© kostov.ru













































































































Kostov Sergey Viktorovich

Novosibirsk State University


                                                                             …our socialism is excellent
                                                                                            at all stages
                                                                                          of its historical embodiment [1]…

                                                                                                          Bogdanov A. A.


At the very beginning of XX century, when the First World War had not yet broken out, Bogdanov noted in his analysis of the international situation that “new barbarity is being revived under the suits of XX century” and soon we should expect “such crises which would bring it to the complete final maturity”. At the same time in the chaos of the current events he saw as well “the symptoms of the great changes which are going at the bottom of life”, “the changes which are occupying all its main areas”, and states specifically that: 1) “there is being changed the correlation of forces between mankind and the spontaneous nature against which it carries on the eternal struggle”; 2) “the relations between people themselves are changing fundamentally”; 3) “there is being changed the connection of the ideas which illuminate the existence and activity for people”; 4) “the whole image of life is changing, because the prologue of history of mankind is coming to an end, the prologue which have been erroneously considered as its true history for a long time” [2].

According to Bogdanov, the development of mankind from the animal state in a reasonable species is made under the very simple scheme: the prologue of history, the beginning of history and the history proper; in so doing the whole historical cycle goes completely into a single tectological act: the undifferentiated archaic whole – differentiation – counterdifferentiation – the differentiated conscious whole. In the traditional historical periodization this corresponds to the change of the types of society: primitive – feudal-authoritative – bourgeois-individualistic – collectivistic society. The first three phases make up the spontaneous period of the development of mankind and relate to the prologue of its history since in the true and authentic sense of the word the history of mankind is possible to be spoken about only when mankind, being the actor in the world around, shows itself as the uniform reasonable whole. At the present time mankind has closely come nearer to the beginning of the history — to the moment which separates the spontaneous stage of the development of mankind from the conscious one, i.e. to the moment when there is being taken place “the replacement of one type of the development by another: of the disharmonic development of fragmented mankind by the harmonic development of united mankind” [3].

So, according to Bogdanov, the prologue of human history is coming to an end. Mankind is being on the threshold of the beginning of its history. What is out the threshold? Only science which is based on practice can say to mankind in the most definite way what is out the threshold because science exists in order to predict. It is true that science cannot predict with precision what has not already been observed in practice. But if science has a general understanding of “what exists and knows in what direction it changes”, i.e. the tendency is known, then science not only can, but it also “must draw a conclusion about what will ensue from this. It must make this conclusion so that people could conform to it in their actions, so that they would not use their strength in vain, their efforts defying the future and delaying the development of new forms, — but so that they could consciously work for the acceleration and facilitation of this development” [4]. Shortly speaking, the method of scientific forecasting consists of detection of current trends and extrapolation of them into the future. A prediction’s reliability depends on how accurate and complete is the organizational analysis that it is based on.

According to Bogdanov, the “principle of extreme equilibrium” [5] plays the key role in the final phase of scientific forecasting. It is the main method used in research of crises, as a model of which can serve the following imagined experiment: let us suppose that we take a mixture “of water, petroleum, sand, stones, bars of sugar and iron” and shake it up; it is entirely comprehensible that “some creature of molecular scale would experience this act as a cruel world catastrophe”, not being able to find any regularity in the occurring motion. However even this creature, if it knew the composition of the mixture and the qualities of its elements, could “predict how the elements would be situated after the shake, once they had reached equilibrium” [6]. Thus, the essence of scientific forecasting consists of the extrapolation of observed tendencies, the limits of which apply to the forecast itself.

Thus humanity, or more precisely pre-humanity, with a nuclear cudgel in its hands, has come to the beginning of its history. What are the tendencies that can be seen in its development? There are certainly the mass of them, but science as an “organizing tool of practice (organizuiushchee orudie praktiki)” must analyze their cluster, systematize it and arrange its contents. As a result there is the package with the label of science on its wrapper. The package contains two complexes of discernible tendencies: historic, or tendencies of the past, and current, or tendencies of the present; the latter depend on the former. Due to the global spatial and temporal extensiveness of the processes they characterize, it is more appropriate to term these tendencies megatrends.

The first complex, which is central in the general system of tendencies, consists of historic megatrends, i.e. the basic trends of global social processes (that is sociogenesis, which is discernible on a historical time-scale). These trends indicate the development of the world social system, which is oriented towards unrestricted growth of the population and influence on the environment, towards the acceleration of the pace of inner transformations, towards increasing complexity and organization of society, as well as towards increasing cooperation and all-round freedom of human activity.

The second complex is dependent on the first and peripheral in reference to it. It consists of current megatrends, i.e. the basic trends of global sociogenesis observed on the scale of present time. Among them are the main tendencies of information spread, connected with the exponential growth of the production of information, with accessibility and speed of information distribution; main demographic tendencies, caused by the hyperbolic growth of the planet’s population; main communication tendencies, meaning increased intensity and extensiveness of communication and globalization of thinking; main tendencies concerning energy, characterized by rapid growth of energy consumption; as well as all the rest of the most general tendencies of scientific and technical development.

According to Bogdanov, these are the main areas of man’s struggle with nature, and they are all connected to the new state of the technosphere. They “signify the rise of scientific technology at a stage when production forces are intensifying due to conscious effort, not only due to spontaneous stimulation”. During a stage of this kind the most general tendencies of scientific and technical development are: 1) the “conscious struggle for the maximum coefficient of use of all technical means and possibilities”; 2) the increasing growth rate of energy production; 3) the tendency of automatization and computerization of all manufacturing; 4) the change of the economy paradigm from regional (characterized by a tendency to autarchy) to global (with the tendency to form firm complementary connections between separate regional economies); 5) the tendency to scientific organization of labour on a global scale, i.e. to the rational use of all labour resources available on the planet, both “physical” and “organizational”; 6) the increasing collectivization of scientific research on a comprehensive scale, based on realistic and practical goals; 7) the tendency to consolidate the technoriate — “the social group with immediate influence on the development of scientific technology and natural sciences”, i.e. the “technical intelligentsia”, which is the social vanguard of the tectoriate — the “organizational intelligentsia in general”; 8) the tendency of the technical intelligentsia to “produce a new world view ”, which “gravitates towards monism” and is both “scientifically practical” and “consciously organizational”; 9) the striving of the technical intelligentsia to “become a class ‘for itself’, with a particular ideology, and to become an independent, not a subordinated organizer of the social economy”; 10) the tendency to the strengthening of the tectoriate’s leading role in global sociogenesis, up to now its spontaneous aspiration to become a common governing body in all spheres of human activity. The list of tendencies could be continued, but that it is unnecessary to do so, because the content and nature of this list has already been adequately demonstrated [7].

