Practical humanism of marx as a landmark on a way towards a creative society

Doctor of Philosophy, Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Culture Studies of the Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University (Yekaterinburg)

Introduction

Over the last 25 years, Russia has seen a rapid change in «priorities»: «socialism with a human face», «democratization, «transparency», «privatization», «sovereign democracy», «knowledge economy», «smart economy», «innovative society», «modernization», etc. Such haste is somewhat senseless because the new guidelines do not respond to most the most important question - what for are they offered. Only knowing «why», one can solve the problems of «how» we should do «what» (Y.M. Borodai).

The update of the spheres of society is carried out in order to update human life style and involves the answer to the important question - «what is human nature» (Marx).

The economy, politics, culture and much more are the elements of objectification of a man. Consequently, it is advisable to coordinate farming, management, education, etc. with creative anthropology, with sustainable invariant of human being with the universal nature of a man, which was formed in the course of history. Because no matter what sense of grandeur about themselves people might have, the only absolute truth for people is people themselves, taken in their relationships. «Philosophical anthropology - is always the essence of the philosophical system, its semantic core» [5, p. 3]. But philosophy of the Soviet period ignored anthropology and treated it as a cunning attempt of bourgeois philosophy to camouflage a class approach. In that, they referred to Marx. But Karl Marx sneered at J. Bentham, saying “if we want to know what is good for the dog, we must first examine the nature of the dog; If we want to apply the principle of utility to a man, if we want to this principle to evaluate human actions, relationships, etc., «then we need to know what human nature is in general, and how it is modified in each historical epoch” [7, p. 623]. Therefore, Marx first found out for himself «what is human nature in general» in his «Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844», before he began offering his concepts in economics and politics. While Feuerbach rejected Hegel's dialectics, in the Soviet period philosophers, with some exceptions, rejected anthropological principle in philosophy.

Marx called his new view of the world «practical humanism»; He proceeded from the universal nature of a social man, his free initiative: the essence of a man is a free self-realization of man’s creative forces in acts of initiative, whereby a person experiences joy and pleasure of creative self-realization and recognition of his social significance. Marx reveals how a universal human nature is distorted for the sake of income generation and develops a model of society transformation, adequate universal essence of a man.

His anthropology transforms into social philosophy and philosophy of history, remaining a meaning-making criterion. Marx thoroughly studied the history of art, economics, politics, etc. not for their own sake, but to clarify the prospects of development of productive and creative powers of a man. In his famous assumption «let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings», he describes relations, suitable for individual manifestation [8, p. 35 - 36].According to this assumption, the production does not appear as the production of goods, but as the creative anthropogenic process of the production of life and renewal of subjects. The quality of relations between them is changed: the relations get cleared of alienated forms and appear in transparent as direct social relations within which individuals complement, enrich and update their subjectivity through communication; each of them needs not only the material properties of the product, but also (and especially!) distinctive personal talents of other individuals. Abilities of the others become additional organs of each individual to assimilate life. This is how a natural human community is crated; the community rooted not in some external supporting elements (division of labor, citizenship, social status, etc.), but in the creative nature of everyone as a social being. The limit for the capital is the narrowness of its economic form, which reduces values to a single parameter – the cost. This reduction contradicts social and cultural dimension of a man, developed by the capital itself.

Let us quote one of the strongest statements of Marx’s anthropology: «In fact, when the limited bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the… full development of human mastery over the forces of nature, those of so-called nature as well as of humanity’s own nature? <...> The absolute working-out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e. the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he … [s]trives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of becoming? [11, p. 476].

In the bourgeois economy writes Marx on the same page - «this complete identification of the internal nature of a man acts as the most complete devastation, as a total alienation», as «offering end in itself as a sacrifice to a completely external goal». The point is that, appropriating the surplus product, the capitalist appropriates the working time of an individual. «But time - emphasizes Marx - in fact, is an active being of a man. It is not only a measure of his life, it is - the space for his development. Thus, with invasion of time by the capital surplus labor time is an appropriation of spiritual and physical life of the worker” [13, p. 517]. Therefore, Marx says, working time is a «crucial issue»! As we see, Marx consistently reveals the anthropological aspect of production and exchange. In his economic views in the same time is a determining factor, same as in Kant’s «Critique of Pure Reason». Marx’s principle of economy of working time to increase the amount of free time is not only an economic factor, but also creative and anthropological.

The production formula M-G-M’ describes reproduction of productive and creative forces of a man: «productive and creative forces - their implementation - growth and renewal of these forces». The former setting of the life process (M - G - M ') is to be replaced by a new target, which is not accumulation of capital, but culture, productive and creative power of man. Considering the position of a man in history, Marx identifies three «forms of society», or «stages»: «relations of personal dependence» (pre-bourgeois forms of society), «personal independence, based on the proprietary dependency» (bourgeois societies), which develops a «universal system of exchange, of universal relations, comprehensive and universal needs and potentialities»; «free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and transformation of their collective production into a public domain». «The second stage creates the conditions for a third one» [11, p. 100 - 101]. It is public relations which form- a concrete base, which allows to identifying ideals, values, aspirations, goals and motives of people.

1. Fundamentals of the universality of a man

The universality of a man derives from his real possibilities.

1. Besides having a biological body, a man also has an inorganic body in the form of artificial organs of purposeful will (machinery and social institutions), which he converts into natural, social and spiritual reality. This technological power of a man is indinite under the rule of moral imperatives.

