Problem of a civil society in a retrospective show of philosophical and political thought

Concept “a civil society” so ancient, as well as political knowledge. In works of ancient thinkers of the politician it was identified with the state, the state - with a society, assuming coherence of the organisation of human life and the public power.

During this period of the politician for the first time acts as a subject of a scientific reflexion, transformation of the power into a problem and in sense of danger of anarchy (anarchy), and as hypertrophies of the power always threatening to a society by uncontrollability of tyranny means. In Ancient India this problem was considered through a prism of an administrative office of the society, consisting in that with the help danda (compulsion, punishment) to keep and support a Dharma (just execution by people of the duties). The largest Indian political thinker of this period of Kautilja (IV century BC) Focused thereupon attention on three basic questions: activity and functions of the wise governor; management of public affairs and the right; to war and diplomacy. Political concepts of thinkers of Ancient China practically were always reduced to several positions: the power has divine character; to operate public affairs wise people should; the governor should be fair and care of the blessing of citizens. In Platon and Aristotle's creativity - the higher achievement of political thought of ancient Greece, - the anarchy-tyranny dilemma took the central place. Platon thus concentrated attention to power strengthening, order and consent guarantees in a society while Aristotle paid, first of all, attention to reasonings on means and mechanisms of submission of the power to requirements of the public blessing and maintenance of human well-being. With growth and strengthening of power of Ancient Rome political institutes develop, and with them and political concepts of Polibi, Tsitseron, Seneka, etc. In the centre of attention of the Roman thinkers were institutional forms of a policy and criteria of their estimation from legality and justice positions. For political doctrines of the ancient world gradual clearing of mythological forms and their isolation as concerning an independent part of philosophy, a concentration of efforts on the analysis of the device of the states, classification of their forms, definition of ideal models of board etc. as a whole were characteristic

Historically the idea of a civil society goes back to the Ancient Greece and antique Rome. From an armour. сivis (citizen) the concept civitas (society) has been formed. Both concepts have been connected with representation about a city and the state, that lies “on that party” (citer), that is in a city, unlike village, and about cultural distinction between them, reflected in relationship of concepts civis, civilis (civil, cultural), whence there is civilitas (manner), given rise to concept "civilisation". In Russian the word and idea history also is rather similar: a city (hailstones) - the citizen - the townspeople that too distinguish it from inhabitants of village with all their cultural features.

In antiquity and the Middle Ages the idea of a civil society existed in the form of the philosophical concept. At thinkers of these periods of concept “the civil society","political community”, "state" represented itself as synonyms and interchangeable terms which covered all major spheres of life of people, reflecting thus merge of civil collective to the state. For example, in the Ancient Greek policy, a city-state the civil collectivism was expressed in combination of the general interests with private interests of separate citizens, and in case of their collision the priority was given to "general welfare". Aristotle confirmed thereupon: “Desired, certainly, and "blessing" of one person, but is finer and more divine the people and state blessing”. The philosopher used the term “a civil society”, understanding as that community of the citizens free and equal among themselves connected by among themselves certain form of a political system, in this case полисного the states.

The first example of a civil society as it is conventional, the Ancient Greek policy - simultaneously both a self-coping community, and a city, and the state was. Already this historic fact helps to clear the integral intrinsic characteristics of a civil society. This solidary generality of full and social subjects equal in rights - accomplices of economic and political development of the state, first, had integral, and that is essentially important, legally legitimizes, that is legislatively recognised as the state, claims for objects of the property, and, secondly, transformed into the right and in practice of government of the claim of citizens on the power.

The policy acted, thus, as political community. This term also has given rise to concept of a civil society for the civil society arises in the form of political community. Correlation with relations of citizens concerning the power is integral and essential to it. The power, in turn, inseparably linked with the property that causes also a fundamental role of proprietary relations for a civil society. Hence, subjects of a civil society - the citizens which social status assumes the equal rights to the property and to participation in power departure. Among the first thinkers who have "noticed" a civil society as an independent substance, researchers often name Platon. Its judgements about the natural social requirements inherent in people from a birth, the main virtues of the person, about an ideal society, objectively brought its critic of the government to thought that, except state-organised, there are also other forms of ability to live of a society. Aristotle considered the state as a natural product of development of a society. At the same time he analyzed society ability to live in not state spheres (economic, marriage and family, spiritually-moral etc.) where intervention of the state to a certain level of development of a society at all was not required.

