At the beginning of the XXI century, the world system is experiencing a crisis caused by the exhaustion of the socio-economic and cultural model of development that determined the shape of the modern world. An urgent task in the post-modern world is to overcome the crisis by reforming the world system. The article considers the main manifestations of the systemic crisis, identifies various options for using reforms for modernization.

Key words: Reform, crisis, modernization, Tradition, value system.

The entry of the world community into the new century and millennium has increased attention to the features of the transition of our time, to understanding both the results of world development and its likely prospects in the light of existing aspirations and opportunities, as well as emerging conflicts and crises of various kinds. The world has changed qualitatively and irreversibly. In this regard, we must look for new answers to new questions, which, however, does not in the least detract from the significance of our common historical experience.

Part of this experience is the mechanism of the social system's transition from one state to another. The countries of the East and West have entered a new era, possessing to a greater or lesser extent the qualities of a modern industrial society. But O. Spengler wrote about the crisis of this model in the 1920s ("the era of individualism, liberalism and democracy, humanity and freedom is coming to an end"), in the 1950s-B. P. Vysheslavtsev ("we live in a period of world crisis", "crisis of industrial culture"), by the end of XX century. V.-dozens of Western authors. In 2011, 3. Brzezinski, pointing out the" egocentricity "and" unbridled consumerism "of the West, acknowledged that even" America needs a new path..."[Brzezinski, 2012, p. 10].

The problem of a "new path" (or a new development model) implies defining the development goal and methods for achieving it, as well as tools for accelerated development. This article is devoted to the historical experience of radical socio-economic reforms as a way of transition of the social system to a new quality.

In history, there are two types (two mechanisms) of the transition of society from a pre - capitalist formation state to a capitalist (modern, industrial) one: reform and revolution. In addition to pure forms of this type, there were mixed forms of transition with blurred features. One way or another, society solves the objectively urgent task of modernization: getting out of the systemic crisis by modernizing itself, adapting to the changed internal and external conditions of life, while keeping in mind the example of a more developed (based on new principles) and strong society as a role model. So, in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Great Britain used the experience of the Netherlands, and in the XIX-XX centuries the United States used the experience of Great Britain.

If this task is not solved, then a certain socio-economic system weakens and disappears as a result of internal conflicts and / or under the blows of external forces. This kind of crisis in the XVI-XVII centuries could not be overcome by Spain and Portugal, who lost their potential as world leaders, and at the beginning of the XX century in China, the refusal of the imperial power to resolve the crisis on a national scale almost led to the collapse of the state.

It is obvious that as a certain social system exhausts its potential, the manifestations of a national-scale crisis, as well as the emergence of elements of a new system, become visible in the spheres of production and finance, in the military sphere and in the sphere of culture. The question is whether the society will be able to recognize the manifestations of the crisis and regulate its development in line with the flow from one formational state to another.

It is impossible for society itself to do this, because the interests of different social forces are too different from each other, which hinders their joint and purposeful activities. Only the State can carry out such work.

At the same time, there is no reason to say that the authorities in the state are voluntarily ready to carry out cardinal changes. Any established government is inertial in its intentions and actions to the last. Only a serious threat to its existence in the form of a national crisis can prompt it to attempt to change the social system. It is also obvious that in any society, the authorities themselves do not think about replacing the old system with a new one, but sincerely wish and hope only for some modification of the old system, selective adaptation of its individual elements to the changed conditions. We should agree with M. Friedman's opinion: "... only a crisis (real or imagined) causes real changes " [Friedman, 2005, p. 19].

P. A. Sorokin, reflecting on the experience of the Great French Revolution of 1789, the Russian Revolution of 1917 and subsequent world cataclysms, wrote: "A society that does not know how to live, is not able to make timely and expedient reforms and rushes into the arms of the revolution, pays for these sins with the extinction of a significant part of its members... Only by paying this tribute, if it does not completely perish, does it gain a certain opportunity to exist and live on, but not by completely breaking away from its past and not by a brutal mutual struggle, but, on the contrary, by returning to most of its former foundations, institutions and traditions (only those that are absolutely obsolete of the latter perish)., by peaceful work... If a society is unable to embark on this path, the revolution ends in its final decadence and death... " [Sorokin, 2008, p. 396].

