Systems approach.

Situational approach.

Process approach.

V. Quantitative concept.

The main directions and techniques of this approach are the study of operations and models. A model is a form of representing reality. Usually a model simplifies reality, and sometimes represents it abstractly. After creating the model, a quantitative assessment is specified. Distinctive features are the replacement of verbal reasoning and description with some symbols and quantitative values.

It was first proposed by adherents of the school of administrative management (see functions). In their scientific works, they tried to describe each function of a manager, but due to the mistake that they considered each function separately, and not in unity, they could not create a coherent theory. The modern scientific concept suggests considering management as continuously repeating operations and procedures that carry out interrelated directions in a certain sequence.

Assumes that the suitability of various management methods is determined by the situation. This is justified by the fact that due to the abundance of external and internal factors, there is no single the best way management of the organization. The best one will be the one that matches the given situation. The central point is the situation, i.e. a specific set of circumstances that greatly influences an organization at that particular time

Assumes that managers should view the organization as a collection of interrelated elements. Namely: people, structure, tasks and technologies that are focused on achieving various goals in a changing external environment.

Physics of management is a new branch of philosophical philosophy in its infancy; its emergence is caused by the role and significance of management in modern society. The philosophy of management is intended to serve as a general conceptual and interdisciplinary basis that provides a holistic perception and understanding of the phenomenon of management.

Physics of management is a system of generalizing judgments of a philosophical nature about the subject and methods of management, its place among other sciences and in the science system as a whole, and the cognitive and social role of management in modern society. The philosophy of management is designed to consider the axiological, epistemological and methodological foundations of human activity in management processes. It must answer the question: how is management possible? Philosophical analysis of management problems is aimed at studying man and society.

Management is often viewed through the lens of decision making (DM). Among epistemological problems Management functions take a central place in PR issues under conditions of uncertainty and risk.

In a row methodological problems F. management issues of organizational structure. Modern society is a society of organizations. People are doomed to work together, since this is required by specialization, division of labor and cooperation → progress. Which organizational structure is most adequate to modern realities, what and how determines decision-making in organizations: the goals of the organization or the goals of a person, how does the structure of the organization influence decision-making?

Management is “immersed” in culture, and the philosophy of management, unlike the philosophy of mathematics, must proceed from this premise. F. management is considered in the context national culture, traditions and mentality.

Management principles are those principles and ideas that form the basis of the organization’s activities. The relevance of this issue is increasing every day. Without a clear goal of the organization, without formulating clear and understandable principles, the organization is doomed to slow extinction.

In modern science about management, there are a whole variety of conceptual schemes and theories of managing society and human behavior. Let us note such a subjective-idealistic philosophical doctrine, as pragmatism, which emerged in the 70s. XIX in the USA and became most widespread in the 1st half. XX century Representatives of the doctrine W. James and J. Dewey believed that philosophy should act as a method for solving a variety of practical problems that arise before people in various life situations. The truth of certain theoretical schemes and concepts is verified by practice and comes down to usefulness. Pragmatism has a strong influence on the spiritual life of the United States, and on the works in the field of management by F. Taylor, G. Ford and others.

The basis of F. management: the market is a means of ensuring a decent life for every citizen (equality in opportunities, and not in receiving benefits → a powerful incentive to work actively).

An important point in physical management is the creation of conditions for self-development and self-realization of one’s abilities. As a rule, the history of the development of management thought is ahead of the process of improving management systems in practice.

Today, managing various types of material and spiritual production has become an independent profession, requiring special education, experience, mindset and even character. A science on management has appeared, which is based on research in economics, sociology, psychology, and mathematics.

The problem of management, being a global social problem, is a fundamental aspect of philosophy, in this case in relation to economics.

Management - more broad concept than management.

Management is part of management, it is a professional activity to form the structure of the public and direct activities into the general mainstream (at the level of people, groups, small teams).

Modern trends in management development:

1) In connection with the increasing influence of scientific and technical progress on achieving the goals of the organization, the role of product quality in competition and the complication of the place and role of supply in the economy, there has been a return to the problems of production, awareness of the material and technical base of modern production.

2) Increased attention to various forms of democratization of management functions, participation of ordinary workers in management and profits

3) Increasing influence of international external conditions, internationalization of management. The problem of “joining” local and international types of management, the limits of universality of management methods, and taking into account irreducible national management styles arises.

Highlights of the new management:

Quality management in the context of globalization

Increasing workforce diversity

- “open management”

- “spin-off” of all new types of management and its exit beyond the boundaries of the company.

Management VS Management.

- 165.00 Kb

INTRODUCTION

Management as a type of human activity has existed since the need for joint activities of people arose. According to Nobel laureate G. Simon, when two people jointly move a stone that cannot be moved alone, the rudiments of control already arise. A simple action acquires two fundamental properties, becoming what is called control. These properties are the goal (to move the stone) and compatibility (several people combine their efforts to complete a task that is impossible without such a union). Management in its broadest sense can be defined as the activity of a group of people joining forces to achieve common goals. Each historical era made its own adjustments to the relations of management subjects, incentive methods, and the scale of organization of the process itself, but only in the twentieth century. scientific approaches to management appeared and began to develop. The twentieth century has many epithets, including “the century of management,” since the progress achieved in this century is largely due to successes in management.

The main trend in the development of management thought in the last 90 years has been the desire to turn management into a science, and as we move towards this goal, there has been ongoing debate about whether this is actually possible. The contradictions between the requirements of science and rationality, on the one hand, and the real behavior of people, on the other, pose serious methodological problems regarding their relationship, while at the same time being an incentive for the development of management theory, which can be characterized as accumulated and logically ordered knowledge according to certain rules, representing is a system of principles, methods and technologies of management developed on the basis of information obtained both empirically and as a result of the use of achievements of various specific sciences. The specificity of management theory is its interdisciplinary nature, its distinctive feature is its focus on solving practical problems. Management has its own source of knowledge - practice and, in addition, is replenished with knowledge from various disciplines, without which it simply could not develop. But scientific methodology has had and continues to have an even greater impact on the development of management.

For social philosophy The problem of management today is one of the key ones, since it affects all the key points of social theory. In addition, any branch of knowledge, having reached a certain stage of maturity, requires a philosophical understanding of its own foundations. Specialized sciences are not capable of assessing the values ​​that their activities presuppose, which is why philosophical analysis is necessary.

Speaking about management theory, it should be noted that its current state has been significantly influenced by the sciences of human behavior - psychology, sociology, social psychology and anthropology. All these sciences cannot consider the actions of people outside the cultural context. Culture updates the values ​​and norms inherited from the past, taking into account the changes occurring in society, transmits them to living generations, and equips people with certain stereotypes of behavior. This social memory underlies the values, attitudes and norms of behavior manifested in people's activities .

It should be noted that with all the variety of available developments in the field of management, management theory is still in its infancy and a number of its main problems have not yet received final and generally accepted solutions. At the same time, it is significant that the methodological foundations of modern management theory are close to the paradigms of today's science. The philosophical analysis of the problems of management theory and practice is due to the fact that management, being a synthesis of science and art, knowledge and experience, is a broad research field for studying a person and his behavior in various situations, while the phenomenon of management permeates all spheres of human life.

