Directory of RSS feeds
Statistics

RSS feeds in the directory: 2817

Added today: 0

Added yesterday: 0

Company / Other

The dead ends of bourgeois technicism

The scientific approach 25.05.2016 at 11:16

Site news

"the Progress of mankind, — it is noted in the Political report of the Central Committee of the CPSU XXVII Congress of the party, is directly related to the scientific and technological revolution. It matured gradually, then, in the last quarter century, give rise to a huge increment of material and spiritual possibilities of man. Possibilities are two-fold. There is a qualitative leap in the productive forces of humanity. But a qualitative leap in means of destruction, in the military, for the first time in the history of "giving" a person's physical ability to destroy all life on Earth.

In different socio-political systems scientific-technical revolution turns into its different facets and consequences." Becoming one of the most important areas of competition and confrontation between the two world socio-economic system, it inevitably POPs up and on one of the Central places of the current ideological struggle. The monopoly bourgeoisie, adapting to a new environment, seeks to use advances in science and technology to consolidate its rule, social maneuvering, increasing the exploitation of workers and oppression. The ideological design of the bourgeoisie attempts to use the results of the str to the apologetics of the capitalist system and the struggle with socialism are the different kinds technicist justify the historical process.

So, one of the leading representatives of these doctrines the American sociologist L. white at the time, argued: "the Social system in its true nature — the phenomena of second order and depend on technical systems... Technology — independent value, the social system — the value zavisimaya". 3.Brzezinski also wrote that the modern society becomes a society which is culturally, psychologically, socially and economically formed under the influence of electronics...".

as the deployment of NTR philosophical and sociological aspects of the development of it has ceased to be a matter of individual professionals; to their solution connected research centers of the capitalist countries. In particular, its futurological studies employed dozens of scientific organizations. Despite differences in detail, research the bourgeois experts, their forecasts are based on a single methodological basis. The title of the book "French sociologist Jean Fourastie the "Great hope of the XX century" (the defining force of civilization it promoted a technique that "pushes" into the background mode of ownership and all legal and political factors) was very symbolic to define the essence of the search, typical of bourgeois social science of our day. The largest American futurologist O. Toffler in the book "Futureshock", which became a milestone in the development of the ideas of technicism, describes the history of humanity over the last 50 thousand years. Conventionally, dividing this period by 800 generations, counting the one at 62, he writes that the first 650 generations spent their lives in caves. Only within the last 70 generations, people have learned through the creation of writing systems to pass on to their successors information, marking the beginning of civilization. Only 6 of the last generations are printed books, 2 — motors, 90% of all scientists who ever lived "and the Earth, are our contemporaries. Changes are increasing in an unprecedented degree, and today, in the 800th generation, the first knower of scientific and technological progress, humanity is already at the threshold of the era of superindustrial.

Correctly reflecting the fact of accelerating scientific-technical progress of the bourgeois experts, however, distort the nature and causes of social development. "This technique definitely writes the American sociologist C., Hetzler, is a socio-technical intelege (reason for existing) that contains the seeds of its own growth, koto - rye can in favorable conditions to grow independently of the other, more superficial social and economic factors with which they adopted to associate". Choosing his banner "fetish of mechanization", causing all social processes to changes in technical bases, bourgeois writers, therefore, speak in terms of "technological determinism".

the Basic methodological assumption common to all concepts based on the principle of "technological determinism", are reduced to the following provisions:

- humans and technology are considered as two independent, fundamentally alien to each other the forces acting on different laws in different line areas;

- completely ignored the dialectic of productive forces and production relations, the specific socio-economic conditions, social structure, within which are scientific and technical progress;

- usually very narrowly interpreted the contents of the category "productive forces", the focus is only on the value of engineering, technology, management, and excluded the recognition of the leading role of the main productive forces of society — working, employee.

- idealization of the values of technical factors comes sometimes to direct techniques of a fetish, preaching fatalism, powerlessness of man, who only de to adapt to the logic of scientific-technical progress;

- is clearly expressed alitissa jet, putting the development of civilization in direct dependence on subjective activities, talents, knowledge, experience and qualifications of a few individuals — professionals, managers, of the meritocrats (From lat. meritis — the dignity of merit; meritocracy — the power of decent), etc.