2. Social heredity unlike the biological heredity is not encrypted in the human body, but in culture, in symbolic sign systems. Culture is created by all previous generations, for each person it contains infinitely diverse options for self-development.

3. Absence of congenital programs of social behavior was provides a man with an ability to acquire any programs and become a self-programming subject of his own self-development.

4. Human psyche broke through the reflexion pattern, and a man acquired a freedom of will, initiative, creativity. Between cause and effect in the actions of a person there is thinking, freedom of choice based on the values of the ideal. Freedom is the self-causality through random, intentional actions and is given to each of us as self-determination, as the range of options. Unlike animals a man doesn’t joint with his life activity, and with its products, but keeps away from them, making them the subject of his reflection and will, changes them. Updating modes of action, a man thereby updates his skills. For the capacity is none other than the learned ways of acting. Activities aimed at changing the subject develop into the initiative, i.e. into a free self-directed activity that is aimed at transforming the schemes of work. The center of gravity is shifted from changing the subject to «self-transformation» of the doer. Therefore, «a man is a self-directing (selbstisch) being» [14, p. 160].Self-determination allows each essential power - imagination and aesthetic contemplation, thought and will, faith and love - not to lose themselves in the subject but update its content in its infinite emotional and semantic variety. A pattern of «freedom - initiative - creativity» allows a person, instead of being a frozen crystal created by nature once and for all, to become a subject of self - determination, self-renewal, self - fulfillment; i.e. be unfinished.

5. The social nature of man, disclosed in communication, public relations, which leads the psyche to generalization, to general, socially important meanings. Public relations, considerably enhance consciousness, and a man, belonging to a certain class (thinking of himself as an heir of culture of the human race), becomes aware of the things and their essence, not just casual external features, given through the living perception. During communication there happens an exchange of the content of the live human subjectivity, there is a mutual complement and update of the subjects of communication, awareness of the generic nature of a man, deployed in an infinite variety of variability; understanding that no one can exhaust the fullness of human subjectivity. This understanding is focused on the experience of the other person as an opportunity to see the world from a different perspective, in a new dimension. “Human beings, Marx says - <...> develop social organs in the form of a society”. Marx explains: «For example, any activity in direct contact with others has become an organ of manifestation of my life and one of the ways of mastering human life» [14, p. 12]. Abilities and experience of other people are transformed into additional organs of a person.

6. Reasonable essence of a man is a summand of his universality. A body, that does not think, acts according to its material properties. A thinking body acts in accordance with the laws and forms of external bodies. [6. from. 38 - 40]. Due to thinking a man acts not as a particular force of nature, but as a subject capable of managing all of the elemental forces. Intellect is a universal power of not just planetary, but cosmic nature. A Man converts mechanical, physical, chemical, biological, social forces and processes in the organs of his rational will, infinitely increasing his power.

7. The seventh important thing is the existence in a man of a new kind of feelings, which arise not from external physical impact, but from the experience of values. These are “feelings-theorists” (Marx); such as joy, respect, contempt, and so on. The focus of such feelings (emotions) is the heart, which is understood not as a certain part of the body but as a spiritual organ, making, in contrast to the mind, the synthesis of not logical, but of emotive character. Since mind can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, the number of emotions is also infinite; these emotions encourage imagination and thinking to go beyond established values and reflect the reality from a different perspective.

2. Creative cultural anthropology as a prerequisite of goal setting in designing a strategy of society development

Philosophical accompaniment for the upcoming historical stage of a society is the creative cultural anthropology. This anthropology is based on the universal possibilities of a human race, resulting from the moral foundations of living together, from productive and creative forces of holistic subjectivity of a man and from technological power, which combines reasonable goals, artificial organs of social practice and creative forces of the nature itself, its self-moving structures. Fusion of intelligent technology with the creative power of natural forces, updates the majestic feeling of cosmism.

The emphasis on anthropology implies the conformity of technological and social structures with physical, mental and spiritual dimensions of human existence, through which each individual perceives reality, with which he lives and consumes richness of his own subjectivity. The emphasis on cultural anthropology implies filling of the subjectiveness of a man with images and standards of culture.

Creative cultural anthropology emphasizes, on the one hand, forms of communication and public relations, which are spacious for the initiative and for the fullness of manifestation of vitality of individuals and, on the other hand, the aesthetic aspect of life activity that reveals the creative potential of human sensuality, imagination, social emotions.

The task of philosophy and pedagogy is not to trail after economy, which teaches to serve Mammon, but to develop samples of a man, his subjectivity for the adjustment of economy and politics. Creative cultural anthropology focuses on the transition of society from technogenic and bourgeois level to the anthropogenic creative level, in which the extent and limits of production development are determined by «the attitude to the integral development of individuals» [15, p. 123], to social needs, to the real possibilities of science to discover underlying patterns of the «star of the world». Then social wealth will cast off its cost value form and gain a foothold in its absolute form as a productive and creative potential of an individual, and education and culture will become an anthropogenic basis of the society. Everything else (innovations, modernization, etc.) will follow.

The subject-natural component of wealth will appear in its human content and culture content, forcing everyone to assimilate his cultural and human content, and to communicate with the purpose of exchange and mutual enrichment.