The whole package, i.e. both complexes of megatrends, which has fallen on pre-humanity from the prologue of its history, forms in all its totality the single and most general trend of historical processes on the whole — the tendency to fundamental change of the whole anthroposphere, connected to the essential transformation of pre-humanity and its transition into the status of humanity. According to the principle of extreme equilibrium, this global metamorphosis is seen on the scale of historic time as the change of global forms of sociogenesis. This change is connected to the transition of anthropogenesis: from the stage in which humanity was an object of selection, to the stage in which it becomes an active subject of selection. Simply speaking, transition from spontaneous development of society to conscious. Structurally, as it has already been noted above, this general direction of all sociohistorical processes, which can for brevity’s sake be called the omega-tendency, represents the bicomplex system of interrelated megatrends of the past and present, of which historic megatrends compose the central complex or nucleus, and current ones the peripheral complex or membrane. The extrapolation of the omega-trend into the future has one essential prerequisite: the absence of exterior and inner catastrophes, which are capable of preventing the progressive development of the world social system. This means, firstly, that no cosmic cataclysms occur during the time of extrapolation, and secondly, that pre-humanity must finally bury its nuclear cudgel and refuse to resort to other similar suicidal weapons in the future as well. These weapons include any kind of climatic, geophysic, viral, biochemical and genetic means of omnicide, some of which are already being used (along with informational and economic means) under the guise of “scientific” depopulation. Whereas, according to Bogdanov, even a partial self-destruction or such “more humane” means as decrease of reproduction signifies “the renunciation of boundless growth of life”, the backdown to ambient spontaneous forces: life “wins while attacks”; that is why any reduction of its army is a retreat under the strokes of natural forces which “besiege it from every quarter” [8]. Moreover, every unborn soldier is a possibly talented or even genius commander in the struggle of life with spontaneous elements; not to mention that every combination of genes and eidogenes [9] is unique and makes an inimitable contribution to this thrilling struggle within its possibilities. In essence, the popular discourse about the lack of resources reduces the life of mankind to the life of yeast funguses in a sugar syrup, but man is not an yeast fungus and is incomparably higher step of organization, by virtue of what such and similar analogy is, to put it mildly, inappropriate: a scientific analogy supposes structural identity or, at least, structural resemblance of objects of investigation and is verified by practice.

If the necessary prerequisite stated above is realized, the system of megatrends is extrapolated “until it reaches that vital limit (ziznennyj predel), up to which these trends stay mutually compatible” [10]. For example, if such a megatrend as acceleration of the pace of social transformations is extrapolated, while isolated from the whole system, then at the limit the social transformations attain endless speed, i.e. singularity, and, as consequence, unpredictability. However, if one recalls that such a process happens in a society which consists of people, it becomes clear that the pace of social transformations cannot exceed the pace of the actions of individual men. If an environment changes more rapidly than an individual is able to adapt to it, the latter fails to fit in and perishes. Consequently, the limit of the pace of social transformations is the average pace of the actions of an ordinary man, and such a definition of the limit means that this megatrend of social change is entirely compatible with other megatrends, in particular with scientific and technical ones. Among these is the growth of computer speed, which can provide reliable, repeatedly guaranteed technical control over social transformations due to the truly fantastic speed of information processing that already exists. In other words, no singularity will be occur: to the point of its very limit this megatrend is compatible with the rest, and the social system remains capable of further stable development.

One of the megatrends is the unrestricted growth of the world social system’s population. Its extrapolation must take into account two particular points: the dimensions of the planet and the limitedness of food resources. The analysis of the behavior of the demographic system shows that the megatrend does not achieve its limit in these conditions, but rather the system continues its development. The natural dimensions of the planet cannot form the limit of the quantitative progress of this system, because new possible habitats can always be found in the unlimited cosmos, thanks to the development of science and technique. All kinds of neo-Malthusian references to the shortage of resources are, according to Bogdanov, generally unscientific [11], because the capability of our planet to endure exploitation is sufficiently high. If “the creative potential of man is taken into consideration, there are no foreseeable limits to the main natural resources of food production, to which space, water, climatic conditions, solar energy and the efforts of man himself all contribute”, because “all these resources are either not limited or it is possible to increase them, to use them with greater expediency or to significantly transform them”. Moreover, “many resources are created by labor and inventiveness”, thereby “in techniques and technologies there lies an infinite reserve of the production of new resources”. For example, the exhaustion of such an energy resource as oil “will result in the search and uncovering of new resources and in the creation of alternative energy resources”, and development of biotechnologies “will essentially increase agricultural labor productivity”. As a result after a detailed analysis of the possibilities and limitations of the world’s food production “many experts have come to the conclusion that there is no limit to population growth” [12]. As for the compatibility of the demographic megatrend with the rest of the megatrends — it is evident that they are compatible, because all megatrends without exception contribute precisely to eliminating the various limitations of the production of food resources.

Finally, the limit of all mutually compatible megatrends, towards which the development of the world social system gravitates, is, to the great disappointment of antiglobalists, a single world social organism, solidified through close cooperation, or in other words a global collective, which is structurally identical to a living organism. In this global collective there will be one united organ of government, which will be under the control of the technoriate. The tectoriate, on the other hand, will play the dominant role in all spheres of social activities. Figuratively speaking, once reaching its limit the world social system will resemble a living organism, in which the technoriate will perform the functions of the brain and the tectoriate the functions of the central nervous system.

However, there is a prejudice in the scientific community that the integration of pre-humanity into a common “cephalocentric system” with a general intellect threatens it with inevitable death [13]. The argumentation usually runs as follows: the present state of pre-humanity is similar to a community of populations, and the future state to a living organism. But since biology says that an organism is mortal, and a population allegedly immortal, the corresponding pessimistic conclusion is drawn of “cephalocentrically” integrated pre-humanity. However, it is to be noted that the analogy mentioned is incorrect. Firstly, not all organisms are mortal, bacteria for example [14]. Secondly, if more complex organisms became mortal, then based on the previous argument it should be concluded that death is not a primary necessity, but a secondary adaptation of organisms to continuous changes of the environment. This means that either an organism does not have time to restore an increasing cluster of damages during a specific period of its life, or that it is genetically programmed to die. Both cases basically remediable: in the first case regeneration must be intensified or helped by replacement of damaged organs by healthy ones; in the second case the whole program must be cancelled. Scientists have already discovered the gene of the programmed death of a cell. It confirms that death is programmed. Consequently, the task of science is to unprogramme it. Certainly, an organism can die violently, but this is not connected to the inner biologic causes of death. As for purely biologic death, it is possible to withdraw it from the evolution of an organism — this is what geneticists maintain.

Besides, it is necessary to add that the analogy between “cephalocentric” human communion and the biological organism is unscientific. An analogy can be considered scientific only if it is based on isomorphism; in other words if it is drawn between systems of similar, identical structure. This is because of “the structural uniformity of the universe” [15]. It is clear that in the analogy above the idea of structural similarity is inconsistent. It is true that a comparison of the two systems does reveal a considerable amount of functional similarities of the elements, for example likeness of the controlling and subordinate organs and of the system of direct connection and feedback between them, but this is not the same, because the scientific priority is just on the side of structural analogy. But a structural analogue in this case cannot be seen beginning with small details: for example, there is fundamental difference between the human individual as a cell of “cephalocentric” humanity and the actual cell of a biological organism. Biological cells are divided into “castes” on the genetic level — they are strictly differentiated according to type of tissue: epithelial, connective, muscular and neural. The human cell (i.e. a single individual) can drift from one “social caste” to another. In a social organism the principle of rotation enables “castes” to be renewed by the best, i.e. healthiest cells, but in a biological organism in the best case the cells of a senescent or damaged organ are replaced by a younger generation of cells from the same “caste”, and in the worst case the damage is patched up by connective tissue, the cells of which do not functionally correspond to the organ. When the latter mechanism of regeneration occurs, sooner or later the organ begins to function badly or fails, causing the death of the whole organism. The principle of rotation in human society excludes such processes of aging and death. Consequently, as for the aspect of regeneration, a society organized according to this principle is “immortal”. But these are small matters. Science proceeds on the conception that all observed forms are transient. For example, if one form of life (forma zizni) lives much longer than the one before it, the word “immortality” can be used strictly in this context. It is clear that only such an understanding of the word makes it possible to analyze the longevity of any integration process of humanity into a single whole. And since the lifetime of any kind of global human communion depends on its capability to sustain its inner regime, which secures optimal adaptation to a changing environment, the analysis of forms of human integration must be focused on what a form is most adaptive.

