Is there continuity between the Soviet elite? What is generational continuity? Study of political elites in Russia

In addition to ordinary citizens, political groups are important subjects of the country's political life. The four leading groups will be highlighted below - pressure groups, interest groups, lobbies And elite.

In a democracy, ordinary citizens influence the government in two ways:

Creation of organized public groups.
Such groups are called public because

The citizens participating in them do not receive wages for their work, and are not registered as an ordinary organization, say, an institute or a trading company. Volunteer helpers most often work for free.

There are two types of organized public groups:

Groups protecting their own interests (trade unions, union of entrepreneurs);

Groups taking a new initiative to change laws (feminist movement).

The first type is called groups pressure, the second - by interest groups.

The names of the groups are quite arbitrary. For example, where should we include a society for the protection of cultural monuments or a society for environmental protection? From a formal point of view - to the first type, since their name contains the word “protection”. But in reality, they guard not their own group interests, but the interests of the entire society. At the same time, trade unions, defending their own interests, constantly

come up with legislative initiatives and demand to make certain changes in society. It is more correct to distinguish both types of groups by whose interests they protect - their own or other people, and therefore some are called pressure groups, and others - interest groups. Obviously, the Veterans Council is the former, and the Red Cross and Salvation Army are the latter.

Interest groups must be distinguished from political parties. This is done according to two criteria. Firstly, interest groups never seek to win political power in the country, and secondly, their attention is focused on one practical issue, the solution of which they are engaged in, and not on a set of declarative statements that make up the party program. Interest groups express the emotions, expectations, ideas, interests, views of citizens, give them double power and, through collective action, make them public. In the 70s, practically no one in our country knew environmental movement. Little was heard about him in the 80s. But when exhaust gases, mercury fumes, radioactive fallout, and industrial waste became widespread and affected the residents of many cities, a group of enthusiasts formed that systematically, patiently and consistently drew public attention to this problem. As a result, in the 90s, the problem of environmental protection became one of the main ones in the legislative activities of parliament, in the press, radio and television, and a special educational subject was introduced at school.

As soon as a problem becomes acute or downright egregious, it immediately attracts the attention of a mass of people, from among whom the organizers of the future movement emerge. The government and parliament, thanks to the fact that active interest groups have attracted their attention, are better able to navigate a variety of problems and immediately identify the key ones.

In this way, interest groups serve as a litmus test: they highlight the most pressing issues of the day. For example, hazing flourished in the army for a long time and thousands of young soldiers died in peacetime.

And only in the 90s a powerful movement of soldiers' mothers, which attracted the attention of the most conservative authority in the world - the army command.

Through such movements, ordinary citizens are involved in active politics and influence it no less than high-ranking officials.

By dealing with one problem for a long time, interest groups prepare a cadre of qualified specialists - experts on this problem. If you want to know everything about hazing and the mortality rate in the army, you need to contact the Council of Soldiers' Mothers. If you need comprehensive information about the environment, then you will not find better specialists than in the movement of the same name, etc. Often, ministries and parliamentary committees, when preparing a specific decision, turn to such specialists for an expert assessment.

Some interest groups develop into social movements, and from social movements they turn into political parties.

EVOLUTION OF INTEREST GROUP

The nature of the functions of pressure groups primarily depends on whether their methods of activity are legal or illegal.

Interest groups and pressure groups, as intermediaries between the state and the people, perform their functions as follows:

Interact with candidates for deputies and members
executive and representative bodies (in the form of councils,
recommendations, beliefs);

Participate in the financing of bills, expert
tiz, conclusions of government bodies;

Monitor compliance with decisions made (legal
new), up to going to court;

Monitor government activities in specific areas
branches of management, expenditure of financial resources, etc.

These are legitimate (or legitimate) forms of interaction. In addition to them, there are also illegal forms of activity of these groups. These, in particular, include bribes and bribery of officials, financial support for illegal associations, control over the personal lives of politicians in order to collect incriminating evidence, etc.

Lobby. It is necessary to distinguish from interest groups formed by ordinary citizens groups pressures formed on the basis of bureaucratic structures. Unlike interest groups, the lobby develops direct forms of pressure on the authorities. TO lobbies refer to those who are in the immediate environment and are able to push through the desired decision peacefully, for example, by forming a majority in parliament, bribing deputies, gaining the trust of relatives and friends of a high-ranking official, intimidating the government or parliament with an imaginary threat. The last option is often lost

roamed the corridors of power in Russia in the 90s. A group of farmers is frightening the parliament with the collapse of agriculture, and the military with dissatisfaction with the army and its readiness to overthrow the government if the required amount is not allocated from the state budget. When money is allocated, it often does not reach ordinary farmers or the military, ending up in the pockets of embezzlers. Farmers and the military, having not received the promised funds, express dissatisfaction. Their lobbies, represented in parliament and government, are again heating up the atmosphere and demanding cash injections.

Powerful lobbying groups like those mentioned are always close to power. On the contrary, interest groups, such as the movement of soldiers' mothers or environmental ones, are removed from it. It is much more difficult for them to attract attention and achieve the desired decision. Their mouthpieces are newspapers, radio, and television, which can well be considered a democratic platform for the masses.

Lobbies are powerful because they control some strategic resources. The military controls defense, farmers control food, bankers control money. Previously, the Russian nobility constituted a powerful lobbying faction. It controlled the main resource - land ownership. They were rivaled by the industrial lobby, which also controlled vital resources. It has survived to this day. Interest groups do not control anything, so they are the last to be listened to.

If the lobby is constantly indulged, then they will monopolize all power in the state and force it to work only to solve their own problems. This was understood in the United States back in the middle of the 20th century, so in 1946 they adopted a federal law on lobby activities. It required registration of lobby members, reporting of monetary resources and their use in political struggle. Since then, it has been observed that once lobby activities are made public, the desire to circumvent the law is curbed.

Elements lobbying tactics- tactics of forcefully pushing the necessary decisions through power structures are used not only by the lobbies themselves, but also by other groups and public organizations. Oil companies of Russia in 1998,

as they themselves stated, they were not a lobby. They were presented as cash cows, giving the state (from oil sales abroad) a solid income that was wasted by all other institutions and structures. Finding itself in a severe crisis, the government decided to increase taxes on oil companies. The media immediately started working, giving the oil kings the opportunity to talk about the importance of their activities for the country and the incredible difficulties they face. The processing of public opinion was carried out very skillfully and almost unobtrusively. The hearing of the oil companies' report in the State Duma took place against a prepared background and received the expected result. It remains a mystery whether the oil workers had their own lobby in parliament or not, but powerful pressure was exerted on deputies, the president, the government and ordinary citizens through the press.

The most powerful group influencing the political life of the country is the elite of society. The term “elite” was introduced at the end of the 19th century by Italian sociologists G. Mosca and V. Pareto. In our country and in Europe, the word “elite” is used to designate the highest privileged strata of society, and in the USA, along with the elite, the “establishment” (the ruling elite, ruling circles) is also used. By the American “establishment” they mean people who occupy positions in the United States at the top of the hierarchical pyramids in the main spheres of social life - business, politics, science and technology, advertising and information, culture and “mass culture”. The “establishment” rests on informal connections between these people. They “set the tone” in tastes and behavior, they are guided by them, and they take their example from them.

Elite- This is a small group of people who are distinguished not only by the fact that they have the best moral, professional or creative qualities, but also by the fact that they have the greatest power in society. The elite of society is a narrow circle of selected people who have great power and big money and are at the top of the social pyramid. The elite usually includes representatives of business and financial circles, specialists in the field of foreign policy and defense: government officials and political leaders, major academic

nykh, owners of television networks and the most famous publications, as well as popular cultural figures. In the US, it makes up 0.5% of the population, owning 35% of the national wealth. The same can be said about Russia.

There are as many types of elite as there are powers for them in society. This is understandable: great power is the main sign of belonging to the elite. There is an economic elite, a political elite and an elite of bureaucratic officials. In other words, the elite includes leading politicians, leading businessmen and high-ranking civil servants. In addition to them, the elite may also include army leadership and heads of special services.