Epistemological roots of those concepts revealed by K. Marx and F. Engels. "Namegoeshere individuals," they wrote, as opposed to the active spirit to the rest of humanity as the uninhabited mass of matter". "Technological determinism" became the basic principle (at least, in essential character) is not only the bourgeois concepts of NTR, but many variations of political science, such as theory, "computer democracy" doctrine "technical-neo-colonialism" etc. Even essential aspects of the spiritual life of society of the bourgeois ideologists often interpreted from the standpoint of technical determinants. Largely such, for example, the concept of "mass culture", the recipes of manipulation of public opinion, the formula "de-ideologization" of social life, etc. in short, a bourgeois ideology "after many centuries of neglect and even contempt, said English sociologist R. Buchanan, — has achieved for itself recognition as a necessary part of modern industrial civilization".

Relying on the authority of scientific and technological revolution, the social scientists of the West justify the idea of a defining impact on the modern world the process of industrial growth. The essence of this approach is clearly expressed by George. K - Galbraith: "All of the factors that, as previously thought, depends the revolution, lost its significance. After that, the theme of revolution can hardly serve even the subject of scientific debate." The ideological meaning of technicism openly exposed, and O. Toffler: transfer to superindustrial, according to his statement, "destroys the significance of the great conflict of the twentieth century — the conflict between capitalism and communism".

With the platform of "technological determinism" of the current strength and prospects of historical development of social neytralizuya, deprived of political overtones. Science and technology are characterized as phenomena, it is not associated with the mode of production, political system, they are supposedly independent of social programmes and plans. Supporters of the ideas of post-industrialism declare science a constitutive part of the whole chain of social transformation, which resulted in the shift of capitalist competition, the greed will come if the humanistic values of creative intelligence.

"post-industrial civilization," wrote, for example, one of the founders of this doctrine D. bell, can be neither capitalist nor sotsialistichekoy; it opens up a new dimension of social life, absorbing both costazuela system. "A new social system, he argued, is not necessarily "hatch" from the old, as claimed by Marx. The roots of post-industrial society must be sought in the influence of science on the production of... Science as a half-Autonomous power dissolves in a capitalism".

the Impact of scientific and technological revolution on society, of course, more and more widespread. History has fully confirmed the position of Karl Marx on the acceleration of development of science and technology, material production as social progress. The global economic potential by the end of the century, writes Professor at the University of southern California, E. D., Perkins, will increase in 20 times in comparison with its beginning, even if the growth rate is low (about 2.8%). In anticipation of the end of the current Millennium with attempts to sum up the preliminary results of human activity are favored by many professionals. The interests of the bourgeois ideologists, however, force them to beat these facts with the class, often directly anti-Communist stance.

So, saying that "in the coming decades, people in developed countries will experience a mutation, comparable only with the transition from animal to man", 3. Brzezinski uses this provision in order to first of all to diminish the significance of the social revolutions: the end of the century, in his words, Robespierre and Lenin will seem no more than "moderate reformers".

For Marxists there is no doubt that modern civilization has put science on one of the key areas that directly affect the social progress, turning it into an integral part of social action. Would be insufficient to characterize the high prestige of science only its cognitive, theoretical specific advantages. Turning into a direct productive force of society, it creates a modern industry, is equipping the home. "Scientific-technical progress, — emphasized in the documents of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU, naturally, can not reverse the laws of social development, its social meaning and content, but it has a huge impact on all processes running in the world, its contradictions".

the Failure of the latest schemes "technological determinism" is not that their creators see the ability of science to influence the various spheres of social and cultural life, and that they absolyutiziruyut, hypertrophy of the possibility of this influence. "First capital," says, for example, the concept of a "microelectronic revolution" by D. Moore, — is finally able to be generous with workers without great losses to themselves. A myriad of new kinds of industry will be built on the basis of the electric clock billion travelers, which will gradually become available to all American citizens, and the nation will gradually begin to enter into luxury as the slave democracy of the Athenian type. Aristocracy will obediently serve hundreds of millions of electronic robots with silicon brains".

According to the reasoning of the bourgeois ideologists, until recently, the revolution only took the form of political power. Now, in terms of NTR starts the global process of "social transformation" that carries with it the possibility of solving traditionally difficult problems. The movement of society, according to this logic, is carried out spontaneously, regardless of the class struggle, without any actual change in property relations, in the total structure of social relations; social change is actually seen as automatically following them for the requirements of the technical imperative.

in Other words, the socially transformative power of science bourgeois ideologists interpretiruya as a social determinant, i.e., "all social changes and the course of community development derive only from the internal capabilities of science." Fully abstracting from the social and theoretical conditions of the development of scientific knowledge, they do not see or do not want to see that under capitalism the social function of science modificeres the narrow class character of the appropriation and utilization of its results that it does not determine the development of society, and society defines its role, focus and value. The authors technicist doctrines so the actual content of NTR processes is presented in a mystified form.

Industrial relations of the bourgeois ideologists assign at best a secondary, passive role. So, right D. bell writes that the ambivalence associated with the separation of management from ownership, as well as the successes in the development of technology strongly putting forward the productive forces, substitute "industrial relations as a cornerstone of the social system". The relative autonomy of science and technology, their autonomy in the framework of the progress of the productive forces does not mean that they can develop regardless of the nature of industrial relations. Science and technology do not create economic laws which exist objectively and the mechanism of their action is determined by the type and form of ownership on means of production and associated relations of exchange, distribution and consumption, i.e. the whole system of industrial relations.

K. Marx, study on the application of machinery and the development of large industry in the first volume of "Capital" devoted about one third of the entire text. He specifically pointed out: "Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature, the direct process of production of his life, however, and his social conditions of life...". K. Marx and F. Engels first gave a correct definition of the role and place of technology in society. This was made possible the discovery of the materialist conception of history, according to which the basis of existence lies in material production. It classics of Marxism pointed out the two sides: the relation of people to nature and their relation to each other.

the First attitude is revealed in the production when the labor process in action are the productive forces, one of their items is a technique. This attitude shows the degree to which one acquires by the forces of nature, the level of knowledge of its laws. However, people can carry out the production, only United in a known manner for joint work and for sharing the results of their activities. "To produce, is indicated by K. Marx, people enter into definite connections and relations, and only within these social connections and relations does their relation to nature, a place of trade". These relations, Marx identified as the relations of production. They are the social form of production and is defined as the social nature of the productive forces (including technology) and social consequences of their development.

the Productive forces and the relations of production constitute the mode of production; together with the political and ideological superstructure it is a holistic social organism — a socio-economic formation. The natural-historical process of occurrence, development and change of socio-economic formations., is determined by the dialectics of development of the productive forces and production relations. V. I. Lenin noted that it was the doctrine of socio-economic formations put an end to the chaos and arbitrariness that prevailed in views of society in sociology domankova that only an understanding of the development of socio-economic formations as the natural historical process has created the possibility of a truly scientific sociology.

the Representatives of "technological determinism", ignoring the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production, reduce the laws of social development to the laws of the art, besides the idealistically interpreted. In fact, in their construction technique does not depend on anyone, society dictates its own laws. It turns into an abstract concept that is manipulated and, based on their subjective attitudes, sociologists technicity. All this is evident, for example, in the famous "axial principle" by D. bell. Continuing the line of M. Weber on the subjective attitude of social cognition, he argues that sociological theories are not a reflection of social reality. They — only a "conceptual schema" imposed by the researcher in the empirical material with the aim of streamlining it and giving it meaning. These schemes are, in principle, by the thoughts of Bella, equal, differ from each other only in the matter for some arbitrarily chosen axis is considered reality. Conceptual scheme, being, in this sense, a way of making the logical order, is neither true nor false: it can be either useful or not.