The true wealth (productive and creative powers of a man) is not separable from a man; in all times it has been and will be the source of natural and cost types of wealth; consumption of this wealth does not destroy it, but multiplies in the social scale; it is as infinite, unfinished as a cost form of wealth, but the motive for its acquirement is creative and anthropological; it is universal, and can become a property of anyone who wants it. The primacy of social and cultural production of people will confirm in their minds a different understanding of its own creative nature, the parameters of social prestige will change, and so will motives for communication and activity.

3. Creative nature of the universal labor in Marx’s works

Labor is characterized by different degree of intellectual complexity. Labor of a low level of complexity is inherent to the worker with the empirical training, who changes the outer parameters of the object, not its natural connections. The most important in this kind of labor is empirical skills and knowledge related to bodily-mental peculiarities of the of the employee.

The average level of complexity is characteristic of a labor, which requires a combination of scientific thinking and skillful hands. This work transforms the subject through the use of objective laws, and the subject of labor has a theoretical (scientific) training (doctors, pilots, etc.).

The highest level of complexity is inherent to the spiritual, highly specialized work that Marx qualified as universal labor.

The concept of universal labor introduced by Marx. There are different interpretations of the concept. Some authors speak about universal labor as general public work opposed to private and abstract work of (V.M. Mezhuyev), others attribute it to initiative work (E.Y. Shenkman), to dialogic nature (V.S. Bibler), with the production capacity (E.Y. Rezhabek), with mediated cooperation (N.N. Semenov) or indirect labor (A. Hagg) [see: 20, p. 119 - 145]. All these features are characteristic of the universal labor, but they are not its peculiar generic characteristic. It is necessary to reveal the original foundation from which these features derive and due to which Marx called work labor universal, not amateur, not public, mediated, etc. Following Marx, the authors oppose universal labor to cooperative labor, which allows spatial cooperation.

The labor is called cooperative because the worker directly changes the subject and thus becomes a technological agent of production. Such labor permits spatial cooperation and division of activities into separate operations. Its key characteristic is changing of an object, not the «self-transformation» of the subject, work in accordance with the predetermined scale, not the initiative.

Marx called a certain kind of labor universal labor because of its universal content, both in relation to the object, and in relation to the subject. This work deprives universal natural connections within an object of their subjective characteristics and attributes objective characteristics to «the universal powers of a human mind» of the subject [12, p. 110], which are objectified in science and philosophy, art and education of new generations. The products of this labor are of universal significance - they develop universal powers of a human mind (theoretical thinking, productive imagination, aesthetic contemplation, and others.) and have an inclusive effect, a qualitative shift in the culture. The universal content and significance of this work is the foundation for other aspects of universal labor, to which the authors rightly point.

Universal labor changes the type of the subject, its eidos. Thus, the invention of the internal combustion engine is a universal labor. Production of this engine is a cooperative labor. In the first case, there is a universal idea of a thing, in the second case - a specific thing («this thing»). In the first case, unlike the second one the dominating aspect is productive, not reproductive; initiative and creativity of the subject, not the activities of the predetermined pattern; dialog with predecessors, mediated cooperation over time, not space cooperation of labor efforts.

We must distinguish, Marx says – “universal labor from cooperative labor. Both of them play their own roles in the production process, but they differ from each other. Universal labor is any scientific work, every discovery, every invention. It is explained partly by cooperation of contemporaries, and partly by the work of predecessors. Cooperative labor involves direct cooperation of individuals” [9, p. 116].

 In the production of things, any scientific work, which creates models of the future things and technologies to be produced, can be considered universal labor. In cultural production the universal labor is scientific, philosophical, artistic, educational and activity, generating not private and individual utilitarian application schemes and rules, but universal schemes of work of theoretical thinking, productive imagination, aesthetic contemplation, spiritual faith, moral will. Universal work renews the living substance of culture - productive and creative forces of a man and creates a universal spiritual content, which determines man's attitude to himself and to others, to the nature and to the transcendent beginning. In this kind of work, the reality is presented in terms of its universal laws, and the subject is a representative of the spiritual abilities of the human race, an heir and successor of culture. Universal labor Marx elaborates, is “a strain of a person not as a trained in a certain way force of the nature, but as a subject, which acts in the production process <...> and manages all the forces of nature” [12, p. 110].

Universal labor doesn't allow dividing activities in the partial functions. Production of a car can be divided into separate operations, which can be assigned to different employees. This fragmentation is possible because the whole (the ideal model of the car) already exists. But this fragmentation is not possible in relation to the process of generation of scientific ideas, poetry or music. Here, the whole itself is created. Further differences of universal labor from direct labor can be summarized in the following points.

1. Products of universal labor exist as such only in the realm of thought, imagination, spiritual senses. Consumption of these products does not eliminate them, but reproduces them again in the minds of the new generations, they pass through the millennia, like the ideas of Plato or Aristotle's logic, the works of Shakespeare or music by Rakhmaninov.

2. Universal labor creates the ideal product, but not material, universal, but not unique.

3. Universal labor is an activity aimed at changing not the external characteristics of an object, but the schemes of activity itself. It is a reflective, self-directed activity, an initiative. Initiative refers to the external activity as productive imagination - the external perception. Universal labor creates new schemes, ways of working. These ways are assimilated, fixed at the neurophysiological level and converted into abilities. Producing abilities, universal labor is creative and anthropological. It creates social wealth in its subjective universal form, i.e. it is presented as «the development of all human powers, regardless of any pre-determined scale» [11, p. 476].