Lastly it is necessary to note that there are two models of the integration of humanity into a single whole. The “lawn” model (Russian gazon) is based on a unified mechanism of adaptation, i.e. a certain generalized version of culture, for example, of the American type. The other model can be called the “flower-bed” (Russian klumba), and it is based on a broad spectrum of different methods of adaptation: cultures of even small nations are carefully preserved as unique methods of adaptation to different natural environments. Populations are not considered immortal, though their lifetime is much longer than the lifetime of an individual. Any global catastrophe, whether interior or exterior by nature, can lead to the death not only of the most viable population, but also of life on Earth in general. Because of this the immortality of populations can be spoken of only within certain conditions. But what does a global catastrophe mean? It is simply an intermittent — or more exactly, an abrupt — change of environment, which happens during a very short period of time. On our Earth there is a great multiplicity of various climatic zones. Let us suppose that the conditions on it have sharply changed. If the climate has become droughtier and the Earth is threatened by quick desertification, then humanity, which is unified according to the “lawn” model, will simply die out. But the alternative community type — the “flower-bed” model — guarantees human survival, because this model has at its disposal for example the Arabic, Mongolian, Turkmenian method of adaptation. If on the other hand a tropical climate begins to dominate on Earth, the nations of the “flower-bed” model, whose culture has been preserved by the most optimal type of unification, will survive and help others to do so. And if the climate will become severe and resemble Siberian one, it is clear that there are Siberian nations that will help humanity to survive in such conditions.

Thus the method of extreme extrapolation of tendencies enables us draw the conclusion that history develops towards increasingly complex organization of humanity — increasing self-government — and towards more balanced coevolution with the processes of nature. This happens through the increasingly conscious and active interference of humanity in historical processes, the objectively-subjective phase of which changes on this account to the subjectively-objective one. In this way the history of humanity changes from a phase in which objective factors predominate over subjective ones, to a phase in which subjective factors dominate. Objective factors are understood to be either macroevolutional processes in the cosmos and biosphere, or microevolutional processes in the genetics and psychophysiology of humanity. Subjective factors are considered to be activity either of masses or of historic personages, e.g. leaders of various sorts and transnational organizations.

From the point of view of selection this tendency of historiogenesis is seen as evolution from the period of spontaneous sociogenesis, in which humanity is the object of selection, to the period of conscious sociogenesis, in which humanity becomes the subject of selection. From the point of view of crisis this tendency is seen as transition, prolonged for several centuries, from the stable phase of sociogenesis in which cooperation is authoritarian by nature to a phase in which cooperation is collective. In fact, all unstable phenomena observed in social development both of the past and of the present are explained by this transition. In other words, the social and economic essence of the contemporary tendency of historiogenesis is the replacement of authoritarian methods of production and forms of cooperation (forma sotrudnichestva) by collective ones, and the limit of this tendency is at the point when the collectivistic system becomes global.

It is impossible to accomplish the construction of such a global system by the methods of economic science alone, even the most advanced ones. Economic science is but a specialized discipline with quite a limited field of application. The fact is that sociogenesis includes three aspects, more precisely, it “has three parts: technical, economic, ideological”. As for the technical one, “society struggles with nature and subjugates it, i.e. organizes the external world” in the interests of the life of man and development of mankind. As for the economic one, i.e. “in the relations of cooperation and distribution between people”, society “organizes itself for this struggle with nature”. As for the ideological one, “it organizes its experience and feelings, making them instruments that may be used to organize all its life and development” [16]. Thus, in order to complete the task of global organization, all available methods of natural, social, and technical sciences are needed. Actually, not even this is enough. Even when constructing a great building the coordination between different specialists is needed; if everybody works independently, the outcome will be a Babel-like construction. In order to avoid this, a certain “synthetic science” is needed, the task of which is the coordination of all special disciplines, so that they may become a harmonious and integrated whole. Naturally, the task of global organization is more complicated then the construction of a building, and if natural, social, and technical sciences strive for it autonomously, the Babel-like construction will be set in a global context rather than in a biblical one (the beginning of this process is already evident: the economic globalization taking place before our eyes is one of the megatrends of such global babelization). In order to complete a task of global scale “a world-wide science of construction (mirovaia stroitel’naia nauka)” is needed, which “should be a doctrine (uchenie) of the planned combinations of all possible elements of world practice and cognition”, i.e.  collecting and generalizing of the whole organizational human experience instead of partial experience which is organized by specialized disciplines in specific fields of each phenomena. Such a “synthetic science” already exists — it is universal organizational science (vseobshchaia organizatsionnaia nauka), which, in fact, has been created precisely as an optimal solution to such a grandiose task as global organization (global’noie miroustrojstvo). This science, named tectology by its creator, must, in accordance with his intentions, take on itself the role of direct organizer and indispensable leader, whose task is the “integral and planned building of the technique, economics, and ideology of a single system of collectively organized production on Earth” [17].

It must be mentioned that tectology regards the Earth not simply as the third peripheral complex in the Solar system, but as a compound, self-regulating cosmic organism, which is structurally a collection of interactive, concentric membranes, which includes, beginning at the nucleus and the mantle: the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, the ionosphere and the magnetosphere. About 3-3,5 billion years ago, as a result of organizational selection occurring in the litho-, hydro-, and atmosphere, one more membrane of the geosphere was formed from organic substance. This was the biosphere, which then became an active factor in the Earth’s evolution.

In view of tectology the biosphere is a complexly organized geospheric system of organisms (sloznoorganizovannaia geosfernaia sistema organizmov) — a certain system of the organisms’ adaptation to natural processes. In other words, it is the result of natural selection, in which the biosphere is the object of selection, and the natural environment, i.e. the geosphere and the cosmos, is the factor of it. The composition, structure and energetics of the biosphere are determined by the cumulative activity of all living organisms. To put it more simply, the biosphere is the area of life on Earth, its bioderma (from Greek bios — life and dermacutis, skin): it includes not only individuals and populations, but also their habitats. As representative of “life as a whole” [18], the biosphere covers part of the lithosphere, the whole hydrosphere, and the part of the atmosphere that is before the ozonosphere.

Moreover, in compliance with the principle of adaptation, according to which everything exists only because it is in some way adapted to its environment, the biosphere is a means of the geosphere’s adaptation to the cosmos. Within the biosphere there is also a particular membrane, the nooderma (from Greek noos — mind, intellect and dermacutis, skin), which from the point of view of tectology is the most highly organized and the most plastic means of the geosphere’s adaptation to the natural environment.

