society is characterized by internal tension caused by a continuous compromise between freedom and equality, as well as a derivative of this compromise - the idea of justice. An important point in such a system of relations between the individual and society is the transformation of willful labor, sanctified by private property, into value in itself. History has shown that such a system of relations ensured the rapid growth of mass initiative, the rapid expansion of the material sphere of human activity. However, becoming the basis of the relationship between the biosphere and the anthroposphere, such work ultimately leads to environmental collisions. As a result, this method of social regulation external to nature leads to disaster. As we see, selfish capitalist interest is realized through social cataclysms, the death of masses of people and requires some kind of restraining principle, which is the state. From the very beginning, the first capitalist entrepreneurs used state power both to assert their private interests and to increase profits. History shows that economic relations built on a “free market” (unequal exchange), especially in the first stages, imply a strengthening of the role of the state as a factor that ensures stability in a society in which the capitalist entrepreneur strives at the expense of overexploitation to maximize profits. And in modern conditions, expanding into large corporations (monopolies), the owners begin to 1 Marx K., Engels F. Op. - 2nd ed. - T. 1. - P. 401, 402. 2 Ibid.