4. Universal labor is culture - producing as it develops the «general powers of the human mind» (Marx), which are objectified in science and philosophy (theoretical thinking), in art (productive imagination and aesthetic contemplation), in morality, law and politics (will).

5. The subject of universal labor cannot create its own specific spiritual product, not having learned the heritage of predecessors. It cooperates with them over time. In this kind of labor, past cultures are constantly updated and is woven into the context of contemporary culture. It preserves the continuity and dialogue of cultures.

6. Subjects of universal labor cooperate with each other with the purpose of mutual exchange, mutual complement and mutual enrichment with abilities. Such relationships have human creative content. The within cooperative labor are usually motivated by external factors – usefulness, earnings.

7. Finally, universal labor becomes the property of a growing range of subjects under certain social and technological terms:

▪ when labor in the production process, Marx noted, loses its bonded, «antagonistic character» (slavery, serfdom, wage-labor) as something repulsive, performed with some «external compulsion», this «non-work is treated by workers as “freedom and happiness”;

▪ when there are, Marx continues, “the subjective and objective conditions required to make labor attractive enough to become self-realization of the individual”; such «human» nature of work does not mean its conversion into «entertainment», «fun»; really free labor, Marx notes, for example, the work of the composer, «is a damn serious business, of high intensity»;

▪ when labor became a social labor motivated not by profit, but by the attitude to the social needs and cultural development of the individuals themselves; i.e. to its positive effect in the “man-man” system.

As for the production of means of life, Marx continues, “labor in the material production can acquire such character only 1) when it is of public nature and 2) when this work is of a scientific character and at the same time of universal character, when it is a strain of a man not as a trained force, but as an activity managing all forces of nature” [12, p. 109 - 110].

In itself, the socialization of labor does not give it a status of universal labor; if hoes and shovels become common, handwork of low complexity cannot be turned into a universal work. For such a transformation it is necessary to change the content of the work in relation to the object and the subject of labor. Marx referred to science of “the product of universal historical development, abstractly expressing its essence” [10, p. 110].To identify universal labor to social labor on the basis of common ownership, is to substitute the philosophical, creative, anthropological aspect with the economic aspect. Such a substitution is explainable by the fact that Marx is perceived only as an economist. Marx was, of course, an economist. But he was engaged in economic research, not only for the “liberation of labor from capital” but primarily because he followed the classics of philosophy and like nobody else understood the creative universal nature of a man, which is objectified in the history of a very ugly way.

Against the background of universal labor, we can clearly see the consequences of a large proportion of simple labor of workers in the structure of a collective worker of Russia. These consequences are similar to heavy weights on the legs of a runner. Establishment of the empirical level of training for workers and limiting their qualification with «initial vocational training» means a sharp increase in the proportion of simple labor. This results in strengthening the intellectual heterogeneity in the structure of collaborative labor and functional mismatch between simple and higher levels of work, blocking the implementation of innovative technologies in production and management, strengthening of the social and class differences to the extent of hostile confrontation, sharp weakening of the competitiveness of Russia. Moreover, workers produce not only a material product, but also social relationships. Workers with basic vocational education can produce social wealth and social connections only “basic” level”.

4. K. Marx about the perspectives of development of cooperative labor

Marx’s forecast about the perspectives of labor are confirmed by the modern reality. Marx foresaw the following tendencies in labor development.

1. Science, being a specialized theoretical thinking, will turn into a direct productive force of social labor, and labor will become an applied science. Sciences possess the same degree of complexity. Work, being an applied science, will turn into work of a homogeneous degree of complexity. The same complexity of labor means the economic assessment. Thus, differences in specialties will not entail differences in the privileges and social differences in the «stomach». This means social homogeneity and socially equal starting opportunities for the development of people.

2. The efficiency of labor will depend not on the magnitude of the muscular effort of workers, and on the strength of the artificial organs of social practice (technology), which are created with the help of science. Thus, the direct working time is no longer a measure of wealth and production based on exchange value comes to an end [12, p. 214] [12, с. 214]. Karl Marx explains this technological aspect in the following way: “Now the worker doesn’t place a modified subject of the nature between himself and the object; Now as an intermediary element between himself and inorganic nature, which a worker masters, he places a natural process, converting it into an industrial process. Instead of being a chief agent of the production process, a worker stands next to it”. “The main «bases of production and wealth now is not in the immediate work performed by a man, and not the time during which the work is done, but appropriation of his own general productive force, his understanding of the nature and domination over it as a result of his existence as a social organism . <...> There happens a free development of individuals, and therefore there is a <...> reduction of the necessary labor of society to a minimum, which under these conditions corresponds to the artistic, scientific, etc. development of individuals due to the time, freed up for this and means created for this”[12, p. 213-214].

Such an outcome of a capitalist production is possible due to technical and technological factors (automation, information production) and two other powerful factors: the social character of labor in the form of co-operation and economic factor - the socialization of private capital of shareholders and investors in national corporations and national banks. Bank capital is the socialization of capital in the capitalist form. It is destructive that financial capital now subdued productive economy and became essentially parasitic. The time will come when there will be an urgent public need to take control of the state itself and direct its activities into implementing the programs of nationwide justice. Not profit, but the degree of public usefulness and attitude towards holistic development of individuals, will become a determining motive for reproduction by people of his own life.

3. Automation will take the workers from the production sphere as its immediate process agents. The worker will rise over the process as “its supervisor and regulator” (Marx). The function of production of social wealth will be given to mechanisms and new technologies. The workers will retain this function in a reduced form.