In politiko-legal thought of antique Rome, in particular, in creativity of Tsitseron, there were representations about “the ideal citizen”, comprehending true, the justice, spirit keeping greatness and the decency, not harming to another and another's property, protecting fatherland. Tsitseron the treatment of a society as belongs to set of citizens. Representation about the special rights and duties of the citizen in Ancient Rome was rather developed: personally free person (that is not the slave), the citizen of the Roman state (that is not the foreigner), the inhabitant of Appenine peninsula (instead of the Roman provinces) was considered as that. The Roman had civil duties - to serve in army, to participate in national meetings, in the politician, it possessed the rights and even privileges, in particular, he could not be betrayed shameful execution by a crucifixion on a cross etc. But also in the Roman state of an epoch of republic and empire the society has been still dissolved in the state, not allocated from it.

Only in the middle of a XVII-th century T.Gobbs in the works has stated essentially new concept of the civil society arising at transition from a natural (natural) condition of protogenic, unrestrained passions, general enmity and fear of death to the ordered cultural society which citizens are disciplined by the power of the state installing in the country the world and an order. In the solving image the person turning to the citizen not on the basis of citizenship (the Roman citizens) that is why that it becomes the developed, complete and active person changes. Together with it the society with all relations inherent in it changes also. The civil society appears in that case as “the union of individualities”, collective in which its members find high human qualities. Subsequently the concept of a civil society with all its problems (freedom, the rights, a debt, morals, the property, etc.) It was developed by a galaxy of great thinkers of Renaissance and Education - J. Lock, G-G.Russo, Sh.L. Montesquieu, T.Jefferson, I.Kant etc.

The arising doctrine about a civil society consisted in idea of its development, transition of the person from imperfect, to
civilized conditions to civilised, from less developed - to more perfect. It formed the person of the new type, in a new fashion building the relations with collective bases of life of a society. The person of a civil society - the new human type focused on creation, civil relations and new spirituality. Criteria of allocation of the person from weight is an independence of the person released from guardianship, capable and wishing to count on own forces, competition, and, hence, and new, more independent and more active, the relation to community equal to and unequal, new, civil коллективности which such person forms also which forms him. Fuller, more organic transformation of a society in civil whole, and the states - in legal and political unity becomes a condition and result of this development.

The initial idea of civil society again arising thereupon consisted in transformation most collectivity, the nature of joint life of people organised under laws in a society and development of the person in the citizen of this society. The force forming and connecting these two beginnings (collective and the person), has been recognised the power of the state which also was transformed to the power of new type. Thus, the individual, the collective and the power became those three subjects which efforts created a civil society.

Continuous development has been put in the idea of a civil society which should represent constant changes, perfection and transition of the person, a society and the power to more developed forms and conditions. G-G. Russo in “Reasonings on an origin and the inequality bases” (1755) Has formulated criteria of this development: movement to civilisation, naturalness (rationality) and civilisation, as meant formation of more and more developed person, perfect civil relations and the rational civilised power. Realisation of this movement was provided with the contract on the power between a society and the state, about their mutual rights, freedom and duties. Formation of a civil society appears as civilised process in which are simultaneously civilised both the citizen, and civil relations between members of a society, and a society as as the collective beginning of civilisation, both the state, and relations between it the individual and a society. In this process are formed also the policy answering to its sense and the purposes, and there are new, more ordered less disputed political relations in a society. Condition of such development as has shown experiment of history and its researches, the balance, equal development, mutual equality of the rights, freedom and duties of all three making civil societies - the person, a society and the state, individuality of the person and collectivity joint life of people organised in a society is. Domination of one of these three components destroys a civil society. If this superiority of the state subordinating a society (as Gegel) or the collective beginning of public process (according to the theory and socialism practice believed), or domination of anticollectivist individualism, civil relations do not arise at all. And on the contrary, all parties of civil relations - the person, the society and the state - are formed and get on at their parity, forming the steady unity, capable to develop and overcome internal both external crises and conflicts. The civil society does not rally against the state for the state makes its part. All probable and real conflicts between them, as well as relations with the individual, are regulated not by discipline of fear and domination, and legal and political means, the state power, which itself is subordinated to the laws created by it. There are, thus, three directions of historical and political development which conduct to a civil society - development of a policy, the collectivist and individual beginnings of civilisation.