1. RELATIONSHIP OF THE CONCEPTS “PHILOSOPHY” AND “MANAGEMENT”

Initially, from the mid-50s of the 20th century, cybernetics claimed the role of management science, thanks to the fundamental works of Norbert Wiener and his associates [Wiener 1968; Klaus 1968]. Subsequently, “management” became the predominant term, denoting both management itself as certain actions of the subject-manager, and the theoretical reflection of this reality - the science of management.

Meanwhile, “management”, which etymologically means “management” (the root is the English word “manage”, from the Latin “manus” - hand), and in its origins, i.e. in the works of Frederick Taylor and his followers, was actually aimed at achieving the most effective way management on a scientific basis (“Scientific management”), gradually expanded its cognitive claims, becoming synonymous with “science of management”. And now not only the terms “financial management”, “personnel management”, but also “political management”, “public management” (“administrative management”), “social management”, “communication management”, “reputation management” have become familiar ( public relations), etc.

Let's start the content analysis with “philosophy”. The need for clarification is important not only in itself, but is also dictated by the logic of the research problem. Indeed, already in one of the first publications on this topic there is a very relevant observation: “The insufficiently clear use of the term “philosophy of management” is obvious. According to our observations, the confusion among those writing about the problems of philosophy of management is caused primarily by fundamental confusion around the term “philosophy” itself.” [Litzinger, Schaefer, 1966, 342]. Thus, the authors of the French “Dictionary of Philosophical Language” give 60 definitions of “philosophy” [Fulquet, Saint-Jean 1969, 541-544]. Nevertheless (taking into account also that the very posing of the question “What is philosophy?” is a philosophical question, which means that this question will be raised again and again by all generations of philosophers), all existing understandings of philosophy, in our opinion, are generalized in that definition, which is given in the old (but not at all outdated) “Philosophical Ecyclopedia”: this is a form of social consciousness aimed at developing a holistic view of the world and the place of man in it, exploring the ontological, epistemological, axeological, aesthetic and ethical aspects of the “subject” -object" relationships [Philosophy 1970, 332].

Regarding the content of the term “management” as a type of activity, it should be noted that the interpretations existing in the literature are definitions of a predominantly descriptive nature: “Management is the process of planning, organizing, motivating and controlling, necessary in order to formulate and achieve the goals of the organization” [ Meskon, Albert, Khedouri 1995, 38]. From the point of view of the attributive coverage of the phenomenon being defined, it again seems more preferable to interpret the “Philosophical Encyclopedia” of management as a function of organized systems that ensures the preservation of their structure, supports the established mode of activity and realizes the goals of this activity [Management 1970, 282]. In terms of the essential characteristics of management, the most accurate (and concise) of the available definitions is the following: it is getting things done by other people [Kowalski 2006, 168].

As for “management” as a scientific discipline, there is no special definition even in the most voluminous publications, although in all their introductions the corresponding idea is explicitly or implicitly present. However, the terminological distinction between reality (management-activity) and its theoretical reflection (management-science) is sometimes simply necessary. Thus, the “Manager’s Dictionary-Reference Book” defines management only as “a type of management that best meets the needs and conditions of a market economy” [Manager’s Dictionary-Reference Book 1996, 248], but thereby moving on to the definition of the term “practical management” challenges the reader to a dead end, since management as an activity simply cannot help but be practical.

Thus, the most significant thing is that management is the activity of systemically regulating the work of others, in other words, management is a relationship of subject-objective order. The actions of the subject (planning, organizing, making management decisions, etc.) are aimed at streamlining the activities of the object, while the actions of the object serve as feedback and provide the basis for a conclusion about the quality of the implementation of the subject’s goals. Hence the substratum relationship between philosophy and management: if philosophy primarily reflects and comprehends the subject-object relationship, then management deals with the issues of regulating this relationship.

Based on the clarifications made, we can roughly outline the specifics of the “management philosophy”, i.e. that intellectual sphere where the cognitive interests of philosophy and management intersect: it studies concepts about the place and role of the human subject in the management system, as well as the forms and methods of their implementation in the functioning and development of management systems. As an independent philosophical discipline, "philosophy of management" is based on a double foundation - formal and substantive. An attempt at formal argumentation will inevitably result in a repetition of the arguments already set out in his time by Friedrich Schelling regarding the right to the independent existence of another philosophical discipline - the “philosophy of art”. It is known, he notes, how “the concept of philosophy is shamelessly abused.” The addition of the word “philosophy” to “art” seems to connect opposite essences - the ideal, subjective, on the one hand, and objective reality - on the other, however, “philosophy of art” does not cease to be a field philosophical knowledge, since (and for now) it is aimed at the “unconditional universality” characteristic of philosophy [Schelling 1966, 66]. The substantive argumentation of the raison d'être "management philosophy" presupposes analysis philosophical thought from the point of view of reflecting fundamental management problems.

Chapter 2

On the philosophical foundations of social management

The perception and use of economic determinism as the only and dominant mechanism of social development has already shown its inconsistency, since it led to the dead end of the “consumer society” in the 20th century. The solution may be a transition to broader socio-cultural foundations in management, aiming society to increase efforts to provide conditions for the comprehensive development of the abilities of every socially oriented person. To understand the need and origins of such a radical transition to a new paradigm, one should consider the deep - philosophical and sociocultural foundations of management activity.

At the heart of the sociocentric system is a macrosystem of consumption controlled by the bureaucratic state, to which all other subsystems are subordinated: economics, education and culture, maintaining scientific and technological progress, and population development. The events of recent decades show that this system is increasingly showing a dead end, because “resources are finite, but needs are infinite.” But, as you know, man does not live by bread alone.
Alekseevsky V.S. and Shavyrin N.V. presented a fundamentally different model - a human-centric one, which brings the content of management relations to new principles and guidelines. At the center of the model is a personality, which forms the basis of the object, in our case - the Big Russian society, entering the phase of the post-industrial community along with most developed countries. On the periphery of the model there are institutions responsible for the socialization of such an individual and for his reproduction as the first productive force of society. Closer to the center are the entities that provide these institutions with the necessary conditions and create the appropriate mechanisms (forces, factors, production, social and other relations, technologies), as well as the sociocultural and techno-economic environment for the existence and development of each individual. As it develops, the sum of self-realizing individuals will form a new civil society and the state that serves it, which form a new social integrity.

In the industrial era, the doctrine of the management of market organizations arose, the practical application of which in the second half of the twentieth century. ensured rapid growth of the national economy in many countries. In our country, already in the process of market reforms, interest in the theory and practice of resolving management problems in new market structures and organizations began to form. In the emerging post-industrial society, even more opportunities are opening up for the use of integrative, sociocultural methods for resolving management problems, which constitute a feature of modern management. Therefore, it is so important for organizational leaders and staff to master the basic principles of the modern paradigm of market management, known in Europe as knowledge management. In Russia, its own version is being formed - the sociocultural concept of management. This is explained by the fact that management is, first of all, a new philosophy and a new management culture associated with the national mentality. For example, the Japanese management style does not represent anything new technically. Its mystery is in the cultural code, a new type of behavior, in relationships. The fundamental changes taking place in Russia in economic and sociocultural life are not yet fully realized and have not been assimilated by the productive population as the values ​​of the new century to the extent that they become the basis of a culture of thinking and behavior. Consequently, socio-economic reality is changing faster than our ideas about it are changing. As a result, our Russian business leaders and their colleagues in the West communicate in different conceptual languages, they have different cultures of business behavior, different values ​​and business goals. Moreover, our entrepreneurs do not find legitimate mutual understanding with Russian officials precisely because of different value bases. These differences give rise to many problems.