Stating that the historical development of a society can be considered on different "axes", bell believes that there are different sequences of such development. This can be, for example, "feudalism, capitalism, socialism", if the basis is to elect the "axis of ownership" but can be "pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrial society", and both lines are equally as subjective "ideal types". Obviously, the meaning of the doctrine of post-industrialism is reduced in this aspect to prove that the analysis by Marx of the objective due to changing historical modes of production is not objectively scientific reflection of the real course of history, or in other words, if the objective laws of social development, opened by the founders of Marxism-Leninism, are merely notional "ideal types".

In bourgeois sociology from the end of the last century firmly established the canons of the so-called idiopaticescoe method, according to which there is a fundamental opposition between the methods of (and purposes) of natural and social Sciences.

If in the natural and mathematical Sciences the method is of General nature and aims to identify certain patterns that exist in nature, the notion of "regularity" in the realm of social life do not apply, therefore, the method of social science cannot but be subjective in nature. Arguing that the validity as it is not a part of any one concept, ideographically method makes philosophy and sociology, a strong stream of irrationalism and agnosticism. References to the "uniqueness" of historical events and the alleged consequent inability of the formulation of historical laws became one of the main arguments of the bourgeois social scientists in their fight against Marxism.

Despite the fact that, at first glance, the authors technicist concepts trying to Express the social development through the prism of certain (albeit misinterpreted) patterns, and in fact they did not escape the common vices inherent in the subjective school in sociology. So, the founder of technocratic trends in the United States T. Veblen, setting a rigid dominant technicism, at the same time argued that ultimately the springs of social development are rooted in the instincts, habits ("second human nature"), and from this point of view the prospects and ways of historical process are completely unpredictable. Similar provisions were made by the famous French sociologist R. Aron. His book "Disappointment in progress. Dialectics of modern society", he called for revision of some optimistic interpretations of the ways of development of civilization, saying that the source of the troubles and turmoil of modern society (hence the latest social science) is an inherent human "ambition of Prometheus".

Mankind, Aaron has made impressive progress in the conquest of nature, guided bequeathed by Prometheus in the ancient myth of tradition. But man, Aron attacks on the rationalist understanding of social regularities, dared to use the experience of their conquests on social life, and in our days, in terms of NTR, the collapse of this attempt became apparent. The book he ended with the following conclusion: "People never knew the story worked, and there is no reason to believe that they know it now. Well, now thinking more about the future and not view it as something predefined. This kind of thinking must be associated with a call to action based on an understanding of the limits of our knowledge no less than the identity. -No technical expert cannot create a society of the future... What this society will be is impossible to predict".

"Technological determinism" is a methodological principle of the subjective-idealistic sense, he opposes the Marxist-Leninist approach to consideration of social phenomena. The inability to highlight a key element of a social system, ignoring the method of production does not allow the sociologist to attain to technicists of science in theoretical constructs, so their systems remain at the level of creating a priori, arbitrary schemes of social development. The deepening crisis of the capitalist system could not fail to affect the status of all the technicist concepts; the inability of the technocratic reasoning to develop recommendations "conflict-free" development of bourgeois society is increasingly forced his ideologues in search of additional hidden reserves for the protection of the capitalist system, rooted in "technological determinism". "Optimistic" a charge typical of bourgeois conceptions of NTR at its initial stages, has increasingly started to overlap with the sentiments of technophobia and antiscientism.

antiscientific concepts In the social pessimism of the modern bourgeoisie acts in a perverted form of technical pessimism that sees evil civilization in the "demonology" of equipment, everywhere is totally dominant and subordinate, crushes under itself the person. "The rule today, wrote already in 1964 Marcuse in his one Dimensional man" — perpetuated and expanded not only through technique, but also as a technique, and last the mighty legitimizes the growing political power, which absorbs all spheres of culture. Unceasing dynamics of technical progress was filled with political content, and Logo techniques has turned into a Logo permanent enslavement."

the Scientific and technological progress, proponents of antiscientism, because he inevitably destroys the conditions of existence of the living, inherent in the "tragic dialectics" by which progress with the necessity of destroying its basis and turns into degradation. "Technical — in the words of X. Redeker, — becomes an idea, a Maxim that would dominate all the real needs... People marked with technology like the generation of the elect "AROD wore on his forehead the sign of Jehovah in both cases, as a symbol of what they and their lives voluntarily surrenders made by God." In "technological determinism", thus, are woven into the fatalistic motive, as defining force, towering over acting individuals and over history in General, sociologists technicity portray them as something inevitable, like a rock, and people actually interpret as puppets, are used to accomplish predestined purpose.