There is a so-called “fourth estate” - the media, so the elite includes prominent journalists working in newspapers and journalists-television commentators. Fashion and taste makers, popular singers and musicians have a certain power over the general public. At the same time, following the division of power into formal and informal, scientists distinguish between the official elite, consisting of the political elite, and the unofficial elite - “celebrity power”.

Usually, The elite forms the core of the ruling party. Very small in size, it achieves a huge effect. Thanks to powerful capital, they help buy votes, hire journalists who publish advertising political articles, or buy up a newspaper. When Russia moved from socialism to market relations, domestic media lost state subsidies. Private capital was required. They were provided by the richest people in the country, the so-called oligarchs. They provided financial assistance to the press by no means disinterestedly: some newspapers, magazines and television channels became the mouthpiece of their ideas. The oligarchs had enormous influence on the power structures, thanks to which they achieved the appointment of the people they needed to the highest government posts. At a meeting with representatives of big business, President V.V. Putin said that all oligarchs will henceforth be “equidistant from power.”

Concepts: pressure group, interest group, lobby, elite.

Questions and tasks

1. Create a table to compare the properties and differences of pressure groups, interest groups, lobbies and elites.

*2. How are the media used in political struggle? Illustrate your answer with examples from current Russian life.

*3. Can people's deputies from the State Duma and senators from the Federal Assembly be considered among the Russian elite? Perhaps it would be more correct to call them lobbies? Give reasons for your answer.

*4. Consider how the following concepts are related to each other: bureaucracy, pressure groups, lobby, nomenclature, criminals, parliament, elite, aristocracy, oligarchy.

5. Which group does the movement of soldiers’ mothers belong to?

6. What tactics do lobbies use to achieve their goals?
their goals? Give examples from history.

Problem. Is there continuity between the Soviet elite and the elite of modern Russian society? Why do you think so?

Workshop. Think and answer what types of political groups do the following organizations and movements belong to?

1. Pressure groups.

2. Interest groups:

a) trade unions,

b) Union of Entrepreneurs,

c) feminist movement,

d) environmental movement,

d) Red Cross,

f) veterans council,

g) Union of Officers,

h) associations of Cossacks,

i) the movement of soldiers' mothers.

Is there continuity between the Soviet elite and the elite of modern Russian society? Why do you think so?

Yes, it definitely exists. Corruption originated in the USSR and gradually moved to the Russian Federation. Under the Soviet system, everyone was equal, but again: deputies, heads of districts, councils, etc. were an order of magnitude higher than mere mortals. They naturally had more money, more power, more authority. Now we see absolutely the same situation. Just more money. And money rules the world, that is, if there is money, there is everything.

1). You are still in school and cannot support yourself. But you are already citizens of the Russian Federation. Write down in what situations you act as citizens.

1 situation-

Situation 2-

3 situation-

4 situation

2). The saying “My house is on the edge, I don’t know anything” has been known for a long time. Have you encountered such a position in your own life? At what age, in your opinion, does this life attitude develop? What consequences can this position lead to?

3) Think about the problem. According to the law, decrees on the acquisition and termination of Russian citizenship are issued personally by the President of the Russian Federation. He also approves the Regulations on the procedure for considering citizenship issues. Why do you think issues of citizenship are resolved at the highest level?

1) 1 situation - because I am a citizen of the Russian Federation and have legal capacity;

Situation 2 - The state must provide me with everything I need for my education.

3 situation - if I am already a full-fledged citizen, then I can get a job and support myself;

4 situation - my rights.

2) “My house is on the edge - I don’t know anything.” Yes, I have encountered such a position in my life. Your life attitude is formed with age, only then do you realize how to behave correctly at a given moment. This position can lead to loneliness and mistrust.

3) Because citizenship is the most important thing in every political country. After all, we are talking about people. who, when receiving citizenship, can know and protect their rights. And the question of citizenship is the most important and complex issue in the world.

Check my homework, just the half term grade for this assignment means a lot!

The task itself:

“In Russia, the transition from full and unconditional employment in social production, which corresponded to the universality and compulsory nature of labor under socialism, to a system of economic activity that meets the criteria of a market economy, has taken place. More than half of the economically active population does not work for state structures, but for themselves, work for enterprises and private-corporate organizations. At the same time, 15% are employed in small businesses. About 9% are classified according to the ILO methodology as unemployed...

The proportions of the distribution of employed people have changed in favor of those industries whose business activity has increased due to market transformations: trade and public catering, logistics and trade intermediation, lending, finance and insurance. .. In terms of the share of unemployed in the total economically active population, our country has practically caught up with the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

The visible metamorphoses of employment reflected changes in the nature and content of “direct social labor.” From collective forced activity for the production of planned products and services of a given quantity and range, labor becomes a way of existence for economically independent commodity producers. Public and collective labor is being replaced by private individual labor.

The revolution in property and the accompanying institutional transformations in the economy led to the fact that millions of people, previously engaged in systematically organized professional work for the state, tested their strengths and abilities in hitherto persecuted entrepreneurship and in small business, where labor, property and management are fused together ( control). Almost 1/4 of those employed in the private sector are self-employed. Their activities combine professional and innovative work in very different proportions and, at the same time, management work with executive work."

1. What problems in the social and labor sphere of life in Russian society does the author highlight and consider?

2. Name the changes that have occurred in the content and nature of social labor, the position of the employee as a result of market transformations.

3. What does I. Zaslavsky mean when he states: “In Russia there is a transition from full and unconditional employment in social production. .. Towards a system of economic activity that meets the criteria of a market economy, has taken place”? Based on the text, find explanations for this statement.

1. 1) Half of the economically active population does not work for the state.

2) Public and collective labor is being replaced by private individual labor.

2. The command economy has been replaced by a market economy.

3. I. Zaslavsky meant that there would be changes in the system of economic activity, that is, “from full and unconditional employment in social production” (command economy) “to the system of economic activity” (to the market economy).

Did I answer the questions asked correctly?

In 1 - 2) rather not a problem, but an addition to question 2

1) answer from 1 is correct + another problem - unemployment,

correct, but add 2) from question 1

the organization of labor became more complex, private entrepreneurship expanded, business activity increased in such industries as trade, supply, lending, insurance, and the number of unemployed increased

Right

Absolutism - (absolute monarchy) - a form of feudal state in which the monarch has unlimited supreme power. Under absolutism, the state reaches the highest degree of centralization, an extensive bureaucratic apparatus, a standing army and police are created; the activities of class representation bodies, as a rule, cease. The rise of absolutism in Western countries. Europe falls on the 17th-18th centuries. In Russia, absolutism existed in the 18th and early 20th centuries. in the form of autocracy. From a formal legal point of view, under absolutism, the fullness of legislative and executive power is concentrated in the hands of the head of state, a monk; he independently sets taxes and manages public finances. The social support of absolutism is the nobility. The justification for absolutism was the thesis of the divine origin of supreme power. Magnificent and palace etiquette served to exalt the person of the sovereign. At the first stage, absolutism was progressive in nature: it fought against the separatism of the feudal nobility, subordinated the church to the state, eliminated the remnants of feudal fragmentation, and introduced uniform laws. The absolute monarchy was characterized by a policy of protectionism and mercantilism, which promoted the development of the national economy and the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. New economic resources were used by absolutism to strengthen the military power of the state and wage wars of conquest. As capitalism developed and strengthened in European countries, the principles of the existence of an absolute monarchy, which preserved archaic feudal orders and class divisions, began to come into conflict with the needs of a changed society. The strict framework of protectionism and mercantilism limited the economic freedom of entrepreneurs, who were forced to produce only goods beneficial to the royal treasury. Dramatic changes occur within the classes. From the depths of the third estate grows an economically powerful, educated, enterprising class of capitalists, which has its own idea of ​​the role and tasks of state power. In the Netherlands, England and France, these contradictions were resolved in a revolutionary way, in other countries there was a gradual transformation of an absolute monarchy into a limited, constitutional one.