Description of work

Management as a type of human activity has existed since the need for joint activities of people arose. According to Nobel laureate G. Simon, when two people jointly move a stone that cannot be moved alone, the rudiments of control already arise. A simple action acquires two fundamental properties, becoming what is called control.

(Chapter 2.2).

Reviewers:

• G.I. Avtsinova, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor of the Department of Political Science of the Russian State Social University.
• A.V. Tonkonogov – doctor philosophical sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of National Security of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation.

The monograph analyzes modern approaches to the formation of management philosophy as a scientific discipline.

The study is based on an analysis of scientific literature on selected topics; it examines current problems of social management in their philosophical aspect. The formation is characterized philosophical views on the nature of social management, the ideological aspects of management, the mental foundations of anti-corruption behavior in the system of management activities, and the specifics of conflict management are identified. Modern organizational management models, as well as models of managerial leadership, are characterized through the prism of a philosophical approach. The influence of the modern information and computer revolution on the anthropological aspects of social management is analyzed.

For teachers, graduate students, undergraduates, graduate students of humanities faculties and specialties, specialists and managers working in the social management system.

• Chapter 1. Philosophical and methodological aspects of social management
  1. Ideological foundations of social management.
  2. Deontological foundations of social management.
  3. Philosophical problems conflict management.
• Chapter 2. Philosophical and anthropological aspects of social management.
  1. Information and computer revolution as a factor in the transformation of anthropological aspects of social management.
  2. Organizational management models in the information society.
  3. Mentality as a factor of innovative and anti-corruption behavior in the social management system.
  4. Basic models of managerial leadership.
  5. Philosophical aspects of self-management.

Maintaining. Management philosophy as a scientific discipline

Over the past 15 - 20 years, sections entitled “Management Philosophy”, “Organizational Philosophy”, even “Philosophy of Personnel Management” have been placed on the websites of various organizations. It is argued, for example, that this “philosophy of personnel management” is that “employees have the opportunity to satisfy their personal needs by working in the organization”, and the “philosophy of the organization” is represented as “a set of intra-organizational principles, moral and administrative norms, a system of values ​​and beliefs shared by all employees and dedicated to the overall purpose of the organization." The Chinese company Air China, for example, succinctly expresses its management philosophy in four points: “focus on people; the science; harmony; high efficiency" .

Of course, such formulations have nothing to do with philosophy, since they represent the opinions of individuals in the management of companies and organizations about the norms for regulating the organization’s relations with partners, about the rules of behavior of employees within the organization, etc. Most often, this list is completely specific norms of behavior, while philosophy is a universal worldview knowledge about universal.

What should be the management philosophy? Many people associate philosophy with something incomprehensible, vague, and divorced from life. In reality this is not so, because every historical era gave rise to its own special type of philosophizing, and philosophy sought to give answers to precisely those questions that were most relevant in a particular era. It is no coincidence that the great French thinker Rene Descartes wrote: “Philosophy... alone distinguishes us from savages and barbarians, and that every nation is the more civilized and educated, the better they philosophize; therefore, there is no greater benefit for the state than to have true philosophers.”

The necessity of philosophy is confirmed by at least a long period of its existence, but does management philosophy have the right to independent existence?

We invite the reader to think about whether the proposed four questions can be defined as the most important problems of social management:

• What do I know?
• What should I do?
• What can I hope for?
• What is a person?

Obviously, all these questions are asked by every responsible manager, from the manager of a small company to a political leader, because:

• any management process is based on specific knowledge;
• in the management process, the manager hopes to achieve a certain goal;
• in pursuit of a goal, he must perform specific actions (“do”);
• and the answer to the last question – about a person – is related to the understanding of the object of social management on the part of the manager himself;

But the “managed” also ask themselves these same questions in relation to the process and results of social management.

However, the questions presented here are the main problems of philosophy formulated by the great I. Kant, for the sake of finding an answer to which philosophical knowledge exists. The question is often asked: does philosophy really meet the needs of effective social management? It is believed that the theory and technology of management have already been sufficiently developed by a number of classics of management from F. Taylor to W. Maslow and are already reflected in dozens of textbooks. Philosophy, as Hegel noted, is akin to the owl of Minerva, the goddess of wisdom: it flies out only in twilight when the path is unclear, when the outlines of existence are vague.

However, any developing knowledge sooner or later turns to self-reflection, to understanding one’s own ideological and methodological foundations, i.e. reaches the level of philosophical reflection about one’s own object and subject, as well as about the methods and means of comprehending it. This kind of reflection is all the more important during the period of the formation of theoretical knowledge, or, in Hegel’s language, “in the twilight.” Philosophy is needed in this case to “shed light” on the subject area of ​​the emerging science. No wonder F. Taylor emphasized that he created precisely “ new philosophy management of an industrial enterprise". And this is indeed so, for he formed the theory of management “in the twilight,” when the path of theoretical research was unclear.

But the realities of modern post-industrial society pose new questions to the theory of social management, to which existing concepts of social management do not provide an answer, and therefore it is impossible to answer them without referring to the philosophy of management.

If reflections on the ideological and methodological foundations of science turn out to be successful and fruitful, then a theoretical concept is formed, which can be called either a particular philosophical theory or a section of the holistic philosophical knowledge. This is exactly how the philosophy of politics, the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of science and technology were formed in their time.

However, how does a “real” management philosophy differ from what is called “company philosophy” or “personnel management philosophy”? The criterion of difference is the answer to the question of whether, when analyzing an object in relation to which the formation of a private philosophical theory is supposed to be formed, it is actually necessary to turn to general worldview, general methodological positions. It is these positions that are formed within the framework of philosophical knowledge itself.

Firstly, such treatment becomes necessary when it turns out that between the level immediate methodological and ideological problems of cognition of the object under study and the level philosophical worldview there is no intermediate, or “middle” level, which could fulfill the necessary epistemological tasks. Thus, solving personnel management problems can be based on the methodology developed within the framework of theories of social management, which acts as a kind of “middle level” methodological knowledge for solving specific problems of working with personnel. But for politics, for religion there is practically no such intermediate level.

There is no such “average” methodological level for studying the problems of social management. V.S. Diev rightly notes that “any branch of knowledge, having reached a certain stage of maturity, requires a philosophical understanding of its own foundations. It seems that for most academic disciplines there is a range of issues that are attributed to their foundations and are traditionally designated as the philosophy of the corresponding science, and management is no exception to this series.”

