The Historical Process and Its Features

The Interconnection of the Past, Present, and Future in the Historical Process: The Problem of Social Progress

The future has always stirred the souls of preceding generations, igniting in them a desire to glimpse the morrow. However, it is no exaggeration to say that this yearning has never been as fervent and widespread as it is today. The reasons for this phenomenon lie in the nature and uniqueness of our era, characterized by exceptional dynamism, rooted in the consequences of the scientific and technological revolution and the profound social transformations inherently linked to it.

In our time, events unfold almost yearly, and sometimes monthly or even daily, that can alter the lives of vast populations, entire nations, and continents. As a result, the question of humanity's future is inextricably tied not only to anxieties about the fate of future generations but also to concerns about one's own tomorrow. Their conviction that this future will be better than the past and the present, along with their desire to hasten its arrival through personal engagement, largely depends on the masses' understanding that historical development is governed by the objective laws of social progress.

While the seeds of this concept were present in the works of ancient thinkers, it struggled to carve a path within the social sciences, only gaining broad recognition and detailed elaboration during the Enlightenment, a period marked by the decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism. Since then, the idea of social progress has remained at the forefront of all philosophical schools and movements.

Different approaches to theoretically addressing the issue of social progress, characteristic of various schools, manifest not only their understanding of prior history and their vision for the future but also their attitudes towards existing society. These attitudes are shaped by their affiliation with specific social groups and strata, either in the camp of progressive forces or in opposition to them, in the camp of reactionary, conservative forces.

The conviction in the laws of social progress, rooted in the acknowledgment of the connection between generations of people who succeed one another and the determination of each generation's actions by the outcomes of their predecessors’ endeavors—albeit limited by many illusions—was a hallmark of the ideologues of the revolutionary bourgeoisie. For instance, one of the most prominent advocates of the idea of social progress, Jean-Antoine Condorcet, asserted that when examining historical development "from the perspective of the results regarding the mass of individuals coexisting simultaneously in a given space, and tracing it from generation to generation, it presents itself as a picture of the progress of human reason. This progress is governed by the same general laws observed in the development of our individual abilities, for it is the result of this development, observed simultaneously among a great number of individuals united in society. However, the outcome revealed at any given moment depends on the results achieved in prior moments and influences those that are to be achieved in the future."

It is not difficult to notice that this assertion from one of the pioneers advocating the regularity of social progress is significantly one-sided—it absolutizes the "progress of human reason," that is, spiritual and ideological activity. Such an approach to understanding societal development, which gained traction among Western social scientists, subsequently contributed to the formation of the generational method, adherence to which essentially led to the denial of the regularity of social progress.

This method underpins the concept of the "generation conflict," whose main thesis posits that each new generation harbors a negative, critical stance towards the social, particularly political and ideological realities it encounters upon entering the world. In this regard, a characteristic statement comes from the renowned Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset in his work "The Revolt of the Masses." According to him, "A generation acts for about 30 years, but its activity is divided into two distinct periods: in the first, the young generation propagates its ideas, moods, and inclinations; in the second, it comes to power and implements them. The succeeding generation, meanwhile, bears new ideas and tastes, which begin to permeate the overall atmosphere. If the ideas and tastes of the ruling generation are radical and revolutionary, then the new generation is anti-revolutionary, that is, essentially reactionary in spirit." As we see, under such circumstances, discussing the direction of the historical process and social progress becomes nearly impossible.

Where does this new generation derive its ideas, what are their origins? José Ortega y Gasset sidesteps this question. However, it is thoroughly examined in the work of his follower, contemporary Canadian sociologist L. Feuer, titled "Ideology and Ideologists." According to Feuer, the young generation entering into conflict—not the entire generation, but a segment of it, embodied by "young intellectuals"—is compelled to turn to ideological myths, where it finds calls to action to achieve its goals.

Such a one-sided, ideologized approach cannot be deemed scientific. By ignoring the material production that forms the foundation of every society and thus of each of its generations, it precludes the possibility of accurately explaining not only the historical process in connection with generational change but also the development of particular aspects of social life, including spiritual production. While not dismissing the significance of the ideal factor in social life, one cannot downplay the importance of the material factor, primarily the production of material goods. Constituting the basis of social development, material production ultimately determines all other facets of social life, establishing, as previously emphasized, the regularity of the historical process and the regularity of social progress. One of the essential manifestations of the operation of the regularity of social progress is the inextricable connection between all generations that succeed one another in societal development.

As the founders of dialectical materialism rightly noted, each historical step "is accompanied by a certain material result, a specific sum of productive forces, and the historically created relationships among people with respect to nature and to one another, which is historically conditioned, and each succeeding generation inherits from its predecessors a mass of productive forces, capitals, and circumstances that, although transformed by the new generation, dictate its own living conditions and impart to it a particular development and character."

These conditions determine the qualitative characteristics of the subsequent generation itself and the corresponding needs that always possess a concrete-distinct character. This is expressed, first and foremost, in the fact that the conditions encountered by the Soviet generation entering society, say in the 1920s, could not evoke in them the need to build nuclear power plants, create powerful rockets, or undertake space flights—demands that arise in later periods of societal development. The specifically distinct character of each subsequent generation of individuals in any society is also reflected in the fact that the conditions contemporary to its period of existence preclude the possibility of cultivating the kind of needs that were inherent to its predecessors in the past. The nature and content of the needs of each succeeding generation are determined by the level of social development and the level of social production.