Questions to the text:

C1 Make a plan for the text. To do this, highlight the main semantic fragments of the text and title each of them.

C2 What signs of absolutism are mentioned in the test? Name at least three. How is their relationship accomplished?

C3 How is the progressive influence of absolutism manifested at the initial stage of its formation? In what ways is absolutism regressive? In both cases, name at least two signs.

C4 What class grows out of the “third estate” under an absolute monarchy? In what two ways are the contradictions between it and absolutism resolved?

C5 In Russia, during the reign of Peter I, the economy was dominated by the policy of mercantilism and protectionism. Explain how these facts are related. What role did this economic course play at that time? Provide a piece of text that will help answer this question.

C6 One of the ideologists of the Russian autocracy gave the following assessment of parliament: “Parliamentary figures belong, for the most part, to the most immoral representatives of society; with extreme limitations of the mind, with the limitless development of selfishness and malice itself, with baseness and dishonesty of motives, a person with a strong will can become the leader of the party and then becomes the leading, dominant head of a circle or meeting, at least to him) to the meeting over which he dominates) belonged people far superior to him in mental and moral qualities. “Do you agree with this point of view? Provide at least 2 arguments to support your opinion.

The state reaches the highest degree of centralization; an extensive bureaucratic apparatus is created; The activities of class representation bodies are terminated.

Absolutism fought against the separatism of the feudal nobility, subordinated the church to the state, eliminated the remnants of feudal fragmentation, introduced uniform laws - this was the progressive initial influence. And the regressive influence - the strict framework of protectionism and mercantilism limited the economic freedom of entrepreneurs, forced to produce only goods beneficial to the royal treasury.

Under an absolute monarchy, a capitalist class will arise “from the 3rd estate.” Contradictions are resolved between it and absolutism in two ways: by revolutionary means or by a gradual transformation into a limited, constitutional monarchy.

Help me answer just 2 questions

Social structure of modern Russian society

T.I. Zaslavskaya is a modern Russian economist and sociologist.

Russian society consists of four social strata:
top, middle, base and bottom as well. .. "social bottom". By the top layer we mean, first of all, the actual ruling layer. .. It includes the elite. .. Groups occupying the most important positions in the public administration system, in economic and security structures. They are united by the fact of being in power and the ability to directly influence the reform processes.
The second layer is called the middle layer. .. So far this layer is too small. .. These are small entrepreneurs. .. Management of medium and small enterprises, middle level of bureaucracy, senior officers, the most qualified. .. Specialists and workers.
The basic social layer is very massive. It covers more than two-thirds of Russian society. Its representatives have average professionally qualified potential and relatively limited labor potential.
The base stratum includes part of the intelligentsia (specialists), semi-intelligentsia (assistants to specialists), technical personnel, workers in mass trade and service professions, as well as most of the peasantry. Although social status. .. The interests and behavior of these groups are different, their role in the transition process is quite similar. This is, first of all, adaptation to changing conditions in order to survive and, if possible, maintain the achieved status.
The structure and functions of the lower layer seem to be the least clear. The distinctive features of its representatives are low activity potential and inability to adapt to the harsh socio-economic conditions of the transition period. Basically, this layer consists of either elderly, poorly educated, not very healthy and strong people who have not earned sufficient pensions, or those who do not have professions, and often no permanent occupation, the unemployed, refugees and forced migrants from areas of interethnic conflicts. This layer can be determined on the basis of such characteristics as very low personal and family income, low level of education, employment in unskilled labor or lack of permanent work.
... Representatives of the social bottom are criminals and semi-criminal elements - thieves, bandits, drug dealers, brothel keepers, small and large swindlers, hired killers, as well as degenerate people - alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, tramps, homeless people, etc.

Sociology in questions and answers / Ed. prof. V. A. Chulanova. –
Rostov-on-Don, 2000. – pp. 167–168.

Questions and tasks for the text:
1. Based on what criteria, in your opinion, is this structure of modern Russian society formed? Give reasons for your answer.
2. Is it possible in modern Russia to change one’s belonging to one or another social group? Give an example to support your answer.

1. A) Education
b) Earnings
c) Sphere of influence (the top ones influence almost everyone, and the “social bottom” doesn’t influence anyone at all)
d) Number (if you remember from the physics course, it seems, the Pareto diagram: the majority of people SHOULD be middle class, and the smaller part should be divided into the RICHEST and the POOREST)
Here are the main criteria that will be sufficient.
2. I think so. Post-industrial society dictates the opportunity to become someone precisely due to one’s mental or personal qualities. A person can become rich by inventing something new and making a competent start-up, and, similarly, instantly become poor by losing all the money on the stock exchange or investing it incorrectly.
I would give an example from the lives of my friends. My uncle was a wealthy man before he lost all his money after a divorce. A parallel case: a man I know is engaged in social media promotion. networks, in our city no one was doing this and therefore his company is the leader in this market (many similar enterprises have appeared over several years) and now he is very wealthy and satisfied. You can take my examples for your answer (if, of course, you have an uncle and you don’t live in the capital (where Internet promotion has been working for a long time: D)) or come up with your own (just once or twice).

Read an excerpt from the work of Russian sociologist R.V. RYBKINA about crime in Russia.

The entire course of reforms was accompanied not only by an increase in the number of crimes, but also by serious changes in the structure of crime itself. In particular, the “weight” of organized crime has increased sharply. But most importantly, it has transformed from a purely criminal force into a self-organizing social system, integrated into all power and economic structures and practically not under the control of law enforcement agencies, moreover, into a social institution of Russian society. This means that it gave birth to: 1) its own, specific “roof” organizations; 2) special norms of shadow behavior (such as “racketeering”, “rollback”, “rollback”, etc.); 3) special social roles to which the implementation of these norms is assigned, and 4) special social relationships between participants in criminal communities into which they enter when carrying out certain criminal operations, as well as special relationships between criminals and the authorities.

The main process indicating the institutionalization of criminal activity is its increasing fusion with power. This process occurs at all levels - both at individual enterprises and firms in the regions of the country, and in the highest bodies of legislative (parliament) and executive (government) power. This allows us to talk about two new processes for Russia that arose in the era of economic liberalization: the first process is the shadowization of society, that is, the increasing withdrawal of various social structures into the shadows. .. And the second process is the criminalization of society, that is, the increasing strengthening in it of the role of criminal elements associated with certain political, legal, economic and other structures of society.

Ryvkina R. B. Drama of change. - M., 2001. -S. 37-38.

Questions and assignments to the source. 1) What new does the source give you compared to the educational text? 2) What do the words “going into the shadows” mean in the text of the document? How do you understand the words in quotation marks: “roofs”, “racketeering”, “rollback”, “rollback”? Why does the author use them in a sociological study? 3) Why do you think market reforms in Russia were accompanied by the criminalization of society? 4) What information in this source confirms the special danger of organized crime for society and the state?

1) The textbook sets out the theoretical basis, with examples from practice, here is the practice, what is actually happening in the country, the textbook presents the facts, the article contains the author’s view, assessment of events. The textbook contains the official position of the “state”; the article contains the author’s view of objective processes. 2) “Going into the shadows” - going beyond the legal framework, i.e. activity outside the laws; "krysha" - paid services for the protection and protection of the interests of one criminal activity with the help of another, "racketeering" - extortion of funds from entrepreneurs, "knuckle" - a threat, "kickback" - part of the amount transferred to an official or criminal from allocated for something funds. Used for reinforcement, to understand how serious the problem is. 3) market reforms were carried out in a period of timelessness and lawlessness, the state - the USSR ceased to exist, and the new state had not yet created a regulatory framework, there was no clear action plan, the system, consciousness, and civic positions of people were breaking down. The old rules were no longer in effect, and there were no new ones yet. On the one hand, decriminalization occurred - what used to be crimes: speculation, parasitism, has now ceased to be such, it began to be called business, entrepreneurship, the right to work, and not an obligation. On the other hand, new crimes appeared - the same racketeering. 4) the main danger is that the criminal world has merged with power structures, that bribery reigns, and crime is in power. Everyone knows everything, but no one fights anything.