Secondly, the necessity under consideration is formed when the object of philosophical analysis itself turns out to be comparable with the global dimension of human and natural existence, when the very existence of this object can be presented as special kind being. In particular, both politics and religion have this kind of significance, as the global foundations of human existence and society, which justifies the existence of the corresponding directions of philosophy.

But with this approach, social management also acts as a global basic process for organizing the life of human society: without social management, society cannot exist. Therefore, an adequate ideological and methodological understanding of the processes of social management in modern society requires the use of all the proper philosophical tools.

Thus, there is an objective need for the formation management philosophy as an independent direction of scientific research. This process is quite active; in many universities management philosophy is taught as an academic discipline; in a number of philosophical faculties there is a specialization in “management philosophy”. However, the substantive structure of this scientific direction has not yet been established and is in the process of formation.

Modern reality requires from a leader of any rank, especially in the field of state and municipal administration, knowledge in the field of theory and philosophy of management. This does not mean at all that mastering the management philosophy will automatically make this or that person a brilliant leader - some other conditions are also necessary for this. But it can be unequivocally stated that, other things being equal, the manager who knows the philosophy and general theory of management well enough and is guided by them in his practical management activities will manage more effectively.

We should agree with those researchers who believe that this philosophy is a system of philosophical reflections (i.e. reflections that fully use the terminology and methodology of philosophical knowledge) “about the subject and methods of management, its place among other sciences and in the system scientific knowledge in general, the cognitive and social role of management in modern society. The philosophy of management is designed to consider the axiological, epistemological and methodological foundations of human activity in management processes. It must answer, among other things, the question: how is management possible?”

V. A. Mirzoyan, rightly pointing to the philosophy of management as an intellectual sphere where “the cognitive interests of philosophy and management intersect,” identifies the objects of its research: concepts about the place and role of the human subject in the management system, as well as the forms and methods of their implementation in the functioning and development of management systems.

It seems that one of the functions of management philosophy is the methodological “selection” of theories and concepts of modern philosophy adequate to research tasks and the construction on this basis holistic and interconnected philosophical, ideological and methodological concept of social management.

With this approach, the structure of management philosophy as a whole turns out to be similar to the general structure of philosophical science. However, it is hardly possible to speak of complete compliance in this case. On the one hand, incomplete correspondence is determined by the specific content of this scientific direction. On the other hand, the management philosophy is in the process of formation and has not yet acquired a finished form, therefore its structure has not been established.

Currently actively developing ontological aspects of management philosophy that explore various aspects of the existence of this type of social activity, its prerequisites and structure. Here, specific aspects of social management, considered as a universal phenomenon of social life, are revealed, as well as its influence on the specifics of social life. In particular, it is important to identify specific forms and methods of implementing social management in relation to the main periods of social development, as well as to the main types of social relations.

Epistemology of management explores issues of knowledge of the process of social management itself. We are talking, in particular, about those methodological approaches from the positions of which a philosophical understanding of social management is possible. The conclusions of epistemological research in this area have direct practical significance, first of all, for the development of the conceptual and methodological apparatus of the theory of social management.

Dialectics of social management focuses on the development of social management as an integral phenomenon. We can talk, in particular, about the main contradictions of social management and their hierarchy, about the sources, driving forces and factors of determination of social management and its mechanisms.

Within axiology of social management we are talking about a study of a system of values ​​and assessments within social management, and about the study of social management itself (considered as an integral phenomenon of social life) as a civilizational and cultural value.

Philosophy is actively developing anthropology of social management. Within its framework, we study, first of all, issues related to the specifics of man as a subject and object of social management, with the change in the place of man in the modern information and computer world, with the humanistic nature of social management itself as a specific type of activity.

Thus, some tasks management philosophy:

• to form the necessary theoretical knowledge about the main problems of the ontology of social management, about the most important issues in the epistemology of social management, about the anthropological factors of social management, about the value system of social management;
• identify the socio-philosophical aspects of the process of social management in modern society, the main trends in its development and the range of main social problems arising in social management processes;
• propose solutions to the main methodological problems of social management; to form among professional managers: managers, specialists in state and municipal administration, etc., an interest in the ideological and methodological aspects of their professional activities;

The authors of the monograph offered to the reader - philosophers of the Russian State Social University - share the presented approach to understanding the philosophy of social management of work, however, at the current stage of their research activities, they do not consider themselves ready for a holistic presentation of the philosophy of management as a systemic and consistent philosophical knowledge. This representation is the goal of the next stage of the study.

In this work, the reader is presented with some philosophical problems of social management that are relevant for the current stage of development of Russian society. The monograph develops the ideas of the authors' previous studies on the problems of the philosophy of social management.

• L. I. Bystrova – Associate Professor of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State University of Social Sciences, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor (chapter 2.4);
• R.V. Vasyukov – teacher of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State University of Social Sciences, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences (chapter 2.5);
• T. I. Koval - Associate Professor of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State University of Social Sciences, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor (chapter 2.5);
• G. N. Kuzmenko – Head of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State University of Social Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, Associate Professor (chapter 1.1);
• O. F. Lobazova - Professor of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State University of Social Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, Associate Professor (chapter 2.3);
• G. P. Medvedeva – Professor of the Department of Theory and Methodology of Social Work of the Russian State University of Social Sciences (chap. 1.4);
• I. M. Melikov – Professor of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State University of Social Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor (chapter 1.3);
• G. P. Otyutsky – Professor of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State University of Social Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor (Introduction, Chapter 1.2, 2.1);
• O. B. Skorodumova – Professor of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State University of Social Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor (Chapter 2.2).

Literature

1. Bystrova L.I. Examples of the implementation of youth policy in Moscow universities (on the example of the Russian State Social University) // Social Policy and Sociology. 2014. No. 2. pp. 54 – 65.
2. Descartes R. Selected Works. – M.: Gospolitizdat, 1950. P. 411-412.
3. Diev V. S. Philosophy of management: area of ​​research and academic discipline // Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. un-ta. Philosophy. Sociology. Political science. 2012. No. 2. P. 62.
4. Kant I. Treatises and letters. – M.: Nauka, 1980.
5. Kuzmenko G. N., Evreeva O. A. The place of management philosophy in the theory and practice of management. // Scientific notes of the Russian State Social University. 2013. No. 4 (117). pp. 84-86.
6. Kuzmenko G.N., Otyutsky G.P. Philosophy and methodology of science. – M.: Yurayt, 2014.
7. Lobazova O. F. Religion and social politics: dialectics of interrelation // Social politics and sociology. 2015. T. 14. No. 6 (113). pp. 199 – 207.
8. Medvedeva G.P. The role of philosophical worldview in the theory and practice of social work // Bulletin of the Educational and Methodological Association of Russian Universities for Education in the Field of Social Work. 2013. No. 3. P. 102 – 110.
9. Melikov I.M. The idea of ​​power as the power of ideas // Scientific notes of the Russian State Social University. 2011. No. 11. P. 47 – 53.
10. Mirzoyan V.A. Management as a subject of philosophical analysis // Questions of Philosophy. 2010. No. 5. http://vphil.ru/index.php?id=124&option=com_content&task=view. Date accessed: February 26, 2016
11. Otyutsky G.P., Shestakov V.I. Philosophical and methodological problems of management activities of military personnel. - Monino; Publishing house VVA, 2009.
12. Otyutsky G.P., Shakhov M.N. Philosophical problems of military management. – M.: Publishing house VU RKhBZ, 2001.
13. Skorodumova O. B. Social determinants of transformation of management models in the modern era // Scientific Bulletin of the Moscow State Technical University of Civil Aviation. 2014. No. 203. pp. 62 – 66.
14. Taylor F. Scientific organization of labor // Management is a science and art: A. Fayol, G. Emerson, F. Taylor, G. Ford. – M.: Republic, 1992.
15. Philosophy of organization // http://www.grandars.ru/college/biznes/filosofiya-upravleniya-personalom.html. Date accessed: February 26, 2016