4. The efficiency of social labor, due to its scientific character, will reduce working hours and increase leisure time. Leisure time will become a “space” for the integral development of people - their productive and creative forces in the areas of science, art, education, communication and others. “For socialism, - according to V. Mezhuyev, - free time is the only reality in which justifies it” [16, p. 145].

People will move from the previous forms of production development to self-development of their productive and creative forces. Technical civilization, which has been developing in antagonistic class forms, will be replaced by a new historical stage – a culture following the scheme “savagery - barbarism - civilization – culture”. It will be the beginning of the people’s own history. Technogenic society will be replaced by an anthropogenic, in which a man is no longer reproduces himself in only one aspect, but produces himself “in his entirety, he does not want any longer to be something definitively established, but is constantly developing” [11, p. 476]. Such development is carried out as an continuous stepping beyond the time limits of his own development, which are understood as the boundaries to be overcome, rather than as an absolute limit.

5. The function of production of social wealth at the stage of its material registration will not be assigned to a particular social class. Consequently, the function of managing people will lose its political character and will become a “technical” function of the (Engels). The monopoly of managing people will disappear along with all other types of monopolies (of education, spiritual development, etc.).

In the Soviet Marx studies, no attention was paid to creative cultural anthropology of Karl Marx, which he believed to be fundamental not only in economics, politics, philosophy, but also in a dialogue with workers.

5. Contemporary trends supporting Marx’s forecast

Marx’s foresight outlined above is gradually implemented in various forms under modern conditions, in particular in the form of the creative economy.

According to R. Florida, the term “creative economy” first appeared in “Business Week” in 2000. Over time, the term has been filled with a certain meaning [see .: 22; 23], which can be represented as follows. Defined briefly, creative economy has a knowledge-based economy, the ability to «make money from ideas» (John. Hawkins) based on the creativity of professionals and high technologies. The key resource now is not extensive muscular work, not a great amount of money invested, but thinking (J. Newbigin). We can add on our behalf: creative thinking, capable of going beyond the limits of already existing and habitual, is developed in the scientific and artistic education system. Therefore, at the forefront of the creative economy we will have not the banks money, but databases in the field of science and art, that is, universities, libraries, museums, exhibitions, synthesizing science, art and technology.

According to Newbigin, we should not train workers for the creative industries, we need to develop young people, for them to become the driving force and, at the same time, the consumers for the product of the creative industry. In modern industry, a worker is replaced by a robot. This entails a new economic model – instead of a worker working at the machine, there is a small group of people working together on a project. Human capital and software products are the most important measures of a dynamic economy. In the old model capital investments in plants were the biggest lever for economic development. Today in the developed economies of the world, investments are intangible. In the past, the determining factor of success was physical infrastructure. In the new model, social infrastructure is an important. Putting it all together, we get a new paradigm of society economy.

In broader terms, the creative economy involves the relationship between education policy, social policy and art policy. The interaction of culture, art, economy and innovative technologies for creation of intellectual property is a promising source of income and jobs, which also promotes social interaction, intercultural dialogue, professional and personal development of people, which contributes to the dynamic development of society (Newbigin)

We can add that the most important in creative economy is the processes of renewal of intellectually intensive products, which leads to a renewal of feelings and thinking of people and makes creative economy publicly attractive.

Between 2000 and 2005, annual revenue in creative economy reached, on average, 8.7% of the total government revenue in the UK. The share of the creative economy sector is increasing in the UK, the US, Japan and other countries.

The subject of the creative economy is a «creative class», a concept of which was developed by R. Florida. The distinctive feature of this class is the fact that this class earns money by designing and creating something new, and does it with a greater degree of autonomy and flexibility than the other two classes: workers and maintenance staff are paid for their work, executed according to the plan. According to R. Florida, the creative class of the United States increased in number from million people at the beginning of the XX century to 38.3 million, which is approximately 30 percent of the entire US workforce.

The core of this class are people engaged in scientific and technical sphere, architecture, design, education, art, music and entertainment, whose economic function is in creating new ideas, new technology and new creative content. In addition to the core the creative class includes a large group of professionals working in business and finance, law, public health and related areas. These people solve complex problems, which requires considerable independence of thought and a high level of education and human capital. Further, all members of the creative class – whether they are artists or engineers, musicians or computer scientists, writers or entrepreneurs - share a common creative ethos that stresses creativity, individual features and personal services. Newbigin describes almost the same types of labor in the sector of creative economy: these are 13 different industries with the potential of producing intellectual content: advertising, architecture, art and antique business, design, fashion, cinema, sport, music, performing arts, publishing, radio and television. These sectors of the creative economy are related, as a rule, not with the production sphere, but, mainly, with the sphere of leisure time, which is characterized by a rapid turnover of capital and a quick profit.

Creative industry in domestic publications is called «knowledge economy», «innovation economy», etc. Its main characteristic is an anthropological, scientific and technological content. If we consider it closely, creative economy in certain moments reflexes the future state of society, which Marx brilliantly foresaw, revealing the prospects of technology, science and labor.

