Introduction

Labor is an expedient activity of people aimed at creating material and cultural values. Labor is the basis and indispensable leave, changing and adapting it to their needs, people not only ensure their existence, but also create conditions for the development and progress of society.

Human interaction with objects of labor and means of labor is predetermined by the level of automation and technology of machine and labor processes. As you know, labor is the basis of human life and development. The need to work is inherent in human nature itself as a natural condition for its existence. Equally necessary is work in terms of its role in society.

Not a single object theoretical research does not occupy such a significant place in science as human labor. The place of labor is determined by its significance for the existence and development of the individual and the whole society. Therefore, all social sciences and part of the natural sciences deal with labor problems. Human labor is also an object of the sociology of labor.

The main job functions include:

• ?work determines the conditions of human life;
• ?labor acts as a source of social wealth;
• ?labor - an element of the development of productive forces;
• ?Labor forms a person and determines his development as a person.

The social essence of labor, its nature and content

Any labor process presupposes the existence of an object of labor, a means of labor and labor itself as an activity to give the object of labor the properties necessary for a person.

The objects of labor are all that labor is aimed at, which undergoes changes in order to acquire useful properties and thereby satisfy human needs.

The means of labor is what a person uses to influence the objects of labor. These include machines, mechanisms, tools, fixtures and other tools, as well as buildings and structures that create the necessary conditions For effective use these guns.

The means of production are a combination of means of labor and objects of labor.

Technology is a way of influencing the objects of labor, the procedure for using tools of labor.

As a result of the completion of the labor process, products of labor are formed - the substance of nature, objects or other objects that have the necessary properties and are adapted to human needs.

The labor process is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon. The main forms of manifestation of labor are:

• - The cost of human energy. This is the psycho-physiological side of labor activity, expressed in the expenditure of energy from muscles, brain, nerves, and sense organs. A person's energy costs are determined by the severity of labor and the level of neuropsychological tension, they form such conditions as fatigue and weariness. Working capacity, human health and development depend on the level of human energy consumption.
• -Interaction of the worker with the means of production - objects and means of labor. This is the organizational and technological aspect of labor activity. It is determined by the level of technical equipment of labor, the degree of its mechanization and automation, the perfection of technology, the organization of the workplace, the qualifications of the worker, his experience, the techniques and methods of work used by him, etc. The organizational and technological parameters of the activity impose requirements on the special training of workers, on their qualification level.
• - The production interaction of workers with each other both horizontally (the relationship of participation in a single labor process) and vertically (the relationship between the leader and the subordinate) determines the organizational and economic side of labor activity. It depends on the level of division and cooperation of labor, on the form of labor organization - individual or collective, on the number of employees, on the organizational and legal form of the enterprise (institution).

The problems of labor activity are the object of study of many scientific disciplines: physiology and psychology of labor, labor statistics, labor law etc.

Studying the problem of the development of society is impossible without studying social entity labor, attitudes towards it, since everything that is necessary for the life and development of people is created by labor. Labor is the basis for the functioning and development of any human society, a condition for the existence of people independent of any social forms, an eternal, natural necessity; without it, human life itself was not possible.

Labor is primarily a process between man and nature, a process in which man, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature. It should also be taken into account that a person, influencing nature, using and changing it in order to create use values ​​necessary to satisfy his material and spiritual needs, not only creates material (food, clothing, housing) and spiritual benefits (art, literature, science ), but also changes its own nature. He develops his abilities and talents, develops the necessary social qualities in himself, forms himself as a person.

Labor is the root cause of human development. Man is obliged to work in the division of functions between the upper and lower limbs, the development of speech, the gradual transformation of the animal brain into a developed human brain, and the improvement of the sense organs. In the process of labor, a person's range of perceptions and ideas expanded, his labor actions gradually began to bear a conscious character.

Thus, the concept of "labor" is not only an economic, but also a sociological category, which is of decisive importance in characterizing society as a whole and its individual individuals.

Fulfilling labor functions, people interact, enter into relationships with each other, and it is labor that is the primary category that contains the whole variety of specific social phenomena and relations.

Social labor is the common base, the source of all social phenomena. It changes the position of various groups of workers, their social qualities, which manifests the essence of labor as a basic social process. The social essence of labor is most fully revealed in the categories of "character of labor" and "content of labor" (Fig. 1).

The nature of labor mainly reflects its social essence, according to which labor is always social. However, social labor consists of the labor of individuals, and in various socio-economic formations the relationship between individual and social labor is different, which determines the nature of labor. It expresses the socio-economic way of connecting workers with the means of labor, i.e. the process of interaction of a person with society and depends on for whom a person works. The nature of labor is determined by the characteristics industrial relations, under which labor is performed, and expresses the degree of their development. It reflects the socio-economic position of the working people in social production, the relationship between the labor of all societies and the labor of each individual worker. But the social forms of labor are determined by the type of production relations and are different in different social formations. For a more complete understanding of the social essence of labor, it is necessary to consider the change in its nature when social formations change.

The indicators of the nature of labor include the form of ownership, the attitude of workers to the means of production and their labor, distribution relations, the degree of social differences in the labor process, etc.

Content of labor expresses the distribution of functions (performing, registration and control, monitoring, adjustment, etc.) at the workplace and is determined by the totality of operations performed. It reflects the production and technical side of labor, shows the level of development of the productive forces, the technical methods of combining personal and material elements of production, i.e. reveals labor primarily as a process of human interaction with nature, means of labor in the process of labor activity.

This refers to the functional interaction itself, without taking into account the social relations that people necessarily enter into in the labor process. The content of labor is individual at each workplace, very mobile and changeable. It is characterized by the structure of the functions performed, diversity (monotonicity), the ratio of performing and organizational elements, physical and neuropsychic stress, the degree of intellectual tension, independence of activity, self-organization of labor, the presence of novelty (non-stereotyping, creativity) in decisions made regarding the production process, qualifications, complexity of labor (amount of knowledge general education and vocational training), socio-economic assessment of employees performing this species labor.

The achieved level of social division of labor gives rise to a complete interconnection of commodity producers and requires a comprehensive connection between them. The labor of a private producer becomes social when it receives recognition in the market through exchange.

In relation to the nature of labor, its content is a more particular concept. This finds justification even in the fact that the nature of labor (in particular, the division between physical and mental labor) expresses class differences, while the content only expresses intraclass differentiation.

Work of different content requires workers of different levels of professional knowledge, different degrees of participation in the management of the production process, different levels of general culture, and is reflected in the structure of their needs. Differences in the content of labor give rise to differences in the qualifications of workers, affect their attitude to work, the level of labor activity. The enrichment of the content of labor, the improvement of its conditions facilitate the work of a person, create an emotional and intellectual incentive for him, thereby increase his productivity and job satisfaction, and contribute to the development of the individual.

Depending on the differences in content, labor is classified into:

• ? creative and reproductive (stereotypical),
• ? physical and mental,
• ? simple and complex
• ? executive and organizational (management),
• ? self-organized and regulated.

creative work involves a constant search for new solutions, new problem definitions, active variation of functions, independence and uniqueness of movement towards the desired result.

In reproductive labor functions are repeated, remain stable, almost unchanged, i.e. its feature is the repeatability (template) of methods for achieving results. If creativity is characterized by obtaining something qualitatively new, which has never existed before, then reproductive activity is reduced to obtaining a "standard" result.

Physical work characterized by the direct interaction of a person with the means of labor, his direct involvement in technological process, performing functions in the labor process. All these signs are interconnected and only in unity give a characteristic physical labor as a social process.

Brainwork includes informational, logical, generalizing and creative elements, is characterized by the absence of direct interaction between the worker and the means of production and provides the needs of production in knowledge, organization and management.

In all branches of production, at every enterprise, the content of labor is embodied in certain professions, differing in functions and tools used in this case. A purely quantitative distribution of physical and mental functions cannot serve as a decisive criterion for recognizing one or another type of labor as mental or physical. Any labor process requires certain mental and physical efforts. The difference in the content of labor is based on the allocation of the function that is crucial for the effectiveness of this type of labor.

Simple- this is the work of an unskilled worker, i.e. unskilled labor.

Difficult- this is the work of an employee with a qualification i.e. skilled labor associated with additional costs for the training and education of a qualified employee. Qualification is the degree and type of professional training of an employee, the availability of knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for him to perform a certain job. Skilled work is usually determined by the category to which this type of work is assigned by the tariff and qualification directory.