The textbook complies with the state educational standard of higher professional education. It sets out the main problems of management philosophy. The essence of the subject, key concepts and patterns are revealed and given Short story formation of public administration in Russia. The trinity is considered: power – politics – management. Analysis of the state of the management system in modern Russia. The textbook is intended for students, masters, and university teachers.

Management philosophy

Before managing others, learn to manage yourself.

Seneca

Russian science is undergoing an intensive process of formation and formation of a new discipline: “Philosophy of Management”. The impulses for its development and growth potential are determined by the practical needs of social life and the implementation of projects for the modernization of society and the economy. Among the sciences that study the phenomenon of management are: sociology, psychology, political science, ethics, etc. They interpret this complex topic from different positions. Philosophical analysis plays an integral role and a general methodological approach. In scientific literature and practice of business relations as a synonym "control" The term "management" is used. English word "management" means to control something. These concepts are of a single-order nature, but in our opinion, the Russian version is more capacious and multidimensional, which includes larger-scale objects and subjects of management. But usually, in the media and scientific literature, these terms are treated as equivalent.

Management should be considered as a type of social activity and as a scientific theory. In social philosophy, there is a generally accepted understanding of management as a relationship between subjects and objects. This is a complex system that unites various structural bodies and organizations; this also includes methods and methods of management activities.

Since antiquity, people have sought to understand the mysteries and laws of management. Within ancient Greek philosophy received a certain interpretation of the essence of managing society, the affairs of state power, and the organization of economic management. Plato, Aristotle and other thinkers have expressed profound thoughts on these vital important issues. They became the first management theorists in history. Plato argued that the ability to manage is “one of the complex and difficult to achieve skills. This is the kind of knowledge that deserves the name of wisdom."

Attention has long been drawn to the important role of the subjective factor in ensuring “wise management”. Aristotle defended the idea of ​​fair public administration. Among the virtues of rulers, he singled out not only the relevant knowledge and skills, but also the ability to exert volition and strength of character. Ancient Roman philosopher Seneca pointed out: “To manage others, you must learn to manage yourself.”

In line with the philosophical traditions of China, fruitful thoughts on the rational management of society were developed. In teaching Confucius the stable state of the state system must be based on the postulates of the inviolability of the hierarchy between the top of society and the bottom, in strict adherence to the rules of ritual (“li”). Ethical teaching Confucius had a significant impact on the further development of the theory and practice of management in the Middle Kingdom.

Western thinkers made a profound contribution to the development of the philosophical foundations of management: C. Montesquieu, G. Hobbes, D. Locke, G. Hegel, K. Marx. For example, N. Machiavelli argued that the nature of the political system depends entirely on those who have supreme power. Hegel in his fundamental work “Philosophy of Law” he analyzed the problems of the nature of state power, the patterns of management activity, its subjective and objective factors. French philosophers and political scientists J.-J. Rousseau, Voltaire substantiated the role of laws, principles of justice and the rights of citizens in government.

Behind last years in our scientific and educational literature substantial publications appeared devoted to the development of a new discipline of management philosophy. Here it is necessary to note the significant contribution of domestic humanities scientists V.M. Anisimova, A.S. Dieva, A.V. Kezina, V.A. Kanke, V.A. Mirzoyan, S.A. Lebedeva, V.S. Stepina, V.I. Shuvanova and etc.

Modern social philosophers believe that management is a special intellectual activity. It includes defining goals, assessing managed processes, identifying resources to achieve the goal, developing and implementing adequate solutions, taking into account possible obstacles, and predicting positive and negative consequences.

But management philosophy is a product of rather late development, according to experts (eg. A.I. Rakitov) professional interest in it became evident only in the middle of the twentieth century. in connection with the research of automated systems (cybernetics) and then with the rapid development and globalization of market relations, the emergence of giant national and transnational corporations, and the complication of financial flows.

Over time, management takes on the form of a self-sufficient activity. Management functions are becoming absolute and increasingly have a reverse determining effect on other types of activities and technologies. It must be said that this self-sufficient influence is exercised and mediated through various social institutions; culture and special structures. Scientific experts argue that the modernization that has begun in Russia must be carried out with the development and improvement of the management system.

2.1. Subject and value guidelines of management

Management is understood as a scientific and theoretical discipline. It, like any science, has philosophical foundations. The subject field of management philosophy is characterized, first of all, by ontology, i.e., an analysis of the fundamental, essential phenomena of management activity is assumed. At this level, problems that arise in the sphere of the most general relationships between subjects and objects of management are solved.

The epistemological aspect is focused on obtaining holistic, generalized knowledge about management activities. Moreover, this knowledge is described in philosophical categories. We emphasize that the subject of management philosophy is not limited to the principles of constructing theories, concepts and methods of explanation. Although this function in the control system is essential.

The axiological approach occupies a special place. We are talking about developing value guidelines that determine the social and personal management program. Modern philosophy defines values ​​as things and phenomena that are significant for humans and society. They, to one degree or another, have the ability to satisfy certain human needs, meet his interests, or correspond to the traditions of society and social groups.

Philosophical and methodological foundations act as extremely general, universal approaches to solving problems in the field of management. These include two traditional philosophical methods: metaphysical – consideration of the deep foundations of control objects at rest, statically, out of connection with other objects and dialectical – disclosure of the laws of development and changes in managerial realities in their interrelation, internal inconsistency and unity. The sociological dimension of the subject field of management involves the study of various types of organizations and associations, the classification of professional social roles of managers, and the motivation of their activities.

2.2. Power – politics – management

To understand the essence of management philosophy, it is important to consider the interaction of such phenomena: power, politics, management. The trinity of these key components is of fundamental importance. After all, in order to control something and someone you need to have power. The problem of power throughout the long history of human thought has been one of the eternal and fundamental themes. In philosophy, a great many works have been written on this topic. Famous German thinker F. Nietzsche tried to prove that the will to power is one of the leading human instincts. The power and attractiveness of power is the most powerful incentive, motive for people’s behavior and activity.

Philosophers distinguish between the concept of power in the broad sense of the word and in the narrow, social sense as political power. Power is a system of relations between subjects and subjects, subjects and objects. Its main essential features: dependence, submission, suppression . In a broad sense, the manifestation of power has many options, types and modifications.