It is appropriate to discuss ideas of Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor of Moscow State University A. Buzgalin about the importance of education and motivation at work. In the Middle Ages, as well as in Russia a hundred years ago, more than 80 percent of the population was employed in agriculture. They lived from hand to mouth and wore poor clothes. Today in Western Europe 2 - 3 per cent of people are employed in the agricultural sector and produce products that are enough for the rest of Europe and exports. “In order to ensure the production of a large number of high-quality utilitarian goods (food, clothing, cars, housing, household appliances, etc.), as well as equipment, it is necessary <...> to drastically reduce the number of people employed in the sphere of material production” at the same time increasing the number and capacity of those who will be engaged in “producing the main “resource” - the new technological and cultural knowledge, and most importantly, human creativity” [1]. “The key sector of the economy of the near future will be the spheres of innovation” and industries involved in development of creative potential - training, education, art, sports, etc. The formula of manufacturing in the future is simple: 20% of those employed in material production produce more than 80, if the economy is postindustrial. In order for this 20% of the population to provide a new society with quality material goods and equipment, each of these employees should have at least 15 - 20 years of education and go through retraining every five years, be a cultured healthy person, and live 80 years or even 100 years on average. <...> And for this kind of education and health care to become a reality, we need a huge number of highly skilled, creative kindergarten and school teachers; we need more than half of them to have graduate degrees; we need millions of people engaged in recreation of society and nature. And there something to do for everyone. For the society and even economists will quickly realize that the social impact, and even commercial benefits of the economy of the future, received from a good nanny in a manger, is no less than that from a financial speculator, dealing with billions”[1]. In small Finland, Buzgalin says, the share of expenditures on education is four times higher than in Russia, all schools are public, the majority of higher education institutions are also public, training for the temporarily unemployed is free. “And this country ranks first in the world in innovation development”. A. Buzgalin concludes: «The vector of the XXI century, the main economic resource of a social progress is escalating the creative potential of everyone. <...> A creative potential of Russia is still one of the greatest in the world” [1]. Financial speculations, socially irresponsible businesses and greed of employers, replicating mass culture, curtailment of public education and medicine prevent from realizing this potential. “Reforms in education” conducted in Russia are mostly perceived as counter-reforms. Deputy Chairman of the Duma Committee on Education and Science O. Smolin says: in Russia now less than 40% of all student study at the expense of the state budget, in Germany - more than 90%, in France - 80% [18]. How does the Russian leadership intend to implement a directive on increasing productivity fourfold in 2020? By reducing the reducing the number of universities granting undergraduate education (bachelor) degrees?

The opinion of the Ministry of Education and Science that there are too many students in Russia and that there is an overproduction of people with higher education is an alarming symptom for the future of Russia. “There cannot be too much of knowledge. There cannot be too much of education in any democratic developed country there cannot be an overabundance of students and professionals” [5, p. 48]. Regarding the oversupply of personnel with higher education, it is appropriate to consider some figures. “It is generally accepted that in order to ensure sustainable economic growth and social stability in the society, 40 - 50% of the population employed in economy should have higher education. In Russia, 25% of the population employed in industry have higher education, in the Sverdlovsk region in 2008 - 21.3%, lagging behind the European level (50%) is more than 2 times” [4, p. 70 - 71].

Marx’s foresight about the growing importance of science, and therefore education, the crucial role of high-tech automated production is entirely confirmed in the advanced countries, which focus on the transition to universal higher education (USA, Japan). In his book, academician of the Russian Academy of Education G.M. Romantsev provides a realistic justification for higher education [19]. This monograph is a kind of conceptual and practical breakthrough aimed at the long-term strategy of the phased transfer of vocational training of employees involved in production of material goods to the level corresponding to the «knowledge economy».

Academician Y.V. Tkachenko also spoke about feasibility of an applied bachelor degree [17, p. 379]. Having analyzed the results of large-scale sociological studies, he said, “a new employer in 75% of cases already in 2003-2004 offers jobs to college and vocational schools graduates” [17, p. 372]. Tkachenko quotes the general director of «Sibneft Noyabrsneftegaz» M.Y. Stavski, who said at a conference on social partnership in March 2004 in Noyabrsk: “We should learn to train workers meticulously, with the assistance of psychologists and sociologists. We should learn how to give our workers higher education, so that they did not quit work in search of it”[17, p. 379].Socio-economic and political rationale for a phased transition to universal higher education was provided in one of our previous publications [3].

With the development of knowledge-based technology and automation of production the number of workers in a particular country inexorably shrinks. In the UK, “the share of workers in total employment from 1911 to 1981 decreased from 75% to 49%” [24, p. 242], Today this indicator is just 18%, and it continues to decline [3, p. 263]. The working class in contemporary Russia is “a third of all employment in the economy” [24, p. 237].In depressed industrial regions of Russia “the work force en masse has one-sided qualifications and professional skills adapted to the mass industrial production of technologically simple operations” [3, p. 75], i.e. to a “screwdriver production”.

Attempts of some authors to justify the broad interpretation of the working class in order to increase the number of workers can be explained by political considerations: the working class is a social support of the communist movement. But if the number of people belonging to this class decreases what the communists should rely on? Authors of expanded interpretations did not notice crankiness of their allegations. After all, the theory of Marx contains a true guideline for the classless society, not a society with perpetuate classes. This guideline requires the development of the high-tech industry, certain social relations and certain level of science education of new generations, which together generate inevitable withering away of class contradictions, and, later, class differences. Isn’t this guideline a “practical humanism”?; Won’t all workers engaged in creative labor support this guideline? Isn’t this guideline a salvation in the social policy under conditions of increasing anger against social injustice of bourgeois society, the upper class of which is infected with selfishness and moral decay? Isn’t this guideline objectively true in terms of science, morality, aesthetics and cultural relations? Isn’t there a more noble and therefore more acceptable guideline in social policy under modern conditions? There are no answers to these questions from the opponents. Supporters of vulgar market fundamentalism (everything is a subject of purchase and sale), according to A. Buzgalin, behave like “the nobility of industrial revolution epoch, who sought to preserve their class privileges and serfdom at all costs» [1].