the American sociologist L. Mumford has created an impressive image of the "mega-machines" — the beast "does not set itself any goal," subjugates the people, turning them into obedient robots. Science and technology do not give any guarantee of human liberation; but turn into a force of permanent dominant "ad society, regardless of the nature of the socio-economic system. He even accused Marxism in the "overly optimistic cult of technology", pulling in a counterweight of hope to the coming of "some sort of sudden religious insight". Proponents of the pessimistic wing in the sociology of technicism promote the idea about the horrors of the mechanized world, killing art, morality, spiritual in man, see in the technical progress of the XX century only its shadow side. The future, according to them, hopeless, and no matter what will serve as his symbol: an ominous nuclear explosion or a photon spaceship. If the war will destroy all life on the planet, the expansion of technical civilization will destroy the intelligence, morality, spirituality.

In mystified form here reflected the real state of contemporary capitalism, the objective of which is paradox that he drew the evil factors themselves are designed to bring benefit to mankind. Science and technology in this world of powerful means of ridding the people from material deprivation and cultural constraints are increasingly becoming the tool of their economic, social and spiritual enslavement. "The question, in what order will be used the fruits of the technological revolution, — it is noted in the new edition of the CPSU Program," has become one of the most important in the contemporary socio-political struggle. Science and technology of our time provide the opportunity for bountiful wealth, to create the material conditions for the prosperity of society and the advancement of the individual. And they, these creations of the mind and of human hands, — the power of class selfishness, for the enrichment of the ruling in the capitalist world elite turn against him. This is the glaring contradiction with which humanity has come to the threshold of the XXI century".

Marx revealed and analyzed in detail the contradictory nature of scientific and technical progress under capitalism. "In our time, — he noted, — everything seems to be fraught with its opposite. We see that machines with the ability to cut and make human labor more productive, bring people hunger and exhaustion. New, previously unknown sources of wealth, by some strange, incomprehensible charms turn into sources of poverty. Victory equipment as if purchased at the cost of moral degradation. It seems that, as mankind subjugates nature, man becomes the slave of other people or a slave to his own meanness. Even the pure light of science can't seem to Shine except on the dark background of ignorance. All our discoveries and all our progress as would lead to the fact that material forces are endowed with intellectual life, and human life, deprived of its intellectual side, is reduced to the extent of simple material forces. This antagonism between modern industry and science on the one hand, and modern poverty and decay on the other, this antagonism between the productive forces and social relations of our epoch is palpable, the inevitable and indisputable fact". The contradictions and antagonisms of machine production, which would be inseparable from social conditions, concludes Marx, does not exist, because they are invoked not just by the fact of machines and their capitalist use.

Bourgeois sociologists deprive these antagonisms of certainty the historical and transitory character, bring them to the "eternal" essence of technology and material production in General. Historical statics of antiscientism objectively makes its members with people who do not believe in the inevitability of the indigenous social renewal of human existence. In sociology of "technological pessimism" contains many of the critical attacks against modern capitalism, unable to put the achievements of science and technology at the service of man. But this inability of bourgeois authors absolutized and declared the General. That's why technical pessimism can not act as a very subtle, indirect apology of capitalism, apology, acceptable to those "who rejects the bourgeois ideals, not finding, however, other positive social orientation. This pessimism is looking like an enduring, substantial Foundation of social evil that prevails in capitalist society. He calls for the lost bourgeois illusions take a look at the capitalist system with the height of the tragic worldview, in order to see everything (and so not alone capitalism) is the same, intractable, evil always triumphant".