On the role of the state in a market economy. From the work of the modern Russian economist A. N. Porokhovsky “Russian market model: the path to implementation.”
All agents of the economy are united by a single market space of the country, where the same rules of the game for everyone are monitored and supported by special state institutions. .. The market itself is not able to support competition. Maintaining and stimulating competition in the economic sphere is the function of the state. By fighting monopoly and supporting competition, the state is both within the market model and outside it, guaranteeing the stability of the market system as a whole. Supporting stability plays no less a role than protecting competition. The favorable social climate in the country, the stability of the financial system, and... the expansion of the production of public goods - especially in the sphere of services, education, science, healthcare, culture - and the creation of a legal framework in the business sphere depend on the verified, active role of the relevant state institutions. .. Therefore, even in a theoretical market model, the state plays the most important role - preserving the market system itself by expressing common, or public, interests. No private business, no matter how gigantic it may reach, by its nature can ignore its own interests and shoulder the interests of the entire society. However, the state can only cope with such responsibilities if it is part of a democratic society. In such a society, along with the market mechanism, a democratic mechanism of voter control over the state apparatus has been established, and the judicial system provides legal protection to all citizens in accordance with the law.
Questions and tasks for the document
1. How does the author of the document characterize the role of state institutions in a single market space? What, according to the scientist, are the economic functions of the state that contribute to the stable development of the market system?
2. A. N. Porokhovsky names a number of socio-economic phenomena in the life of society that are directly dependent on the active role of the state in their regulation. List these phenomena and, based on known facts, illustrate one of them with an example

1. The role of the state in the transition to a market economy
economy
The role of the state in the economy. The role of the state in
life of society. Functions of the state in the market
system. Methods and tools of government
regulation of the economy. Analysis of the role of the state in
economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Problems
transition to the market.
course work

Read a fragment of an article by a modern Russian sociologist. Teenagers are ready to borrow the model of family ties from their parents’ value system (70% of teenagers are ready to accept, 7% are not ready). The rating of such family values ​​as professional interests and attitude to work is also quite high (on average, 62% of adolescents are ready to follow this parental model of behavior; 14% of adolescents reject it). The next family value accepted by children as a model of behavior is extra-family communication, and above all relationships with friends (accepted by 51% of adolescents, rejected by 14%). Slightly less than half of teenagers (46%) approve of the education system adopted in their parents' family. Children do not enjoy the support of emotional relationships between parents: only 17% of adolescents evaluate them positively, with 33% of negative evaluations. Finally, teenagers do not at all approve of the way their parents spend their free time. In a changing society, traditional family values ​​often become an obstacle to the assimilation of new life realities. In such a situation, the process of transformation of family values ​​and their adaptation to new living conditions often occurs with the active participation of the younger generation in the family. This social phenomenon is taking place today in Russian society: there is an atypical situation where parents recognize their children’s high competence in a number of issues related to the real values ​​of the new society. Thus, in transitional Russian society we should talk not so much about the traditional transfer of family values ​​from parents to children, but about their multidirectional participation in this process. At the intergenerational level, along with the assimilation of basic values ​​by children, a transformation of the value system of parents occurs. 1| Questions and assignments to the source. 1) What provision of the paragraph complements and expands the document? 2) Rank the family values ​​of the younger generation based on the text. 3) How does the author understand the multidirectional participation of parents and children in the transfer of values? What would you say are your family's values? What is your personal attitude towards the values ​​of older generations?

To do this, consider the concept of “citizenship” itself. What does it mean to be a citizen of any country? This means that a strong political and legal connection will be established between a person and the state, which will be expressed in the fulfillment of rights and obligations. That is, when a person officially becomes a citizen of a country, he receives special rights (for example, the right to residence and trade) and must fulfill obligations to the state. Therefore, citizenship issues are resolved at the highest level, because the state gives its citizen special rights and undertakes to protect them, and the person, in turn, undertakes to be a law-abiding citizen.

One day, an article by M. Khazin was published in the Profile magazine, in which he raised a very important question: “Russia - both as a country and as a society - is in an extremely difficult situation today. This is due to at least two main reasons. The first is that we are so and were unable to determine the place of the Soviet period in our history. On the one hand, there is fierce hatred for this period among those who today have at their disposal the wealth created at that time, on the other hand, nostalgia among those who have lost the opportunities that were then . For example, potential mechanisms for the entry of new people into the elite, since socialist elevators of vertical mobility were destroyed and new, capitalist ones were not created. An additional factor that intensifies this problem is the fierce hatred of socialism based on panic fear, which is nourished by many of our Western “partners”, who transfer this hatred (and will continue to transfer it for a long time) to all of Russia in general and to its current government in particular. Especially if this power shows at least minimal independence in actions." Without proper attention to this issue, it is not possible to talk about the elite; it will too often become a watershed in relations. We need a coordinated position, or a position that can be challenged. I will express my opinion .

The history of Russia differs from the history of other countries in one thing. By its nature, Russian history is often anti-dialectical. Those. where the power of dialectics ends, the power of God begins. Considering the history of Russia outside of Christ, and outside of His Church, is not a rewarding task. And even when Russia abandoned Him, He did not abandon Russia. I think for the sake of those saints who, without ceasing, pray for Russia, Orthodox Russia. From this point of view, I would like to express my attitude towards the USSR.

I want to start with the collapse of the USSR, which for me, as for any Russian who remained abroad, is one of the most tragic moments in life. However, the more I return to it, the more convinced I am that the only possible correct event happened. If anyone still has the brochures “USSR in Figures and Facts,” they can read that the Republic of Ukraine, part of the USSR, compensated for its negative balance in energy resources (in trade with the RSFSR) with a positive balance in the supply of industrial products, including consumer goods. It didn’t just compensate, it had a positive balance! Much was said and written then about the replacement of technologies, about the need for investments, which seemed to be missing. As I understand now, the technologies were not that old, but we need to talk about investments separately. There were domestic investments, and they were very large. As soon as signs of “liberalization” of the economy appeared, boxes of money and gold buried in the gardens of “farmers” in Central Asia and the Caucasus began to be uncorked. Naturally, no one planned to buy oil; everyone understood that this was the prerogative of the state, and at those prices and the general tariff policy there was no need. It is much more profitable to invest in consumer goods, in the consumer market. Fortunately, it was not small, and also empty, and included half of Europe, if not half the world. Ukraine became the most attractive investment platform. Both in terms of the concentration of consumer goods production and in terms of safety. In Ukraine, in the spirit of that time, a group of people appeared who understood all the benefits of such a situation. These are managers and leaders of large enterprises in the east of the country, more precisely, Dnepropetrovsk, who have felt free since Brezhnev times. They understood that investments, under the current conditions, would go where there was the greatest concentration of producers. In Dnepropetrovsk, “concerns” and “associations” began to grow like mushrooms. The names “Asia”, “Baku”, etc. were full of names. The first banks began to appear. There was a threat of displacement of the financial center of the USSR.