To understand the secret and essence of power, we must remember the well-known sayings: “Any power corrupts, absolute power corrupts – absolutely.” In the East there is an aphorism: “If you want to know a person, give him power.” As they said in Rus', “The darkness of power is above and the power of darkness below.” It is also often noted: “Power is a source of increased danger. Including for the holder of power himself.”

Each area of ​​human achievement has its own power, its own means of subjugating people and achieving the desired goals. Moral feelings and imperatives have their own power, concepts such as conscience and honor, for the sake of which people undergo the most difficult trials. Huge power over people religious beliefs, dogmas and traditions. Science has its own growing power, which increasingly claims to become power in modern society, taking advantage of the power of new technologies created on the basis of scientific research. And, of course, money has enormous power over people. There will be a discussion about this in a special chapter.

The media most often talks about government power. This problem is broad, voluminous, and its solution falls primarily within the competence of a special science - political scientists. Our task is to clarify from a philosophical position the basic models and forms of state power. During the Middle Ages, it was believed that power came from God and was sacred (i.e., of sacred origin). In modern times, power relied on the supremacy of Law. State power was manifested in legal norms and rules binding on citizens. Power is the ability to subjugate people to your will, even despite their resistance.

It is very important to emphasize that subordination is ensured by various types of power structures: the army, police, courts, taxes, etc. In other words, a state mechanism arises. He becomes above society. His authority is supported by legality, i.e. legitimacy. State power receives the right to manage society, the economy and other areas of citizens’ lives. In modern society, power (the right to govern, dispose, make and implement decisions) is delegated by citizens through legislative bodies through elections to Parliament (State Duma). The construction of a system of state power is based on the principle of separation and independence of the three branches of government (legislative, judicial and executive). The function of the executive branch is essentially public administration. It is important to keep in mind that, like other branches of government, public administration cannot do without politics and ideology.

Politics is understood as a special type of activity and a form of social consciousness. It is mainly aimed at maintaining and stabilizing state power. Experts usually interpret the concept "Policy" as a struggle for power and as ensuring the dominance of certain social groups and party structures. In the philosophy of politics, the phenomenon of power is given key importance. Some researchers pay attention to its social power, believing that the roots of all troubles are in the nature of power.

Political realism, whose roots go back to the era Nicolo Machiavelli, convinces: any means are suitable to maintain and strengthen power. The ruling elite often apply the thesis of permissiveness, even including the use of terror to achieve their goals. For in this case there is confidence that power turns into value in itself.

Public administration (executive power) is always based on postulates and policy programs. Management decisions and methods of their implementation are based on the political course of the state, and in this sense, politics always takes precedence over the practice of management activities.

As for ideology, it contains a set of ideas and concepts that reflect the interests, needs, and aspirations of certain classes, social strata and groups. Ideology – this is not only systematized scientific and theoretical knowledge, ideals, principles. It is not passive as a set of teachings and requests. Its distinctive feature lies in its focus on active actions to implement ideological values. For example, speaking about the new ideology of public administration, they note the desire to ensure the thesis “not a person for the state, but on the contrary - the state for a person.” This ideological innovation is nothing more than a response to the challenges of today. Until now, under the dominance of the bureaucratic management model, the individual – the citizen – was entirely dependent on government administration. As they say, he was and probably still is a simple cog in the state machine of this modern “Leviophan”. The paternalistic model has become quite widespread, according to which all affairs and problems in society depend on the will of the owner, the master. Ultimately, from fathers - leaders. True, this model of power is considered archaic, but, nevertheless, its relapses still make themselves felt in the mentality of modern citizens.

2.3. Law enforcement system

The structure of public administration includes an important and indispensable component - the law enforcement system. We are talking, first of all, about legislation and regulations. The main provisions of this system were formulated by the French philosopher C. Montesquieu. He pointed out that laws should have the same meaning for everyone. The text of laws should be simple and clear. In rule-making activities, adequately reflect real relations in public life, strive to implement the principle of justice, the “spirit of laws.”

In the 18th century a special discipline “Philosophy of Law” began to take shape. This was facilitated by theoretical works T. Hobbes, F. Bacon, I. Kant. The main merit in the development of key ideas in the philosophy of law belongs to G.V.F. Hegel. His fundamental work became widely known "Philosophy of Law" (1817). A significant contribution to the clarification of the most important categories of political and legal science was made by M. Weber, K. Schmidt and etc.

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the foundations for the development of sociology and political science were laid in Russia. This ideological and political process received impetus for its development after the abolition of serfdom, as a result of judicial and zemstvo reforms and other transformations. Works were published at this time B.N. Chicherina "Essays on the Philosophy of Law" (1877). Philosophical questions legal consciousness was also analyzed by other major Russian thinkers ON THE. Berdyaev, V.S. Soloviev, B.N. Trubetskoy. In Russia the most authoritative specialist was P.I. Novgorodtsev - Head of the Moscow School of Philosophy of Law. He had a whole galaxy of outstanding followers: B.N. Vysheslavtsev, N.N. Alekseev, I.A. Ilyin and others, who made a significant contribution to the interpretation of the most important problems in the philosophy of law. By the way, we note that Professor P.I. Novgorodtsev worked fruitfully as the first rector of the Moscow Commercial Institute (1907–1918). Now this university is called the Russian Economic University named after G.V. Plekhanov.

The works of Russian scientists - social scientists and political philosophers - have become world famous; they have become the golden fund of modern political science, theory and law. However, the fate of socio-political and legal sciences in our country has been tragic. Many of its supporters were forced to leave their homeland, while others were forcibly deported abroad (“Philosophical Steamer,” August, 1922). Motivation - as ideological enemies of the new Bolshevik government and its political opponents.

2.4. Vertical of power

Speaking about the features of the public administration system, one cannot ignore the role of the “vertical of power” mechanism. At the beginning of formation Soviet power In Russia, a need arose for communication between central authorities and local authorities, in regions, regions, and republics. The vertical of power was constructed during the years of confusion and vacillation, uncertainty of power structures and was directed against local separatism and self-will in decision-making. This is the first thing. Secondly, to unite the efforts of citizens to solve the problems of building a new life. And it must be said frankly that this significant resource of power had a significant impact on socio-economic and political successes and achievements. Under socialism, Russia became a powerful power. This is a historical fact.

In the context of Russia's modernization, an important task is the creation of a modern, effective and democratic management system. This task is socio-political; the fundamental values ​​here are the principle of feedback as a systemic feature. It is aimed at overcoming the alienation of the population from power and the closed nature of many management structures. In the highest standards of power, it has become relevant to talk about feedback. This mechanism has the function of legitimizing decisions and helping to correct them. It involves expanding the number of management subjects - regional and municipal levels of government, party systems, businesses of various sizes, etc. They are included in the management process as indispensable participants.

And in this regard, a significant role belongs to the institution of civil society as a center of self-government of the people, designed to implement feedback.