At the present stage of its development the anthroposphere is strongly differentiated and weakly centralized. Its contemporary atomic level is composed from fractional man (drobnyj chelovek). In the mean time, processes of integration continue on all its levels, and in fact all the tendencies of integration combined define the omega-trend. On the system-wide level high-entropic spontaneous processes, which consume an enormous amount of social energy, are being changed into low-entropic planned and organized ones, which increases the effectiveness of geospheric adaptation (geosfernoe prisposoblenie). This means minimization of energy waste on the struggle inside society and maximization of energy waste on the struggle with the outer natural environment. In other words, on this level spontaneous sociogenesis changes into conscious, or figuratively speaking, pre-humanity acquires consciousness. On the atomic level the integration of man (sobiranie cheloveka) is continuing, i.e. the process of “the transformation of fractional man (drobnyj chelovek, chelovek-drob’) to whole man (celyj chelovek, chelovek-celoe)”. During this process “the narrowly educated specialist” of “the authoritarian, individualistic type”, with his specialized technical methods and lack of psychic development, is replaced with the harmoniously developed, “widely educated, monistically thinking, socially living” man of the collectivistic type, who “combines an organizational and executive point of view (organizatorskaia i ispolnitel’skaia tochka zreniia) into one integral activity” [19]. At its most extreme point the process of man’s fragmentation corresponded to the period of spontaneous anthropogenesis, during which a great deal of energy was being wasted on the struggle of man against man, and only very little energy was being used on the perfecting of man and the harmonization of human relations. Precisely at the point when such wastefulness of energy is put to an end, the stage of conscious anthropogenesis begins. After this “the forces of development” of humanity are directed exclusively towards the struggle with the nature. Thus, “the integration of man leads not to stagnation, but to the replacement of one type of development by another: of the disharmonic development of fragmented mankind by the harmonic development of united mankind”. When this happens, “the mutual communication of people will continuously produce more and more questions and tasks for everybody”, “the harmonious integration of collective forces will give everybody the possibility of joining the common struggle against the nature, with assurance of victory”. At the same time every new stage of the integration of man “facilitates the subsequent ones, increasing the connections and mutual understanding of those members of humanity, who are involved in the process of ‘collecting’. Consequently, however difficult, however excruciating this process is at times, every new phase of it will be carried out more easily than before. It is picking up speed” [20]. The limit of the omega-tendency, as has already been noted above, is when the anthroposphere becomes a single integrated and united “cephalocentric” organism, which will enable the geosphere to adapt to the cosmos as efficiently as possible. Meanwhile, on all levels of the anthroposphere there are processes of integration moving in this direction, with the forming of a single center of government.

Structurally the anthroposphere consists of three complexes: the eidosphere, the oikosphere, and the technosphere.

The technosphere (the technical membrane) is the border-line peripheral complex, which first of all is connected to the biosphere, the geosphere, and the cosmos, i.e. is the ingressor [21]; and in the framework of such an ingressive system as “nature — anthroposphere” it is the connecter (sviazka) [22] — “the main one of two sides of production, i.e. the technical one”, in which “the struggle of society with nature” goes directly on. As the primary complex of production the technosphere “determines all development of society” [23].

After the technosphere the oikosphere (the economic membrane) comes: a highly plastic and compound central complex of human activities, which happen in intercommunion. In other words it is the egressor [24], which regulates the technosphere and is at the same time determined by it. Also in the oikosphere society adapts itself to the environment, but not directly as it does in the technosphere, but indirectly, “because the economic process takes place between people themselves rather than between man and nature” [25].

Finally, the eidosphere (the ideological membrane) is the degressive complex [26], which organizationally reinforces the high plasticity and complexity both of technical and economic forms. It is also adaptation of society to the environment, but “this adaptation is even more indirect than economics”, “even more distanced from the direct struggle with nature, which is the starting point of all social development” [27].

The extrapolation of scientific and technical tendencies, which are part of the omega-trend, demonstrates the unlimited possibilities of the technosphere’s development. These possibilities will grow “to such colossal degree that the physical energy of people will become almost infinitesimal in comparison to their enormous value”: the forces of nature will begin to “serve man in a tremendous way” as “obedient, lifeless slaves, the power of which grows ad infinitum”. This will happen at such a pace that already in the near future there will be “real power of society over nature” [28].

Such a powerful and scientifically organized technosphere will, in its turn, reform the oikosphere of the future by fundamentally changing all the forms of cooperation that exist today. According to the observed historic megatrend, the extreme development of all the forms of cooperation will inevitably grow into collectivism, i.e. into globally organized cooperation, in which “all of society becomes one enterprise” [29]. In its entirety the future system of cooperation will become “entirely centralized, but not in the bureaucratic and authoritarian sense in which this word is understood at present”. Of course the acute conflicts of today — the struggle of man with man, of collective with collective — make it difficult “to imagine any other method of centralization than submission which is forced by actual or potential violence; the modern state serves as a living example of it”. Nevertheless the historical megatrend mentioned above — the growth of cooperation — minimizes intrasocial struggle and its entropic consequences by reorienting the totality of social activity towards the struggle with nature. Though “the occasional necessity of quick decisions and impetuous actions impels us to preserve the authoritarian, guiding function of centers, needed in certain cases, and though this gives the discipline of organization a tone of power and obedience”, but when intrasocial struggle including economic competition is eliminated, all “conditions, constraining the development of the comradely form of centralization, will fall off, its hierarchical bureaucratic tone will inevitably vanish, and it will reach its pure form”. In the transformed oikosphere the question of the centralization of production is only “a question of the most advisable distribution of available labor forces and means of production, i.e. a scientific and statistic task — and nothing more”. Therefore “the integrating tool (ob’ediniaiushchij apparat) of the whole system of production” will be “an agency of statistics, which will continuously gather and process all information about the quantity of labor forces and the products produced in different ‘enterprises’ and in entire branches of labor”. In these circumstances, according to Bogdanov, the ways of administrating the labor personnel are very simple: when there is enough labor force and the laborers moves freely, when there is an absence of all kind of social categorization of fields of labor as “superior” and more honorable or “inferior” and less honorable labor, when “there exists the objective, i.e. socially necessary and socially recognized, equality between all kinds of labor, useful to society”, then “there is quite enough access to information about the excess or the lack of workers in one or another part of the economic mechanism, in order to direct and regulate the distribution of workers in accordance to the needs of the collective”. What at present “is achieved by the spontaneous demands of the market”, will in collectivism be “achieved by the conscious demands of society”: from the mobile mass of the hundreds of millions of the basic labor force, who “change their engagements from time to time, there can always be found the necessary dozens of thousands, which can be used to supplement the deficit of labor force discovered in one branch or another”. This is possible only “at the highest levels of scientific technique, when there is a great amount of surplus labor, i.e. free social energy available” [30].

In the system of collectivism the duration of an obligatory workday will be of great significance only during the first stages of the system, when it is still necessary to discipline the remains of the unconscious social groups, but when the system develops, “the length of the working day, like the choice of one’s engagements, will change from an area of compulsion into an area of freedom”. Since “labor is a need of the human organism, parasitic degeneration (paraziticheskoe vyrozdenie) is unthinkable in the working collective; on the one hand the indication of hygiene and on the other hand an individual’s strength and inclinations are quite sufficient, when determining the advisable duration of any work for any worker”. Because of this the central tool of production — the main agency of statistics — has only “to consider the facts of this field, but not to prescribe norms”.