The crisis of the system opens up the possibility of choosing: to continue the development of society along the old path (the inertial path) or to choose a new path (modernization), using

elements of the new system that have emerged in the decaying social and industrial organism in the economic, technical and social spheres, in politics, culture, military affairs, and everyday life. The modern industrial system was formed initially in Great Britain and France, which became normative models of the new system for other societies.

In the 19th century, in the countries of the "second echelon" of capitalist development - Germany, Russia, Italy, and Japan-the authorities could already use the ready-made elements and principles of the new system, thereby eliminating the threats of revolutionism or mitigating them, without completely breaking away from the past and avoiding "brutal mutual struggle". The incompleteness of capitalist modernization in Russia by the beginning of the twentieth century and the unwillingness of the authorities to complete it in full were among the reasons, in addition to politics and ideology, that led to the revolutionary process of forming a modern industrial society, which lasted until the middle of the twentieth century.

Similarly, the countries of the "third tier of capitalism" - the countries of the East-were able (to varying degrees and with varying degrees of success) to make the transition to a new formative state through modernization, using system reform as a tool. The result of such reforms in the XX century was the successful development of many Eastern countries both in terms of individual technical and economic indicators, and in terms of the appearance of elements of modern Western society (political, social and cultural), which makes it possible to classify them as modernized (or semi - modern) societies-while preserving their civilizational identity. The reform proved to be a reliable tool for transforming society in the hands of the state.

At the same time, the availability of an opportunity does not mean that its implementation is mandatory. In order to use the already existing model of modern society, a subject of modernization (the state, a reformer leader) and a certain set of conditions, internal and external factors (a transformation plan, internal government cohesion, financial resources, social support in society, an obedient bureaucracy, respect for Tradition, assistance or neutrality of an external factor) were required.

For example, in the countries of the Near and Middle East at the beginning of the XIX century, attempts were made to make serious changes. The ruler of Egypt, Muhammad Ali, and the sultans of the Ottoman Empire, Selim III and Mahmud II, initiated military reforms to eliminate the gap between the Egyptian and Ottoman armies and the level of European armies. Their reforms within the system helped to increase the combat effectiveness of their armies, but failed to eliminate the national crisis - the general lag of society behind the level of European countries in economic, social and cultural indicators, which became apparent with the expansion of contacts with the West. Even in the twentieth century, attempts at "partial reforms" in the East - qualitative changes in the sphere of industry (the construction of several factories) or culture (the creation of several European - type educational institutions or the publication of newspapers) - also did not change the quality of the old social system, and therefore did not allow us to get out of the state of crisis on a national scale.

The acquisition of a new quality by the system became possible with the rejection of the old system-forming elements and their replacement with new ones. Such new elements for modern industrial bourgeois society were the primacy of the principle of private property, the predominant role of industry in economic life, the elimination of class status and increasing social mobility, the rule of law and the democratization of public life.

In the nineteenth century, only one country in the East - Japan - was able to take full advantage of the favorable combination of internal and external factors and implement the borrowed model of capitalist formation to the maximum extent possible. The "Meiji Revolution" meant the reform of the system, the gradual dismantling of the old one

social system and its replacement with a new one. Of course, the Japanese "revolution from above" did not create a copy of the Western model of modern society and could not create due to a different civilizational basis, different traditions, value systems and worldview.

In the twentieth century, the Western countries were at the forefront of world development due to their obvious dominance in the world economy and world politics. Therefore, the Western model of modern society has acquired the significance of a normative model, a mandatory role model. This model of industrial formation was followed with varying degrees of success both in different Eastern countries and in the USSR, despite the obvious civilizational differences between these societies. As a result, there is a widespread opinion that modernization is identical with industrialization, with a change of technology in economic life, which is only a reform within the system.