Today, at the initiative of the President of the country, the idea of ​​“Big Government” was launched. In essence, this is an expanded government structure that, through meetings of its top leaders with representatives of different social groups, discusses and identifies measures and methods for solving current socio-political and economic-legal projects. In the “Big Government” format, a variety of social groups find their productive representation. This is where communication takes place, the process of interaction between citizens and the executive branch. And most importantly - an assessment of the work of the bureaucrats, criticism of their style of behavior in power. The feedback mode includes clarification of the initiative, public discussion aimed at identifying weak and insufficiently well-reasoned decisions. In modern conditions, the problem of the vertical power has not lost its positive role. Its main purpose - to mobilize and stabilize society - remains to this day. It has not exhausted its creative potential, combining the efforts of regional and municipal authorities in the implementation of national projects and programs. Let us note that this topic occupies a significant place in opposition actions. Under the pretext of fighting totalitarianism and the dominance of centralism, opposition leaders are trying to compromise this productive state mechanism. Such actions are especially dangerous given the difficulties of our own modernization and the atmosphere of a turbulent global world. Many sensible politicians and public figures are confident that the vertical power structure works to unify the Russian peoples. And if it breaks down, there will be a serious threat to the existence of our country.

2.5. Philosophy of the elites

In characterizing management activities, the problem of personification of state power is of fundamental importance. In the history of Russia - these are tsars, emperors, general secretaries, presidents. These are the highest officials, the first persons of the state. They are endowed with the greatest powers. In general, it must be emphasized that the role of leaders, leaders in power is considered in the philosophy of anthropology, or more precisely, within the framework of the concept of elites. This issue is actively studied by modern philosophers and sociologists. In our country, a center is working fruitfully in the system of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences under the scientific leadership of a political scientist O. Kryshtanovskaya. Note that a set of questions about the origin and essence of elites are among the advanced areas in social science disciplines.

Management philosophy places great importance on leadership issues. They received some understanding back in ancient times. Let us remind you that Plato noted that the leader is the one who knows how to highlight the main thing. Today there are many different theories of leadership. We are talking not only about Western concepts, but also about the philosophical considerations of domestic scientists, which highlight the specific qualities of a leader. Let's say, such as charisma, optimism, determination, determination, tolerance, and a high degree of self-control. All these leadership qualities are secondary. They are effective only as guides in the process of activities aimed at increasing the efficiency of the organization.

There is a managerial elite in our country. This is the highest layer of government, public and business leaders. They are usually called leading politicians. Every month Nezavisimaya Gazeta publishes a list of 100 influential politicians in Russia. Based on the results of a survey of experts (political scientists, political strategists, media experts), a rating of the most authoritative managers is revealed. They are divided into four categories: the federal administrative elite, the party elite, the regional elite and the business elite. Experts rate them on a scale from 1 to 10 points. This takes into account job status, professional and personal qualities, and degree of influence (very strong, strong, medium). Speaking fundamentally, the solution to the problem of leadership must be carried out in the context of the characteristics of state power. And, as you know, it can be democratic or authoritarian. These questions are largely the responsibility of political philosophy. It should be added here that the interpretation of the problem of subjects of management and leadership does not exclude interpretation from the position of other sciences. For example, sociology, jurisprudence, social psychology. They provide additional knowledge about various aspects of management activities and its leaders. In this regard, the book of a prominent sociologist is of interest IN AND. Shuvanova "Social psychology of management." It covers a wide range of management problems of Russian enterprises and organizations operating in a competitive market environment. The role model is analyzed in relation to the work of managers in Russian conditions. Special qualifications are carried out for professionally necessary business and personal qualities of a manager: competence, adaptive management style, communication, reflective thinking, etc. The book discusses various styles of management activities, methods and forms. We are also talking about the formation of leaders (managers) who are able to anticipate upcoming events and actively seek opportunities for innovation. This book will be useful for master's and graduate students studying economics.

There has been some progress in the formation of a new type of manager (manager). Specialist sociologists note that creative young people who are thoroughly versed in the intricacies of the sphere of management are gradually making their presence felt. These are thinking individuals with a broad modern economic education. Unlike the businessmen, referred to in journalism as the “resource boyars,” the new generation relies on personal abilities and active ambitions.

A category of young managers is emerging who strive not so much to achieve personal benefit, but to assert themselves by participating in socially useful causes. Of course, this statement looks more like a management ought rather than something that actually takes place. But, as they say, wait and see. And, nevertheless, a huge number of officials, or, in other words, civil servants, are employed in the field of management. These are mainly people of performing work, clerks. Moreover, from year to year the number of ordinary officials increases. According to official data, there are more than 2 million people.

The environment and lifestyle of these people is described in many classical works of art. The great Russian writer N.V. Gogol very deeply revealed the psychology of Russian bureaucracy. Let us remember his works “The Overcoat” and “Dead Souls”.

2.6. Crisis of bureaucratic management

The modern model of public administration is bureaucratic in nature. This classical form of state power was theoretically developed at the beginning of the twentieth century. respected German sociologist M. Weber. He argued quite convincingly that a rational bureaucracy is the basis of a prosperous state. In his opinion, only a special type of trained people acting on the basis of laws and legal regulations will ensure the development of society. It is a rational bureaucracy that can maintain stability and order.

However, as modern reality shows, the bureaucratic model described by Weber is undergoing a deep crisis. Specialists and experts point out that this is a phenomenon of global significance. Behind Lately appeared in many countries social movements, mass protests aimed at disobedience to the authorities, and what is very important - growing distrust in institutions and subjects of government. Moreover, this global trend began to manifest itself to no lesser extent in Russia. We talked about its scale and features in some detail in the first chapter.

Today, in scientific literature and journalistic publications, the problems of the crisis of the bureaucratic state and the desacralization of government bodies are widely discussed. Most scientists come to the same conclusion that the reasons for this phenomenon are rooted in distrust in power and the growth of bureaucratic arbitrariness, primarily concerned with their own selfish interests and maintaining a privileged position. Numerous representatives of state power - officials most often pretend that they serve the people's social needs. During heated debates on TV and the media, issues of corruption were in the spotlight. It was not only about the forms of its existence, but most importantly - ways to overcome it.

Since this textbook is intended for masters, graduate students, i.e., future specialists - managers, it is important for them to have an idea of ​​​​the harmful essence of corruption, and its corrupting power and degrading human dignity. Corruption is the use of a position or official position for the purpose of personal enrichment; it is one of the most dangerous types of crime (kickbacks, financial fraud, bribes). This is a form of organized crime, its cynicism lies in the fact that, as a rule, it is committed under the “flag” of the state. And it is extremely destructive to public morality.

In recent years, our country has taken various measures to overcome mass corruption. An anti-corruption law was promulgated in 2008, providing for severe penalties for bribery.

The elimination of corruption depends on the expansion of democratization of society and the development of civil structures aimed at monitoring the work of the bureaucracy. And, of course, educating citizens in the spirit of non-acceptance of mass bribery. All these measures look declarative, but, nevertheless, experts have not come up with anything else. However, we must keep in mind one more important circumstance. In the era of a market economy, money is a powerful management tool. From century to century it has been noticed that getting rich at the state, public expense is a common temptation. And those in power and ordinary citizens did not always stand the test of this temptation. Most often, people died for metal, and no less in our time. In this regard, the task of instilling in people, and especially among civil servants, a sense of responsibility for the assigned work, arises in full force. It is quite obvious that the effectiveness of management largely depends on the training of new types of managers not only with higher qualifications, but also with an appropriate level of morality and a sense of responsibility.