To satisfy its needs, primarily for essential material goods, the incoming generation is necessarily compelled to turn to the productive forces passed down to it by its predecessor, assimilating and utilizing them in its production. Moreover, to meet its needs, as has been previously emphasized, it cannot employ these forces in any other way than by at least maintaining the level of development achieved by its predecessors.

In engaging in production, a generation does not invent its own unique production relations but rather accepts as given the objective relations that have developed within society throughout its historical development during the activity of preceding generations, defined by the attained level of productive forces. The objectivity of the continuity of production relations of a certain level of development by each subsequent generation, in turn, necessitates the preservation of the level of societal relations achieved by its predecessors as a whole.

he utilization of productive forces by each successive generation at the level of development achieved by preceding generations creates a necessity for successors to master the experience and scientific knowledge acquired earlier. This serves as an important factor that determines the objectivity of further development in spiritual production, science, and culture.

The needs of individuals, as previously noted, are not immutable; they evolve alongside societal development and changes in living conditions. Thus, there arises an objective necessity for each subsequent generation not only to preserve the level of productive forces attained by earlier generations but also to further advance their development. This gives rise to the fundamentally significant characteristic of the development of productive forces: their overall progressive orientation. In turn, the progressive nature of the development of productive forces determines a corresponding general direction in the evolution of social relations, primarily production relations, establishing the lawfulness of social progress.

When discussing this regularity, we cannot overlook the fact that the historical process encompasses cycles, destructions, deadlocks, regression, and the decline of local civilizations. However, it must also be remembered that humanity, each generation of a particular social organism, including humanity as a whole, associates its future with something better, more attainable, and progressive. In this sense, social progress itself, along with its existence, serves as a manifestation of the optimal interconnection between the past, present, and future.

At the same time, it is essential to emphasize that any societal regularity can only be realized through the actions of individuals who rely on their knowledge and take into account the presence of opposing tendencies within the developing social organism. Existing as a potential, determined by the entire course of prior development, social progress does not occur automatically and without restraint, as some misguided authors might have assumed. It emerges when generations engaged in their vital activities strive to optimize the interrelationship between the past, present, and future.

The most crucial determinant that underpins this optimization is the enhancement and further development of the productive forces inherited from predecessors by each generation. The decision made by Yeltsin, Kravchuk, and Shushkevich in Puscha led to the disintegration of the unified national economic complex established in the USSR. As a result, the productive forces of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and other states that declared their independence found themselves unable to meet the needs of their citizens’ generations. The only viable path to ensuring the welfare of the peoples in these states is the revival and further progressive development of the inherited productive forces, naturally aligned with the new political realities. Without this, regressive processes will inevitably intensify, condemning young independent states to a colorless existence in the annals of world history. It seems that addressing this issue should be at the forefront of both theorists, who increasingly ponder the question of what our Ukraine should become, and politicians who have taken the helm of the state vessel that is in distress.

In choosing the path of social progress and delineating routes of movement, it is important to concern ourselves with an objective indicator that reliably reflects whether society is genuinely adhering to its chosen course—that is, a criterion of social progress.

This issue is not simple, and scholars have approached its resolution on multiple occasions. French materialists defined the development of reason as a criterion of social progress, while utopian socialists advocated for moral criteria of progress.

However, any criterion drawn from the realm of social consciousness (morality, law, religion, etc.) cannot serve as a universal historical criterion for progress, as social scientists have repeatedly demonstrated, since people's perspectives shift under the influence of the real conditions of social life. It cannot be discovered solely within one sphere of social existence, let alone in any specific subsystem that constitutes it.

“To overcome the anti-dialectical disconnection and opposition of such criteria,” some philosophers rightly argue, “we must identify a fundamental philosophical category that characterizes the profound essence of human life and activity, and thus, the entire historical process within which this activity unfolds.” According to these authors, a category that we also endorse is the category of freedom. The highest objective criterion of social progress, therefore, is the increase in the degree of genuinely attainable freedom for the realization of socially significant human capacities, if not for all, then at least for an ever-growing number of society’s members.

It is necessary to acknowledge that by choosing democratization of all spheres of social life as a means of renewal and progressive development of society, and becoming excessively enthralled with the process of democratization, we did not account for the potential negative consequences and overlooked the moment when the previously achieved level of individual freedom began to decline. This is particularly evident in the significant reduction of freedom of movement for our fellow citizens. Many rightly believe that traveling to the United States or another distant country is less perilous than venturing to neighboring countries. Has the actual degree of freedom to choose one’s residence, partner for marriage, language of communication, etc., not diminished?

This situation necessitates the identification of parameters reflecting the already achieved and existing degree of individual freedom, those objective characteristics and traits that signify the level of societal development, beyond which would indicate a further regression, that is, social backwardness.

This is one of the important tasks that must be addressed by those tasked with halting regressive phenomena in society and ensuring its progressive development.