Examples of successful modernization based on the Western model in the twentieth century include the reform of the system in such deeply traditional and once backward societies as Taiwan and South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. According to all the main socio-economic parameters, a new capitalist social system, an industrial formation, and a bourgeois society emerged there, although it retained the system-forming elements of its civilization. Thus, it became obvious that the reform of the system does not mean the complete westernization of non-Western society, but only implies selective assimilation of certain elements of European culture.

Society-a social and productive organism - develops organically and naturally according to its own laws, experiencing various kinds of crisis states. And where these crises do not affect the system-forming foundations, they can be resolved by partial transformations, reforms within the system. This kind of transformation was carried out, for example, by US President F. D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. to get the American economy out of a deep crisis, and the Presidents of J. R. R. Tolkien and others. Kennedy, L. Johnson and R. Nixon in the 1960s and 1970s - to solve acute social problems. It is worth noting that F. D. Roosevelt, in the conditions of the acute crisis, used "non-system" methods to resolve it (strict state regulation of the country's economic life). According to E. Hobsbawm, "The Great Depression ended liberalism in the economy for half a century", "the words "plan" and" planning "are firmly established in Western politics" [Hobsbawm, 2004, p. 107, 109].

The development of Eastern societies in the XX century was determined both by the logic of their internal development and by the active influence (and interaction) of the external factor - the West. During the first half of the twentieth century, the leading Western powers willingly or unwittingly broke the isolation of the Eastern countries, accelerated the smooth course of their evolution and created conditions for them to make a qualitative leap in development.

By the end of the twentieth century, it was possible to identify the main features of the development of Eastern society, accelerated by the invasion or influence of the more developed West. The first such feature is a state of crisis. Eastern society either in the process of evolutionary development gradually outlives the accumulated development potential and enters a transitional state, or it experiences the influence of an external factor (Western states, Western capital) and prematurely, violating the logic of evolutionary development, finds a transitional state to modernity, to a modern way of managing and way of life. In the twentieth century, the West actively promoted both the acceleration of development and the choice of the direction of socio-economic development of non-Western societies, offering or imposing its own model of development.

One way or another, they were experiencing a crisis of their social system before the challenge of the West. The answer to this challenge could be disaster, revolution, and reform.

Catastrophe is an irreversible slide of society into a state of chaos, spontaneous and unregulated disintegration of the social system due to the weakening of the natural, economic and spiritual capabilities of society, as well as the lack of volitional actions of the authorities and the pressure (or inaction) of external forces. In history, such events are connected

Figure 1. Options for the development of the social system in times of crisis

with the collapse of civilizations. Society as an integral system ceases to exist, although its surviving members may join a different social system, adopt a different culture and religion.

A social revolution is a violent upheaval in the socio-economic structure of society with the denial of the previous social and political system, as well as systems of cultural and spiritual values. A revolution is prepared and initiated by a certain political force in the context of an acute crisis of the social system, and is carried out by force, relying on the masses of the people, in order to create a new political system based on the ideological doctrine proposed to society. A revolution invariably begins with a political upheaval, followed by a series of socio-economic transformations.

This radical social upheaval in each society had its own characteristics, but its result was invariably the emergence and consolidation of a new social system, a new economic system, a new political culture, new systems of cultural and spiritual values with the belittling or denial of Tradition (the civilizational foundations of society). For example, the revolutionary theorist L. D. Trotsky wrote: "The problems of the economy, the state, politics, and law, but also the problems of the family, the individual, and artistic creativity are being raised anew by the revolution and are being reviewed from top to bottom" (Trotsky, 1997, vol.1, p. 25).

In order to achieve an objectively necessary goal, society had to bear much greater "costs". The" cost " of the revolution consists of profound upheavals of society and the state, huge material losses and human casualties, and the decline of cultural and spiritual life.

Reform is a complex process of rebuilding society on a new basis. Reform begins and is carried out by the authorities, which, in the context of a national crisis, aims to make a qualitative leap in socio-economic development, following the example of developed Western countries, without forcibly changing the political culture of society, without breaking with Tradition.