The growing integration of previously divided labor will reduce professional differences to a minimum. Technical specialization will shift from man to machines; “the last and the most resistant form of specialization, the division into organizer and executor”, will disappear. As it has already been noted above, all labor groups of people “will become increasingly mobile, increasingly fluctuating”, because the mental flexibility and the versatility of the workers’s experience will eliminate the necessity of “attaching certain people to some particular work”. Anarchy, which has previously separated enterprises by ruthless competition, will disappear; instead, on the basis of scientific experience, labor solidarity, and public ownership of means of production, there will appear “a common, integrating organization of labor”, in which all workers are equal, “as conscious elements of one rational whole”. At the same time each of them, on the basis of socially organized distribution, will be ensured “all conditions needed to develop one’s labor force as completely and diversely as possible and to use it with greatest expediency to the benefit of all” [31]. All this will be carried out thanks to the fact that production on the whole will have been organized consciously and according to a plan. Thus, the main characteristic of the future oikosphere will be all-round cooperation, which will transform the present differentiated conditions into a single scientifically organized system of comradely connections, i.e. into a global, centralized collective based on “the great mobility of its elements and its groupings, and the high psychic homogeneity of its thoroughly developed and conscious workers” [32].

Naturally, all new technical and economic forms will be fixed in the eidosphere. The social mentality will be raised to “the highest level of sociality”; the highest “degree of mutual sympathy and mutual understanding of people” will appear in society. Social psychology will be freed from all sorts of fetishism, which will be replaced with purity and clearness of thinking without all kinds of mysticism and metaphysics, as a result of which compulsory norms [33] and all other elements of compulsion will disappear from public life an be replaced with norms of expediency [34]. The contradictions of life in society will no longer be “a dominant and permanent phenomenon, but only a partial and occasional one”, because in a society of “highly developed social feeling and equally high development of cognition” these contradictions will “easily be overcome by people — without special ‘laws’ that are forcibly carried out by the authorities”. The state, i.e. legal organization, will disappear, because compulsory laws will cease to be necessary, for example “the law that everyone must work for society for a certain number of hours each day”. Labor distribution in the world social system will be “guaranteed, on the one hand by instructions of science and its exponents, that is by the technical organizers of labor that act only in the name of science, not in the name of authority, and on the other hand it will be guaranteed by the impact of social feeling which unifies people as a single family of labor (trudovaia sem’ia) with the sincere aspiration to do all for common good” [35]. Thus, the absolute domination of the norms of expediency will become the main characteristic of the future eidosphere.

The world social system will be transformed into one global natural economy: there will be no market between the production and the consumption of products, as in the present exchange economy, but “only conscious and planned organization of distribution”. In such a world economy, “with its colossal width and the complexity of its labor system, with its enormous coherence, drawing together and combining the experience of various human individuals (those on a similar level of development)”, the new forces of development will cause “such rapid progress, that we are unable at present even to have a clear understanding of it”. This “harmonious progress of the future society” will be “immeasurably more intense than contemporary semi-spontaneous progress, which vacillates in between contradictions”. This will occur because in the new social system all economic obstacles of development will have been eliminated.

Thus, “our highest thinkable stage of power over nature, of organization, of sociality, of freedom, of progressiveness” — that is the general characteristic of the future world social system, in which “all production is organized according to conscious, comradely principles”. As it has already been noted above, precisely these principles will produce all the other features of the global collective: “common ownership of means of labor”, classlessness, and “such distribution of products, which would allow everyone to develop his productive energy in full measure, according to his calling” [36].

It is necessary to recall that all the structural attributes of future world organization mentioned above are a scientific prognosis made with the help of the method of extrapolation of historic and current tendencies. However, the practical meaning of science lies in the task of optimizing the activity of people on the basis of objective forecasting, i.e. in decreasing the entropy of social practice and in increasing its efficiency. On an integral level this would lead to the increased efficiency of the whole anthroposphere. Individualistic vanity, to which are connected vast intrasocial expenses, absurd by their nature, delays the development of the world social system and, finally, hinders the anthroposphere’s successful adaptation to the environment, decreasing its evolutionary potential. Scientific foresight and in particular the model of future world organization helps us to minimize vain inner expenditure, to unite our efforts, and to act not against the future but in favour of it, knowingly and plannedly accelerating its approach. And since scientific prognosis is increasingly rooted in the status of mankind’s common goal, the world social system is transformed into a synergic system, i.e. into a united complex of human activities, reaching for this goal. As it is known, there is little entropy in a synergic system, because synergy is such a combination of functional connections, at which the coordinated actions of different elements of the system accomplish more than what the same elements could accomplish, while acting independently. When the anthroposphere is transformed into a synergic system, it will have maximum efficiency and a continuously growing potential for its further development. In other words, upon achieving consciousness pre-humanity becomes humanity, and is thereby transformed into such a global, centralized collective, which in its essence is world comradeship [37]. This process is directly connected to the complex of four scientific and technical tendencies: the formation of the technoriate, its creation of a monistic world view, its aspiration to become an independent class, and finally, its aspiration to become the common center of guidance, i.e. to lead the sociogenesis. The historical mission of being the social catalyst of the cardinal transformation of the anthroposphere has fallen precisely on the technoriate. It must ensure that pre-humanity attains consciousness and that the history of humanity may begin.

It is well known that the development of the technosphere, i.e. technogenesis, is the basic process of sociogenesis. Because of this, the periodization of historical sociogenesis should preferably be based on the dominant type of production of each period: the agrarian epoch, the industrial epoch, and the arising informational epoch. All historical processes are affected by this predominant ingression (dominiruiushchaia ingressiia). The junction of the activities of two globally interacting systems — the anthroposphere and the geosphere — takes place in the zone of ingressive connecter (ingressivnaia sviazka): the technosphere. Its level of organization is what determines the evolutional possibilities of humanity: if in this zone the processes of assimilation of activities predominate over the processes of disassimilation, the anthroposphere develops, otherwise it degenerates. The necessary condition of the sustainable development of the anthroposphere is continual preponderance of assimilation over disassimilation, i.e. increase of the sum of its activities at the expense of the environment; and the sufficient condition of sustainable development is preponderance of the activities of coordinated elements of the anthroposphere over uncoordinated activities [38].

The problem of maximal assimilation of energy from environment to the anthroposphere is solved in the technosphere, while the problem of its optimal distribution is solved in the oikosphere. There is no oikosphere if there is no technosphere. The historically first elements of the technosphere are stone and wood tools in the hands of primitive man, later there is taken into use the energy of fire and of cattle, then mechanical energy — and little by little technogenesis gains in strength, constantly accelerating over all historic time.

During the agrarian epoch it was most important to produce products of agriculture and to breed cattle, while it was less important to produce household objects, instruments of labor, and weapons, and least important to produce knowledge. As it has already been noted, at the beginning of this epoch the main energy sources of the technosphere were fire and animal labor force, but approaching the middle of the epoch these sources were complemented with the energy of wind and of falling water, transformed into mechanical power by wind mills and water mills, and the end of the epoch was marked by the use of steam-power. Because of the extreme deficiency of technogenic energy the first agrarian commune was a stable social system, in which all elements were strongly united by mutual and complementary connections. The main organizational principle of the commune was the principle of organizational symmetry, according to which the activity of every member is useful both for himself and for the commune.