6. Anthropological principle as a guideline on the way towards human-creative society

For the development of the productive and creative powers of a man to achieve social and spiritual levels of freedom the adequate means are culture, anthropogenic, not technogenic living conditions (civilization), subjective rather than objective lifestyle. Anthropological principle in also reasonable in goal-setting and management. Economy, state, science and technology are like hands, with which, according to IIlyin, a man takes world. Culture does not interfere with these hands; it directs them. It is an “internal”, “organic” phenomenon and it touches the depths of the human soul. (I.A. Ilyin). Methodology of culture does not deny cultural achievements of civilization, whether it is optimality in designing technology or rationalization of the outer life. The troubles of technical civilization are not due to machinery, money, law or science, but due to wrong subordination of values.

In culture, the internal, spiritual guides the external, material; the spiritual meaning guides the technique of life, while the morale directs law; the viability of the state is based on legal awareness, voluntary loyalty of citizens; economic issues are resolved by training people “for brotherhood and justice”; the quality of the external transformations is determined by the internal, spiritual transformation of people; compliance in souls results in compliance in external affairs; social institutions are not self-sufficing institutions, but the bodies of common will for development of the initiative of citizens, while industrial and social technologies are only the means of solving national objectives, and their success depends not on the form of ownership (fetishism of property), but on management objectives that derive from the spirit and culture of people, their traditions and shrines; the main social wealth is not the world of things, but talents and abilities of people, the integral man, possessing the potencies of culture, a personality as the subject of self-determination and creativity; that is why the efficiency of production is determined not by material indicators, but by human performance (health, education, free time, etc.);cultural reproduction of people determines a level of the external arrangement of life - how to organize a household, what technologies are preferable and which claims of the state are reasonable; the basic thing is cultural reproduction of people (including education and cultural activities), which directly determines the spirit and culture, intellectual and professional potential of people, and, thus, the production of the means of life, the rank in international relations; the goal in and of itself is the spiritual elevation of the people, full development of their creative powers. As the Earth rotates around the Sun, so a man rotates around its own universal nature, which emerged in the course of history. Integrity of a man should be implemented not only in theory, but also in the major types of human activity. Only through this practical humanism Russia can get a second wind, its historic identity and attractiveness.

Conclusions

Statements concerning man’s self-integrity were transformed by Feuerbach into an anthropological principle of philosophy. Marx did not reject the anthropological principle and developed it from the standpoints of particular historicism into the theory of practical humanism and presented it as a practical move towards post-bourgeois society - communism. Under modern conditions, this direction of motion can be represented as a landmark on the way to human creative society. This landmark will be supported by “Russian grassroots” (Rasputin), the workers of Russia.

In the same way as the transfer of functions of motion and management to the machine revolutionized the technological basis, economic basis and the entire superstructure, so does the transfer of intellectual functions to the machine require further qualitative changes in economy, politics, education, freeing the staff of the functions of a direct process agent. Cultural reproduction of generations (social production) will become of major significance.

Raising the intellectual level of collaborative labor to a moderate complexity qualitatively enhances its effectiveness. Workers with professional theoretical training are the social basis of the state policy of the nationwide program of justice and a state support. The increase in share of these professionals is the strengthening of social uniformity and a professional basis for a dynamic development, and cultural renewal in all spheres of society. Cultural reproduction of new generations in the system of education becomes an anthropogenic basis of society. Cultural reproduction of people is primary, and the production of things (means of life) is secondary.

The cost-related form of the product will be preserved the foreseeable future, but as a tool of rational distribution of working time. The conversion of the cost into the end in itself of the production, reduction of the fullness of life and labor to the cost indicator is the Achilles’ heel of the capital through which capital will be eroded, rejected. Generation of profits as a goal, a measure of social in terms of money is a social reduction, hostile to culture, and historically transient form of management, a sort of confusion in the public mind. Public wealth exists in natural, cost-related and personal - subjective forms of as productive and creative powers of a man. Labor that creates real wealth (consumer goods and productive and creative powers of a man) has become a means of creating wealth in general, into creation of a “crazy” (Marx) form of wealth - financial capital, which has subdued productive economy and leads humanity into the dead end. The real wealth, evaluated in terms of working time, is assessed in terms of quantity and cost. Cost-related form of wealth has established as an end in itself! Only concrete labor can establish itself as an end in itself due to its creativity in relation to a man. The extent and limits of production development are determined by the “attitude towards the integral development of individuals”. With such criteria the economy appears to be applied practical anthropology. This fact is essential in overcoming thingism and social fetishism.

Philosophy of the Soviet period paid attention to the external reality of things because the society was trying to solve a problem of qualitative transformation of technological and social ways of life and anthropological aspect of this transformation remained in the shadows. Today, it is considered appropriate to develop practical implementation of trends leading to such forms of communication and public relations, which are suitable for the implementation of the universal nature of a man, his subjectivity in work, communication and thinking, for spiritual growth in the field of culture, especially in the framework of the entire education system, for the implementation of productive and creative forces of a man, his initiative and capabilities of deep communion.