A new elite began to form, or, as will be shown below, a well-forgotten old one. Her main task was to join the party elite. A big misconception is the thesis about the complete backwardness of the USSR economy. We have been living in this “backwardness” for more than 20 years, and we are not the last country in the world. Ideology was also not a problem, as time has shown, all these democrats turned out to be extremely corrupt guys. More convincing is the opinion that the party elite lacked “young blood” and energy. But nevertheless, the party did not agree to an alliance with the new elite. Let such a statement seem strange and unconvincing. But still. Actions began that surprised even people knowledgeable at the time. An order came from Moscow to the KGB of Ukraine, which actually stopped the “development” of nationalists and dissidents. Leapfrog also began in the Central Committee of Ukraine; within a year the way was cleared for people, as they correctly say, “scale-free.” Some went to work as Gorbachev's deputy in Moscow, others went to other jobs. The fate of the chairman of the KGB of Ukraine is interesting, it seems the surname Galushko. He strangely disappeared, and then somehow strangely appeared in Yeltsin’s decree 1401 of September 20, 1993, as the new head of the FSB service, and after the execution of V.S., he just as quietly disappeared. Why, at such a moment, did he receive such a position? For the secession of Ukraine? There were many other actions, the logic of which is explainable either from the point of view. preparation of camber, or with t.z. insanity. And most importantly, it is difficult to believe that Ukraine could secede on its own. Just as the hand cannot separate from the body. Now the question is - why did the party elite commit an act very similar to suicide? To do this, you need to trace the history of this elite, but it is not so short. But at the beginning, in defense of the party elite, I want to say what the collapse of the USSR did not lead to.

At first glance, it is not clear what the party nomenclature, the Uzbek bai and the Dnepropetrovsk Jew could not agree on. There are much more benefits. A “real” community emerges: the Soviet people, or for now the elite. It is not difficult to form a consumer society from the people themselves. Fortunately, Orthodoxy is just being revived. The sense of national dignity has been eradicated. And all this against the background of the absence of shocks. This will lead to a global crisis, just the opposite. America, which has been living on debt since 1968, would be the first to fail. The banking system would move to the USSR. There is nothing surprising. After the collapse of the USSR, socialism was able to completely move into the Democratic Party of America. Of course, it’s a bit of a stretch, but nothing is impossible. Only one thing is unpleasant. We stop identifying ourselves as Russians, not to mention Orthodox.

There is no doubt for me that the USSR was destroyed by Moscow. However, when I peer into the faces of those historical figures: Gorbachev, Yeltsin, smaller figures Shakhrai, Burbulis, Gaidar - I cannot believe that behind these mask-like, necrophilic, faces from Easter Island, there is History. It is easier to assume that the collapse of the USSR occurred on an unconscious, instinctive level, and then my consciousness connected the events into one logical sequence. I am closer to the understanding that this event is anti-dialectical. Otherwise, we must admit that there is a group of very strong and smart people behind this. However, one does not interfere with the other. And one more thing, the party elite had reasons not to unite. Historical background. And here are the ones.

1613 is undoubtedly the triumph of the Russian national idea. This is the result of more than a century of understanding the imperial idea: “Moscow is the third Rome.” Not just comprehension, but the degeneration of the Russian state, its transformation into an Empire. The main driving idea in this rebirth was the Tsarist power and Orthodoxy.

Therefore, 1613 is a logical result of historical events that finally shaped the Great Russian nation. Where the elite and the people were internally spiritually united. The basis of the unification was the Orthodox faith, and in state building, Imperial thinking, based on the same Orthodox worldview. Imperial thinking is something without which no real state can exist. Imperial thinking is the unification of the elite and the people around their own worldview, including the defense of this worldview. This is an understanding of the mysticism of power and its movement from top to bottom, and not vice versa. This led to the development of subsequent events. They were dizzying. This is what happens over the next 50 years. I'm just listing. During the years of hard times and anarchy, neither Kazan, nor Astrakhan, nor the Siberian Khanate were separated from Russia. Russia, through tough diplomacy, stopped Persia's expansion into the North Caucasus, took an oath from the Caucasian princes, annexed lands from the Turukhansk region to the seaside, reasoned with the Yakuts and stopped the Manchus. She moved the abatis from the Oka to the Black Sea steppes, swore in the Donets and Cossacks, annexed Kyiv and Chernigov, and returned Smolensk. She transferred the majority of nomadic peoples to an agricultural economic system. It was extremely difficult to simply digest such an array of changes in the mind, and this had to be ensured ideologically, legislatively and administratively. If the Muscovite Kingdom saw itself as the direct heir of Kievan Rus, Ivan wrote about this directly to his son-in-law Alexander of Lithuania, the latter did not object. And through this heredity she saw herself as the successor of the vanished Rome. Then the new Russia was forced to recognize itself as the direct heir to most of Genghis Khan’s empire.

And this increases the complexity of the system by an order of magnitude. The peoples in the Mongolian ulus lived according to the Great Yasa, which ensured the normal coexistence of peoples with different religious and social systems. It contained another imperial idea - autocracy. Russian chroniclers called the Golden Horde khans Tsars. This one word neutralizes all subsequent opuses about the bloody Golden Horde yoke. However, the king, or khan, was the owner of the entire ulus, the entire power. It's not Roman. In Rus', this came from the Mongols, through the issuance of labels to princes. Before this, the princes were not the owners of their land. The most convincing confirmation of this is the pre-Mongol, ladder law, succession to the throne of the Kyiv and then Vladimir princes. That is, the peoples of the former Mongol uluses (the lands of not only the Dzhuchev ulus were included), accepting the citizenship of the Tsar, simultaneously recognized him as the owner of the entire land. This is the second imperial idea, autocratic, inherited by the Moscow Kingdom.

Two imperial ideas in one country are successfully reflected on its coat of arms. And this gave New Russia extraordinary external stability. But it also intensified internal problems doubly. Like any idea, and imperial ones are no exception, there is a flip side to the coin, “without a crown.” This is what world history stands on. The Roman idea was the first to crack. The fact is that the year 1613 summed up the Russian Orthodox nation, and as was written above, the process of formation of the Russian people began, which included more and more other peoples, including. and not the Orthodox, but the Russian Kingdom became the only patron of the Orthodox ecumene. As happens when a system becomes more complex, its stability is disrupted. Problems have arisen. Imperial thinking is always born within the framework of one nation, but most of all it does not tolerate these frameworks and outgrows them. And this is a conflict. And due to the fact that its basis was the Orthodox worldview, the conflict affected the Church.

A split arose. A contradiction arose between national consciousness and imperial thinking, which required the destruction of national frameworks. The split is an attempt at the triumph of national form over imperial content. An attempt to contrast the “New Jerusalem” (the idea of ​​the Old Believers) with the fallen “Rome”. Confront through your own sacrifice. It was an attempt to recreate the “high” world from the “low” one, without the participation of God. Accept Grace as Law. The Metropolitan of Ilorin was not there, and the people were lost. Although the schism did not affect the dogmas of faith, it later became the ideological basis of apostasy, and is directly related to the year 17 and 91. With a fairly frequent division of the schism into groups, the main one was priestlessness. The development of their ideas led to the following theses (the theses are based on the book by Archpriest G. Florovsky “The Ways of Russian Theology”). There are three of them:

1. The Tsar is the forerunner of the Antichrist, therefore he must be destroyed.

2. Since the Tsar is the forerunner of the Antichrist and he is also the patron of the Orthodox churches, then there is no Grace in the Church, and they must be closed and destroyed.

3. You can be saved without the sacraments in one way - through hard, exhausting, everyday work, without any indulgences.

The worst thing is that the Old Believers replaced the sacrifice of Christ with the victim of their own murder. The Church cannot exist on such a substitution. But the state is the opposite. The basis of every state is sacrificial blood. The idea of ​​a “fair state” came into people’s consciousness through sacrifice.

Subsequently, this idea was accepted by the Russian people and significantly improved. If the Old Believers saw the material world as desecrated, and carried within them the idea of ​​suicide as the liberation of the soul from this world, then the rebellious Russian people wanted, on the contrary, through the willful, ascetic immersion of the soul into the body, to create Paradise on earth. Not just to immerse, but to animate the body and the whole world, to bring into it a particle of the cosmos. However, he arrogantly desired to create this, without the participation of God. But why did the people accept this idea, and why did it become a stumbling block for them, a little later. And the last thing. The elite consisted of very ancient noble families, willingly or unwillingly, tied to national thinking.