The determining factor in changing the content of labor, eliminating its socio-economic differences is scientific and technological progress (STP), which manifests itself in production as a result of its mechanization and automation. At the same time, the structure of labor actions changes, the functions of direct impact on the subject of labor are transferred from the worker to mechanisms and machines, the costs of working time for the management and maintenance of equipment increase, the independence and responsibility of the labor actions of workers increase, the costs of muscle energy decrease and the costs of nervous and mental energy, the proportion of complex, skilled labor, its attractiveness and content increase.

The technical innovations of our time create a real basis for solving major social problems - the release of a person from the direct production process, overcoming the essential differences between mental and physical labor. At the same time, there are undesirable social phenomena in the sphere of work, related to the fact that changes in its content are often an unforeseen result of scientific and technological progress. The goal of developing new equipment and technology for a long time was to achieve only higher technical and economic performance. Shortcomings in the management of scientific and technical progress sometimes led to the impoverishment of the content of labor and the deterioration of working conditions.

IN modern conditions the management of scientific and technical progress presupposes the foresight of its social results and the achievement of systematically set social parameters of production. When drawing up plans for the introduction of new equipment, one should simultaneously plan the training of personnel capable of operating it, since workers previously employed manual labor are often unable or unwilling to work in newly emerging jobs without appropriate training. The growing intellectualization of labor does not always receive a positive assessment from the workers, since the introduction of new technology, as a rule, is associated with an increase in neuropsychic tension, increased responsibility, and strict discipline.

Thus, what is needed is not a simple renewal of production, but one that would give, along with the highest economic effect, a social one. This means that the reconstruction should be accompanied not only by the elimination of manual, monotonous, physical hard work, but also by the choice of technical directions in which working conditions would improve, the scope of skilled labor would expand and unskilled, hard and hazardous work would be reduced, training and retraining of personnel would be carried out, workplaces with intellectual loads, allowing to reveal the creative potential of a person. In turn, this will lead to the intensification of production due to the activation of the human factor.

In this regard, the problems of attestation of workplaces and their rationalization, technical re-equipment, improvement of training and retraining of workers, especially in new specialties that arise in connection with scientific and technological progress, the introduction of automation of technical and design work, are especially relevant.

HUMAN BEING

EM. Spirova

LABOR AS A CULTURAL PHENOMENON 6

Annotation. Labor is not in itself an unconditional facet of human existence. It has this status only when it is possible to speak about the preservation of human nature, about the uniqueness of man as a special kind of being. In the Protestant era, the dignity of labor is not simply affirmed and the meanness of idleness is emphasized. Labor is considered as a destiny, as a vocation of a person, as his destiny. The piety of the labor vocation is recognized. In Orthodoxy, as in Protestantism, respect for work occupied a significant place. It blessed the desire of man to make this world more comfortable, correlated with the worldly needs of man. At the same time, Orthodoxy insisted on generosity, strengthening the dignity of a person. Labor is an invariable companion of human existence. However, its role in different societies turns out to be special, dependent on the axiological dimension of a particular culture. Human activity itself has many levels; accordingly, the nature of labor, its complexity, and its specificity are also different. In any case, life without labor turns out to be an empty, noncommittal existence. Key words: labor, culture, Protestant ethos, capitalism, success, Western culture, usury, Orthodoxy, Russian culture, non-covetousness.

Labor as a cultural phenomenon

review. Labor is not in itself an unconditional side of human life. It has this status only in that case when it is possible to tell about preservation of human nature, about the uniqueness of the person as a special type of real. In a Protestant era the advantage of labor is not just approved and the meanness of idleness is emphasized. Labor is considered as destiny, as calling of the person, as his mission. The godly of labor calling admits. In Orthodoxy, as well as in Protestantism, the important place was taken by respect for labor. It blessed the aspiration of the person to make this world more well-planned, correlated with temporal needs of the person. At the same time Orthodoxy insisted on generosity, strengthening of dignity of the person. Labor is an invariable satellite of human life. However its role in different societies appears concrete culture, special, dependent on axiolog-ical measurement. Human activity has many levels, also the nature of work, its complexity, its specifics is respectively various. Anyway life without effort appears empty, noncommittal existence.

Keywords: labor, culture, Protestant, capitalism, success, western culture, usury, Orthodoxy, Russian culture, not money-making.

Protestant ethos

The path to success in the minds of the entrepreneurs of the past was associated with the order of values, in accordance with which the individual had to bring his real, own behavior. After the works of M. Weber in philosophical and economic literature, it became common place refer to prote-

6 The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (Project No. 14-03-00350а “Culture as a Crisis – Failure or Opportunity?”).

Stant's ethos as a strict condition for capitalism, its natural appearance on the historical stage. Why was capitalism formed in Europe at a particular period of its history? Because there was private property? Nothing happened: it existed before. Has the market finally taken shape? Yes, this is generally the oldest heritage of mankind. Perhaps a wider distribution of banks than in modern Russia? No, something similar existed in Babylon, Hellas, China and Rome. Studying numerous economic sources, M. Weber came to the conclusion that capitalism could have arisen in antiquity - in China, India, Babylon, Egypt, in the Mediterranean states of the distant past, the Middle Ages and the New Age. However, this did not happen.

In fact, for the birth of capitalism, only one component was missing - a special psychological attitude of people to specific ethical rules. They were just born along with Protestantism. The moral preferences of the people of that time, their attitudes towards life and received the name "Protestant ethos". People had shrines that determined their daily behavior. M. Weber posed the question in this way: what combination of circumstances led to the fact that it was in the West, and only here, that such cultural phenomena arose that developed - in a direction that received universal significance?

The world of economy has traditionally been considered devoid of poetry, dead, inert, limiting the high movements of the soul. The genius opposed the craftsman, the poet - the merchant. Capitalism achieved worldwide success because it brought poetry into the field of economics itself. That way of thinking, which subsequently found expression in many political and economic programs and met with the sympathy of the people, was despised in ancient times and in the Middle Ages as an unworthy manifestation of dirty stinginess. As M. Weber noted, such an attitude was also observed at the beginning of the 20th century. was characteristic of all those social groups that were least connected with the specific capitalist economy of that time or least adapted to it.

This powerful pathos of a serious puritanical (ascetic) appeal to the world, this attitude to worldly activity as a duty, would have been unthinkable in the Middle Ages. Now in our day we understand the enormous spiritual feat of Protestantism, which destroyed the ancient covenants. Penetrating into the depths of biblical wisdom, the interpreters of the new religion uttered something that found a response in the hearts of people. God does not assign you a life destiny. On the contrary, he expects from you asceticism, perseverance. The Almighty determines only his earthly destiny - work. The bird of luck is in your hands. Transform the earth. If you want wealth, get it. I blundered, God, of course, will forgive, but will not at all appreciate it as a good deed. Protestantism opened a new era in the history of Europe, and perhaps the whole world. He blessed the prosperity of life on the basis of mortal life.

The Protestant ethos recorded huge changes in the human psyche. A new concept of freedom was born in religious doctrines. People no longer wanted to obey. For the first time in European history, the desire to be free began to be perceived as a blessing for man. Freedom was regarded as sacred. It goes without saying that without the idea of ​​an independent autonomous individual, capitalism would hardly have arisen.

The Protestant ethic has allowed people to realize the value of any accumulation that serves as the foot of any business. She nurtured a work ethic that, of course, showed up in other cultures as well. However, it was in Europe that the work ethic was combined with asceticism. Asceticism is a means of embodying those cherished ideals of Christianity, to which all believers should strive. Asceticism is nothing but an expression of the very essence of Christ's teaching. Usually, the name of an ascetic is associated with the concept of a hermit monk who lives a strict moral life, and asceticism is understood as an exercise in the mortification of the flesh. But this is a vulgarly stylized representation of this phenomenon.