REFERENCES

1. Buzgalin, A.Catch The Wind of History and Become A Leader of Postindustrial World or Get Into The Ghetto of Retardation./ А. Buzgalin [Text] // Literaturnaya Gazeta. February, 13–19, 2008 №6 (6158).

2. Giddens, E. Sociology / E. Giddens [Text] 2^nd edition - Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2005. -632 p.

3. Goncharov, S.Z. Economic and Cultural Grounds of Perspective Aspects of The State Policy in The Field of Education / S.Z. Goncharov. [Text] // Education and Science. Ed. Ural, RAS 2003. № 2 (20). - p. 126-139.

4. Denissevich, M. N. Science and Education: A Strategic Resource of National Development: monograph / M. N. Denissevich. [Text] - Yekaterinburg: Uralsk State Institute, Institute of social and economic development, 2010. -140 p.

5. Zhukotsky. V.D. Marx after Marx: Materials in History and Philosophy of Marxism in Russia /V.D. Zhukotsky [Text] - Nizhnevartovsk: Priobye, 1999. -184 p.

6. Ilyenkov.E.V. Dialectical Logic. Essays in History and Theory / E.V. Ilyenkov. [Text] - Moscow: Politizdat, 1974. -284 p.

7. Marx,K. Capital: in 3 volumes. Critique of Political Economy V.1. / K. Marx [Text] // K.Marx, F.Engels. Essays: in 50 volumes. 2^nd ed. - Moscow: Politizdat, 1960. V. 23. -900 p.

8. Marx, K. Summary of the Book by J. Mill «Fundamentals of Political Economy » / K. Marx [Text] // K. Marx, F. Engels. Essays. 2^nd ed. - Moscow: Politizdat, 1974. V. 42. - p. 5 – 40.

9. Marx, K. Capitalist Production Process, as a whole / К. Marx [Text] // K. Marx, F. Engels. Essays. V. 25. P. 2. - Moscow, Politizdat, 1962. -551 p.

10. Marx, K. Results of Production Process / К. Marx [Text] // K. Marx, F. Engels. Essays. 2^nd ed. - Moscow, Politizdat, 1974. V. 49. - p. 3-498.

11. Marx, K. Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1859 / К. Marx [Text] // K. Marx, F. Engels. Essays. 2^nd ed. - Moscow, Politizdat, 1968. V. 46. P. 1. -553 p.

12. Marx, K. Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1859 / К. Marx [Text] // K. Marx, F. Engels. Essays. 2^nd ed. - Moscow, Politizdat, 1969. V. 46. P. 2. -612 p.

13. Marx, K. Economic Manuscript of 1861–1863 / К. Marx [Text] // K. Marx, F. Engels. Essays. 2^nd ed. - Moscow, Politizdat, 1973. V. 47. -657 p.

14. K. Marx Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 / К. Marx [Text] // K. Marx, F. Engels. Essays. 2^nd ed. - Moscow, Politizdat, V. 42. М., 1974. - p. 41-174.

15. Marx, K., Engels. F. German Ideology / K. Marx [Text] // K. Marx, F. Engels. Essays. 2^nd ed. - Moscow, Politizdat, 1955. V. 3. - p. 7-544.

16. Mezhuyev V.M. Socialism as a Cultural Space / V.M. Menzhuyev [Text] // Socialism –21. 14 Texts of Postsoviet School of Critical Marxism. - Moscow: Cultural Revolution, 2009. - p. 113 – 164.

17. Tkachenko, Y.V. (Ed.) Education and Science. The Future in Retrospective: Collection of works [Text] / Y.V. Tkachenko (Ed.) - Yekaterinburg: URO RAO, 2005. -434 p.

18. Platova G. We’ll Find Ourselves in the Country of Ignorami / G. Platova // Soviet Russia, March 27, 2008. №32 (13104).

19. Romantsev G.M. Theoretical Basis of Education of Workers / G.M. Romantsev [Text] - Yekaterinburg: URO RAO, 1997. -333 p.

20. Semyonov Y.V. Cooperation of Work as a Problem of Historical Materialism / Y.V. Semyonov [Text] - Novosbirsk: Science. Siberian a division, 1983. -160 p.

21. Stozhko K.P. Anthropological Paradigm of the XXI century: From an “Economic Man to a “Responsible” Man/ K.P. Stozhko, D. K. Stozhko [Text] // Creative Basis of Liberal Education : Collection of Research Works of the 10^th Russian Conference, November, 15–16, 2013, Yekaterinburg / Ed. S.Z. Goncharov / FGAOU VPO “Russian State Pedagogical University”. - Yekaterinburg, 2013. - p. 67 – 75.

22. Florida, R. Creative Class: People, Who Change the Future. R. Florida [Text] - Moscow: Publishing House «Klassika-XXI», 2007. -432 p.

23. Hawkins, J. Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. Hawkins, J. [Text] -Moscow: Publishing House «Klassika-XXI», 2011.-256 p.

24. Buzgalin, A.V. Voinekov, M.I. (Eds). A Man and the Economy: Justice and Basic Democracy Against Totalitarism and Market of Capital: Buzgalin, A.V. Voinekov, M.I. (Eds) [Text] - Moscow: Ekonomika, 2011. - 423 p.