Scenarios of social development, the authors draw ideas of technophobia, not impartial in the class relation. With their help, the ideologues of capitalism are trying to spread the mood of despair, to convince the masses the futility of the struggle to change the social order, for socialism, since technical progress is everywhere as if turns into a destruction of the planet, the enslavement of man by machine. The meaning of such ideas, as well as other technicist concepts lies therefore in the fact that, in the words of Marx, "technological frames - to give the public a specific form, i.e. the capitalist form...". Moreover, the range of technical ideas of pessimism are often embedded and openly anti-Communist inclusion. An influential group of the most reactionary of the world antiscientist ogranichennogo, systematically managed social production, created by the socialism, portrayed the worst incarnation of all the negative trends of scientific and technological development, as this world is, on the logic that constructs like the ability to capture monopoly over the technology by a small group of bureaucrats that dominate the "tightly controlled society". "The Soviet model of socialism" can be neither one of the options for the future, because it was developed on old technical base, scientific and technological revolution and bears the imprint of "obsolete forms of industrialization". Avoiding the silence of the world, the international significance of the construction of the new world, the main defect of real socialism, the bourgeois ideologists declare the creation of societies based on collective ownership.

This source gives the stamp of impeccable anti-Communist views — from the liberal, in the spirit of social-reformist model "democratic", "humane", "market" socialism or revisionist recipes "constructive" revolution, developing solely on the basis of the robotics, to the frankly reactionary fabrications of collectivism as the world rough egalitarianism, contempt for the individual. And in the works of sociologists such as F. pride, F. Singleton, K. fry, K. Bush and others are attacks on tending to their liberation of the proletariat, which de "articlericin" in nature, because its existence is associated with the development of large-scale production and born to them "psychology of growth", and hence the reluctance to limit their needs, which leads to the approach of "ecospas" of the planet.

Not coincidentally, it is obvious that such great repercussions in the capitalist world caused recommendations developed under the auspices of the established in 1968 by the Vice-President of Olivetti A. Pechchei Rimskogo club in his first report (one cannot deny the serious significance of a number of studies carried out in the framework of the club of Rome, as well as the humanistic orientation of many of their recommendations. We are talking about the other side of the reports of the representatives of the club of Rome, which is connected with a natural one-sided interpretations of the fundamental problems of social development and which is actively used by-Marxism in order to noveishego apologetics of capitalism). The authors close to them, researchers are thought about the need to transition from extended reproduction to a mere dispensation of life on the "ecological basis," the attention of the economic development to a "zero growth". After years under the cult of growth, the researchers write conservative Giani O, and N. Loberg, "the mood has changed dramatically: the growth is no longer perceived as a self-evident condition of human existence, humanity will have to relearn to live without him." Such views are shared by well-known sociologists and economists R. miles, E. Mishan, S. Hurst etc. the Growth of economic potential, in their opinion, kills the root of the meaning of social development, because it leads to "entropy and disorder, reduces the sphere of vital activity of the unborn generation.

Attempts to present culprits in the destruction of the biosphere, economic crises, social tensions science and technology untenable. They seek to divert attention from the conditions of production development, from the indigenous social progress question: what is the purpose, the driving motive of a particular method of production? The rejection of the decision of this question naturally leads to the fact that many bourgeois sociologists being re-evaluated (in the spirit of O. Spengler and A. Toynbee), not only scientific and technical but also social progress. "By its very nature, says, for example, the American scientist G. Stent, — progress... self-limiting. The peculiarity of the effects of progress is that they reduce the adaptive and evolutionary value of the will to action... the Rise of the philosophy of contemplative indifference in our time has done this paralysis of will is so obvious that one is tempted to conclude that progress on the outcome". Without denying the seriousness facing the world today problems of nature, overcoming negative consequences of the scientific and technological revolution, Marxism-Leninism proceeds from the fact that the solution to these and other global problems primarily associated with the subordinate objective of social production in the interests of present and future generations of people, and not with the suspension of technical progress.

the Culprit for the exacerbation of these problems is the capitalist system with its absolute power of the ruling elite, with total exploitation of material and spiritual resources of society. Socialism, establishing a new type of civilization, provides for the systematic regulation of all human activities in the interests of the man himself. Solution retractable logic of scientific-technical development issues is not in this sense an exception. Of course, "it would be wrong to assume that the technological revolution does not put forward the problems and before the socialist society. Its development, as experience shows, is associated with the improvement of social relations, restructuring of thinking, the development of a new psychology, a statement of dynamism as a way of life, norms of life. It strongly requires constant revision, updating of existing management schemes. In other words, (scientific-technical revolution not only opens up opportunities, but also increases the demands to all organizations internal and international life".

Not by chance, developing plans to accelerate the socio-economic development of the country, the Communist party pays great attention to scientific and technical progress as the main ways of improvement of a socialist society, subordinates NTR Ministry. As for the motives of antiscientism, which in various combinations are played today bourgeois ideology, it is quite clear that they are a strong indication of this crisis of ideology, crisis of society, unable to cope with the magnitude of the technological revolution, with the development of the productive forces, which become increasingly narrow confines of private ownership and production relations. The apocalyptic future scenario drawn by bourgeois futurologists, reflects the deepening of the ideological and moral degradation of capitalism, a sense of impending doom and inevitable death.

Is beginning to understand even some representatives of bourgeois science. It is noteworthy, in particular, the statement of R. Heilbroner. "Technology-driven science is "just a new stage in the development of the technology," he writes in the book "Between capitalism and socialism." — It leads to a different worldview, the idea of non - capitalist type of society. In its main features these representations reflect the need for scientific control and in conscious control of the surrounding conditions, including social.

This worldview is the opposite of the philosophy of capitalism, which links the control of the surrounding conditions with the mechanism of spontaneous uncoordinated actions of individual producers and consumers". It is no coincidence that all the bourgeois growing number of researchers in recent years, trying in his argument to go beyond the strict framework of "technological determinism", as is increasingly evident in the evolution of the same reports to the club of Rome in which more refers to "human qualities", "goals for mankind" etc.

O. Toffler in his work "the Third wave" also criticizes the flaws of modern technological civilization, designating it as "indust-reality". "Indust-reality," he writes, "have created their own prison — industrial way of thinking, which perversely interpreted or ignored all that could not be expressed in quantitative categories, which is often praised in mortal fear of criticism and punished imagination, that reduced people to the role of the elementary particles of protoplasm and ultimately sought a technical solution to any problem". A conservatively tuned American theorist F. Meyer even announced "technological determinism one of the most notorious heresies of contemporary thinking." In bourgeois ideology began to establish so-called "hostexecutiontime" vision, a kind of flawed as conservatism and liberalism. "Postethnicity" criticized "technological determinism", rightly gave him the blame that he ignores the role of man in social development, his inner, spiritual world, a system of moral norms and values, puts man .the position of "cog" in a hostile and alien to the socio-economic mechanism. This naturally led to growing attention to bourgeois thought towards others a person's socio-economic and political institutions, the spiritual sphere of life of society to the global problems. In other words, bourgeois sociology has tried to give its response to the process of increasing the role and importance of human factor in social development.

This process is objective in nature. It is directly linked to the rapid development of science and technology, bringing unprecedented weokie requirements to the main element of the productive forces — the man, the worker. Its improvement is an indispensable condition of scientific and technical progress, which in essence represents the scope of human creativity. Dramatically increased social activity of the masses, the working class in modern watershed era. "The larger the scale, the greater the breadth of the historical action, — has emphasized V. I. Lenin, — the greater the number of people that these actions involved, and, conversely, the deeper the transformation that we want to produce, the greater the need to raise interest in it and the conscious attitude, to convince of this need more and more millions and tens of millions".

What these conditions look original positions "postanalytical"? "We may," writes, for example, the author of the concept of "teledemocracy" T. Becker, is to carry out a radical turn to the right and go by rail to totalitarianism... But it is possible to prefer to go towards more and more pure democracy and involve an increasing number of people, exposing, dissolving, decentralize power as never before". The economic mechanism of management of the bourgeois ideologists propose, therefore, to be supplemented with social and political management, modifying to meet the changing requirements of the essential structure of the social organism.

the Objectives of similar projects in most cases are, however, is to help to create particular types of social adaptations, which, as their authors hope, to adequately address the problems a capitalist society faces and will increasingly face-to-face. We are talking about the desire to develop a framework for regulating social processes, class strategies and tactics to maintain the capitalist system that subjects the targeted class influence of the bourgeoisie socio-political development, hoping to postpone the impending crash.

O. Toffler explicitly States: "the Most important political issue is that our major political institutions of government have become obsolete." Linking the prospects of transition to democracy of the twenty-first century" with the necessity of "overcoming" of technocracy, he, like other representatives of bourgeois liberalism, the problem reduces to the implementation of partial reforms that do not affect, but only masking the absolute power of monopoly capital. Conservatives are generally in the attacks on technocratic thinking see first of all, a handy tool once again to strike "was bureaucratized society", i.e. again to raise the banner of bourgeois individualism, to protect the "value" of a market economy, oppose government intervention in the "spontaneous order".

the Technicist and "postdenominational" line, in bourgeois sociology are thus identical from the point of view of the class of the entity, its ideological purpose. Should not exaggerate their differences and conceptually. Overcoming "technological determinism" "postexecute" leaving only the application.unrealized claim. The springs of social and political changes, was unnecessary studies and accounting which they insist, in their concepts often boil down to the same technological factors that in the tradition tional schemes of bourgeois industrialism.

Not by chance one of the most popular in our days in the West of political doctrines is defined by its authors as the concept of "computer democracy". So, John. Pelton, Deputy Director of the International organizations of communication satellites "Intelsat", in "a Global conversation: the Union of the computers, world communications and man" writes that "the social conditions in the age of scientific and technological revolution depend primarily on the "right" use the "right" technology the "right" consumers." Expanding this idea, he continues, that the development of "telecomputer-energy" leads to the emergence of "information space", "common information society" in which social antagonisms dissolve into new social and democratic institutions, created electronically and "vysokotarifitsirovannyh to technological innovations and the requirements of efficiency, standardization and centralization."

the Expert of the company IBM John. Martin also writes that the model of work, leisure, education, industry will be converted primarily under the impact of the development of telecommunications: "telecommunications and their products will change the entire social fabric". Similar statements are contained in the works of prominent sociologists, Krauja G., E. Masuda, J. Moore and other representatives of the theory of "information society".

Marxism-Leninism is radically at odds with bourgeois concepts in the assessment of the role and nature of scientific and technical progress and prospects of society.. Pointing "the way to a comprehensive, comprehensive study of the process of occurrence, development and decline of socio-economic formations", he examines "the totality of all contradictory tendencies" that brings them "to the specified conditions of life and production of various classes of society," eliminates subjectivism and arbitrariness in the selection of a single "dominant" ideas or in their interpretation of the", reveals the roots, without exception, all ideas and all the different trends in the state of material productive forces". The nature of scientific progress, therefore, cannot be determined without the recognition of conditionality nature of the existing social system.

Between the company and NTR have established a relationship whole and part, arise when the type of interaction and mutual influence, not causal relations. NTR generated by the whole course of development of material production, technology, science, political institutions. But, becoming a reality, she is having increasing feedback effects on social processes that produced it. Technical developments make niezbednym a radical revolution in social relations, i.e. the transition to a new social order. Improved machinery, — Lenin wrote, — concentrating means of production and circulation and obbsesive process of labour in capitalist enterprises, more and more quickly creates the material possibility of replacing the capitalist production relations of the Communist — i.e. social revolution...".

no matter How great the accomplishment, grow on the basis of scientific and technological revolution, no matter how grandiose its prospects, they are still incomparable with those enormous implications for all spheres of public life that are created as a result of the socialist revolution.

This means that the basis for social progress of mankind at the present stage the natural process is not the technological revolution and the ever-expanding and deepening the transition from capitalism to socialism, and then to a Communist perspective. Therefore, due to the deployment of NTR revolutionary renewal of the world does not lose its force and its meaning, not pushed to the back burner, as it wished to adopt the bourgeois ideologists. On the contrary, socialist and Communist transformation of the world increasingly comes to the forefront of the struggle for social progress of mankind. For only this transformation allows to fully deploy the NTR for the benefit of man, to give a powerful additional incentives for its development.

Source: Criticism of modern bourgeois concepts of state-monopoly capitalism