Asceticism was established in Russian culture long before the Protestant ethos. He was a means of Christian sanctification, for which every inner effort, care, and care is necessary. It was designed to give a person the opportunity to hear the voice of conscience and clarify God's image. Claiming the ascetic principle in morality, the Christian philosopher of the last century Vladimir Solovyov wrote: “The moral requirements of the subordination of the flesh to the spirit meet with the opposite actual desire of the flesh to subjugate the spirit, as a result of which the ascetic principle is twofold: it is required, firstly, to protect the spiritual life from the captures of the carnal principle and secondly, to subdue the realm of the flesh, to make animal life only the potency or matter of the spirit. The self-preservation of the spirit is above all

maintaining his self-control. This is the main thing in any true asceticism, therefore the predominance of the spirit over the flesh is necessary for the moral dignity of a person. Among the value orientations of Orthodoxy is non-possessiveness. The fulfillment of the vow of non-acquisitiveness leads the monk to the achievement of complete disinterestedness, thanks to which a person dispassionately looks at earthly blessings. Wealth opens a wide path to all sensual pleasures. Therefore, a monk in the full sense of the word must be free from everything that would dispose his spirit to any selfish dreams. Holy Scripture testifies: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21). The concepts of "salvation" and "spiritual life" are extremely significant for an Orthodox person. Ascetic principles flow from the very essence of Orthodoxy.

The economic rivalry between entrepreneurs in Russia was not as fierce and merciless as in Protestantism. Orthodoxy is firmly rooted in the ideals of kindness, mercy, human sincerity. The average Englishman, whose seemingly recent ancestors executed starving children for stolen buns, could hardly understand why the compassionate Russian peasants laughed at what God sent hardened criminals along the prison roads. They brought food to the convicts, and prayed for the murderers. A European cannot understand why holy fools have been revered in Rus' since ancient times.

The Protestant ethos has created entire generations of thrifty, virtuous, enterprising people. However, what does the word of honor of Russian merchants have to do with it? After all, Protestantism and Orthodoxy are different branches of Christianity. Maybe we should look for other sources of righteousness of Russian entrepreneurs? But capitalism, according to Weber, is based on a Protestant ethos. Modern discussions related to the global financial crisis have clearly shown that capitalism can appear in countries where they knew nothing about the Protestant ethos. An example is China. However, does this mean that new forms of management can take shape even without moral principles? No, it doesn't, because Confucianism, based on similar principles of human society, served as an incentive for moving towards capitalism in China.

In Orthodoxy, as in Protestantism, respect for work occupied a significant place. It blessed the desire of man to make this world more comfortable, correlated with the worldly needs of man. At the same time, Orthodoxy insisted on generosity, strengthening the dignity of a person. The desire for one's material rights to the detriment of others was still considered shameful. V. S. Solovyov wrote in detail about these fundamental principles of Orthodoxy. “Unselfishness,” he argued, “is the freedom of the spirit from attachment to a special kind of material goods, namely to property. Clearly, it means that this is a special expression of the same feeling of human dignity; accordingly, the vices opposite to this virtue: stinginess and greed - are recognized as shameful.

In Orthodoxy, a virtuous-generous person is one who, out of justice or philanthropy, shares his property with others. But at the same time, such a person can even be attached to the property that he distributes to the point of stinginess. In this case, it cannot, strictly speaking, be called disinterested. One can only say that in it the altruistic virtue of generosity overcomes the vice of greed.

Orthodoxy is incompatible with many traditions of the modern bourgeois world. Take, for example, such a detail of capitalist everyday life as a marriage contract. In modern Russia, it is gradually becoming familiar. However, many Orthodox people, due to their mental disposition, cannot accept such a life institution. Is it permissible at the time of the wedding the very thought that this marriage will break up, that the oath before God about living together will be violated, that the acquired property will become the subject of division? It is unacceptable, because it contradicts the vow itself, the kissing of the cross.

Now it is legitimate to ask a question, which, of course, was not raised by M. Weber. What branch of Christian self-consciousness turned out to be more successful for the development of capitalism? Why did the huge efforts of politicians and the masses of people aimed at the development of capitalism in Russia not bring the expected results? Has not Orthodoxy lost the historical competition between it and Protestantism in effectively advancing towards the type of modern civilization? Why in our country, despite the spiritual traditions, capitalism turned out to be uncultured, but, on the contrary, wild, predatory, merciless? How did the impudent, greedy squint of thieving businessmen replace the indestructible merchant's word?

In the conditions of the current crisis, the most perspicacious experts write about the urgent need to civilize capitalism, to return to it its lost value dimension. And in this context, an honest merchant's word turns out to be not an amusing and eccentric sign of a merchant's life, worthy of remaining a museum relic in history. Unconsciously, purely intuitively, it becomes more and more urgently needed.

The Greatness and Poverty of the Protestant Ethos

Labor is a purposeful human activity with the help of tools, aimed at changing and adapting natural objects to their needs.

If we compare these value orientations with the attitude to work in Protestant ethics, then we can see a significant difference between them. In the Protestant era, the dignity of labor is not simply affirmed and the meanness of idleness is emphasized. Labor is considered as a destiny, as a vocation of a person, as his destiny. The piety of the labor vocation is recognized. The Supreme Being, as it turns out, is not at all against business intelligence, not against wealth. Moreover, as M. Luther taught, if a person receives a small profit despite having the opportunity to increase income, this means that he committed a sin before God.

The Protestant ethic sanctified the work. Moreover, she discovered in him inexhaustible poetry. The world of economy has traditionally been considered dead, inert. It was supposed; that the sphere of economics, with its concerns about the essentials, limits and erases the inspiration of the soul. In the previous culture, a genius looked like a confrontation between a craftsman, a poet - a merchant, a knight - a usurer. In the era of the Reformation, the loftiness of the spirit took root in the field of the economy itself. Any work associated with the transformation of life was recognized as poetic.

At the same time idleness was condemned. A number of countries have passed laws against vagrants. The economic profession was evaluated as a response to the call of God. Consequently, the readiness to rebuild and decorate life was perceived as a moral duty. This was also dictated by the desire to improve their skills, their economic skills. However, the understanding of labor as a value did not yet fully express the inner world of a person of the Reformation era.

Labor was correlated with asceticism, with the lofty goal of earthly existence. In other words, it was not at all assumed that the profit received should immediately serve the hedonistic needs of man. On the contrary, the meaning of labor was seen in producing some kind of accumulation, overcoming the temptation of all kinds of pleasures.

If Catholicism considered caring for the poor to be a holy and good deed, then Protestantism considered this prejudice and rejected it. Mercy was understood as a willingness to help the disadvantaged learn a profession and allow him to work productively.

Thrift was considered one of the highest virtues. But it was not at all about accumulation, as such. The man of the new era used up the profit he received. The increment did not settle like a dead weight. On the contrary, it demanded even greater exertion from the agent of economic life. It was important to go beyond everyday experience and find the little-known sphere, the area of ​​risk. The era of the Reformation opened the beyond where it was least expected - in the economic structure, in the world of economy. Profit, therefore, is always greater than what it brings to the owner. The increase in wealth is going beyond the limits of the essential, necessary, consumed, it is a pure increase in being. It symbolizes a leap into the unknown. This is the element of creativity.

“Former economic systems were built on the consumption of what was produced, on a certain balance of investment and return. The approach to the economy was utilitarian, the slave owner received from the slaves, and the feudal lord received from his peasants and vassals everything he needed for a luxurious life. Capitalism began to produce in order to expand production itself. Balance has given way to advance: capitalism is the art of investing, a brilliant waste. Previously, practical people were mainly busy extracting funds for their own benefit and pleasure, while capitalism began to invest, scatter, spend them, as in a stormy love game. It is no coincidence, according to some researchers, that the accelerated development of capitalism in Europe coincided with the era of romanticism. Romanticism, therefore, is not at all against capitalism, not against the spirit of the purest.

Capitalism and romanticism have a common metaphysical attitude: striving towards infinity. According to M. Epstein, all ancient, “naive” forms of management, with their focus on the final, consumed product, were discarded by capitalism, just as romanticism eliminated all naive forms of classicism in poetry with their focus on a visual, embodied, contemplated ideal. The ideal turned out to be thrown into the future, into the past, into the impossible, into nowhere. Poetry has become a yearning for an unattainable ideal and a mockery, irony over all the final forms of its embodiment.

Thus, the Protestant ethic did not merely poeticize work. She gave him a new, unknown dimension, allowing him to rethink human nature, to find new facets of immeasurable being. It can be said that in the era of the Reformation, a person began to be developed - a carrier of a different character than in previous eras. He saw his destiny in freedom, in boldness.