The industrial epoch began when steam engines were taken into use and ended with the appearance of nuclear reactors. The symbol of its bloom was electricity, but after mountains of coal, and oceans of oil and gas [39] had been burned in internal-combustion engines, turbines, blast furnaces, and thermoelectric power stations, this epoch put pre-humanity on the verge of ecological catastrophe — and after the creation of the atomic weapon under the threat of omnicide. In this epoch, the amount of energy assimilated for the use of the anthroposphere increased significantly. The accumulated surplus of energy enabled pre-humanity to develop the next type of ingression — the industrial one, which served as the basis of a more complicated oikosphere with a catagenic, well organized complex [40]. But in contrast to the agrarian epoch, the complex organization of the technosphere increased in proportion to it the organization of the new productive class — the dominant ingressor — which considerably narrowed the gap between the self-organization of the ingressor and the dominant egressor of the oikosphere. As a result, for the first time in the prologue of history, a sufficiently organized class appeared so that it was able not only to eliminate the catagenity [41] of the industrial society in a number of countries, but also to maintain parity with the conglomeration of moribund disharmonious systems during seventy years [42].

The informational epoch began when the technosphere was invaded by electronic computers at the speed of an avalanche, that is when the technosphere became fully computerized. The most important energy source of the epoch is nuclear energy. Supposing that the task of peaceful mastering of thermonuclear energy is successfully completed in the nearest future, the problem of ensuring energy for the duration of the whole epoch will be solved once and for all. Yet a sore point of socio-economic character remains — how to develop social and economic life in the best way. In other words, we have approached a long-awaited historic moment, the essence of which was strictly scientifically formulated by Bogdanov a hundred years ago: “man will sooner or later annihilate all its parasites” [43]. Before our eyes a new social vanguard is being formed; it will not only accomplish this, but will do it in the most optimal way.

In the informational epoch, the dominant form of production is the production of knowledge, i.e. of scientific information about how to optimize all processes that take place in the anthroposphere, both inner ones and those connected to the biosphere, from production to control — the whole complex of ingressive, degressive and egressive connections. If in the agrarian epoch the production of knowledge was the affair of a small group of people, and in the industrial one of the “stratum (proslojka)”, then in the information epoch it has already become the affair of a wide community of scientific and technical workers. They are:

1) the producers of material products, high-tech products, and high-capacity scientific products, i.e. scientists, designers, inventors, planners, engineers, technicians, technologists, and highly qualified workers;

2) the producers of non-material products and of programmes, which both ensure the functioning of systems of manufacture, information, and social infrastructure, i.e. programmers of various qualifications: IT-developers, systems analysts, and specialists of information science;

3) the producers of specialized and general scientific knowledge, i.e. scientists of abstract sciences, system theorists, methodologists;

4) the workers in the field of socialization, i.e. educators, teachers, lecturers, doctors, cultural workers etc.;

5) the workers in the field of governance, i.e. officials, administrators, managers, politicians, financiers, lawyers, statisticians, sociologists, politologists, military experts etc.;

6) highly qualified personnel in the field of computer services and maintenance.

The place and role of this great and rapidly growing social group — the tectoriate — has fundamentally changed in the present epoch. According to tectology, the process of such quantitative growth and qualitative differentiation will sooner or later have to change into counter-differentiation and the formation of an egressive center. The best representatives of the tectoriate are already consciously or unconsciously striving “for an independent organizational role, to seize power over social economy and the social system”. In other words, the most advanced social group and the vanguard of the tectoriate — the technoriate — is as an independent organizer of society and economy already striving to differentiate itself from all other social groups and to become the new social leader with its own ideology and its determined tasks. The technoriate has two strategies, by which it carries out its pretensions to power over society: “hard work through the scientific organization of labor in different fields” and “the tendency to monism, to the monism of scientific consciousness, to the economy of scientific thinking”. Both these strategies contribute to the development of an independent ideology [44].

Thus, the evolution of the “stratum”, which has grown in disproportion to its name, is naturally completed by the formation of the originally amorphous tectoriate, which is later separated into the socially active nucleus — the technoriate — and two small “stratums”, one of which traditionally sides with the masses, and the other one with the ruling elite.

For all history of humanity this new social phenomenon, the tectoriate, will be the most organized social group, because all of its work is devoted to the organization of absolutely everything, i.e. the organization of any process of any area, from microevolutional to macroevolutional ones. Only the tectoriate can organizationally correct absolutely all processes that take place in the anthroposphere, and coordinate them according to the most optimal variant of globalization. Only the tectoriate is able to develop the program in which the predominant elite of the present can be removed from power, if it continues to carry out globalization exclusively according to its own interests. From the tectological point of view the elimination of such a factor of social instability is understood as the removal of the weak link of a social system, according to the principle of minimum (zakon naimen’shih). Figuratively speaking, the catagenity of the contemporary ruling elite may be compared to a tear in the bilge of a Greek trireme, due to which some of the oarsmen need to constantly bail out water to avoid sinking.

The process of system differentiation (sistemnoe rashozdenie) of the rapidly growing tectoriate will be necessarily completed by counter-differentiation, i.e. by the formation of an egressive center — the organizational elite. When this “intellectual center” appears, the previously amorphous social group of the tectoriate, which is step by step becoming free of the ideological influence of the ruling elite, will achieve its own social consciousness and become the social leader by virtue of its unquestionable conceptual superiority, the most advanced culture, and the most developed collectivism. The other tendency of differentiation, the one leading towards degression, will cause the appearance of the consolidating ideology of the new social elite. As long as this ideology is systemic and monistic, i.e. tectological, then the future power of this elite can with reason be called the tectocracy. In its essence this will be the very power of philosophers that Platon wrote about. Thus will be completed the long historical transition of humanity from one stable state to another. The most optimal, from the point of view of adaptation, tectological principles of the preservation of social forms in a changing environment will be fulfilled, and no longer forcibly but in the most natural way.

In a brief summary of all of the above, the beginning of human history will come about only if the world social system goes through general inner reorganization, the essence of which is in the elimination of the inner catagenic complex — the main cause of social contradictions. In this process the historic role of eliminator has fallen on the most advanced social group — the technoriate. This restructuring process that is ripened by time will cause the world social system, united in the common global collective, to reach the most optimal regime of adaptation to the environment: the ability of the anthroposphere to adapt to the environment as efficiently as possible will immediately grow and maintain the tendency to growth in the future as well. The optimality of the regime is guaranteed, provided that two conditions of the sustainable development of a system are fulfilled: the necessary one is that a maximum amount energy is assimilated from the environment to the system, and the sufficient one is that less energy is used on the struggle between men and that more energy is used on the struggle of man with nature. Thus, the effectiveness of adaptation is optimized by the principles of distribution, correspondence, rotation, and organizational symmetry.