At first, the authorities, realizing the strength and depth of the crisis in the military, economic, political and social spheres of society, try to get out of it by carrying out partial transformations. Such qualitative but fragmented changes can "pull up" some previously backward sphere of public life to the achieved international standards in the relevant area, but reform within the system is not able to eliminate the crisis of the entire system.

And only after realizing the danger of an all-encompassing crisis, the authorities abandon palliative measures and turn to a radical reform that changes the system-forming principle of society. The goal of the reform of the system is to completely transform society, to make a qualitative leap in its internal development, allowing it to meet the challenge of the times, to approach the level of more developed countries.

This tool of the "revolution from above" was used in the course of its modernization in the XIX century. Germany, Russia and some other European countries that formed the" second echelon " of capitalist development, and later-Japan and other Eastern countries.

Here are some important factors and elements of the reform mechanism.

A necessary condition for launching a "revolution from above" is a national crisis. Any government is not so altruistic as to voluntarily start qualitative transformations of the existing system, which means that society enters an unstable transition state, generates intra-system conflicts and conflicts of interests within the elite. Only the strongest "shake-up" in the form of a military threat, a military defeat, the prospect of the country's collapse, a deep economic crisis, or the emergence of a real political alternative to the government encourages it to develop a new path of development. Thus, the threat to national interests and the instinct of self-preservation force the ruling and ruling strata to consciously (or partially consciously) carry out first partial, and then radical changes.

The subject of reforms is the state, since only a legitimate centralized government, which usually has an authoritarian form of government, not only has the power to make strategic national decisions, but also has state property and control over the financial system. The state can simultaneously maintain the stability of society and State institutions in an era of revolutionary changes, and mobilize and direct the necessary resources for national, rather than private, purposes. The state is able and obliged to form and support new social forces, to suppress or neutralize opponents of modernization, by pursuing a flexible policy of "social arbiter". The head of state sometimes acts as a reformist leader (King Faisal of Saudi Arabia), but he can also simply authorize changes (Emperor Mutsuhito Meiji).

The bureaucracy has been and still is the instrument of power in modernisation, as the old social forces do not want to change, and the new social forces are too weak to play an independent role. The willingness of the bureaucracy to serve national rather than corporate goals largely determines the success of fundamental reforms. For example, the clear functioning of the bureaucracy in Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew's leadership has been an important factor in the success of ongoing reforms.

A necessary condition for successful modernization of society is the presence of a modern elite that is able and ready to consciously seek ways out of a crisis situation, develop and purposefully implement consistent measures to eliminate the foundations of the old system and form the foundations of the new social system. In the absence of such an elite, the transformations turn out to be superficial, partial, changing only a part of the social system.

However, it is possible to use this kind of mechanism on a smaller scale to solve relatively limited tasks. For example, in the USSR, in order to eliminate the lag behind the West in 1945-1954, purposeful massive efforts were made to make a technical and technological leap in atomic research and production of atomic energy for military and peaceful purposes. The beginning of this time-limited but rapid concentration of efforts was the "reform program", compiled by I. V. Kurchatov and A. I. Alikhanov on mainly theoretical bases ("...each proposal of the scientist (A. I. Alikhanov) sounds fantastic, but from the point of view of physics it is absolutely real") [see: Gubarev, 2004, p. 65-66]. Both of them at that time did not fully understand the long-term consequences of their activities. After the authorities approved and accepted the bold project proposed by bold scientists, its implementation began with the efforts of the state and part of the then Soviet society.

An important condition for modernization is also the availability of resources — financial and other-for the implementation of the entire range of socio-economic reforms. For example, when the Soviet Union was industrializing, it was necessary to confiscate the property of a huge number of rural owners, and to create an atomic bomb in the USSR, all other industrial and social projects were curtailed.

An important and sometimes crucial role is played by an external factor in the form of a Western state or Western capital. An external factor can be the initiator of changes, influence the course of their implementation in order to accelerate or slow down qualitative changes in Eastern society. Thus, for Taiwan and South Korea, the external factor was twofold: The PRC and the DPRK posed an open challenge and threat, while the US provided a "military umbrella", financial and political assistance.