Here lies the profound difference between entrepreneurial labor proper and machine labor, which was idealized in later philosophy. The proletarian or handyman also regards labor as a blessing. However, this occupation looks poetically colored only in the writings of the ideologists of Marxism. In fact, routine mechanical labor does not reveal in a person any special dignity, no greatness, no creative facets.

Entrepreneurship provokes in a person new, little-known aspects of his nature. Business calculation is unthinkable without the tension of risk, concrete profit - without fear of bankruptcy. Understanding work as a divine calling is an invitation to another existence, to an endless play of possibilities. Man seeks in the present world not himself, but something else, some kind of his own ideal, exactly what he can become if he trusts the call of the transcendental. A multitude of 'I's wakes up in a person, which he strives to embody in a daring plan.

When M. Weber raised the question: what combination of circumstances led to the fact that it was in the West, and only here, that certain cultural phenomena arose, which then acquired universal significance, he had in mind, first of all, new value orientations. Capitalist adventurers have existed all over the world. However, it was in Europe during the Reformation that a new set of life orientations developed. Economic rationalism, according to M. Weber, also depends on the predisposition of people to certain types of practical-rational life behavior.

Protestant ethics regulated the way of life of a person in almost everything. Its prescriptions concerned not only industrial, but also social practices. It demanded quality work and discipline. This ethic also condemned drunkenness and debauchery, called for strengthening the family, involving children in labor and teaching religious faith, the ability to read and understand the Bible. Weber wrote about the Protestant ethos, but he did not idealize it. It is not necessary, apparently, to identify the views of the German philosopher and the principles of Protestantism. Weber wrote that the Reformation marked the beginning of the rise of capitalism. Thus, capitalism can be considered a product of the Reformation. As a result, a bourgeois entrepreneur arose who did not transcend the boundaries of formal correctness, was considered morally impeccable, and the way such an entrepreneur disposed of his wealth was not blameworthy; he could and even had to look after his business interests.

But Weber did not idealize capitalism, its origins and destiny. He showed, first, that the Protestant commandments are not blameless. According to this code of morals, a person who could deceive a partner for profit, but did not do so, is not quite adequate. For the sake of labor, for the sake of the transformation and improvement of the land, one can deceive, if only the entrepreneurial vein does not fade away. Weber also noted that as capitalism developed, there was a renunciation of Christian values. That is why the desire for profit has lost its religious and ethical assessment. The thirst for money, wealth at the highest stage of development of capitalism has acquired the character of an unbridled passion, sometimes close to sports. It is no coincidence that Weber deliberately bracketed out his Protestant theory of the origin of capitalism the usurers, military suppliers, tax-farmers, large commercial entrepreneurs and financial magnates.

By the end of the last century, the methods of speculation were brought to sophistication and perfection. Even the process of paying off debts was raised to a certain moral standard, almost initiated by God. Probably, through this representation, the sacralization of capitalism and democracy took shape, since God himself is on their side. This is precisely the interpretation of the work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" almost a century after its appearance. Usury began to be poeticized. Banks, once the lifeblood of the economy, have become idolized institutions.

However, Christian doctrine has always despised usurers. The very collection of interest on the loan provided was condemned.

Pushkin's Albert in The Miserly Knight believes that when borrowing money, you can simply give a knightly word, but not a mortgage: "... his gold coins will smell of poison." And taking interest is like selling a deadly potion. This, of course, is not about the fact that the percentages were small, fair. Giving money for profit is a Christian sin. After all, the one who made the request is in temporary need. And the creditor takes advantage of temporary difficulties, speculates on human suffering. Pushkin's stingy knight is indifferent to the tears of a widow who stands in the rain and howls, asking for a reprieve. He takes a duplon, which appears to be from a rogue. From a moral point of view, the guilt of the usurer was often the subject of discussion. To deprive the creditor of property, and sometimes of life, seemed fair.

Not only Christianity condemned creditors. Buddhists believed that a person who lives on other people's loan income will never reach nirvana. The Muslims were also scornful of moneylenders, who often risked their lives and were exposed to danger. The Jewish Torah forbids its fellow believers from lending at interest. Moreover, financiers have never had a high social status. Neither during the time of Christianity, nor during the period of capitalism, no one took them for worthy citizens, unlike burghers, merchants and capitalists. Everyone was convinced that usurers get money for nothing, they are therefore immoral. They are responsible for inflation, and not only in the sphere of money. That's why they lived on the edge of the law. Of course, the writers also reflected such rare facts when a financier is in demand. He bathed in the rays of glory and power. But for how long?

When the need for them disappeared, usurers again fell into the social ranks. In 1893, Emile Zola wrote his novel "Money", in which he spoke about the working methods of financial markets, at the same time he described the atmosphere of general moral condemnation by society in relation to bankers. The protagonist of the novel is the founding banker Monsieur Saccard, who specializes in stock speculation allegedly fast developing companies, in this case the Middle East. Thanks to the ease with which he makes money, he becomes the star of the financial world. Zola puts the following words into his mouth: “Is it worth giving thirty years of life to earn some miserable million when you can put it in your pocket in one hour, through a simple exchange transaction. The worst thing about this fever is that you stop appreciating legitimate profits, and in the end you even lose the exact idea of ​​\u200b\u200bmoney.

Saccard inevitably crashes, but it soon starts all over again. People like the banker described by Zola were often very rich, but few people wanted to communicate with them, little was known about them. They were speculators, marginalized, producing nothing, but they were always on the move. Our modern investor bankers, those whom we regard as pillars of society and bulwarks of capitalism, are Monsieur Saccard's successors.

The global crisis erupted precisely as a result of the unjustified expansion of the usury zone. Characteristically, the heads of the leading states have so far failed to agree on strengthening control over speculative instruments. No institutions of such control, no assessment of usury itself, which is largely responsible for the crisis, no real steps to curb the appetites of financiers. Now, apparently, it is important to discuss the question of the future of morality. More precisely, in the special economic and ethical literature, two trends have emerged. Some authors believe that the salvation of capitalism is to return to this Protestant one. They write about the feat of Luther, who managed to resurrect the foundations of Christian morality. Now such work, in their opinion, is also for the current zealots of morality. Salvation from the global crisis is seen by many in clearing world economy from the intrigues of usury, to revive the dignity of work, honesty, trust, without which the world community will not crawl out of the crisis. But perhaps the search for other moral guidelines is important? It is possible that the Protestant ethos has exhausted itself in four and a half centuries. How and why might a new moral code emerge? Should it be a reflection of the new world practice?

The book Democracy and Tradition by Princeton University professor Geoffrey Stout contains a wealth of material related not only to political thought but, in particular, with morality. It's interesting to read, but that's what causes a feeling of protest. The author notes the obvious truth:

conceptions of morality are different. But he connects the birth of new moral ideas only with the conventional approach. Differences do exist. The nihilist rejects the idea that moral truth is possible. The skeptic abandons the idea that we are justified by belief in any moral truths. The radical relativist rejects the idea that we can justifiably apply moral judgments to people, actions, and practices outside of our own culture. How to be? J. Stout relies on the possibility of intercultural moral judgment. Who would argue? Ultimately, the author ignores not only ethics, but also the vast moral experience of mankind. Ethics, it turns out, is nothing more than a certain agreement between liberals and conservatives, representatives of different cultures. But we have seen what the dispute between progressives and retrogrades turns into, at least in our society.

It's about moral relativism. If each historical, social force has its own reasons, its own moral imperatives, then how, for example, can one condemn the aggressive amoralism of the new masters of Russian life. Apparently, modern ethical thought lacks constructiveness. Ethical relativism must be exposed. Mankind has literally suffered moral norms at the cost of suffering, the experience of revolutions, and ethical reflection. They are unshakable and universal. The search for the foundations of these moral institutions is an urgent task. Otherwise moralizing and hypocrisy will reign.

But does the Protestant ethos retain itself as the spiritual foundation of capitalism? In every culture that has gone through a full cycle of development, there is a section corresponding to the Protestant ethos, but in the course of history this section of the life of society has been in demand to varying degrees. In a number of cases, in particular in Russia, it was simply destroyed or suppressed. And to the point: it contradicted the highest value of the Russian state - the administrative vertical, which at all times suppressed even weak attempts associated with the emergence of independent subjects of sociocultural practice.