Peter, in a very unique way, but he still solved these problems. He secularized the church and created a new elite. I will dwell on two points. The new elite was overwhelmingly Protestant in spirit, but for more than 200 years it faithfully served the Orthodox state. The same with the Church, it did not become Anglican. I think this happened because the state was founded as a defender of the Orthodox faith. This is the impulse given at the birth of the state, and until it dried up, the state found the strength to subordinate everyone to this task. Although this is not convincing. Rather, there is an anti-dialectic at work here, as I wrote about above. And the thought of an impulse simply logically connects with the further narrative.

But this is not the main problem. With the state secularization of the Church, the people unwittingly begin to transfer some aspects of religious life to the state. The state, such concepts as consolation, bliss, justice, becoming the highest authority for the people, involuntarily gives hope and realization in this life. Such expectations, in the form of unrealistic hopes, sooner or later begin to lead people to disappointment. Therefore, with the strengthening of statehood, as its reverse side, Old Believer thought and word spread across the vast expanse of Russia. Also, the elite did not set the best example.

This is where the Old Believer ideology falls into such a breakdown of the Russian soul. At first, not as an alternative to faith, but rather as its volitional continuation, action. The only obstacle remains the king. There is also faith among the people that they were appointed by God, and this is serious. The elite themselves will solve this problem.

The Old Believer ideology, in itself, is extremely spontaneous, it is a “crazy and merciless rebellion.” But unfortunately for Russia, she encountered a similar ideology, which gave direction. This is the Khazar ideology. This is the other side of the coin, already another imperial idea, the Great Yasa, in Russian - Autocracy. It is opposed by the old ideology, which is based on Judaism, and certain ambitions of the elites of the outlying peoples. This is a fascination with the Judaism of other peoples, a love for one’s own destruction. This is an oligarchic idea with fairly pronounced non-Orthodox, biblical goals. This is a rejection of autocracy as a condition for the equality of peoples. Refusal as revenge. Refusal of national elites from their own peoples in favor of some future “autocrat”. Refusal as Law. An oligarchy, and even more so a financial oligarchy, always feels the incompleteness of its formation, incompleteness in the manifest world, a certain continuity that must end with the “final figure”, who actually owns the entire financial pyramid.

In the 19th century, these meanings, denying the Imperial idea, united. The common platform for their unification was the idea of ​​the class struggle of Marx and Engels. Firstly, because the idea of ​​class struggle was superficial for both ideological movements, and did not reflect their deep religious content, allowing them to be outwardly not contradictory. Secondly, it had the minimum required concepts for state building, in the form of a “red project” opposing the Autocracy of Tsarist Rus'. There is one significant difference. The Khazar ideology does not need heaven on earth, but the coming of the messiah. In the future, this will result in a difference in goals. Because in the latter case, the goal is to change the Orthodox consciousness not only as a faith, but also as a behavioral stereotype, including the Old Believer. However, in the last 20-30 years before the revolution, the two ideologies became so indistinguishable that the Old Believer merchants financed the Khazar element, without seeing the difference, to their destruction.

In 17, three forces were formed in Russia. The first are part of the elite, the monarchists are the Black Hundreds, who were the last spark of 300 years of history. After the king's abdication, they disappeared and no longer played an independent role. Actually, the elite, already burdened by the king, and personified in the Masonic brotherhood and Protestant worldview. And also the future, small Khazar-Bolshevik force, the dialectical shoulder of which rested on the future Old Believer-Soviet mass, a potentially critical mass of the Russian rebellion, hundreds of times stronger than all other forces. The momentum of three hundred years of history has exhausted itself. After the abdication of the tsar, the power to which the entire elite belonged collapsed like a house of cards, not even to the floor, but to people who called themselves “underground workers.” The people exploded and went mad from the taste of blood; in a few years they simply swept away the old elite and everything connected with it.

At the same time, the riot bore the features of a religious action. Renunciation of the church, apostasy, lie on the religious plane of consciousness. First, in the form of a swoop. The common work, the common unity, was to result in religious triumph, ecstasy, right up to the general resurrection. Mysticism overwhelmed everyone and everything. Tsiolkovsky wrote his book because it was necessary to resettle the resurrected people.

But gradually the rebellion cooled down, and the unsuccessful religious ecstasy grew into religious expectation. The Khazar-Bolshevik wing was the first to return to reality, because was organized from the beginning. They began to build an oligarchic Russia. The meaning that was invested in the concepts of internationalism and class in the early 20s is akin to the destructive meaning that filled the concepts of the oligarchs of the 90s, this is the destruction of the Orthodox behavioral stereotype. By 29, the Old Believers-Soviet wing was organized. Internal dialectics and internal development have intensified. All 70 years have passed under the sign of the confrontation between these elites, or rather these ideas. The carriers of the Soviet-Old Believer ideology quickly destroyed the Khazar-Bolshevik formation and placed its carriers in foreign trade, main supply departments, as well as in concentration camps they themselves created. They, in turn, preserved their ideas until better times. But it is not possible to win this fight, because... Most of the concepts of both elites are dialectically common. The Old Believer-Soviet elite tried to revive the concept of empire, fortunately it still remained among the people. It doesn't cool down that quickly. I must admit, she partially succeeded. The power vertical was created according to the “Roman” type, through nomenklatura. However, outside of Orthodoxy, all this has turned into a totalitarian structure. They tried to create a state structure based on the Mongolian type, but without an autocrat, this inevitably led to nationalism. The USSR was formed as a union of equal republics. Which in itself contradicted both the “Roman” idea and the Great Yasa. And yet this education, with reservations, lasted 72 years.

It lasted due to the colossal religious upsurge; in the shortest possible time, a powerful economy was created. The main incentive for the people was the expectation that immediately after the completion of construction there would come religious ecstasy, paradise, communism. To be fair, it must be said that the Old Believers-Soviet elite was ahead of this rise. But she was aware that the time was not far off when religious disappointment would set in. Therefore, by the end of the 30s, the struggle intensified both with the Khazar-Bolshevik elite and with the Church. A well-founded thesis was put forward that the creatures of paradise need a god. Leaderism appeared. The further course of events, according to the logic of development, was stopped by the war for 15 years. The Old Believer-Soviet elite was forced to cling to the Church. After the economic recovery, the issue of religious expectation came back onto the agenda. The same problems arose in America. The result is a convenient link that justifies the failures of both projects. However, by the age of 80, it became completely clear that the Old Believers-Soviet elite could no longer cope with the general disappointment on its own. This is always the case - religious action based on apostasy leads to disappointment. I couldn’t go under the protection of the Church because... tightly connected to the other half. Although she did not interfere with the beginning of the restoration of church life.

In general, two attempts were made to implement our own Old Believer-Soviet idea. Two generations through a devastating war, through the restoration of not only their economy, but also other economies, through the ideological control of half the world. Did not work out!!! We simply decided to play by their rules - without the participation of God, and lost because we are an Orthodox people! The first to feel that we were losing were the Old Believer-Soviet elite. Probably more subconsciously understanding that, based on this worldview, it will not be possible to achieve such a tension of volitional forces again, which will inevitably lead to the loss of the key principles of the Old Believer-Soviet worldview. And the Old Believer-Soviet elite will be forced to reckon with the bearers of the oligarchic Khazar-Bolshevik worldview. I would like to note that the idea that Berezovsky put into his alliance with Chechnya cannot be called anything other than the revival of Khazaria. But these are flowers compared to the tension that could have arisen if the USSR had not collapsed. The Old Believer-Soviet elite made the only possible decision (consciously or unconsciously). In order to survive in the new conditions, it divided by state borders the main centers of the Khazar-Bolshevik ideology, mostly located in the union republics. This is how the USSR ended. But this was also the main condition for the return of the Old Believer-Soviet elite to the Kremlin. Of course, with big reservations, but now she is the one who rules.