In the course of developing a program of reforms, their nature is determined: reforms can be protective, changing the material and political foundations of society and preserving the traditional foundations of social, cultural and spiritual life, or transformative, when the authorities voluntarily or involuntarily strengthen the process of Westernization of the entire society, ignoring Tradition. Two types of transformations can be distinguished: reforms that initiate, i.e. early implementation by the authorities of changes that are not generated by the natural course of society's development (as was the case in the oil monarchies of Arabia in the 1970s), or sanctioning, i.e. recognition by the authorities of the norms of life that already really exist in society (transformations in the economic and political life of Spain in the 1970s and 1990s).

The experience of reforms in many Eastern countries in the 20th century showed that the formation of a modern industrial society there strengthens democratic principles in political life, but may not be accompanied by the formation of a civil society and a Western-style political culture. In the East, they prefer other values, not so much "freedom and individual rights", but "efficiency and practicality of management". The recent ideas of Western sociologists that "there is no bourgeoisie, there is no democracy" have certainly been refuted by the last decades of material prosperity in many Eastern countries (for example, the Singapore version of democracy).

Sometimes the goals of the authorities may not coincide directly with the tasks objectively facing society, but it would be wrong to identify the subjective goals of the reformers and the objective consequences of the changes they have initiated. Often, reformers go to India, and sail to America (Auth.). The experience of the more developed countries of the West, first of all England and France, and in the XX century - the USA and the USSR, remained common and unchanged for reformers in the XIX century.

The success of modernization is largely determined by the degree to which the authorities take into account the level of development of society and its readiness to accept innovations. When the authorities pass the "threshold of sensitivity" of society, if they make too hasty or too radical changes in the economic, cultural and spiritual spheres, they can turn away from the reformers and refuse them passive support for change (as happened during the" white revolution of the shah and the people " in Iran by the end of the 1970s). the loss or even reduction of the social support of reformers increases the difficulties in implementing changes.

Since successful modernization can only be achieved by purposeful use of the fundamental reform tool, it is possible to outline the stages of reform. The first is that the authorities, in the context of an acute national crisis, initially carry out partial modernization in some area, "reform within the system". Second: the reformist part of the elite is aware of the scale of the national crisis, the emergence of a reformist leader, the development of a program for a set of fundamental socio-economic reforms, as well as a partial rejection of the outdated heritage and

development of the legal basis of the new system. Third: the beginning of a set of radical transformations that change the nature of the social system. There is an expansion and deepening of the process of socio-economic reforms depending on the state of the economy, the material base of transformation, the psychological readiness of the masses, the struggle within the elite, the influence of an external factor, the strength of the manifestation of the technological factor, etc. At this stage, new economic and social structures, a new basis for the national economy, and new social forces are being formed after the passage of "waves of transformation" with the inevitable "running ahead" and "rollbacks". Fourth: after a significant part of the population has achieved a higher standard of living and quality of life, and this part is aware of its special socio-political interests, the authorities bring the political system of society into line with the new social structure that has emerged. Political changes complete the formation of a new society.

In the mass consciousness, reform is sometimes perceived as any more or less significant transformation, or, on the contrary, as a kind of magic tool that can change life for the better in one fell swoop. But the fundamental reform that modernizes society is a complex and lengthy process that has taken from 25 to 100 years in different countries.

In fact, starting radical transformations in the context of a national crisis, any government is forced to simultaneously solve the most complex three-pronged task: a) bringing society out of the crisis, b) maintaining the normal life of society, c) carrying out reforms. All three aspects of the task are equally important and mutually complementary. In different conditions, the importance and priority of their solutions change, but the solution of one cannot replace the solutions of the other two, otherwise it is not fundamental reforms, not modernization.

The study of the experience of various variants of "system reform" carried out in the XIX and XX centuries in different countries of Europe and Asia allows us to make certain generalizations about the practice of this phenomenon in public life. The steady repetition of individual phenomena, the obvious similarity of a number of processes in the economic, social and political life of many countries over the past two centuries suggest that there is a global pattern of the historical process during the transition from one social system to another, and its mechanism is, if not revolution, then reform.