Is the Protestant ethos universal? Indeed, in many cultures the value of labor, discipline, austerity is rejected. Could the vertical of power destroy the economic ethos? Here, probably, the point is not in power, but in the fact that social practice has given rise to other value orientations. They were in demand by many people. Today it is difficult to convince the majority that without effort you cannot pull a fish out of labor. Thoughts of austerity, which is involuntarily associated with the crisis, irritate people. They enthusiastically believe that everything is about to get better, the crisis will go away as suddenly as it hit. The moral lesson that follows from the catastrophe has not been learned, not assimilated... Who is to blame for the moral degradation of society?

The authorities are convinced that the criminality of our days has grown by leaps and bounds, not so much from the cash turnover, but as a result of an illiterate struggle against it. We have not yet fully realized the scale that characterizes the influence of crime on all aspects of life in modern Russia. What are the relations between the state and the criminal world today? Power and crime are not always antipodes. Experts often call them political rivals. After all, they exercise their own right to violence, sometimes resorting to the union of criminality and the state, sometimes entering into a fierce struggle. As soon as the authorities begin to exercise their desire for monopoly, crime raises its head and becomes aggressive.

Let's remember how in the 90s. 20th century criminalization began in society, because they introduced enhanced control over cash payments. After all, the introduction of cash payments turned out to be radical, unexpected for our country. Therefore, organized crime began to take shape. Today? Supplying the economy with cash turned out to be an entire industry. Its turnover can be compared with the benefits from the sale of oil and gas. This area gives billions of dollars in income to the criminal world. He can generally concentrate his efforts here, and he will not need anything else. The state allowed the criminals to get a powerful source of enrichment. And now, without this sphere of the criminal community, the economy may collapse. That's social logic. It is naive to think that the state opposes crime by definition. The points of such confrontation and union are various and varied. The merging of state structures and power is a vagrant plot. But how can the moral consciousness reconcile itself to the fact that everything around is criminal, that everyone is “protecting” each other around? To talk about virtue under these conditions is like asking a wise minnow noble questions to a pike.

The topic of social justice is becoming more and more relevant. But power is not always bad. For example, in the VI century. n. e. the citizens of Athens also found themselves in a crisis zone. Much of that time is similar to what we are experiencing today. In Athens, the gap between the poor and the rich was widening, and economic instability threatened revolution. And what is important: the Greeks were also in a state of deep depression. Being in a state of complete hopelessness, they called Solon, giving him almost no curtailed powers. What did Solon do? First of all, he abolished debts with the first law. Thus, the land was again in the hands of the peasants. Citizens were freed from slavery. “Shaking off the burden” (there was such a phrase) involved the destruction of debt obligations. So Solon restored the social balance in society, elevated justice to a significant norm. He then developed a code of just laws and laid the foundations for a democratic constitution. The results were not long in coming. The well-being of society has increased. Philosophy, theatre, sculpture and architecture began to flourish.

Here is what the famous Canadian scientist and writer John Ralston Saul writes about this in his book Voltaire's Bastards. Dictatorship of Reason in the West": "Our contemporary attitude to debt confirms that we have moved to a new stage. Now social ethics is subordinated to the effective functioning of the system. At this stage, the social contract is subordinated to the financial contract. Ethics has become so distorted that it has become used as a measure of the effectiveness of the functioning of systems and for negative moral evaluation of debtors. As a result, we have forgotten how to use the weights of common sense in assessing the poverty and suffering that arise from debt, on the one hand, and the relatively weak negative effects of non-payment on financial system- with another" .

Today's Russian capitalism rests on foundations that do not bode well for him or society as a whole. Current capitalism is both immoral and unproductive. Its leaders do not hide: they like only such a business when they do not risk anything, are not bound by any obligations, by any laws and decency. They should understand that no house can stand on such foundations. The current crisis continues its destructive work. At the same time, he reveals serious psychological problems, without the solution of which the recovery of the world economy is impossible.

In the twentieth century understanding of labor as a facet of human existence continues both within the framework of neo-Marxist philosophy, and in existentialism and postmodernism. The concept of neo-Marxists in the interpretation of labor boiled down to the fact that it is unacceptable to consider labor only as an opportunity to possess the results of labor, to appropriate these results for oneself. So, E. Fromm notes that in the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” of 1844, K. Marx writes: “Private property has made us stupid and one-sided, that some object is ours only when we possess it, t i.e. when it exists for us as capital or when we directly own it, eat it, drink it, wear it on our body, live in it, etc., in a word, when we consume it. Therefore, in place of all physical and spiritual forces, there was a simple alienation of these feelings - a feeling of possession.

E. Fromm emphasizes: the idea that labor is only a means of subsistence, a way of obtaining personal wealth, is rejected by K. Marx. Today we often ask ourselves the question: what is it to be human? According to Marx, labor enriches human existence, opens its horizons. By itself, it is not a universal good. On the contrary, the alienation of labor can lead to the devaluation of human existence. “The more insignificant your being, the less you show your life,” Marx wrote, “the greater your property, the greater your alienated life. All that share of life and humanity that the political economist takes from you, he compensates you in the form of money and wealth. .

Thus, in social philosophy, the theme of the struggle between labor and capital arises. A follower of Marx, Erich Fromm, evaluates this confrontation as a confrontation between people and capital, being and possession [see: 8]. In his writings, he shows that labor as a facet of human existence and work designed to ensure human life are different from each other. From these positions, Fromm criticizes the market social character. The bearer of this psychological type refers to his own "I" as a commodity that has not a consumer value, but, above all, an exchange value. Offering himself on the professional and social market, he does not rely on his talents or special training.

Fromm draws attention to the fact that already in the XVI century. in European culture, work begins to be interpreted both in the earthly and in the transcendental sense. Idleness, as M. Luther taught, is not only evasion from life's tasks, but also a serious sin before God. It is characteristic that the transcendent meaning emerges in this epoch in earthly life. The loftiness of the spirit penetrates into the sphere of economic practice. Work is poeticized. It is no longer evaluated only as getting food and arranging life. Labor is proclaimed as an expression of man's destiny, spiritual communion with God. Protestants argue that human nature is generally unthinkable without labor. A person dies if the foundations of labor activity collapse. But the most important thing is that the connection with transcendence is cut off, with the sphere of the divine, which blesses a person to transform life.

Unreliability and extravagance are programmed in the structure of the market nature, which does not know strong emotional ties. They extend to the world of human relationships - with friends, lovers, relatives - and to the world of things. The goal of the market nature - trouble-free functioning under given conditions - forces him to respond to the world with superficial rationality and naive pragmatism. Reason as the ability to comprehend is replaced in it by instrumental ingenuity. It is no coincidence that we are dealing today with the idolatry of the machine.

Therefore, labor is not in itself an unconditional facet of human existence. It has this status only when it is possible to speak about the preservation of human nature, about the uniqueness of man as a special kind of being. This side of the problem was emphasized in the 19th century. masons. They noted the sanctity of any work, personal and public, emphasized the importance of freemasons' accessories - a hammer, a spatula, a drawing board. If a person is deprived of the opportunity to work, the essence of a person will also be transformed. Liberation from labor as a tiresome duty in technocratic utopias also implies parting with the person as we know him. The cybernaut does not have human nature and his ways of being are already completely different.

In the past century, Karl Jaspers drew attention to the general devaluation of labor. This degradation, he showed, is tantamount to the loss of the will to activity. But the self-existence of man is possible only in the tension of labor. However, modern man dreams of well-being, which is given not by the disclosure of self-existence, but by chance luck, a lottery chance. The masses defend their right to abundance, but do not think about the fact that the road to manna from heaven requires effort. The disintegration of labor is also connected with the transformation of functional production activity. In modern conditions, the individual is divided into functions. An individual person rather expresses the consciousness of a non-human, but a social being. Of course, one can abandon the concept according to which labor can be considered a measure and a way of philosophical comprehension of society. It is necessary to critically comprehend the thesis that the human essence can be reduced to labor. “When a person is given the opportunity to accept this or that work for execution, the problem of being a person and being in labor turns out to be decisive, strictly speaking, it begins only with “objectification”, namely with the “creation of an objective world” and that, on the contrary, no investment of labor can free a living being. from the need to start working again anyway.

So, labor is the same facet of human existence as love, domination, play, death. Without them, human existence is impossible. Labor is an invariable companion of human existence. However, its role in different societies turns out to be special, dependent on the axiological dimension of a particular culture. In European history, work was glorified, poeticized, but to the same extent belittled, denying its significance for human existence.