Thinkers of New time, having opened the person, have rejected antique and medieval doctrines about identity of private and public interests and have confirmed ideas of primacy of a society in relation to the state, eternal антиномии between the person and a society. All it promoted, finally, to formation of the concept of a civil society as independent subsystem of human society. It definitively affirms in XVIII - XIX centuries in the course of folding of a bourgeois society with such basic attributes, as a private property, freely-market economy, is representative-parliamentary democracy, a lawful state, differentiation between social and political spheres, economic, social and political functions. The new tradition started with a recognition of the fact of existence of a civil society in natural state, “by the nature”. The state, on Lock, represents certain “a new body” with a complex of the rights which surpasses the rights of the separate persons making it. If somehow the government is destroyed, the society remains with all natural laws and the rights. The people making a society, are sovereign, and owing to it (though with formation of the state the society sovereignty passes to it) it cannot absorb a society. Moreover, the state overall objective consists in society protection. The state becomes the society tool with which help it staticizes itself.

The idea of construction of a civil society belongs to the liberal thought of a XVIII-th century which yet were not separating a civil freedom from a problem of morals and social equality. Later the concept of a civil society keeps the positive relation to freedom of citizens, their rights and duties in relation to the state. The state, from its part, was treated as expressing interests of citizens. The civil society is under construction on division of public and private spheres, keeping as a principle interaction between them. On the basis of this principle have been involved in public sphere of the woman though before the independent and responsible individual always was meant only as the man.

N.Makiavelli, T.Gobbs's works, J. Lock, S. Montesquieu, G-G.Russo, I.Kant and other thinkers the civil society is analyzed and described already comprehensively, particularly and authentically enough. Fragments testify to it from products of the specified thinkers:

- The higher display of human spirit is the state. At the same time a reasoning on morals, work, a family, love, satisfaction of personal needs and other spheres of private life, which the Sovereign should not interfere with satisfaction, shows that the state and not state spheres of ability to live of a society should be divided (N.Makiavelli);

- The civil society is allocated from the state and used in direct statement as the public phenomenon though and it is inconsistent: in one cases it is divided, in others (Gobbs) is identified with the state;

- An overall objective of association of people in the state - preservation of their property. Therefore the state arises only when in a society there is in it a requirement. Hence, the state is not eternal attribute of a society which is priority in relation to it. There can be no exceptions for one person from laws of a civil society (Lock);

- The civil society is the fourth step of human history after natural state, a family and heroic time. It is a society of enmity of people with each other which for prevention and neutralisation of this enmity it will be transformed to the state. The statehood is internally inherent, but is not identical to a civil society, a particular, laws civil and state differ. Civil laws regulate not state relations (relations of the property, voluntary associations of citizens, etc.). The state laws regulate mainly the political rights and freedom of citizens. Civil and state laws are connected by dialectics of unity and contradictions in this connection disappearance of one of the unity parties will inevitably lead to public shocks. The civil society is the major guarantee of a society from an arbitrariness and dictatorship (Montesquieu);

- The civil society is a society transformed to the state by means of the public contract. It, proclaiming people's sovereignty, proves the right of the people to overthrow of an absolutism and alienation from the power демократически the selected government (G-G.Russo);

- The main way of a combination of freedom of everyone with freedom of others - formation of the civil society based on following principles: 1) freedom of a member of a society as person; 2) its equality with others as citizen; 3) independence of a member of a society as citizen (I.Kant).

Gradually distinction of the state and a civil society like arguments of perfection of the social system, called to provide social equality, a civil freedom and the government limited to the constitution. The theme which has got thus the revolutionary maintenance “a civil society against the state” has received illumination in T.Pejn, T.Hodzhskin, Z.E.Siejes's works and in the program document of Great French revolution “the Declaration of human rights and the citizen”. According to T.Pejn, the homing society demands only a minimum of political mechanisms. The civil society resists to the state which for it is necessary harm, and the it is less than it, the better for a society. The state power, on Pejn, should be limited in favour of a civil society as by the nature predilection for a society is inherent in each individual. And the the civil society is more perfect, the more it regulates own affairs and the less it needs the government. The logic of reasonings in such direction has led to occurrence of the concept of a free competition, “the states - the night watchman”, consecutive individualism, negative freedom etc.

