Practical humanism of marx as a landmark on a way towards a creative society
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №7 - 2015
Author: Goncharov Sergej, Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University, Russia
Doctor of Philosophy, Chair
of the Department of Philosophy and Culture Studies of the Russian State
Vocational Pedagogical University (Yekaterinburg)
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).
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»
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.
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
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.
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].
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.
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
universality of a man derives from his real possibilities.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.).
level of complexity is inherent to the spiritual, highly specialized work that
Marx qualified as universal labor.
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
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
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.
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.
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].
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].
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.
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.
Universal labor creates the ideal product, but not material, universal,
but not unique.
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].
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).
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.
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.
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].
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.
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
forecast about the perspectives of labor are confirmed by the modern reality.
Marx foresaw the following tendencies in labor development.
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.
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].
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.
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].
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.
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.).
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
foresight outlined above is gradually implemented in various forms under modern
conditions, in particular in the form of the creative economy.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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” . “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”. 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” . 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% . 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
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].
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 . 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».
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 .
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”.
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» .
6. Anthropological principle as a guideline on
the way towards human-creative society
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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
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] 2nd 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. 2nd 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. 2nd 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. 2nd 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. 2nd ed. - Moscow, Politizdat, 1968. V. 46. P. 1. -553
12. Marx, K. Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1859 / К. Marx [Text] // K. Marx, F. Engels.
Essays. 2nd 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. 2nd 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. 2nd 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. 2nd ed. - Moscow, Politizdat, 1955. V. 3. -
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 10th 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.
23. Hawkins, J. Creative Economy: How People
Make Money from Ideas. Hawkins, J. [Text] -Moscow: Publishing House «Klassika-XXI»,
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.
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №7 - 2015