However, not all European thinkers were concerned about these topics. Labor, on the other hand, was often seen as a fragment of a more general reasoning within an urgent problem, most often an economic one. Human activity itself has many levels; accordingly, the nature of labor, its complexity, and its specificity are also different. In any case, life without labor turns out to be an empty, noncommittal existence. Work gives rise to goals, and the goal, in turn, obliges to active pursuits.

Bibliography

1. Baudrillard J., Jaspers K. The ghost of the crowd. M.: Algorithm, 2014. 304 p.

2. Gurevich P. S. Labor as one of the facets of human existence // Philosophy and Culture. 2014. No. 7 (79). S.939-942.

3. Gurevich P.S., Spirova E.M. The limits of human existence. M.: IF RAN, 2016. 173 p.

4. Marx K., Engels F. From early works. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1956. 689 p.

5. Saul R. Bastards of Voltaire. Dictatorship of reason in the West. M.: AST: Astrel, 2007. 895 p.

6. Solovyov V. S. Works: in 2 vols. M.: Thought, 1988. T. 1. 892 p.

7. Stout J. Democracy and tradition. M.: Territory of the future, Progress-Tradition, 2009. 464 p.

8. Fromm E. To have or to be? M.: AST: Astrel, 2012. 315 p.

As a result of studying this chapter, the student should:

know

• theoretical and practical approaches to determining the sources and mechanisms for ensuring the competitive advantage of the organization;
• basics of personnel management methodology;

be able to

Participate in the development of corporate, competitive and functional strategies for the development of the organization in terms of personnel management;

own

Methods for the development and implementation of personnel management strategies.

Categorical ideas about labor and their modern interpretation

All existing ideas about labor can be divided into everyday and scientific. In the ordinary view, the work of a person is the simplest phenomenon in his life. Therefore, at a superficial glance, it seems that the labor process is easily amenable to research and study. Labor for a person can be both a severe punishment and a joy. What it will be - hard labor or happiness - depends on the organizer of labor activity.

In economic theory, labor is one of the basic categories. The founders of classical political economy (W. Petty, A. Smith, D. Ricardo) considered the concept of "labor" as a special specific commodity. A. Smith, for example, believed that labor is any human production activity.

Until the beginning of the XXI century. labor was mainly considered in categories oriented towards the views of political economists of the 19th century. Traditionally, it was defined as an expedient human activity aimed at preserving, modifying, adapting the environment to meet their needs, and at the production of goods and services.

In subsequent periods, approaches to work focused not on the process of human interaction with nature, but on certain relationships between its participants. At the same time, it was emphasized that labor has a dual nature, for it is both a means of "exchange of matter" between man and nature, and a means of communication between people in the production process.

This definition is typical for political economy science, where preference was given to the problems of physical labor. It was believed that "... the labor process includes three points:

• 1) purposeful human activity, or labor itself;
• 2) the subject of labor;
• 3) the tools of production with which a person acts on this object ". From all these definitions it follows that the subject of labor is Human.

Proponents of neoclassical economic theory treat the concept of "labor" as a factor of production along with "land" and "capital", which flows into the production process through the efforts of individuals and is not a unique source of value creation.

A number of authors define labor as "an expedient activity for the creation of material and spiritual wealth necessary to meet the needs of each individual and society as a whole", i.e. emphasizes its feasibility and focus on final result, which distinguishes meaningful human labor from animal activity, reminiscent of labor, but of an instinctive nature (a squirrel collects nuts, a bear collects honey, bees make honeycombs) ".

abstract labor in material terms, there is nothing more than the energy expended by a person (mental, physical) in the social plan - this is the relationship between people about the energy spent on the production of goods in the conditions of commodity production. In the process of production and manufacture of goods, it is not the labor force, the carrier of which is a person, that is consumed, but the energy of a person (brain, muscles, etc.).

Good- this is everything that contains a certain positive meaning: an object, a phenomenon, a product of labor that satisfies one or another human need and meets the interests, goals, aspirations of people. Sometimes benefits are considered as embodied utility, which can be understood not only as products of labor, but also as fruits of nature.

Service is an expedient human activity, the result of which has a beneficial effect that satisfies any human needs. Their satisfaction is perceived by people as the consumption (acquisition) of a good. The activities of a broker or a stock speculator, of course, are labor, although they do not create benefits, but only redistribute them among people, thereby providing them with certain services. The principle of creating wealth should also apply to those activities that are associated with the provision and maintenance of the processes of changing ownership of certain goods.

Labor simultaneously acts both as a process of human interaction with nature, as a result of which various benefits are created and a person adapts to the external environment, and as certain relations between its participants, as a result of which both the external environment and human nature itself are affected.

At the same time, almost all modern researchers recognize that labor as a factor of production is unique, requiring a special approach to its study. However, the analysis of the specifics of labor as a factor of production requires, first of all, consideration of the characteristics of labor in the entire diverse spectrum of human activity.

In a market economy, labor includes not only wage labor, but also labor activity within the household. Home production in the modern labor economy is understood as non-market labor activity that does not bring cash income to the household: growing food and harvesting food, cooking, repairing the house, car or household appliances on your own, cleaning the apartment, caring for children, etc.

• 1) ontological category, proceeding from the fact that labor is the realized nature of a person as a person and a representative of a species, in some cases even a biological kingdom. Each person in his life has achieved something, created something (or maybe destroyed it). Modern science tries to measure these achievements;
• 2) epistemological category, revealing the relationship of labor self-knowledge to the work that needs to be carried out (labor itself is considered in terms of the meaning of human life). In this context, it is necessary to talk about what distinguishes one subject from another. There are two classes of individual properties:
  • - primary individual properties are associated with age and sex and individual-typical (constitutional features, neurodynamic properties of the brain, features of the functional asymmetry of the cerebral hemispheres);
  • - secondary individual properties - the dynamics of psychophysical functions and the sphere of organic needs. Thus, in the XXI century. human individuality came into the science of labor;
• 3) social category. Of all the sciences that have "dissolved" the concept of labor in their subject matter, sociology has most developed a conceptual apparatus that makes it possible to correctly approach the study of this most complex phenomenon;
• 4) cultural category, including the study of higher achievements national cultures and all world culture. Culturological consideration of labor is associated with such concepts as "culture and labor", "labor and its impact on cultural needs", "being and consciousness";
• 5) ethical category, expressed through the relations "moral assessment and self-assessment of the individual's own labor activity", "moral choice and self-design of labor technologies", "the problem of commensurability of values ​​and duty in labor processes";
• 6) aesthetic category, emanating from the relationship: "design of being - chaos of needs", "beautiful and ugly", "sublime and base", "heroic and betrayal";
• 7) household category, expressed in terms of " workplace", "organization of living space", "distribution of labor roles", "urban and rural work";
• 8) gerontological category, expressed through a range of concepts related to the work of the elderly and the care of the elderly;
• 9) crisis category. In this case, hostility, destructiveness of the environment are studied. The destructive side of life is studied by various sciences, in particular by crisisology. Labor can ennoble, but it is often also a punishment. This is especially evident in the present period, when a whole range of new requirements for employees began to arise on the part of employers;
• 10) valeological category. In this case, the importance of the mental and physical health of a person as a vital basis and foundation of labor processes is emphasized;
• 11) engineering category. Recently, sciences related to the design of labor processes have been developed;
• 12) innovation category. Working, a person not only changes the world around him, but also changes himself. The balance of these changes is a very fragile thing and extraordinarily complex;
• 13) ecological category. Labor was, is and will always be an ecologically significant phenomenon. It is through labor that a person is currently preparing a global ecological catastrophe. And it makes work different new category, which is the brainchild of increased possibilities;
• 14) risk category. Although risk arises from any kind of activity, it is only now that there is an awareness of the need for more detailed study and the creation of risk protection systems for labor itself and at the same time from labor;
• 15) synergistic category. Synergetics of labor is only realized by modern science, although labor is synergistic in its basis. The synergetic nature of labor strictly correlates with its consistency;
• 16) ergonomic category. The term "ergonomics" was first proposed in 1921 by V. N. Myasishchev and V. M. Bekhterev. In 1949, a group of British scientists led by K. Marell organized the Ergonomic Society, after which the term began to become widespread;
• 17) military grade, presented through the concepts: "worker-warrior", "military skill", "home front workers", etc.;
• 18) management category. in the literature of the late 20th century. usually there are a number of stages.

First stage associated, as a rule, with the works of F.U. Taylor - the founder of "scientific management". He was the first to pose the problem of managing a person (employees) as a specific scientific discipline with its own categorical apparatus.

The main task of the Taylor system is "to ensure the maximum profit of the entrepreneur, combined with the maximum welfare for each worker."

Second phase associated with the concept of "human relations", which considers the factors of job satisfaction, leadership, cohesion (E. Mayo, F. Roethlisberg, A. Maslow, etc.). In the future, all this was developed in the concepts of "enrichment of labor", "humanistic challenge", where the psychological and economic factors of labor came to the fore, in the doctrine of "quality of working life", in the concepts of "humanization of labor" as an attempt to synthesize Taylorism and "human relations." There are also theories work motivation(A. Maslow, F. Herzberg, D. McGregor) and others.

In the 1970s in the United States, attention is focused on the concepts of "quality of life" (the term was introduced back in the 1950s by D. Riesman and J. Galbraith), "enrichment of labor" (the term was introduced in the 1960s by L. David), which are associated with theories of post-industrial society.

Third stage. In the West, especially in the USA, since the 1990s. A new direction, called "learning organizational systems", is intensively developing. The fundamental ideas of this direction are drawn from cybernetics. The approach that considers the organization as a learning system that responds synergistically to various changes was partially proclaimed in the book by P. Senge "The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of a Self-Learning Organization" .

The basis of the approach being developed at this stage is the transition from understanding labor in the traditional way to intellectual labor.

From an economic point of view work is a process of conscious, purposeful, creative, legitimate activity of people for the production of material and spiritual goods, designed to satisfy both personal and social needs. Its functions are shown in Fig. 1.1 and 1.2.

In the extensive literature devoted to various aspects of labor, the question of the totality of labor functions has not yet received comprehensive coverage. Political economists consider

Rice. 1.1.

Rice. 1.2.

predominantly the first and second functions (labor as a way to satisfy needs and a creator of material wealth). Philosophers and sociologists, depending on the problems of their research, one of the other three functions (labor as a means of forming a person, or as a force that improves society, or as the basis for the progress of freedom), while the concept of "function of labor" is usually not used. As examples of a few exceptions, one can point to the work of R. Gellner, in which two functions of labor are considered - labor as a means of life and labor as a creator and transformer of man.

Introduction

The social sphere occupies one of the central places in systemic organization society and is distinguished by exceptional complexity and diversity various kinds its constituent social communities and relationships between them. The central element of this sphere is the concept of social differentiation, which reflects the division of society into certain social groups.

Social differentiation is the division of a social whole or part of it into interrelated elements that appear as a result of evolution, the transition from simple to complex. Differentiation, first of all, includes the division of labor, the emergence of various professions, statuses, roles, groups, etc.

The essence of the division of labor lies in professional integration. Individuals begin to contact, exchange experiences and thus create a single whole, as a result of the ever-increasing specialization of labor.

The concept of labor and its essence. Labor as a social phenomenon

Work- this is the expedient activity of people aimed at creating material and cultural values. Labor is the basis and an indispensable condition for the life of people. By influencing the natural environment, changing and adapting it to their needs, people not only ensure their existence, but also create conditions for the development and progress of society.

The labor process is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. The main forms of its manifestation are the costs of human energy, the interaction of the worker with the means of production (objects and means of labor) and the production interaction of workers with each other both horizontally (the relationship of participation in a single labor process) and vertically (the relationship between the leader and the subordinate) . The role of labor in the development of man and society is manifested in the fact that in the process of labor not only material and spiritual values ​​\u200b\u200bare created to meet the needs of people, but also the workers themselves develop, who acquire skills, reveal their abilities, replenish and enrich knowledge. The creative nature of labor finds its expression in the emergence of new ideas, progressive technologies, more advanced and highly productive tools of labor, new types of products, materials, energy, which, in turn, lead to the development of needs.

Thus, in the process of labor activity, not only goods are produced, services are provided, cultural values ​​are created, etc., but new needs appear with the requirements for their subsequent satisfaction. The sociological aspect of the study is to consider labor as a system public relations, in determining its impact on society.

A person does not exist in isolation, apart from other people, which means that labor is a social phenomenon or, in other words, has a social character. The labor process unfolds in the relationship of people among themselves: within certain social groups, society as a whole. People, in the process of labor, enter into certain social relations, interacting with each other. Under social interactions in the sphere of labor they understand the form of social ties realized in the exchange of activity and mutual action. The objective basis for the interaction of people is the commonality or divergence of their interests, close or distant goals, views. This determines its important feature: labor implies both the production of goods and services and certain social relations between its subjects.

social relations - this is the relationship between members of social communities and these communities about their social status, image and way of life, and, ultimately, about the conditions for the formation and development of personality, social communities. They are manifested in the position of individual groups of workers in the labor process, communication links between them, i.e. in the mutual exchange of information to influence the behavior and performance of others, as well as to assess their own position, which affects the formation of the interests and behavior of these groups.

These relations are inextricably linked with labor relations and are conditioned by them from the very beginning. Any employees labor organization are directly participants in labor relations, however, each employee manifests himself in his own way in relationships with each other, with the manager, in relation to work, to the order of distribution of work, etc.

Consequently, on the basis of labor relations, relations of a socio-psychological nature are formed, characterized by a certain emotional mood, the nature of people's communication and relationships in a labor organization, and the atmosphere in it.

Thus, social and labor relations make it possible to determine social significance, role, place, social status of an individual and a group. They are the link between the worker and the master, the leader and a group of subordinates, certain groups workers and their individual members. Not a single group of workers, not a single member of a labor organization can exist outside of such relations, outside of mutual obligations in relation to each other, outside of interactions.

So, the ideological consequences of the emergence of agriculture are truly stunning. But they will look even more significant if we take into account the sacrifices that primitive man is forced to make when he invents agriculture and gradually turns it into the main source of his livelihood.

The paradox lies in the fact that a person overcomes the absolute dependence on the myth, but instead falls into a slavish dependence on labor. And this is truly a strange exchange. The absolute of mythological dependence is exchanged for the absolute of labor dependence, and it is decidedly impossible at first to understand what could move Neolithic man to such a significant change. Purposeful activity, with which at first agricultural, and subsequently any other productive labor is associated, does not at all look like a kind of blessing upon closer examination, but rather resembles a punishment sent down to man. After all, dependence on myth is what, by the way, creates a sense of peace and stability: people of the Stone Age do not know neurotic stress. On the contrary, with the emergence of dependence on work, for the first time, an era of neurotic overstrain and stress breakdowns arises.

However, the question of labor dependence, and indeed of labor in general, requires special explanations, since the use of the term "labor" in relation to the activities of Paleolithic man, starting from the earliest stages of anthropogenesis, is widespread. In particular, ideas about the role of labor factor in the process of formation of human society. However, the above reconstruction of human activity in pre-agricultural societies makes it completely unacceptable

the use of the term "labor" in relation to this activity. And, above all, because the semantics of the word "labor" unambiguously contains the assumption of some purpose.

Labor is nothing but a purposeful and expedient activity. Moreover, this is an activity performed with productive goals: for example, the purpose of labor may be the creation of some objects. However, in the primitive society of the Stone Age, as was shown above, productive activity (stone industry) cannot in principle be characterized as a target, since the main driving force of this activity is myth. And this means that the activity for the production of stone tools cannot be defined as labor.

Of course, the target forms of activity are familiar to Paleolithic man. However, the essence of the matter lies precisely in the fact that these forms of activity cannot in any way be defined as productive: after all, this is an activity for obtaining subsistence, i.e. hunting and gathering. And, since neither hunting nor gathering are productive forms of activity, it is obvious that the category "labor" is also not applicable to them.

So, the target forms of activity of primitive man are not productive, and productive ones are not target. And therefore, in neither case can we speak of the phenomenon of labor.