Dominant positions in new tradition the liberally-democratic school presented by А де Tokvil has occupied, J. S.Mil, J. Dewe and other thinkers. For them and their followers searches of ways of achievement of optimum balance between a civil society and the state were characteristic. All of them started with that recognition that division between these two spheres is the constant characteristic on the present of democratic social and political system in which the productive property, the status and a prerogative to make decisions are not subject to private sphere.

The separate group was made by thinkers who considered too big freedom of a civil society as the factor of easing of a society and an intensification of conflicts peculiar to it. The theme “the state against a civil society” was looked through in I.Bentam's works, Zh.SH. Sismondi and others, and the complete form has got at V.G.Gegel. It posesses the main merit in working out of the concept of a civil society in its interrelation with the state. On the basis of ordering of all heritage of the French, English and German political thought Gegel comes to a conclusion that the civil society represents a special stage in the course of long and difficult process of historical transformation from the Middle Ages by New time, in movement of society from a family to the state. The civil society and the state are independent, but co-operating institutes. Together with a family гражданcкое the society makes basis of the state. In the state the general will of citizens is presented, the civil society is a sphere of especial, private interests of separate individuals.

Gegel, the civil society makes a complex of private persons, classes, groups, corporations, estates, the institutes which interaction is regulated by civil law and which directly do not depend on the state. Its numerous components frequently are non-comparable, unstable and subject to serious conflicts in which one private interests face other private interests. Thus excessive development of one elements of a civil society can suppress its other components. Thereupon the society cannot be "civil" until it does not cope politically, under state supervision. Only Supreme public power - the constitutional state, - can effectively cope несправедливостями a civil society and transform human collectives with domination of concrete private interests to political communities. From this position Gegel criticised the theory of the natural right that it mixed a civil society and the state, considering the last as the partner of its citizens and by that called in question “an absolute divine principle of the state”. The state, from the point of view of the philosopher, keeping a civil society in the subordinated position, provides its freedom.

After Gegel K.Marx considered a civil society as a historical phenomenon, as result of historical development, instead of as the condition given by the nature. The state and a civil society, in its opinion, make historically determined formations which are characterised by special forms and are shown in three possible variants:

- A civil society and the states as two hostile armies:

- A civil society and the state as two friendly armies;

- One of armies in the course of an antagonism becomes the winner and dismisses other army.

K.Marx considered political representation of a civil society in the state as the barefaced contradiction as, allocating itself with political functions, the civil society, as a matter of fact, denies itself. The critical relation of the founder of Marxism to a civil society was based it on supervision that the civil society what it was in Europe in the middle of a XIX-th century, really rejected from itself working class and could not satisfy the major material requirements of a great bulk of workers. In introduction to “Criticism of political economy” Marx characterised a civil society as derivative of material living conditions and asserted that “it is necessary to search for anatomy of a civil society in political economy”. Extremely having simplified structure гегелевской models of a civil society, it actually reduced this phenomenon to the form in which economic development is carried out, ignoring thus all complex sociocultural, ethnonational, family-household relations and the institutes providing socialisation and political education of rising generation. According to founders of Marxism, construction of a classless communistic society in general deprived of sense any reasonings on relations of the state and a civil society.

Whether it is necessary to be surprised to that V.I.Lenin, one of the stalwarts and the most talented interpreters of the doctrine of K.Marx and F.Engels, at all did not use concepts of a civil society and a lawful state. He believed that mankind clearing will come as a result to destruction of class distinctions and the subsequent liquidation of division between the state and a civil society, and also to association of personal and collective life of the person. In the logician of such reasonings in the conditions of a socialism the state which was considered as the spokesman and the guarantor of general interest, should subordinate to the will all society. These can explain, most likely, and that fact that in the Soviet social science the concept “a civil society” was not used at all.