In our economics university, this task is central and priority. At REU im. G.V. Every year young people enter Plekhanov, who know where they came and why. These are former successful schoolchildren who are going to master's and postgraduate studies and want to improve their economic education at a new level. These are not just consumers of knowledge, but our future colleagues, focused on the development of science, people with decent motivation - to be great professionals, specialist managers. The quality of formation, adoption and implementation of decisions in management activities will depend on them.

The philosophy here is simple - you need to consider your future job not as a profitable, grain-earning place, but as a service to one’s native country, the people’s good. These are not just beautiful words and empty declarations, but principle of life for decent people.

2.7. Problems of civil society and the middle class – philosophical aspect

Most social thinkers are of the opinion that a sad future awaits Russia without civil society. Generally speaking, this is one of the significant phenomena of our time that requires in-depth research. Although this topic itself was of interest to philosophers of ancient times. For the first time the term “civil society” was used in his writings Aristotle. He said that a person lives not only in the state (polis), but also in the family, in small groups. In his opinion, the state and civil society are closely related. 18th century English philosopher T. Hobbes argued that people outside civil society, that is, in the state of nature, were constantly at war with each other. J.-J. Rousseau linked the emergence of civil society with the emergence private property. He wrote: “The first person who fenced a piece of land, came up with the idea of ​​declaring: “This is mine,” and found people quite simple-minded, was the true founder of civil society.” I. Kant By civil society he meant a universal legal society. He argued that “only in it is the greatest development of natural inclinations possible.” A. Smith recognized that in civil society the moral qualities of people are formed. A significant contribution to the study of this topic was made by G. Hegel. He examined in detail the main characteristics of civil society. He associates its emergence with the family and the formation of the state. Hegel believes that civil society is formed later and is characterized by three features: a system of needs, the protection of property through justice and the growth of various types of corporations. Hegel pointed out the key importance of human labor activity in civil society.

K. Marx often used the term “civil society”, but gave it a completely different meaning. According to Marx, its main parameter is the forms of communication between people. This includes material communication between individuals within a certain stage of development of productive forces. The formation and development of this society goes beyond the borders of the state...” Marx emphasized that in the true sense of the word “civil society” arises under the conditions of a capitalist formation, existing and operating within the framework of state laws. We are talking about the legal status of political parties and trade union organizations. It is dominated by public connections over personal ones. Individuals acquire essential rights and, as citizens, are free and responsible.

Bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th and early XIX centuries proclaimed the basic values ​​of civil society: equality of all before the law, freedom of enterprise, election of government bodies, etc. Later, these values ​​were called “liberal”.

Let us note that today the problems of civil society, issues of democratization and the formation of the middle class are in the focus of attention of many philosophers and political scientists. Many publications are devoted to this pressing topic. A discussion arose and different points of view emerged. Authoritative scientists take part in the discussion. Let's say A.N. Chumakov, I.A. Gobozov, Yu.A. Krasin and etc.

In modern social science, the following definition of civil society is generally accepted: it is a system of self-organizing partnership interactions between citizens and state institutions. Moreover, they manifest themselves autonomously and act on the principle that the interests and needs of citizens come first, and the state is the guarantor of their rights and freedoms.

Experts believe that only in a civil society is democracy possible; civil society and democracy are two sides of the same coin, which do not exist without each other. Civil society is a type of self-organization. A great politician dreamed about this IN AND. Lenin. He believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat was the ultimate model of a repressive state. And only through the development of democracy will a self-organizing society be built. According to Lenin, all peoples are doomed to the democratic path. But this path is dramatic. The political history of Russia testifies to this. Modern world XXI century is gradually moving towards this self-organization, where the state becomes a regulator, not a tyrant. the main task the formation of civil society is to make the person - the citizen - more important than the bureaucratic machine. To educate a person with the qualities of responsibility and interest in government affairs. Such a person must have a sufficient level of political and legal culture. Of course, this process is difficult and gradual. A new model of relations between citizens and the state is gradually being built in our country. In recent years, various kinds of civil initiatives and initiatives have become widespread, and associations of people based on professional and other criteria have emerged. Valid for several years Public Chamber, the purpose of which is to control the activities of government authorities, discuss pressing issues of a socio-economic and political-legal nature. For example, problems of national-ethnic migration, etc.

The formation of civil society in Russia is a very difficult process. Various complications and contradictions arise here. One can note a certain inertia among the mass of the population, a dislike for initiatives, as well as the apolitical nature of some of the citizens and a significant fixation on personal and everyday problems. One cannot help but recall the long-standing habit of many people - distrust of those in power.

Among the most serious factors hindering the formation of civil society is the resistance of the oligarchs, the most super-rich layer of our population. These are the owners of huge assets, property, capital. And on this basis, those who have real power in the country. They are the ones who fear the institutions of civil society like fire, which in theory should control the activities of large firms and companies. In addition, specialist experts point to such a negative factor as the predominance of executive power and especially the dominance of bureaucrats. One of the sociologists accurately said: “A bureaucracy that emerges from the people devours its own people.”

Speaking about the ways and means of forming civil society in Russia, some scientists attach great importance to private property and a market economy. Private estates, their own houses, dachas and other real estate orient people towards maintaining responsibility, order and well-being. We are talking about the growth of a large class of owners called the “middle class”. This point of view is disputed by some expert specialists ( G. Gumnitsky ). Author of this teaching aid fully shares this theoretical position. What are the objections and arguments? As already noted, freedom of private property is one of the postulates of bourgeois liberal ideology. This ideology has gone bankrupt and is experiencing a deep crisis. As history shows, the economic activity of owners, as well as in the politics that serve them, leaves no room for morality, for its principles of goodness, the duty of humanity, justice, for caring for each person, for the people as a whole.

The complete foolishness of liberalism and the “reform” that has been carried out in our country since the beginning of the 90s can be judged by such facts as the collapse of the USSR, the transformation of Russia from a great power into a raw materials appendage of the West, the decline of industry, science and culture, etc. d. A significant part of the population was seized by a passion for profit, money, primitive consumerism became the highest values, the ideal was personal interest and the corresponding unlimited individual freedom. And at the heart of all this is the cult of private property and self-sufficient market relations not subject to state regulation.

As our practice convincingly demonstrates real life, liberal, pro-Western ideology has not justified itself. Moreover, it turned out to be not only immoral, but also unproductive. Here a legitimate question arises: which path is constructive, which ideology or philosophy is true and progressive?

Recently, in scientific literature and political journalism, statements have been made different variants answer to this pressing question. Some scientists suggest returning to socialist model, based on Marxist theory. Moreover, taking into account new, modern conditions. The strengthening project is also justified role of the state in socio-economic processes. This is the position of the so-called statists (G.A. Zyuganov, R.I. Khasbulatov). Gained considerable popularity convergence theory, according to which the direction of Russia's development should be carried out through a combination of planning and the market.

End of introductory fragment.