Yes, and from the point of view of ethnographic observations, the daily activity of a Paleolithic person can in no way be called labor: after all, he does not get his livelihood in the sweat of his brow, as a farmer who works from dawn to dusk is forced to do. The main pastime of primitive man is participation in various magical ceremonies, rituals and rituals. Moreover, it is not at all necessary that these rites and ceremonies have the character of stormy festivities - for example, it is customary for the Tasadeans to simply sit together for many hours, but in complete silence, and in the Kung tribe "two-thirds of life is spent either on visiting friends and relatives, or on receiving guests 2. Thus, everyday life pre-agricultural man is primarily a celebration, a ritual, a ritual, but not a hard labor activity. And getting food for him, as already mentioned, is a HUNT, which is largely built on the game and excitement, but not on hard work, and the term "hunt" itself is more than indicative in this regard. Hunting is, after all, what one “wants”, what one “hunts”, what is done “on the hunt”, and not under the pressure of a hard external necessity. Moreover, gathering - the second traditionally indicated source of food - is also a kind of hunting, game, gambling search, but not exhausting labor. In both cases, the use of the term "labor" looks at least inappropriate.

As for the manufacture of various cultural and cult objects from stone, wood or bone (and, in particular, those objects that we habitually call tools of labor, but which, in their actual functioning, obviously, were something much more) - then it is built into the structure of festivities and rituals in primitive man, and is carried out by him, as was shown above, according to the laws of myth, and not according to the laws of external expediency, i.e. is also a kind of game, but not labor. Paleolithic man does not work at all in our understanding: he, rather, like an actor on the stage, plays out some form of labor activity that myth and ritual prescribe to him. And engaged in the manufacture of stone tools, he is guided in his activities not so much by considerations of pragmatic expediency, but by the need to perform the corresponding rite, the need that is initiated in him by myth.

One gets the feeling that primitive people are generally not inclined to engage in getting their daily bread as some kind of specialized labor activity. In any case, the structure of the everyday time of primitive man is such that there is simply no room for labor in it. Part of this time is occupied by hunting and gathering - target forms of activity that are not labor. And the rest of the time is the time of cultural self-realization of a person in the system of rites and rituals, including productive rites and rituals. This is the sphere that in modern language is called the "sphere of everyday life", but which for a Paleolithic person is the sphere of genuine cultural existence. Moreover, the productive rituals of this sphere include not only the production of some objects from stone, wood, or bone, but also the totality of what could be called a household: the art of skinning, the art of cooking, etc. - all this is equally a phenomenon of everyday life, which is the sphere of cultural existence of a Paleolithic person.

The life of a Paleolithic person is completely devoid of the taste of that unpleasantly routine and very tedious activity, which is life in all subsequent times. According to its external design, it represents, rather, a combination of various kinds of spiritual practices, ritual and magical games. The very everyday fabric of this life looks like a bizarre interweaving of many hundreds of rituals and rituals, and the so-called "household" turns out to be skillfully woven, built into the structures of these magical rites and rituals. It suffices to point out the fact that certain ceremonies and rituals continued for many months in the Australian tribes 3 . As a rule, the practiced rituals are extremely complex, requiring sophisticated preparation and the participation of all members of the community. And it is clear that this kind of total character of rites and ceremonies in primitive society

makes practically impossible any kind of life, any kind of household outside the myth.

And this is the most striking thing about the phenomenon of Paleolithic life: it is at the same time a Paleolithic production, a Paleolithic household, and the direct being of a Paleolithic culture. In all subsequent epochs, everyday life is fundamentally separated from production, and in any case it is not a sphere of cultural production. For a modern person, the only thing that is associated with the word "everyday life" from the listed series is the household routine. For a Paleolithic man, everyday life is a sphere of material and spiritual production, it is a sphere of production of culture itself, it is truly a sphere of human BEING in culture.

By the way, the difficult, labor nature of agriculture is, of course, not at all connected with how much energy is required for the implementation of certain agricultural operations, but with something fundamentally different. In this regard, I want to draw attention to one misunderstanding that still exists in ethnographic literature. This misunderstanding is connected With determination of the comparative labor intensity of various types of activity in the transition to a productive type of economy. Like, by measuring the consumption of kilocalories per unit of time for hunters and farmers, it is possible to determine which of these two types of activity is more ... laborious.

Thus, in a modern academic publication, edited by respected scientists and having a very representative composition of participants, the question is considered which of the two historical forms of providing oneself with food is more laborious. And the basis for conclusions of this kind are ... careful comparative measurements of the energy consumption of representatives of primitive peoples engaged in hunting and primitive agriculture. At the same time, the process of hunting and gathering is quite confidently referred to as a "form of LABOR activity" and it is not questioned that energy costs can be considered as a criterion of labor intensity.

"There were ... two comparative studies of energy consumption in both types of labor activity. Among the Papuans of New Guinea, men spent 3.3-3.6 kcal / min in the process of hunting for small animals and birds ..., and when work related to slash-and-burn agriculture - 2.6-6.5 kcal / min. The energy costs of women engaged in agriculture amounted to 2.4-4.5 kcal / min here ... Among the Machigenga Indians (Peru) the energy output of men ... was 5.7 kcal / min when hunting for small animals and birds and collecting wild plants and 5.4 kcal / min when engaged in slash-and-burn agriculture; for women, respectively, 5.2 kcal / min when gathering and 3 ,1 kcal / min during field work. For West Africa, only data on the labor intensity of slash-and-burn agriculture were obtained: men - 3.2-9.6, women - 4.4-5.4 kcal / min ... " 1 .

Well, in terms of energy costs, the difference is really small. But is it about energy costs? The author conducts his reasoning in such a way that the gambling activity of a hunter or gatherer (albeit extremely energy-intensive) can generally be considered as labor. But is it really capable of explaining the calculation of kilocalories, the calculation of energy costs, the obvious circumstance that a hunter - at all times! - receives a strange satisfaction from the very process of hunting - completely irrespective of whether it turns out to be effective or not? Hunting and gathering at all times are forms of emotional release, in which a person is driven by a natural gambling passion no less than his immediate animal ancestors. After all, every animal is a hunter and gatherer - but no one would think of the laboriousness of gathering in monkeys or the laboriousness of hunting in lions. Even with the highest energy expenditure, the hunter does not feel fatigue and psychological exhaustion; moreover, the primitive hunter and gatherer hardly differs in this parameter from the modern hunter and gatherer. And vice versa: the farmer is able to experience satisfaction from the sight of the harvested crop, but the very process of cultivating the land is perceived by him as a painful necessity, as hard work, the meaning of which can only be found in the FUTURE - in the future crop, for which, in fact, the farmer only works, for the sake of which only the "sacrifice of labor" is performed.

Bringing the author's logic to the point of absurdity, one can measure the energy consumption of a hunter, mushroom picker, as well as a football player, boxer or pole vaulter. And it may turn out that the activity of the latter is the most energy-intensive. But what does this have to do with the problem of labor intensity? The work of an accountant is very time-consuming - but are his energy costs high? And vice versa, from the energy point of view, the activity of a fan at the stadium is extremely costly, but who dares to call his activity a "form of labor activity"? That is the essence of the matter, that the problem of labor is not at all a problem of energy consumption. And no matter how many kilocalories per unit of time a primitive hunter spends, his activity under no circumstances can be called labor.

The time of production for primitive man is the time that either precedes hunting (say, in the form of making hunting tools) and the time that follows hunting (when one has to "culturally process" the products obtained in one way or another). And this returns to the above concept of production as an activity that is essentially superbiological and is determined not by the animal need to satiate the stomach, but by the mythological need of cultural action. Wild animals also go hunting, but they do not produce anything in preparation for the hunt, and do not engage in such a strange and

biologically ridiculous activity, like the culinary processing of hunting trophies. Thus, human production as a suprabiological phenomenon frames hunting, but hunting itself is not productive, and, moreover, is not a form of labor.

In this regard, the arguments of various authors regarding how long primitive man "works" for his food by hunting seem completely inappropriate. And such arguments are very, very common, and are often presented in the works of very reputable researchers and scientific teams. For example, V. R. Kabo talks about the "work activity" of the Kung Bushmen: hours 9 minutes a day" 5 . By "labor" in this reasoning, the author clearly understands hunting and gathering. "This does not take into account the time spent on cooking and making tools" °, - it is emphasized further.

In other words, the author chronometers the time spent by the Kung Bushmen hunting, but for some reason calls this time the time of labor. And this interpretation of hunting (in the broad sense of the word, including "quiet hunting", i.e. gathering) as labor should be recognized as a common misconception in modern literature devoted to the analysis of primitive societies.