In the current context of the coincidence of many crises of global rather than national proportions (development models, resources, ecology, demography), it is possible to use a well-known reform mechanism to avoid a catastrophe.

The experience of successful reforms carried out in the 19th and 20th centuries in various countries of the West and East, which led to the emergence of a modern (semi-modern) society, allows us to determine the main parameters of this development tool for the upcoming changes within the framework of national, and possibly regional and global ones.

The reason that encourages the authorities to change is a national crisis, the manifestations of which are not only visible to the authorities and the people, but also significantly weaken the state within the framework of the world system.

Within the elite (the ruling and ruling strata), the question of the possibility and necessity of changes, their nature and scale is decided, which usually leads to a split of the elite into conservatives and reformers.

Fundamental reforms (system reform) take a long period of at least 25 years.

Before defining transformation programs, it is necessary to find out the purpose of development, based on a certain system of spiritual values and material resource capabilities of a particular society. Now we can expect several models of post-modern development to be put forward by the United States, the EU, China and other BRICS countries.

The goals set by the reformers are achieved not simultaneously, but in stages, based on the civilizational basis of a given society, the level of development of the economy and culture, and the degree of perception of changes on the part of the elite and the people. In this regard, the emergence of a "hotbed of new development" (in the XX century) is of great importance. — special economic zones) as a role model, a model for learning.

Implementing reforms requires a leader (formal or informal) who unites like-minded people within the national elite, provided that the elite strives to achieve national goals, and not self-serving goals. In the current context of globalization, the diminishing role of nation States, and the growing role of networked communities, it is increasingly likely that reforms will be implemented on a regional rather than national scale, which complicates the problem of leadership.

Reforms mean a clash of interests between different social and political forces, and therefore invariably meet with resistance in society, although as a result of their implementation, all strata may benefit, including those who opposed them. Radical changes can radicalize various political and social forces in society. The ratio of violent and nonviolent methods of reform implementation usually depends on the specific circumstances. In the course of the era of change, a new identification of society and the individual is being developed.

The role of an external factor (formerly the West, now China and Japan) can be crucial for initiating and proceeding with transformations; an external factor can act as an ally or opponent of reformers in the existing conditions of the global information space. In the context of globalization, the growing influence of the world community and its various institutions (UN, G-8, G-20) on the development of the direction of world development is obvious.

Reforms are successful in an authoritarian regime, because in this case, decision-making and resource concentration are carried out faster and more efficiently. Existing democratic institutions during the reform period can be subordinated to reformers without usurpation of power (the experience of F. D. Roosevelt).

The only correct criteria for the successful completion of the reform of the system in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were the emergence of society and the state from a deep crisis and the achievement by society and the state of the level of the most developed countries of the world in terms of basic socio-economic and cultural indicators, and the state's gaining a worthy position in the world system. Now it is necessary to add to this the provision of long-term sustainable development not only in terms of the usual socio-economic indicators, but also in terms of resource, demographic, civilizational and cultural ones.

A brief outline of the process of modernization by reforming society is presented in Table 1. Despite their qualitative differences, all reforms are described according to one scheme, which allows us to identify their main typical features that are repeated in different countries in different historical epochs.

Table 1

Description of the reforms.

I. Selim III's reforms in 1791-1807

II. Reforms in Saudi Arabia in the 1960s and 1970s

Table 1 (continued)

III. Reforms in the PRC in the 1970s and 1990s.

Table 1 (end)

list of literature

Brzszinski 3. Strategicheskij vzglyad: Amerika i global'nom krizis [Strategic View: America and the Global Crisis], Moscow, 2012.

Gubarev V. The White Archipelago of Stalin, Moscow, 2004.

Sorokin P. Sotsiologiya revolyutsii [Sociology of Revolution], Moscow, 2008.

Trotsky L. D. History of the Russian Revolution. In 2 volumes (3 books). Moscow, 1997.

Fridman M. Kapitalizm i svoboda [Capitalism and Freedom], Moscow, 2005.

Hobsbawm E. The Age of Extremes. The Short Twentieth Century (1914-1991). Moscow, 2004.

Permanent link to this publication: