A person works throughout his life. Work in order to satisfy his needs for shelter, food, clothing, etc., and also in work he realizes his labor potential, self-realization and interacts with society.

Thanks to labor activity, a person creates various material and spiritual benefits that satisfy not only his individual needs, but also the needs of the entire society. Also, these benefits ensure the socio-economic development of the country as a whole.

In the process of work, people enter into labor relations with each other, which cannot simply function and for which regulation and control are necessary. Labor relations are mainly regulated by the state and its laws and regulations.

The concept of “labor” cannot be viewed in a simplified manner, since it includes not only economic, but also physiological, social and sociological components.

From an economic point of view, labor is any socially useful human activity; from a physiological point of view, labor activity is a neuromuscular process due to the accumulation of potential energy in the body. Consequently, labor can be considered as a process occurring between man and nature, in which man, by performing certain activities, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature.

From the above definitions it follows that labor is an activity. However, the concept of “activity” is much broader than the concept of “labor”, so it has to be limited.

With equal right we can talk about the activities of humans, natural forces, technology and animals. But the word “labor” in relation to figures of this kind is completely inapplicable: to say that they “work” can only be done in a poetic metaphor, since this contradicts both our ideas and the rules of word usage.

Only about a person is it equally legitimate to say that he works and that he works. This implies the first limitation: we call only human activity labor.

But human activity is still too broad a concept: it will include the work of Raphael, Newton, Edison, and the fruitless scooping of water with a sieve by the fairytale Ivan the Fool.

From a physiological point of view, all manifestations of the activity of a healthy and sick person are completely identical neuromuscular processes, which are carried out, of course, due to the potential energy accumulated in the body. But not all of them relate to the concept of “labor,” because we call labor only socially useful human activity. This is the second limitation. Its meaning is very conditional: the same engraver can produce, using the same techniques, both full-fledged banknotes and counterfeit credit cards. In the first case, it will be work, because it is work useful to society, in the second, it will be criminal activity, because it is harmful to society.

It should be noted that in different eras society values ​​certain types of human activity differently.

Once upon a time, various fortune-telling, removal of damage and the evil eye, prostitution, speculation were considered useful for society and even godly; in the Soviet era, these phenomena were condemned and even punished by law; in modern conditions in countries with market economies, in a number of cases such types of activities are recognized as labor and are legalized as a kind of business, although they are despised by the public.

These examples emphasize that the definition of work contains a sociological element: society's recognition of the usefulness of the activity that we call work.

By determining the goals, methods and results of labor, the commodity producer solves three main questions: what products, in what quantity and when should be produced? (labor as a conscious activity); How to produce these products, from what resources, using what technology? (labor as expedient, rational activity); For whom should these products be produced? (work as a socially useful activity).

So, in the most general form, labor can be defined as an objectively inherent human sphere of purposeful useful activity to transform the natural, material and intellectual resources that he has into a product necessary for personal and public consumption.

When performing a certain type of activity involving the production of products or material services, a person interacts with other elements of the labor process - objects and means of labor, as well as with the environment.

Objects of labor include land and its subsoil, flora and fauna, raw materials and materials, semi-finished products and components, objects of production and non-production work and services, energy, material and information flows.

Means of labor are machines, instruments and equipment, tools, fixtures and other types of technological equipment, software, organizational equipment of workplaces. Human interaction with objects and means of labor is predetermined by a specific technology, the level of development of labor mechanization (machine, machine-manual and manual processes), automation and computerization of labor processes and production.

The environment and its condition are considered from the point of view of microecology of work, i.e. ensuring occupational safety and compliance with psychophysiological, sanitary-hygienic, ergonomic and aesthetic requirements for working conditions, as well as taking into account socio-economic relations in the organization (at the enterprise, in the workforce).

The product created in the labor process as a commodity has a physical (natural) and cost (monetary) form.

The physical (natural) form of various finished products of industrial, agricultural, construction, transport and other industry nature, as well as all kinds of production and non-production work and services, are expressed in a variety of meters - pieces, tons, meters, etc.

In value (monetary) form, the product of labor can be expressed as income received or earnings as a result of the sale of the product of labor.

It is important to emphasize that work is the basis of human life and development. The need to work as a necessary and natural condition of existence is initially inherent in human nature itself.

Throughout their lives, people learn ways to interact with nature, find more advanced forms of organizing production, and try to get greater effect from their work activities. At the same time, people themselves are constantly improving, increasing their knowledge, experience, and production skills. The dialectic of this process is as follows: first people modify and improve the tools of labor, and then they change and improve themselves.

The process of human development consists of continuous renewal and improvement of the tools of labor and the people themselves. Each generation passes on the full stock of knowledge and production experience to the next. This new generation, in turn, acquires new knowledge and experience and passes it on to the next generation. All this happens on an ascending line.

The development of objects and tools of labor is only a necessary condition for the implementation of the labor process itself, but the decisive element of this process is the person himself.

Labor is the basis of human life and development. It is inherent in nature itself that a person must work as a necessary and natural condition of existence. Equally necessary and natural is labor from the point of view of its role in society.

In the process of producing material goods and services, people necessarily enter into certain relationships not only with material elements and the natural environment, but also with each other. Such relationships are called industrial relations.

Relations between people, which are determined by their participation in social labor, represent a social form of labor.

It is necessary to understand that without a historically established social form, labor as such does not exist, just as there cannot be a social form of labor without labor itself.

From the very first steps of humanity, labor acquires a social form corresponding to it. Look around you: clothes, shoes, furniture, food, cars, etc. - everything we use was created by the joint labor of people.

Therefore, work is the basis of life and activity not only of an individual, but also of society as a whole.

Literature. Volkov. O.I. Devyatkin O.V. Economics of an enterprise (firm): Textbook. M.:INFRA - M, 2005.601p. Adamchuk V.V., Romashov O.V., Sorokina M.E. Economics and sociology of labor: Textbook for universities. - M. UNITY, 2000.5-14. Borisov E.F. Economic theory. M., 1993.

In the first volume of Capital, Marx, discussing the labor process and the process of increasing value, defines the specifics of human labor itself: “Labor is, first of all, a process taking place between man and nature, a process in which man, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature. He himself opposes the substance of nature as a force of nature. In order to appropriate the substance of nature in a form suitable for his own life, he sets in motion the natural forces belonging to his body: arms and legs, head and fingers. By influencing and changing external nature through this movement, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops the forces dormant in her and subordinates the play of these forces to his own power.” .

Marx talks about the process taking place between man and nature. What does happening mean? Does man do something in relation to nature, or does nature do something in relation to man? Or maybe man does something in relation to nature, and nature does something in relation to man?

But then how does one relate to the other? Is what man does to nature more important than what nature does to man? Or is it more important what nature does? Or what is done by nature and by man is equivalent?

Since ancient times, this issue has been discussed by those representatives of the human race who wanted to understand how exactly this very human race relates to its habitat, that is, to nature. This was discussed at first, of course, in mythopoetic forms. Those discussing it understood that by picking fruits from a tree, a person simply takes something from nature, which gives it something to him. That since nature is a giver, and man is a gift recipient, then it is necessary to express human gratitude to the one who gives you something free of charge. That it is necessary to justify the receipt of gifts, because otherwise it may taste like theft. That the only way to justify receiving a gift is to call yourself a son of nature (why else would she start lavishing gifts?). That, having called oneself a son of nature, one must fulfill a certain filial duty. That in addition to this duty, the fulfillment of which requires appropriate rituals, it is necessary to return what was given in the form of a buried body, nourishing Mother Earth with itself at the moment of returning to the womb and thereby justifying the fact that the mother nourished you before this return.

This is how it is if a banana grows on a palm tree and a primitive gatherer greedily or reverently plucks this banana or picks up a fallen banana from the ground. But if we are talking not about gathering, but about hunting, then the process taking place between man and nature changes its character. Because the animal being killed belongs to the forest. And you don’t accept a gift from the forest, you steal something from the forest. In the hunting rituals of many peoples, hunting “by agreement” with nature (one type of process taking place between nature and man) and hunting without reaching such an agreement are contrasted quite clearly with each other. The animal being killed may belong to one or another god or nature itself. And then, by killing, you commit blasphemy and will be punished for it.

And there may be cases when nature allows you, as they say, to “take” an animal. But even so, you have to thank nature for an animal differently than for a banana. And the animal must ask for forgiveness. For it is no worse than you, and you took its life. Actually, you acted in the same way as an animal hunting an animal. But the beast has no guilt, but you do. And you must make atonement sacrifices not only to mother nature, but also to the beast.

The process taking place between man and nature changes even more strongly if we are talking not about gathering and hunting, but about agriculture. In this case, the mythopoetic understanding of the process was not avoided in ancient times by comparing agriculture with incest. Man rapes mother nature (the raping organ is the plow with which the earth is plowed), the raped earth gives birth to a child in the form of a crop, the father, by harvesting the crop and eating it, actually devours his own children. Anthropologists who collected the myths of the so-called primitive peoples collected quite a lot of material confirming this understanding by ancient man of the nature of the process taking place between him and nature.

The famous Russian biologist and breeder Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin (1855–1935), in the introduction written to the third edition of his works, formulates the Marxian process between man and nature as follows: “Fruit growers will act correctly if they follow my constant rule: we cannot wait for favors from nature; it is our task to take them from her.”[AND. V. Michurin. Results of sixty years of work on breeding new varieties of fruit plants. Ed. 3rd. M., 1934]. This is not a banana gatherer or a game hunter. But this is not the ancient agrarian with his constant expectations of favors from nature and atonement for his sin before her.

The process taking place between man and nature in the form in which it is described by Michurin has distinct features of violence. For some time, Michurin was criticized for this approach, contrasting him with man’s ecological concern for Mother Nature. But everything that is happening before our eyes suggests that the process taking place between man and nature is becoming increasingly merciless. And that now it is completely pointless to ask about the relationship between the role functions of man and nature in the process taking place between them.

Meanwhile, Marx speaks of the process taking place between man and nature as a process “in which man, through his own activities, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature.”

Marx says that man, by his own activity, regulates the process of exchange and everything else. In whose favor he regulates this process is clear from its results.

We are convinced that Marx, on the one hand, gives brilliantly comprehensive definitions of the phenomena under consideration and, on the other hand, refuses a detailed consideration of these phenomena. It in no way characterizes the process taking place between man and nature. He simply says that this process is taking place.

It couldn't have been any other way. Marx deals in Capital not with the fine structure of the processes taking place between man and nature, but with the structure of human labor activity itself and everything that this activity gives rise to. And it generates, among other things, capital.

Marx's opposition between the substance of nature and the forces of nature deserves special attention. Marx argues that man opposes the substance of nature as a force of nature.

Nature is thus seen as a unity of force and matter. In this case, force opposes matter. But if the force of nature is man, then nature before man is just matter. And how did the substance release its power? We have many who are eager to contrast the early Marx with his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts with the mature Marx who wrote Capital. They say that in the early Marx Hegelianism had not yet been completely eliminated, and therefore there are discussions about the spirit. Whether it's a matter of mature Marx. Well, then what do you want to do with this opposition of matter and force, given that matter is primordial, but force is not? Such a contradiction presupposes the presence of a certain third generating principle, which, like it or not, will have to be called spirit, uniting and opposing force and matter, generating force from matter, and so on. But Marx is only talking about force and matter, and not about spirit! Clinging to this, people who invented the mature Marx as the antithesis of the early and immature Marx, simply turn a blind eye to Marx’s constructions, based on the opposition of matter and force! And also to the fact that matter and force are contrasted by mature Marx. And not just anywhere, but even in Capital itself.

However, despite the importance of this opposition, it is first important for us to understand the process that, according to Marx, takes place between nature and man.

Realizing that it would be necessary to say something about this process other than that it is taking place, Marx writes: “We will not consider here the first animal-like instinctive forms of labor. The state of society when the worker acts on the commodity market as a seller of his own labor power, and its state going back to the depths of primitive times, when human labor has not yet freed itself from its primitive, instinctive form, are separated by a huge interval. We assume labor in a form in which it constitutes the exclusive property of man. The spider performs operations reminiscent of those of a weaver, and the bee, with the construction of its wax cells, puts some human architects to shame. But even the worst architect differs from the best bee from the very beginning in that, before building a cell of wax, he has already built it in his head. At the end of the labor process, a result is obtained that was already in a person’s mind at the beginning of this process, i.e. ideal.”.

The Soviet writer Boris Polevoy (1908–1981) has a story about Alexei Meresyev, a pilot who accomplished a miracle of self-overcoming: Meresyev had both legs amputated, but he learned to fly a combat aircraft with prosthetics, fought successfully, and shot down German planes.

The prototype of Meresyev was Alexey Maresyev, Hero of the Soviet Union, who truly accomplished everything that is written in the story by Boris Polevoy. Alexey Maresyev was able to accomplish this miracle because he had a red-hot ideal in which the dream of returning to duty was combined with what is now called technology that ensures such a return. An ideal is a combination of an idea, that is, a dream, with the technology for its implementation, its implementation.

Marx, like Maresyev, had his own ideal. For Marx, this ideal was the actual construction of a communist society. People with big ideals perform miracles because they are capable of making sacrifices on the altar of their dreams. A person must be willing and able to make these sacrifices. But in addition to the desire and ability to make sacrifices on this altar of his ideal, a person must also have what can be brought to this altar in the form of a sacrifice.

What is usually brought to the altar is a renunciation of other options for one’s destiny. You need to have these options. Not everyone has them. Marx had alternative options for his fate. He could become a new Hegel by devoting himself to philosophy. And he wanted it. But in the name of his ideal, he abandoned this, creating a not very powerful and rather quarrelsome organization, which went down in history under the name of the Communist International. Marx could also become Bismarck’s adviser and greatly influence the fate of Europe. And he also wanted this - not the material gifts offered by Bismarck, but this influence on destinies. Marx also sacrificed this alternative version of his fate. Again - in the name of building a certain quarrelsome organization that did not promise anything special at that stage of its existence, but ultimately made it possible for the victory of the communist ideal first in Russia and then in other countries, changing the course of world history, victory over fascism and much more. .

If Marx had decided to choose for himself the fate of the new Hegel, then we would have learned more about how the pre-human being, who is at the stage “the first animal-like instinctive forms of labor”, became a real person. But then there would not have been those changes in the course of world history that greatly advanced the dream of a real person.

Marx decided to become Marx. Therefore, we are deprived of the opportunity to read works not written by him, in which it would be said in detail about the difference between instinctive animal forms of labor and real human labor based on an ideal. But we know that a person became a person only when his work began to be guided by this very ideal. At least in the form of an image of the desired result.

When and why did this image itself begin to form, as well as the ability to construct in consciousness, and not in reality, that sequence of actions that leads to the achievement of that goal, the image of which was formed, again, not in the reality revealed to you, but in your consciousness? How, in the course of biological evolution, on which it is customary to blame everything even now, without understanding the essence of the matter, did the ability to manipulate (operate) with internal images of the sought-after arise, despite the fact that operating with the same images can give rise to the emergence of new images?

How, in modern scientific language, did the urge to carry out an action become freed from the need for its automatic implementation in practice? How was it torn away from the motor act and placed in an unknown how created cognitive system, where spatial-figurative models of the sought-after are stored, formed and developed?

Marx did not answer these questions. And those who answered them, studying both prehuman thinking and the thinking of so-called primitive people, who in fact are not first humans at all, but already quite developed creatures, different from early humans, just as we are from Neanderthals, got carried away by the details and forgot about the main thing. As a result, we are treated to information about the ability of animals to perform mental acts, informationally equivalent acts of judgment, about how these informationally equivalent acts are implemented on a nonverbal basis (“based on operating with nonverbal internal representations using various perceptual codes”), and so on. What should we state?

That, unfortunately, certain schools that are looking for an answer to the question of where the beginning that turned animal proto-labor into actual human labor originated, alas, are being exchanged for particulars.

That Marx would never waste his time on particulars, but due to his chosen fate, he left his very capacious and promising intellectual schemes without development.

That all schools, exchanging particulars and polemicizing with each other (cognitive, behavioristic, anthropological, linguistic, activity, and so on), recognize the need for a ritual principle as the soil on which thinking grows, that is, the ability to form an ideal, and therefore , and the ability to transition from animal proto-labor to actual human labor.

In his speech delivered at the grave of Karl Marx on March 17, 1883, Friedrich Engels said: “Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of the organic world, Marx discovered the law of development of human history: that, until recently hidden under ideological layers, the simple fact that people first of all must eat, drink, have a home and dress before being able to engage in politics, science, art, religion".

Unfortunately, Engels did a lot to simplify Marx in an unacceptable way. Many believe that this was necessary from a political point of view. I do not agree with such justifications for simplification. However, what does the justice or wrongness of the simplification of that time change for us today?

Even if the simplistic people were right then, what does being right mean for us today? It means that the simplifiers first connected Marxism with the masses with the help of simplifications and achieved a historical result. And then - due to the same simplification - they nullified this result, leading to the collapse of the USSR and communism.

And there is no need to say that this did not happen due to simplification. Any collapse has as one of its main sources one or another imperfection of the collapsing system. Marxism and communism are a worldview system. The imperfection of such a system cannot but be generated by the imperfection of the worldview. And here one of two things: either the Marxist worldview itself is imperfect - or this Marxist worldview has been deformed by various kinds of simplifications.

The first of the simplifiers, of course, was Engels. He was the smartest man, a brilliant organizer, a truly loyal friend of Marx. But between him and Marx there is an intellectual and spiritual abyss. Engels himself was well aware of this abyss. It is always realized by those who formulate great spiritual prophecies into ideological systems with political claims. And here is Engels, Christian apostles and religious teachers.

At first, the brilliant intellectual Engels simplified the brilliant Marx. Then ordinary intellectuals (Lukács, Lifshitz, Deborin and others) simplified and at the same time sterilized Engels, who, in the same speech at Marx’s grave, nevertheless said that “Marx was first of all a revolutionary,” and added to this most important “first of all”: “To take part in one way or another in the overthrow of capitalist society and the state institutions created by it, to participate in the liberation of the modern proletariat, to whom he first gave consciousness of its own situation and its needs, consciousness of the conditions of its liberation - this was in reality his life’s calling. His element was fight. And he fought with such passion, with such tenacity, with such success, as few fight.".

This “first of all” is all Engels. The most brilliant intellectual still always wants something to be “first of all,” and therefore above all. But in Marx this “first of all” did not exist. Marx, being a genius, fantastically combined the theoretical and practical, ideological and organizational, spiritual intellectualism and applied revolutionism. Marx, no matter how much he wanted, could not separate one from the other, because it was all merged into one in him. And therefore Marx does not say that first of all people should eat, drink, and then ritualize their activities. Marx does not deny primary needs. But he understands that human labor, which for him lies at the basis of his endlessly beloved history (revolutionism and love of history are one and the same), arose in connection with the acquisition by some force of nature of the ability to form the ideal. And that only then did this force of nature, having separated from the substance of nature, become a man and create all of human history.

What if ritualization underlies the emergence and development of the ability to form an ideal? Then it is primary insofar as it concerns humanity, and therefore human labor and human history!

Marx refers to the great American scientist and politician Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790), who argued that man is a toolmaking animal. But Marx merely refers to a source that is very authoritative for him, just as he refers to other sources when discussing class theory or other issues. Franklin is one of the greatest intellectuals and politicians of his time. But that time is in the past. Since then, many far from meaningless definitions of what a person is have been given. They are all flawed and they are all essential. And then there’s Franklin and others. We see several definitions on intellectual tablets at once. And without identifying ourselves with any of them, we must relate to each one somehow. At the same time, I realized that it was not Marx who called man a tool-making animal, but Franklin, who, by the way, is by no means a materialist, but a deist, who did not create communism, but the United States, and so on. And what, in essence, is worse than the idea of ​​man developed by the great existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855), the essence of whose thoughts boils down to the fact that man is a being capable of making choices? Or the definition given by the German philosopher and cultural scientist Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945), for which a person is an animal symbolicum, that is, a symbolic animal.

There are a lot of these definitions. For me, the richest of them is the definition implicitly given by Marx in Capital, according to which a person is a being capable of real work, that is, of forming an ideal idea of ​​​​the desired result and the ways to achieve it.

What follows from this definition in general and what is essential here for us, reflecting on the causes of the collapse of Soviet communism and the role of communism in the 21st century?

(To be continued.)

ON THE ISSUE OF STUDYING THE CONCEPT OF “LABOR”

Khoroshkevich Natalya Gennadievna
Ural Federal University
Associate Professor of the Department of Sociology and Social Technologies of Management, Candidate of Sociological Sciences

ON THE NOTICE OF "LABOUR"

Khoroshevich Natalia Gennadievna
Ural Federal University
Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Social Techniques of Control, Candidate of Sociological Sciences

Labor is one of the main types of human activity. Currently, representatives of various sciences are studying it. Despite the fact that this phenomenon is studied from the perspective of different disciplines, its study remains constantly relevant, because the labor process is constantly changing under the influence of events occurring in society.

Sociology, a science that studies interaction in society, also studies this phenomenon. Today in sociology there is a separate direction that studies labor - the sociology of labor. But, as noted above, changes constantly occur in the labor process, so it is necessary to replenish and update knowledge (even already studied aspects of a given industrial sociology) in this industrial sociology.

This article presents an analysis of the concept of “labor”, carried out mainly on dictionary literature. Here we consider modern interpretations of labor, proposed in explanatory dictionaries, dictionaries in various disciplines, including dictionaries on sociology. And, although this is dictionary literature (an extensive study of the phenomenon under study is not intended here), nevertheless, these definitions were developed by well-known specialists in these sciences.

All definitions of the concept “labor” given in the dictionary literature can be divided into two groups. These are definitions presented in explanatory dictionaries, where this concept is given in the most general interpretations, and interpretations of this phenomenon - in dictionaries for a particular discipline, where work is considered from the point of view of a particular science, in the plane in which it deals research of this phenomenon.

Definitions of labor are usually present in all dictionaries of the first group. The earliest of them are presented in V.I. Dahl’s explanatory dictionaries. Here labor is understood as “work, occupation, exercise; everything that requires effort, diligence and care; any tension of bodily and mental strength; everything that tires." Only in V.I. Dahl’s dictionaries, along with other interpretations, work is also considered as something that tires.

In later dictionaries, if such an understanding of this phenomenon is given, it is always emphasized that this is an outdated interpretation. But this interpretation is given quite rarely in Soviet and post-Soviet dictionaries.

In the 1947 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, labor is understood as “... a process taking place between man and nature, in which man, through his activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature.” In the same encyclopedia, but published in 1956, labor is considered as “a purposeful human activity, during which, with the help of tools of labor, he influences nature and uses it to create consumer values ​​necessary to satisfy his needs.” The last of these definitions emphasizes that work is performed in order to satisfy needs.

The largest number of interpretations of labor are presented in dictionaries of the Soviet period, where the interpretations of labor are the same as in the post-Soviet period, but one of the outdated interpretations of labor is also used - difficulties, hardships. In the Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language, 1963. here labor is considered as 1. “The process of human influence on nature, human activity aimed at creating material and cultural values..; 2. Work that requires physical or mental energy...; 3. Effort, diligence aimed at achieving something; 4. The result of activity, work; work; 5. Outdated Difficulties, hardships; 6. Academic subject.

In modern dictionaries (post-Soviet period) there are from three to five interpretations of the concept of labor. In the interpretations of this period, there is no emphasis on the fact that labor is an interaction between man and nature. This is quite justified, because labor can be carried out both in relation to the “second nature” and in relation to man and man. In one of the interpretations of labor, this phenomenon is considered as a purposeful human activity. However, here they stop noting that this activity is aimed at satisfying needs, which is an important fact. In the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language Ozhegova S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. five interpretations of the concept of “labor” are given. Labor is 1. “Practical and socially useful human activity, requiring mental and physical stress; 2. Occupation, work; 3. Effort aimed at achieving something; 4. The result of activity, work, work; 5. Instilling skills in some professional activity as a subject of school teaching.” The same interpretations of the concept of “labor” are given in a number of other explanatory dictionaries. In dictionaries, where fewer interpretations of labor are given, the first three or four interpretations are most often given, as in the definition presented above.

So, work is characterized as: a) activity, b) it has a goal, c) it is aimed at creating material and spiritual values, d) values ​​serve to satisfy needs, e) it involves a result, f) it requires effort.

If we consider the interpretation of labor within the framework of scientific disciplines, they can also be divided into two groups. These are interpretations of labor from the perspective of non-humanities and humanities.

If we consider the concept of “labor” within the framework of non-humanitarian sciences, it can be noted that in the natural sciences it is considered quite widely. Starting from the definition of work as “the process of overcoming resistance along a certain path”, and ending with the consideration in its definitions of the constitution of the body and the workplace. In the natural sciences, labor is understood not only as human activity, but also as the activity of animals and natural forces. Changes in nature are noted here, but without taking into account the meaning of this change, without taking into account the specifics of labor.

Physiology emphasizes the physiological stress in the labor process, that this process requires energy when performing various physiological functions. Labor is a necessary human need. If an individual's organs do not function for a long time, they atrophy.

Quite often you can find definitions of the concept “labor” in economic dictionaries. Definitions of types of labor can also be given here.

In economics, labor is viewed from the point of view of obtaining benefits, an element of the production process. Very often, work is understood as “the purposeful activity of people to create material and spiritual goods necessary to meet the needs of an individual, enterprise, people or society as a whole.” Sometimes work is not only characterized as a purposeful activity, but it is also given other characteristics. For example, according to the Modern Economic Dictionary, labor is “a conscious, energy-intensive, generally recognized as expedient activity of a person, people, requiring the application of effort, the implementation of work; one of the four main factors of production."

Thus, labor is a) one of the main factors of production, b) an activity aimed at producing material goods, c) carried out in order to satisfy needs, d) energy-consuming, e) conscious, f) requiring effort.

From the point of view of the humanities, work is always meaningful. In philosophy, work is always a purposeful activity, where there is an active subject striving to achieve a goal. For example, labor is “the purposeful activity of people, which has as its content the transformation, mastery of natural and social forces to satisfy the historically established needs of man and society; it is “...first of all, a process taking place between man and nature, a process in which man, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature. He himself opposes the substance of nature as a force of nature. In order to appropriate the substance of nature in a form suitable for his own life, he sets in motion the natural forces belonging to his body: arms and legs, head and fingers. By influencing and changing external nature through this movement, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops the forces dormant in her and subordinates the play of these forces to his own power.” This is the most complete interpretation of labor in philosophical dictionaries. Most often, only the definition of labor is given there.

Some philosophical dictionaries define labor in several senses. Thus, in the New Philosophical Encyclopedia, work is “a purposeful human activity, considered 1) from the point of view of the exchange of man with nature - in this case, in work, a person, with the help of tools, influences nature and uses it to create objects necessary to satisfy his needs ; 2) from the angle of its socio-historical form. In this case, it appears in social utopias as a transitory form of activity." Or, labor is “the process of people creating conditions and means of subsistence; embodiment of human strength, skill and knowledge; transformation and adaptation of natural material to human needs. Labor is a way of reproduction and accumulation of human experience; in a narrower sense - a way of multiplying benefits, wealth, capital. In a philosophical sense, labor “is characterized as an aspect of activity in which human forces and abilities are objectified, taking on the form of appearance, materiality, objectivity, independent of the individual who created it, at the same time suitable for its appropriation by other people, for moving it in the space and time of society” .

Quite rarely, but you can find other definitions where work is considered most of all from some angle. Thus, work can also be understood as “an ethical phenomenon is the same as participation, expenditure, application: the individual finds application for himself, expends strength, gives his energy.” Here we take a more detailed look at what happens to an individual during the labor process. In this definition, labor is considered where the starting point is the individual. In other definitions, the starting point is reality, which includes the individual, nature, and other objects.

If we analyze the philosophical interpretations of the concept of “work”, then this phenomenon can be characterized as: a) purposeful activity, b) impact on nature, c) activity aimed at satisfying needs, d) activity requiring tension, e) human experience, f) objectification of human forces in the labor process.

In other dictionaries of the humanities (except sociology), definitions of labor are quite rare. However, they most often present fairly similar interpretations in comparison with those discussed above, although they are also supplemented by differences due to the angle of consideration of certain processes inherent only to these disciplines.

Also, in some dictionaries, such components of labor are distinguished as a) purposeful activity, b) motives for this activity, c) objects, d) tools, e) results of labor. Sometimes in the definition of labor, in addition to the above interpretation, you can find other interpretations of the concept. For example, labor is 1) purposeful human activity aimed at creating, using the means of labor, material and spiritual values ​​necessary for people’s lives; 2) work, occupation; 3) effort aimed at achieving something; 4) the result of a person’s activity or work.”

In social studies dictionaries you can find similar definitions, where work is considered as a purposeful activity of people aimed at creating material and spiritual values. But there are other definitions. For example, labor is “a purposeful human activity. According to the evolutionary point of view, cosmic evolution led to the emergence of terrestrial life, the biosphere as a whole; the evolution of the latter ultimately “created man; in the course of social (and cultural) evolution, the development of man and society took place from primitive times to our scientific and technological age.”

Quite rarely, but definitions of labor can be found in dictionaries of other sciences. For example, in the Dictionary of Social Pedagogy, labor is understood as “the purposeful activity of people aimed at creating consumer values; one of the main types of human activity, along with play, cognition, and communication.” Or, work can be considered as “a human activity that meets the requirements of the following principles: awareness (means that a person, before starting the labor process, is aware of the result of the upcoming work); expediency (a person thinks through an algorithm of actions before proceeding with the implementation of his intentions."

Thus, examining the concept of “labor,” we can identify the following characteristics of labor: a) purposeful activity, b) aimed at creating material and spiritual values, c) these values ​​are necessary for the process of life, d) one of the main types of human activity, e) this activity, f) effort, g) work is always conscious, h) presupposes a goal and result.

From the standpoint of sociology, work is studied as a social phenomenon, the interaction between people in the labor process, and a person’s attitude to work are studied.

Typically, in sociological dictionaries, the definition of labor is considered as “expedient, meaningful activity, during which a person, with the help of tools of labor, masters, changes, adapts natural objects to his goals.” In dictionaries on the sociology of labor, labor is interpreted as “the purposeful activity of a person, during which he, with the help of tools of labor, influences nature and uses it to create objects necessary to satisfy his needs.” They also note that labor “represents the unity of three moments: 1. Purposeful, purposeful human activity or labor itself; 2. Objects of labor; 3. means of labor."

Labor is characterized quite fully in the work of D. Markovich “Sociology of Labor”. Labor is “a conscious, universal and organized human activity, the content and nature of which are determined by the degree of development of the means of labor and the characteristics of social relations within the framework of which it is carried out; a person asserts himself in it as a genetic being, creating material and spiritual values ​​that serve to satisfy his essential needs.” needs." This is a very broad definition. The development of labor throughout the existence of society is noted here. It can be noted that definitions can be divided into two groups: these are more “capacious”, but more universal, where the historical aspect of the development of the phenomenon is not considered; and more “expanded” definitions, which talk about changes in the phenomenon during the development of society. The above definition belongs to the second group of definitions.

In some of the above definitions (not only sociological), work is considered as a process of interaction between man and nature. But it should be noted that work can also be performed in relation to another person. Today, the service sector is also developed, where labor activity is also expected, but not related to the transformation of natural resources, but related to the provision of services. For example, the provision of medical services to a patient is a service sector. Here, an object of labor is not created from natural resources. However, the health worker also works in relation to the patient. In this case, the subject of labor can be not only what something can be made from, but also some qualities, characteristics, etc. man, and the object of labor is man.

It should also be noted that in the process of work a person develops, new conditions appear that determine new needs.

So, in sociology, work is characterized as:

This is one of the main types of activity, the basis for the emergence and existence of society;

Depends on the level of development of social relations;

Depends on the level of technical development of society;

Expedient activity;

Carried out for the purpose of creating objects;

Labor is the process of creating material and spiritual values;

Items are created to satisfy needs;

Objects are created using tools;

Human development occurs;

This is the process of interacting with objects.

Studying the definitions of labor, we can distinguish two approaches to its interpretation. For example, work – This is one of the main types of human activity, conscious, purposeful, requiring effort and involving the creation of material or spiritual values ​​with the help of tools in the process of interaction with other objects.

Or - from the standpoint of the second approach: work – this is one of the main types of human activity, conscious, determined by existing social relations and the level of technical development of society, during which the development of the person himself occurs, requiring effort, and involving the creation of material or spiritual values ​​with the help of tools in the process of interaction with other objects, aimed at meeting people's needs.

In the first case, the influence of social relations on this type of activity is not noted and the fact that these actions are carried out in order to satisfy needs is not emphasized. The second version of the interpretation of labor is more complete. The above-mentioned features of this type of activity that are absent in the first version of the definition are noted here. These are not unimportant characteristics, although it is well known that human activity, directly or indirectly, is always carried out in order to satisfy his needs and is determined by objective factors. And it would be more appropriate to note these features of the phenomenon under study.

3.1. Economic relations in social production

The fundamentals of the market mechanism of a socially oriented economy include the conditions and mode of existence of social production. At the same time, the structure and parts of social production represent the conditions, and the method of their interrelation, as a set of economic relations, is an objective part of the content of the market mechanism. Therefore, it is necessary to begin the study by determining the content of social production.

The market economy represents a form of manifestation of social production. The latter consists of two concepts “social” and “production”, which together reflect the process of interaction between people regarding the production, exchange, distribution, consumption of products and goods. The interaction of people presupposes their relationship to each other. The relationship involves the opposition of parties, subjects in the implementation of a common goal. Therefore, social production “...contains some unity and some separateness,” as G. Hegel wrote, “and thereby a contradiction.”

In social production there are contradictions between subjects, where relations are represented as content, and the production process is a means of realizing relations, because relationships contain the interests of the subjects, as well as a common goal.

Production is the activity of subjects aimed at creating or transforming material or intangible goods into a product or commodity. A product is created on the basis of labor, which manifests itself in the form of production. “Labor,” noted K. Marx, “is, first of all, a process that takes place between man and nature, a process in which man, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature.” Labor seems to be a general concept in relation to production, i.e. the first expresses purposeful activity in general, while the latter - to create a product, a commodity.

The structure of social production includes components: subjects, economic relations; objects, means of production - means of labor, objects of labor; productive forces, consumer forces, aggregate supply, aggregate demand, material production, intangible and spiritual production. Subjects include employees, entrepreneurs, owners, firms, corporations, as well as sub-sectors, branches, divisions of social production, if they represent a relatively separate entity in social reproduction.

The content of the subjects expresses socio-economic relations, because the individual as a person represents the totality of social relations. The content of personality is derived from G. Hegel’s statement: “... the endless relation of me to me, as a person, is a repulsion of me from me and in the existence of other persons, in my relation to them, and in the fact of recognition of me by them, which is mutual, I have existence my personality." Also, firms and corporations comprise relationships between people in the organization of joint activities. These relations develop at the micro level, and the relations expressing the content of the industry, sub-sector and division of social production function at the meso level.

The objects of social production include the means of production, which consist of means of labor and objects of labor. “If we consider the entire process from the point of view of its result - the product,” as K. Marx writes, “then the means of labor and the object of labor both act as means of production...” Further, you can find in K. Marx’s definition of the means of labor. He notes that “a means of labor is a thing or a complex of things that a person places between himself and the object of labor and which serves for him as a conductor of his influence on this object. He uses the mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of things in order to use them, in accordance with his purpose, as instruments of influence on other things.” K. Marx takes this idea from G. Hegel, who states that “reason is as cunning as it is powerful. The trick generally lies in mediating activity, which, by determining the mutual influence and mutual processing of objects according to their nature, without direct intervention in this process, achieves its goal.”

Objects of social production are “dead” and have no value without people and economic relations. The means of production create the conditions for the development of subjects, economic relations and the mechanism of their interrelation. “...In a broader sense, the means of the labor process include all the material conditions necessary in general for the process to be carried out.”

Modernization of the means of production determines the development of economic relations, which, in turn, requires the improvement of the content of subjects. The level of development of means of production is one of the important indicators of human development. “Economic eras differ not in what is produced,” as K. Marx emphasized, “but in how it is produced, by what means of labor. The means of labor are not only a measure of the development of human labor power, but also an indicator of the social relations in which labor is performed.” Economic relations are objectified in the means of labor, and more fully in the means of production, therefore the level of development of the latter can be characterized as an indicator of relations in social production.

Subjects, through socio-economic relations, interact with objects - means of production. These organically interconnected components of social production represent the already integrated categories of “productive forces” and “consumer forces”.

Productive and consumer forces arose in conditions of expansion of the number of subjects and the functioning of relations between them. At the dawn of human development, consumer forces dominated, but with the development of means of production in civilized countries today, the relationship between productive forces and consumer forces has changed significantly in favor of the former.

The term “consumptive forces” seems to be the opposite of “productive forces”. They are dialectically interconnected and appear to be opposites of the unity of social production. “Production”, as a moment of social production, does not exist without another moment of “consumption”, hence it is impossible to consider productive forces without the existence and recognition of consumer forces, which have a single structure, but perform different functions in social production.

Measuring the relationship between productive forces and consumer forces can be done on the basis of determining and comparing total satisfied demand and total unsatisfied demand or total supply and total demand. A change in the ratio of productive forces and consumer forces in the direction of preponderance of one over the other above the maximum values ​​has always led to economic crises in the national economy. Therefore, establishing correspondence between productive forces and consumer forces should be one of the important tasks in the development of social production.

The content of productive forces and consumer forces can be divided into components: active and passive. The active part includes subjects and economic relations, and the passive part includes means of production. The interaction of the active and passive parts leads to the functioning and existence of the economic phenomena “productive forces” and “consumer forces”.

In the economic literature since the Soviet era, there has remained a clearly established position that productive forces and economic relations are opposites in both content and forms of manifestation. The content includes productive forces, and the forms of manifestation include economic relations. For example, A.D. Smirnov wrote that “...relations of production are a form of development of productive forces...”. The source of such a judgment is the statement of K. Marx: “In the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, necessary, relations independent of their will - relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their materially productive forces.” Further, this idea was generalized by I.V. Stalin to the level of the law of correspondence of production relations to the nature of the productive forces. Hence the following conclusion is drawn that “there is always a contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production.” Currently, the above provisions have the power to influence the minds of economic theorists. For example, U. Aliyev writes: “We must first note that this conclusion about the dialectical relationship between productive forces and production relations, which dates back to the classics of Marxism, is in principle correct...”.

It should be noted here that, for a number of reasons, the judgments of the above authors regarding the designation of the opposite categories “productive forces” and “relations of production” as content and form are not entirely correct.

Firstly, productive forces are opposed by consumer forces, as pairs, at the same-order category level, and not by production relations.

Secondly, economic (production) relations are components of the productive forces, which include both the means of production and subjects. If K. Marx meant by materially productive forces of people and means of production, then here we can unequivocally say that the generalized category “productive forces” cannot exist without the third component - economic relations, because the latter unite subjects (people) and means of production into a single integrity of a new generalized order - productive forces and consumer forces, as a unity of opposition.

Thirdly, economic relations, appearing to be an integral part of the content of productive forces, cannot serve as their form of manifestation, since the form of manifestation of productive forces is the total supply of goods, i.e. An integrated, generalized category of a higher abstract order must correspond to an aggregated form of its manifestation - “total social product”, “total supply of goods”.

Fourth, “economic relations” are opposed to “subjects” and “means of production,” but not to productive forces. Since the above categories exist in a single, one-order level of interaction, as the opposite of active and passive parts, and material (subjects, means of production) and intangible (economic relations) parts of integrity.

Consequently, here we need to talk about the task of bringing the level of economic relations into line with the level of development of subjects and means of production, as well as the level of development of subjects and economic relations with the level of means of production, and vice versa; but there is no need to pose the incorrect problem of bringing economic (production) relations in line with the level (nature) of development of the productive forces.