As is well known, the adaptation of any social system “is completed actively, by means of a labor process”, i.e. “this is the socio-labor adjustment (social’no-trudovoe prisposoblenie)”, which, on the one hand, is connected with “the consumption of the labor energy of society, or with its production activity”, and on the other hand with “the distribution of the products of this activity”. According to the tectological principle of distribution, which optimizes the adaptation of a system, the expenses and distribution of a society “have to be organized in such a way that every part would fulfill its function, which is socially useful (ziznenno-poleznaia) and necessary for the whole, so that this function would operate in the future as well” [45]. With reference to the world social system the essence of optimization lies in the following: with the help of the technosphere, power resources of the biosphere are processed into “energy preserves” of three types: edible, industrial, and informational products, which are then evenly distributed to the whole anthroposphere, so that they may become easily accessible to every “cell” of the anthroposphere, that is every individual. After this, according to their capabilities “mature cells” are allocated over the whole anthroposphere in its various vital organs. Thus, in order to optimize the adaptability of the world social system, a mechanism of the continuous rotation of labour forces must be in process. The rotation must happen according to the principle of correspondence: one’s capabilities must correspond to one’s social activity. The even distribution of food, industrial, and informational resources in the world social system, which ensures all the necessary conditions of the efficient reproduction of human labor resources of various quality, and the mechanism of its self-renewal, based on the optimal distribution of labor resources — this is, in greater detail, the sufficient condition of the sustainable development of the world social system, which is, of course, dependent on whether the necessary condition is fulfilled. Moreover, all of the conditions of sustainable development mentioned above can be fulfilled only if the universal principle of chain coevolution has been put into practice. For this purpose all inner relations of a system (connections on a horizontal line) and the relations of a system with its environment (connections on a vertical line), must be arranged on a complementary basis, i.e. regardless of the direction of a connection, strictly according to the symmetrical scheme of coadaptation [46]. It is precisely such organizational symmetry of the mutual adaptation of systems, which guarantees the stability and optimality of their combined development. Only systems that are connected to chain coevolution are preserved by positive selection, and those systems that cannot find their “ontological cell” in the universal network are destroyed by negative selection.

The principle of optimal correspondence of human resources on the basis of universal higher education and the principle of organizational symmetry will cause the quantitative and qualitative growth of social creation and provide maximum social synergy, which are necessary for the sustainable development of humanity. On the basis of increasing cooperation and the overall liberation of human activity, the comradely world collective, no longer disjointed by private property, exploitation, and class struggle, will direct towards “the universal, ultimate aim” of social evolution — towards the omega of sociogenesis, which means “maximum life of society as a whole, which simultaneously coincides with maximum life of its separate parts and of its elements — individuals”. In the spontaneous phase of sociogenesis, during which the norms of compulsion dominate, there is no such coincidence, because it is possible only in the phase of conscious sociogenesis, during which norms of expediency dominate. Then “the purposes, served by these norms, will merge in their full variety into the superior unity of the socially conscious struggle for happiness, the struggle for all that life and nature can give humanity” [47].




1. Lenin and Bogdanov had different understanding of socialism. Lenin treated socialism as the first phase of communism, as historically transient “not complete communism”. In such interpretation communism as the more mature socio-economic stage included socialism as the immature stage (Lenin V. I., Gosudarstvo i revoliutsiia, PSS, tom 33. Moskva 1974, pp. 98, 102). On the contrary in Bogdanov’s interpretation socialism is considered as the more perfect and more developed phase in socio-economic relation, and communism is its part. According to Bogdanov socialism is communism plus collectivism. In this case communism is treated as socialization in the sphere of consumption on the basis of “negation of private property, of individual right of property”, i.e. in such interpretation communism is “a concept connected first of all with the sphere of appropriation, distribution” (Bogdanov A. A., Novejshie proobrazy kollektivisticheskogo stroia, in: Neizvestnyj Bogdanov, in 3 vol. Moskva: IC “AIRO XX” 1995, v. 1, pp. 82-83); as for collectivism, it is extremely organized cooperation, at which “all of society becomes one enterprise” (Bogdanov A. A., Voprosy sotsializma. Moskva: Politizdat 1990, p. 301). Thus, the more exact Bogdanov’s formulation is the following: socialism is collectivism of production and communism of consumption. As is known, it is for construction of such a society that tectology was created. In the optimal variant socialism can be realized only on a global scale (in a separately taken country or in a group of countries socialism is just a form of siege communism, in which a considerable part of social energy is spent not on the social development, but on the struggle against the moribund forms of society), when the global comradely collective uses accumulated social energy in the best way for the adaptation in the outer world, i.e. in the biosphere and cosmos. In tectology optimality is one of the characteristics of organizational state of a system, which reflects its best adaptation to a given environment. In a more exact formulation, common for all systems, optimality is maximum possible (under conditions of a concrete environment) coefficient of adaptive-expedient use of system activities at their minimum dissipation. At present the term “socialism” is treated in different ways and more often in negative sense. Bogdanov’s understanding of this term is most exactly corresponded to the meaning content of the Russian word “ladomir”, in which “lad” is harmony, order, mutual agreement in society, and “mir” is all mankind. A contemporary of Bogdanov, a remarkable Russian poet Velimir Hlebnikov was the first to put this neologism into use.

2. Bogdanov A. A., Vremia velikih peremen, in: Neizvestnyj Bogdanov, v. 1, pp. 77-78.

3. Bogdanov A. A., Voprosy sotsializma, p. 45.

4. Ibid., p. 90.

5. The principle of extreme equilibrium (printsip predel’nogo ravnovesiia): “a definite regularity that rules observed processes” according to which “the more sum of elements and their environment are similar in two different cases, the more probable is the degree of resemblance of their extreme equilibriums, towards which processes of both cases gravitate”; in other words, “the more resemble the organizational material and the conditions influenced on it, the greater similarity can be expected in organizational products formed by it” (Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia: Vseobshchaia organizatsionnaia nauka. Moskva: Finansy 2003, p. 351).

6. Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia,  p. 354.

7. Bogdanov A. A., Obshchestvenno-nauchnoe znachenie novejshih tendentsij estestvoznaniia (tezisy), in: Bogdanov A.A., Tektologiia, pp. 461-462.

8. Bogdanov A. A., Voprosy sotsializma, p. 153.

9. Eidogene — a unit of social heredity, or a social gene, for example, a primary norm of morality, an element of a tradition, of a fashion, a myth, a legend, a religious dogma, a conception, a technology, etc. From the tectological point of view an eidogene is a socially-degressivepersistent complex of elementary type. For this reason man can be defined as highly organized, the most complex and the most plastic biosocial organism, which is a result of a certain combination of biological and social genes.

10. Bogdanov A. A., Voprosy sotsializma, p. 295.

11. According to Bogdanov, the views of Malthus are basically fallacious. Firstly, two mistakes have been made in the definition of the factor of selection: “the natural environment is not that factor of selection, on which the fate of individual economies depends”, and “production can grow more quickly than the number of the members in a society” Secondly, the basis of selection has also been defined erroneously, because in a disharmonious social system “it is not those with the greatest general viability who survive”, in other words, “not more highly organized individuals, but those who have the greatest and the most advantageously invested capital, i.e. the possibility of the greatest use of the redundant energy of society, its «surplus labor»” (Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia, pp. 329-330).

12. Kapitsa S. P., The general theory of growth of humankind (how many people lived, live and are to live in the world), Moscow: Nauka 1999, pp. 130-131.

13. See: Razumovskij O. S., “Optimalnij sotsializm”: poniatie i modeli, in: Perspektivy razvitiia sovremennogo obshchestva: Materialy vserossiiskoi nauchnoj konferentsii. Kazan: KGTU 2000, p. 97.

14. According to such American microbiologists as Margulis and Sagan, genetically unstable bacteria are “functionally immortal”, because they are continuously exchanging genes, adopting the necessary fragments of DNA from their neighbors of densely populated surroundings (see F. Capra, The Web of Life, Kiev-Moskva: Sofiia 2003, p. 258).

15. Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia, p. 407.

16. Bogdanov A. A., Voprosy sotsializma, p. 429.

17. Ibid., pp. 310-311.

18. Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia, p. 194.

19. Bogdanov A. A., Voprosy sotsializma, pp. 40-43.

20. Ibid., pp. 45, 43.

21. An ingressor is the peripheric complex of a system, which concentrates all the main and primary connections of a system with the environment. For example, it is the producing social complex of a social system.

22. A connecter (sviazka) is “a special, third link” at any connection of two complexes, which is made by the “entering” of elements of one complex into another, and which joins them into a new totality. Such a tectological combination is called ingression, while the connection is called ingressive (Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia, p. 101).

23. Bogdanov A. A., Nauka ob obshchestvennom soznanii, in: Bogdanov A. A., Poznanie s istoricheskoj tochki zreniia. Ìoskva: MPSI, Voronez: NPO “MODEK” 1999, pp. 284-285.

24. An egressor is the central complex of a system. It has a dominant tectological function, and a prevailing influence on the other complexes that structurally depend on it (Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia, p. 260).

25. Bogdanov A. A., Nauka ob obshchestvennom soznanii, p. 285.

26. Being “the less organized but more stable” complex of a system, a degressor fixes the “highly organized” plastic complex, which is “less durable to some destructive influences”. For example, “ideas, norms, and political institutions are degressive complexes for the stable organization of living activities of a society” (Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia, pp. 287, 293).

27. Bogdanov A. A., Nauka ob obshchestvennom soznanii, p. 285.

28. Bogdanov A. A., Voprosysotsializma, p. 92.

29. Ibid., p. 301.

30. Ibid., pp. 302-303.

31. Ibid., p. 303.

32. Ibid., p. 304.

33. Norms of compulsion are social norms, which are only useful for “creating order in the disharmony of life, generated by spontaneous development”, as a result of which “the integration and regulation of heterogeneous living processes can only be accomplished externally”. Such order is “not yet harmony in the positive sense of the word”, because “the conservatism of the external norm conflicts sharply with the permanent tendency of progress, and, in its turn, becomes the source — in this case the main or even only source — of the profound contradictions of life”. Thus, though “external compulsory norms are undoubtedly necessary for the conservation of life within the contradictions of spontaneous evolution, they achieve this conservation only at the cost of constraint of very development, at the cost of development’s limitations and delays” (Ibid., pp. 56, 61).

34. Norms of expediency are the scientifically proved forms of social degression, which are free “both of compulsion and of conservatism”, i.e. of the imperative character of compulsory norms. An example of norms of expediency is scientific and technical rules, because “in their essence they don’t oblige anyone to anything, but only show the best ways to achieve one given goal or another” (Ibid., pp. 61-63).

35. Ibid., pp. 95-96.

36. Ibid., pp. 98-99.

37. Comradeship (tovarishchestvo) is an optimal system of cooperation made on the basis of synergy, and its essence “lies in the unity of purpose, which has been accomplished freely and without any compulsion by people themselves, and which exceeds the limits of the individual interests of any man” (Ibid., p. 68). Comradeship achieves the highest degree of its development at the stage of conscious sociogenesis.

38. See: Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia, pp. 133, 201.

39. The world use of energy in 1992 in terawatt per year (1012 W): oil — 4,5; coal — 3,0; natural gas — 2,5; water-power — 0,8; nuclear energy — 0,7 (see: Kapitsa S. P., op. cit., p. 127).

40. A catagenic complex is the organizational, inner complex of a system, not complementary to it, which generates (along with entropic conversions of assimilated energy taken from the outside) its additional spending.

41. Catagenity (katagennost’) is the evolutional direction of an activity towards the organizational regress of a system, i.e. towards the weakening of its adaptative abilities.

42. A disharmonious system is a system with a complex, which is connected catagenically to another complex that has adapted to the environment and is used as a second habitat for adaptation of the catagenic complex.

43. Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia, p. 396.

44. Bogdanov A. A., Obshchestvenno-nauchnoe znachenie novejshih tendencij estestvoznaniia, in: Vestnik Mezdunarodnogo Instituta A. Bogdanova, ¹ 2 (18) 2004, pp. 13, 19-23.

45. Bogdanov A. A., Stepanov I. I., Kurs politicheskoj ekonomii, tom II, vypusk 4, Obshchaia teoriia kapitalizma. Kollektivisticheskij stroj. Moskva-Petrograd: Kommunist 1918, p. 6.

46. Coadaptation is a combined form of adaptation of complexes to the environment, which is based on the principle of mutual complementarity (printsip vzaimodopolnitel’nosti), according to which the stability of complexes increases in the case that one receives what is disassimilated by another, and the other way around (see: Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia, p. 196). Its synonym is coevolution.

47. Bogdanov A. A., Voprosy sotsializma, pp. 62-63.




Bogdanov A. A., Stepanov I. I., Kurs politicheskoj ekonomii, tom. II, vypusk 4, Obshchaia teoriia kapitalizma. Kollektivisticheskij stroj. Moskva-Petrograd: Kommunist 1918, 208 p.

Bogdanov A. A., Voprosy sotsializma. Moskva: Politizdat 1990, 479 p.

Bogdanov A. A., Novejshie proobrazy kollektivisticheskogo stroia, in: Neizvestnyj Bogdanov, in 3 vol. Moskva: IC “AIRO XX” 1995, v. 1, pp. 81-92.

Bogdanov A. A., Vremia velikih peremen, in: Neizvestnyj Bogdanov, in 3 vol. Moskva: IC “AIRO XX” 1995, v. 1, pp. 75-78.

Bogdanov A. A., Nauka ob obshchestvennom soznanii, in: Bogdanov A. A., Poznanie s istoricheskoj tochki zreniia. Ìoskva: MPSI, Voronez: NPO “MODEK” 1999, 480 p.

Bogdanov A. A., Tektologiia: Vseobshchaia organizatsionnaia nauka. Moskva: Finansy 2003, 496 p.

Bogdanov A. A., Obshchestvenno-nauchnoe znachenie novejshih tendentsij estestvoznaniia (tezisy), in: Bogdanov A. A., Tektologija. Vseobshchaia organizatsionnaia nauka. Moskva: Finansy 2003, pp. 461-462.

Bogdanov A. A., Obshchestvenno-nauchnoe znachenie novejshih tendentsij estestvoznaniia, in: Vestnik Mezdunarodnogo Instituta A. Bogdanova, ¹ 2 (18) 2004, pp. P. 5-24.

Capra F., The Web of Life (Pautina zizni. Novoe nauchnoe ponimanie zivyh sistem). Kiev-Moskva: Sofiia 2003, 336 p.

Kapitsa S. P., The general theory of growth of humankind (how many people lived, live and are to live in the world). Moskva: Nauka 1999, 190 p.

Lenin V. I., Gosudarstvo i revoliutsiia, PSS, tom 33. Moskva 1974, 433 p.

Razumovskij O. S., “Optimalnyj sotsializm”: poniatie i modeli, in: Perspektivy razvitiia sovremennogo obshchestva: Materialy Vserossijskoj nauchnoj konferentsii. Kazan: KGTU Press 2000, pp. 81-90.




















































eXTReMe Tracker