However, very important circumstances are overlooked by historians. First, the elite, which in 1818 was positioned as Protestant, has turned into Orthodox, Orthodox abroad, and for some reason it seems to me that it will serve a very important service for Russia. And the Bolshevik-Soviet elite, formed in Russia, defended the Church from turning it into Protestant, in a simple way - it declared it an enemy. And this only strengthened it; the most faithful and devoted remained. And the ever-increasing number of martyrs and confessors only increased the number of prayer books for Russia, and the Church itself again became the basis of state building in Russia. All this is anti-dialectical, because not a single people, except for the Old Testament Jews (And then under Moses), managed to return to the fold of Orthodoxy after such apostasy. It is not possible for the people to restore their connection with God on their own. Only the will of God. For such a Gift, 15 years of hunger and poverty, such a trifle. And if we consider the Church to be the source and custodian of the Russian tradition, then the history of Russia has not been interrupted from Alexander Nevsky to the present day. Therefore, we must talk not about the birth of a new Russia, but about the birth of a new us.

And so, in the early 2000s, the Russian Kremlin elite was finally formed, which is a natural continuation of the Old Believer-Soviet elite, which, in turn, ideologically, goes deep into the 17th century. But the ideology of the Old Believers has exhausted itself. If only because of the separation of the Khazar-Bolshevik elite. The latter has long ago turned into something international, and not independent, not dialectically connected with previous history. But according to the Old Believers, the Soviet elite turned out to be not complementary to any elite in the world. And therefore it is the only elite in the world that cannot unite with anyone. Thus began her return movement to the “Third Rome”, to the obverse side of the medal. There is simply no other way out to the Empire. This is how the first crown appears on one of the eagle’s heads.

Well, what about the rest of the countries? They also have their own medal, on the back of which there is also a crown stamped. But they won’t be able to use it on their own. Due to the same “internationality” of the oligarchic-financial elite, they will not be able to. In order to preserve their sovereignty and statehood, they will be forced to delegate their crown to the second head of the eagle. Moreover, Russia has remained a multinational and multi-religious state. This is a prerequisite for the organic inclusion of this crown in the Russian coat of arms. This is the whole point of the Eurasian Union. Not the destruction of states, but their strengthening, through understanding the imperial role of Russia. The Empire never claimed the sovereignty of its allies. Rome did not claim the sovereignty of either Rus' or the Orthodox part of the Desht-i-Kypchak. At least ideally. And if in the world there remains such a concept as the study of the errors of historical experience, then for the Eurasian Union it lies precisely in this plane.

There is also lost Ukraine, but it is worth talking about it separately.

Question:

Is there continuity between the Soviet elite and the elite of modern Russian society? Why do you think so?

Answers:

Yes, it definitely exists. Corruption originated in the USSR and gradually moved to the Russian Federation. Under the Soviet system, everyone was equal, but again: deputies, heads of districts, councils, etc. were an order of magnitude higher than mere mortals. They naturally had more money, more power, more authority. Now we see absolutely the same situation. Just more money. And money rules the world, that is, if there is money, there is everything.

Similar questions

• Think and answer what types of political groups do the following organizations and movements belong to? 1. Pressure groups. 2. Interest groups. a) trade unions b) Union of Entrepreneurs c) feminist movement d) environmental movement e) Red Cross f) Council of Veterans g) Union of Officers h) Association of Cossacks i) movement of soldiers' mothers
• Correct speech errors in sentences. Explain the reasons for their appearance. Mom put a new blanket on the bed. The sea can be painted with blue gouache. During the war, my grandmother was a mortar operator. They were ordered to surrender all weapons. Water is also used for economic purposes. Now we have plenty of bread. Just think how many dresses hang in her closet, and she keeps asking for new ones. Mom spends more time with me than dad.
• A. S. Griboyedov Woe from Wit Chatsky and Famusov’s Society Plan 1 the history of the creation of the comedy Woe from Wit 2 Chatsky and Famusov’s Society A) how Chatsky will appear in Famusov’s house for the first time B) Chatsky and Sophia C) Chatsky and Molchalin D) Chatsky on Famusov's ball D) why Chatsky is accused of being crazy 3 what is the role of Griboyedov's comedy in the development of Russian literature Help, please

The modern Russian elite, despite its short period of existence from a historical point of view, has already acquired specific features that distinguish it from both the European elites and the elites of Eastern Europe.

1. The modern Russian elite is characterized by a high degree of social and personal continuity with the Soviet nomenklatura. Research by O.V. Kryshtanovskaya, carried out in the mid-1990s. showed that in the federal and regional elite there is a high percentage of old Soviet functionaries who reproduced typical practices of power activity in the new conditions. Social continuity of the elite means that after a political or social revolution, the new elite reproduces the main types of power activities and practices of relationships with the masses. Personal succession means that, on a personal level, a number of elite positions were occupied by representatives of the previous nomenklatura.

It is quite natural that the share of people from the nomenklatura in the Russian elite is constantly decreasing, the elite is mastering new practices of power and management, but the connection with the nomenklatura system exists.

2. The economic basis for the existence of the Russian elite was the privatization of state property. The implementation of the principle of conversion of power into property in the 1990s allowed the elite to transfer into private ownership a significant volume of the most profitable enterprises and entire sectors of the Russian economy, especially the fuel and raw materials sector. The privatization of state property explains the rapid growth of the decile coefficient, strong social differentiation, and the rapid growth in the number of super-rich people.

3. The social basis of the new Russian elite was a group of entrepreneurs, including former “red directors” who were closest to state power, as well as government officials who created fortunes by privatizing state property and providing services to business. The role of the so-called “democratic recruits” who came to power in the late 1980s – the first half of the 1990s is extremely small. They have been largely either excorporated from the elite as a result of elections, or have accepted the guidelines and rules of the new elite; they are firmly incorporated into the elite.

4. The motivational side of the activities of the new elite is to retain power for the sake of preserving privatized property. The problem for the elite is that this model of motivation cannot be given the status of universality, since this means extending the principle of redistribution of state property to the masses. But the masses may compete with the elites for social and economic resources, which can lead to a social explosion. Therefore, the Russian elite cannot offer the masses an attractive model of existence, a new ideologeme that would justify the current social order. The principles of liberalism are useful only for the elite, but for the masses they mean existence in non-competitive conditions in the struggle for resources.

5. The mode of activity of the modern elite is becoming legitimized arbitrariness (A. Duka), which allows you to change the rules as the game progresses. In particular, this is expressed in changing the content of the country's constitution by political and legal means. Constitutional norms that the elites cannot guarantee are subject to sequestration or correction. These are, in particular, norms proclaiming Russia a social state, a democratic state, etc.

Since in Russia during the 1990s - the first half of the first decade of the 2000s, property was redistributed repeatedly, stable rules are not necessary to ensure new redistributions between intra-elite groups. The main instrument for the redistribution of property between intra-elite groups is presidential power (respectively, at the regional level - gubernatorial power).

6. The institutional basis of the modern elite consists of:

– for the political elite

a) institutions of state power, built on the principle of separation of powers. Therefore, the federal political elite includes the President and the heads of his administration, deputies of the State Duma and members of the Federation Council, the Government of the Russian Federation, and members of the highest courts of the Russian Federation. The structure of the regional political elite is similar;

b) leaders of all-Russian political parties;

– for the economic elite– large public-private corporations (Gazprom and others), financial and industrial groups;

– for the information elite– the media, primarily television and the press, the Internet.

7. The ideological basis for the activities of the elite at the federal level is the ideology of liberalism in its most extreme version. From the point of view of its supporters, only market conditions can generate competition among producers and in the labor market, thereby stimulating an increase in product quality, the introduction of the latest achievements of scientific thought into production, an increase in the level of qualifications of workers, etc. To this end, the Russian state seeks to enter the WTO, closes or ceases to finance enterprises, economic sectors, and the social sphere (agriculture, housing and communal services, education, healthcare, etc.) that are unprofitable from the market point of view.

2. Consolidation of power and “gathering of elites” as a form of mobilization of elites

Consolidation of power - as a process of concentration, centralization, nationalization of power, aimed at institutionalizing a political regime reflecting the interests of the state bureaucracy.

Concentration of power occurs along the power vertical and horizontal. Instead of a dispersed state of power, multi-centeredness, and the absence of a clearly defined center of gravity of power, the following arises:

A) according to M.N. Afanasyev – power-centricity, i.e.