The level of development of productive forces must be compared and commensurate with the paired one-order category “consumption force”. At the same time, it is impossible to determine the level of development of paired categories separately. Only a comparison of productive forces and consumer forces makes it possible to determine their level of development. Such a comparison can be made through aggregated indicators and their ratios. Comparisons of total satisfied demand to total unsatisfied demand or total supply of goods to total demand for goods express the levels of development of both productive forces and consumer forces.

Determining the levels of development of productive forces and consumer forces is not an empty abstraction, but is of direct practical value in identifying the state of the national economy. By the ratio of the levels of development of productive forces and consumer forces, one can also judge the degree of correspondence of the level of development of productive forces to the scale of social production, where the equilibrium ratio of productive forces and consumer forces indicates the correspondence of the level of development of productive forces to the scale of social production; those. this suggests that society controls the economy, and not spontaneous forces dominate the economy and society.

The interaction of productive forces and consumer forces manifests itself in aggregate forms and predetermines their development: the relationship between aggregate supply and aggregate demand or aggregate satisfied demand and aggregate unsatisfied demand. The ratio of aggregate supply and aggregate demand expresses the state of social production. The latter includes generalized economic categories of a higher order: “material production”, “immaterial and spiritual production”.

Thus, from all the previous proposals it is possible to create a general model of social production and identify the place, role and significance of economic relations in the structure of social production. For clarity, let's look at Figure 2.

Figure 2 shows that the structure of social production includes conditionally 7 sectors. The main sectors are numbered 1, 2, 3, their interaction determines the existence and functioning of subsequent sectors 5, 6, 7. These sectors represent generalized higher order economic categories, including all previous ones in order as constituent parts.

Economic relations are presented in sector 2 between subjects and objects. Subjects without economic relations are not able to influence the means of production, since only economic relations are capable of uniting subjects (people) in the functioning of the means of production on the scale of social production. Economic relations permeate and are present in all subsequent sectors, as one of the components of the main parts in their structures.

Subjects, economic relations and objects constitute productive forces and consumer forces that reproduce the total supply of goods and the total demand for goods within the framework of material production and immaterial, spiritual production, where the latter in unity represent social production. It should be noted here that with the increasing level of development of social economics, spiritual production in its integrity plays an increasingly important role. So, for example, in highly developed countries the share of intellectual labor, that is, the product of spiritual production, in the gross domestic product is about 60 percent, while in most CIS countries, including Kazakhstan, it is up to one percent.

Rice. 2. Model of the structure of social production

Through economic relations, interconnection, mutual influence and interaction between sectors are carried out. Thus, changes in the content of objects can affect the positive and negative course of development of economic relations and entities, and vice versa.

Figure 2 shows that the core of the integrity of the existence of social production is the first three sectors, where the following elements are located: subjects, economic relations and objects - means of production. At the same time, social production determines their development. Social production as a certain integrity influences its elements and parts (sectors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) through economic relations.

Economic relations are the main means that covers all parts (sectors) and creates integrity as social production. Therefore, economic relations are a means or mechanism for the existence of one or another type of social production and its study must be carried out in the study of the structure of economic relations. This is a separate next question that goes beyond the scope of our study on this material.

Social production represents the generic production of humanity, since it consists of material production, immaterial and spiritual production.

Man consists of spirit and matter. Without spirit there is no man; spirit will not be manifested without matter in the earthly environment. The absolute spirit unfolds, expands and “returns to the depths of itself,” forming for itself a similar multitude of parts of the essence. They are conditioned to exist in interconnection and relationship. Thus, relationships and interconnections are predetermined by the Absolute Spirit and relate, first of all, to the nature of the spirit. Therefore, G. Hegel wrote about this that “... negation, contradiction, division - all this belongs... to the nature of the spirit.”

The spirit belongs to the subtle world, if we say conventionally, from which the material world essentially arises. The dialectics of knowledge of G. Hegel is built on the study of the laws of development of the spirit, the subtle world, through which the material world. K. Marx considered himself a student of G. Hegel: “I ... openly declared myself a student of this great thinker and in the chapter on the theory of value in places I even flirted with Hegel’s characteristic manner of expression. The mystification that dialectics underwent in the hands of Hegel did not at all prevent the fact that it was Hegel who was the first to give a comprehensive and conscious image of its universal forms of movement. Hegel has dialectics on his head. We need to put her on her feet in order to reveal the rational grain under the mystical shell.”

In this case, in the last lines, K. Marx hastened to correct G. Hegel. It is in G. Hegel that dialectics flows from the subtle world, essence, moving on to material forms of manifestation. Consequently, K. Marx’s criticism of G. Hegel’s dialectics raises a big question and it is believed that he was too categorical.

Some deviation from the topic is necessary to identify an unconventional approach to gaining a deeper understanding of the ongoing processes and the essence of social production. The essence of man, defined as spirit, is the starting and ending points in the system of generic production of humanity (social production). However, to directly establish equality between man in the traditional, materialistic understanding and social production, as U. Aliyev so straightforwardly concludes, seems somewhat incorrect. This author writes that “...man is the same as social production, but only social production “folded into itself,” and social production, in turn, is the same as man, but only “unfolded” into in all its expressions and manifestations...”

Social production is a way of unfolding the Absolute spirit in the material world, the earthly environment. Therefore, the essence of man as a spirit is the starting and ending points in the system of generic production of humanity (social production). If we switch to the scientific language of G. Hegel, then social production represents a synthesis of the subtle (spirit) and material (body) world. Consequently, in the functioning of social production, not only the laws of the material world, but also the spiritual (subtle) world, the laws of morality, humanism, the principle of benefit for oneself and justice for all, etc. must be observed.

In the proposed general scheme of social production, U. Aliyev shows mainly the structure of economic relations, thereby leaving the main parts of the structure of social production in the shadows. In the general scheme of social production of the above author, productive forces, as an integral part, are found as the content of economic relations. In this case, productive forces, as a generalized economic category, are unable to function and exist, since in its structure there are no economic relations between people, subjects uniting them into an aggregated phenomenon, a concept expressing this integrity at a higher level.

The proposed scheme for the structuring of social production seems to be the main one, since objectively necessary components are identified that predetermine the functioning of the integrity. A derivative scheme is the structuring of social production into industries, divisions, and sectors that perform specific tasks of determining the proportional development of the component parts of the system.

Social production represents the generic production of humanity, since it consists of material production, immaterial and spiritual production. The study of social production showed that its essence is expressed in the generic production of humanity. This should aim at the formation and development of a socially oriented economy, through the creation of an adequate market mechanism. The development of the components of social production determines, and the totality of economic relations, as a way of existence of integrity, represents the objective basis of the content of the market mechanism.

The formation of a socially oriented economy is predetermined by the functioning of the market mechanism. It is aimed at creating conditions for proportional and balanced development of the components of the economic system, harmonizing the relationship between the goal and methods of achieving it, labor and capital, individual benefit and social justice, economic growth and improving the well-being of the country's population, in conditions of bringing the level of development of productive forces into line the expanding scale of social production.

So, economic relations are a unifying environment of subjects (people) and objects (means of production) in the functioning of productive and consumer forces. The results of the development of the latter express the total supply of goods and the total demand for goods that are formed in material production, intangible and spiritual production. Material production, intangible and spiritual production seem to be organically interconnected components of social production, predetermining the conditions for the formation of the foundations of a socially oriented market mechanism.

Concepts and terms

Market economy; social production; production; product; work; subjects; objects; socio-economic relations; means of production; means of labor; objects of labor; productive forces; consumption forces; aggregate supply; aggregate demand; material production; intangible production.

Issues covered

1. The essence and structure of social production.

2. Subjects and objects of social production.

3. The role of economic relations in the development of social production.

Questions for seminar classes

1. Labor in creating a product and goods.

2. Forms of the subject and features of their functioning.

3. Active and passive components of social production.

4. Economic relations in the existence of aggregated categories and phenomena.

Exercises

Answer the questions posed and determine the type of problem (scientific or educational), justify your point of view, identify a system of problems on the topic.

1. What contradictions operate in the structure of social production?

2. Why should the relationship between man and the generic production of humanity be considered as the unity and opposition of the individual and the universal?

3. On what basis are economic relations determined by the content of social production and other aggregated phenomena and categories?

Topics for essays

1. The role of K. Marx’s work “Capital” in revealing the content of social production.

2. Economic relations as a way of existence and development of social production.

3. Dialectics of consumer and productive forces in the national economy.

Literature

1. G. Hegel. Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. T.3. Philosophy of spirit. - M., 1977.

2. K. Marx. Capital. T.1. Book 1. - M., 1983.

3. Hegel. Encyklopdie. Erster Theil. "Die Logic" - Berlin, 1840.

4. Political Economy/Ed. E.Ya. Bregel and A.D. Smirnova. - M., 1972.

5. K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed. T.13. - M., 1958.

6. I.V. Stalin. Economic problems of socialism in the USSR. - M., 1952.

7. U. Aliev. Basic methodological principles of subject specificity of theoretical economics as a science / Bulletin of the University “Turan” No. 3-4(4). pp.167-182. - Almaty, 1999.

8. U. Aliev Social production is the ultimate object of theoretical economics as a science / Bulletin of the University "Turan" No. 3-4(8). pp.167-179. - Almaty, 2000.

The most common definition of labor, which is currently given in many textbooks and economic dictionaries, is this: labor is the expedient human activity of transforming objects of nature to satisfy human needs.

There is no interpretation of the concept of labor in the regulatory legal acts of the Republic of Belarus. The Constitution of our country proclaims work as the most worthy way of human self-affirmation. This norm is echoed by the Labor Code of the Republic of Belarus, in particular part 1 of Article 11, which states that workers have the right to work as the most worthy way of self-affirmation of a person, which means the right to choose a profession, occupation and work in accordance with recognition, abilities, education, vocational training and taking into account social needs, as well as healthy and safe working conditions.

The definition of labor given by K. Marx. Labor “is a process taking place between man and nature, i.e. the expedient activity of man, during which he, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the exchange of substances between himself and nature, creates the necessary use values.”

In the process of labor, people create material and spiritual wealth. This idea was reflected in the statement of one of the founders of classical political economy, an English scientist of the 17th century. W. Petty: “Labor is the father and active principle of wealth, and land is its mother.”

In a major study “Labor”, its authors give the following definition of this concept: “Labor is the process of a person using his intellectual and labor capital in order to, with the help of various types of natural energy and production assets, carry out expedient activities for the appropriation of ready-made goods and the production of vital goods and for performing other types of socially useful work.”

The definition of “labor” given by Professor Yu.E. Volkov: “Labor is an activity necessary for the functioning of society, recognized by the existing social system as socially useful or at least socially acceptable, carried out within the framework of the established social normative order, and which is a source of livelihood and (or) for the people performing it. way of living."

According to A. Marshall's definition, work is any mental and physical effort undertaken partially or wholly with the aim of achieving any result, not counting the satisfaction received directly from the work itself.

B.M. Genkin offers the following definition of labor: “Labor is the process of transforming natural resources into material, intellectual and spiritual benefits, carried out and (or) controlled by a person either under coercion (administrative, economic), or through internal motivation, or both.”

T. is a method of reproduction and accumulation of social experience; in a narrower sense - a way of multiplying benefits, wealth, capital

Small Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron

Labor, along with nature and capital, is one of the factors of production. T. in economic In a sense, it is a systematic expenditure of muscular and nervous efforts aimed at adapting the objects of nature surrounding a person to his needs. Political economy distinguishes two main things. type of T.: 1) economic actions, the results of which are directly or indirectly embodied in material objects and increase the stock of national property, are called productive T.; such is the work of the farmer, factory worker, artisan, etc.; 2) The category of unproductive technology includes actions that do not increase either directly or indirectly the amount of objects used to satisfy human needs; such is the work of an official, a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, a domestic servant.

Labor in the Encyclopedic Dictionary is a purposeful human activity aimed at preserving, modifying, adapting the environment to meet one’s needs, and producing goods and services. Labor as a process of human adaptation to the external environment was characterized by the development and improvement of the division of labor, its tools and means.

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

From the point of view of sociology, labor is a fundamental form of human activity that creates the entire set of material and spiritual goods functioning in society, ensuring the production of means of subsistence; the basis for the emergence of such human properties as communication, consciousness, speech, and the formation of spiritual values.

Labor in the communist understanding is free labor for the benefit of society, voluntary labor, labor outside the norm, labor given without the condition of remuneration, labor out of the habit of working for the common benefit and out of a conscious (turned into habit) attitude towards the need to work for the common benefit, labor as a need for a healthy body. Lenin V.I.

Thus, the word labor has several meanings:

• 1) purposeful human activity aimed at creating, with the help of production tools, material and spiritual values ​​necessary for people’s lives;
• 2) work, occupation;
• 3) effort aimed at achieving something;
• 4) the result of work activity, work.
• 5) Instilling skills in some professional or economic activity as a subject of school teaching

Quotes about work:

“Work that pleases us heals grief.” William Shakespeare

“Work makes you insensitive to grief.” Cicero Marcus Tullius

“From all labor there is profit, but from idle talk there is only damage.” Old Testament. Proverbs of Solomon

“They say that among animals the lion is the highest, and the donkey the lowest; but a donkey that carries a burden is truly better than a lion that tears people apart.” Saadi

“Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice, need.” Voltaire

“The higher the culture, the higher the value of work.”

“VilgeBy the degree of greater or lesser respect for work and by the ability to evaluate work ... according to its true value, you can determine the degree of civilization of the people.” Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubovlm Rosher

“Only through labor and struggle is identity and self-esteem achieved.” Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

“The source of all wealth is labor” A. Smith

intellectual labor capital