1) power appears and manifests itself;

2) power localizes itself in political power;

3) political power is localized in state power;

4) elimination of the opposition as alternative centers of government initiatives and possible forms of activity.

B) power is concentrated both institutionally and geographically in a few centers that are traditional for decision-making and well-established from the point of view of political practice in Russia

1) vertically – in Moscow, Center;

2) vertically – in regional centers;

3) establishment of a unified matrix of power relations in the country.

Happening reformatting political and power space. The concentration of power is expressed in the construction of “verticals of power,” each of which is centered on the presidential administration. Common features for the emerging structures are: strict hierarchical subordination, dominance of federal bodies in the sphere of decision-making, concentration of resources at the federal level, recreation of nomenklatura-like mechanisms of personnel policy, fight against factionalism and dissent, displacement of non-systemic elements from official structures, etc.

A special place in the processes of concentration of power is occupied by the “presidential vertical” (Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, Plenipotentiary Representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts, governors (heads of regional administrations)). If earlier (before 2005) the highest official of a subject of the federation was considered as an element of the system of state power of the subject of the federation with its own independent interests, now the President of the Russian Federation increasingly speaks of a “big government”, including the federal government and governors, which should act as “ one corporation." Governors, taking advantage of their position in the regions, are beginning to pursue a policy of intraregional consolidation of power, seeking to recreate in their regions the matrix of political relations characteristic of the federal center.

There is a transition from the ideal model that was laid down in the 1993 Constitution (from democratic to statist).

Centralization of power is understood as the building of a unified power hierarchy in the country (administrative and political in nature):

1) hierarchy and subordination of levels of power;

2) building hierarchical power structures (economic, social, public, etc.);

3) bringing all hierarchies (aspiration) into one center for making strategic decisions.

Nationalization of power is manifesting itself as a trend in several directions.

1. State power becomes “state”, i.e. uses force, there is a “national interest” in the use of force, i.e. the state bureaucracy acts as a single force in carrying out this course (for example, the trial in the Khodorkovsky case, “pushing through” United Russia in elections, etc.).

2. Nationalization of political structures, primarily political parties, and the exclusion of non-systemic (non-state, i.e. not acting in agreement with the state) forces from the official (legal) political sphere.

Political parties operate only if they allow themselves to be governed from the administrative decision-making center. A party-political vertical is emerging (federal parties, party factions in representative bodies of state power in the regions).

The “party vertical” was created precisely because parties are weak institutions of political life and, therefore, easier to manage from one center for making political decisions. The state acts as the basis for the activities of parties, at least until they gain normal electoral support (if this happens).

Changing legislation in favor of strengthening the role of parties in the political life of the country, on the one hand, contributes to the accelerated institutionalization of the party system, on the other hand, turns it into an element of the state mechanism, acting under the strong influence of the state itself. Due to these circumstances, parties are deprived of their main functions - to be a means of communication between the state and society, to be a spokesman for mass political sentiments, to be a means of articulating alternative opinions.

Parties in alliance with the state and the state apparatus begin to act as a single mechanism for developing and making decisions (distributing funds before elections between regions under United Russia, using United Russia to carry out the state course, although it is unlikely that anyone will argue that at this stage the United Russia is an independent actor in developing and making decisions.

3. Selection of interest groups. It can be assumed that only consensus interest groups that can act in accordance with the Kremlin’s course gain access to power.

4. Nationalization (partial) of natural monopolies and the desire to create large holdings, financial industrial groups, etc., operating under state control.

5. Nationalization of institutions for representing public interests, including the creation of a Public Chamber. Integration into the mechanism for making government decisions as optional elements. Similar processes are beginning to develop in the regions. An attempt to bring the most influential elements of society under control, the authorities began to build the “Public Vertical” from above, creating the Public Chamber. The very procedure for forming the composition of the chamber shows its purpose: it should become a conductor of presidential influence on the intelligentsia as a whole - on the “educated society.” Individual opposition elements that find themselves in its composition will become only a necessary democratic camouflage, having no real political power. The Public Chamber will also become an element of lobbying structures, which has already been noticed by representatives of big business. During the formation of the Public Chamber, mechanisms were worked out for introducing representatives of big business from the regions into its composition, which predetermines its possible fate as an independent element of the political system.

Generally the creation of various kinds of public organizations that consolidate the population along professional, ethnic, religious and other grounds is focused on the subordination of group interests to national interests. The main characteristic of these organizations is the dominance of the political-administrative elite among the top management of the organizations, turning them into corporations with strict internal discipline, the violation of which will be punishable by excommunication from a certain type of resources.

6. Nationalization of the media.

7. Nationalization of the last mass intra-elite force – regional elites:

7a) through the institution of vesting powers with the highest official of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation;

b) through the creation of the State Council;

c) through the creation of “Big Government”;

d) through regulation of financial flows from the Center.

The President of the Russian Federation includes regional elites in various power verticals (presidential, governmental, party - through the United Russia party), giving them the right of an advisory vote.

Such “verticals” perform diverse functions: firstly, they make it possible to maintain the appearance of the political presence of regional elites in the federal structures of power; secondly, they provide the opportunity to take into account the opinion “from below”, from governors, representatives of the “public”; thirdly, they turn the participants of these structures into conductors of the policy of the federal center; fourthly, they form a system of political corruption based on the distribution of part of the political opportunities in these structures. These “verticals of power” are, as a rule, unconstitutional in nature, performing the function of “transmission belts” from the presidential administration to the population.

Therefore, one of the main results of the gathering of elites is the elimination from the political arena of the last uncontrollable, potentially oppositional force - regional elites, transferring their opposition to a latent state. If earlier the struggle for resources took place along the “Center - regions” line, between federal and regional elites, now Putin is separating the regional elites from the masses and tying them to the Center through administrative measures. It deprives the regional elites of mass electoral support in possible opposition to the Center. Therefore, the new watershed of the struggle for resources will take shape as a struggle between the elite as a social stratum, the ruling group and the masses.

With the help of political reforms, the federal elite is strengthened by consolidating the regional elite and tying it to the ruling group. This is the last reserve of the federal elite on the path to continuing liberal reforms in the absence of mass social support. Only the consolidation of the elite makes it possible to avoid a split among the elites, from turning part of it into a leader of protest movements or an exponent of an alternative political course.

Regional elites lost their former legal political role. They have ceased to play the role of a political buffer between the center and the masses, they are no longer a spokesman for the interests of the regions, an institutional zugzwang has set in for them - any move is bad if it is not aimed at supporting the federal center.

Their role in the political system is changing: their role as actors in the political process is significantly decreasing, they are increasingly becoming subjects of political activity. Regional elites are gradually turning into a translator of the will of the Center, into an economic representative of the federal center in the regions. Due to these circumstances, the value of the status of regional elites decreases, and the relationship of statuses between the executive and legislative branches of government changes sharply. Regional administrative and political elites are included in the mainstream of controlled administrative activities directed from the federal center.

The power potential of regional elites is sharply weakened - their influence on the development of government policy decreases, especially in terms of the formulation of innovative projects; power resources take on a different form (latent, bargaining, “influence for execution”).

If we summarize the most important changes in the status of the regional elite, we can state its transition from the position of an “all-powerful baron” to the position of a “princely mayor.” This means that the transition from fragmented regional communities to regional communities built on the principle of a orchestrated order is being completed, in which the local elite community is coordinated and the interests of economic and political actors are harmonized in accordance with the “general line” of the federal center.

3. “Gathering of elites” as a form of elite mobilization

Consolidation of power is not an end in itself for power, it is a means of consolidating elites. At this stage of development, the consolidation of elites is in the stage "gatherings of elites."

Gathering of elites - the process of social consolidation of elites around state institutions and state power.

This does not mean that there cannot be contradictions between the elites, but they are subordinate to the implementation of state interests, private group interests become secondary in relation to the state.