Evolution of production activities. Features of the development of reflex production activity

The development of adaptive prehuman labor, like the development of any adaptive activity, proceeded under the influence of natural selection. In the process of defensive and hunting activities, in the process of intra-herd conflicts, individuals who were most adapted in their own way survived and left offspring. physical organization to the use of weapons with the greatest combat and hunting experience.

Improvement of production activity under the influence of such selection could not occur, because better, in comparison with other members of the herd, adaptability to performing production operations and greater production experience by themselves could not provide a given individual with an advantage over them either in hunting and defensive activities, or in intra-herd activities. conflicts. The advantage in hunting, defense and fighting was given by greater physical strength, dexterity, better adaptability to the use of tools, a greater ability to operate them, which could not always coincide with a greater skill in making them. The use of more advanced tools could not give advantages either, for the latter could not be the monopoly property of those who made them. Better production techniques and skills were quickly absorbed by other members of the herd; more advanced tools made by individuals more adapted to this operation could be used by others less capable of productive activity.

The greater adaptability to production activities and the greater production experience of some members of the herd did not give them advantages over other members of the herd, but the presence of these individuals in the herd gave an advantage in adaptation to the environment of all members of the given herd compared to members of the herd in which there were fewer such individuals and they had less manufacturing experience.

The greater adaptability of the individual to appropriating reflex labor first of all gave him advantages over all other individuals and only ultimately gave certain advantages to the association of which he was a member over other associations. Adaptive prehuman labor, despite the fact that it was impossible outside of association, remained an essentially individual activity, an activity aimed at satisfying the instincts of a particular individual. The situation is different with industrial labor activity. The greater adaptability of the individual to it, first of all, gave advantages to the association of which he was a member, over other associations and only thereby to himself. From the very moment of its inception, production activity was essentially not an individual activity, but a collective one, an activity aimed at meeting the needs of all members of the herd taken together, and only thereby to meet the individual needs of each of its members, taken separately. The mediation of the emerging production activity of activities to adapt to the environment meant the mediation of activities aimed at satisfying the biological instincts of each of the individuals, activities aimed at meeting the needs of all individuals included in the association, taken together.

Being by its nature not individual, but collective, production activity from the moment of its inception could not improve under the influence of individual natural selection. But, having conditioned the exit of production activity from the sphere of individual natural selection, its collective nature gave rise to the possibility of a different form of selection. As indicated, the better adaptability of certain members of the herd to production activities, their large production experience gave significant advantages to all individuals belonging to a given association over all members of an association in which there were fewer such individuals and they had less adaptability to production activities. ... This circumstance opened up the possibility of improving the ability for production activity and thereby production activity itself by selecting all members of associations, which included more individuals who had better adaptability to production activities and greater production experience, that is, through a kind of group selection. We prefer to call this form of selection not herd selection, but group selection, because, although herds were selected in the process, they were not selected as a single whole, but only as a sum, a set of individuals. The true objects of selection were not the herds as such, but the individuals that made them up. As a result of selection, there was an improvement in the ability of individuals to productive activity, but not the development of the herd. The herd of prehumans could not and did not evolve, for it was a zoological association, not an organism.

Group selection contributed to the improvement of production activity, but its role in the development of this activity was different from the role of individual natural selection in the improvement of adaptive reflex labor, in the improvement of any form of adaptive activity. This difference was due to another feature of production activity, which made it qualitatively different from adaptive activity. Production activity differed from any form of adaptive activity in its ability to develop independently of any form of selection, the ability for self-development, self-movement. To understand the essence of this difference, it is necessary at least briefly to dwell on the question of ways of improving adaptive activity.

Improvement of adaptive activity (behavior) can occur in two ways: by improving the ability of the animal for this activity, which is associated with the improvement of its morphological organization, and by improving only the activity itself without changing the organization of the animal. The first way involves the fixation and accumulation from generation to generation of changes in the morphological organization, making the animal more capable of adaptive activity, the second is the consolidation and accumulation from generation to generation of actions that ensure a more successful adaptation of the organism to the environment, the fixation and accumulation of experience in adaptive activity.

In the animal world, both the fixation and accumulation of morphological characteristics that make the organism more capable of adaptive activity, and the fixation and accumulation of adaptive actions is impossible without converting them into hereditary ones, without transferring them from generation to generation using the mechanism of heredity.

In lower animals, both ways of improving adaptive activity are combined. Examples of hereditarily fixed adaptive actions are instincts - complex chains of unconditioned reflexes. The development and change of instincts, as well as a change in the morphological organization of an animal, occur in the process of generational change under the influence of natural selection. It is quite understandable that the hereditarily fixed activity of animals cannot but differ in conservatism. The predominance of hereditarily predetermined activity in the behavior of an animal makes it little able to respond to rapid and unexpected changes in the external environment. The second way of improving adaptive activity, therefore, necessarily involves a decrease in the plasticity of the animal's behavior and thereby narrowing its adaptive capabilities.

An increase in the plasticity and flexibility of adaptive activity is impossible without turning it into a hereditary non-fixable one. This activity is the behavior of higher mammals, which is a conditioned reflex activity, the activity of the cerebral cortex. “The development of hereditarily unrecorded actions,” wrote A.N.Severtsev (1949), “went progressively among mammals. Adaptation through behavior change during the course of an individual's life has tremendous biological significance, because it allows higher mammals to quickly adapt to the changes introduced into their lives by other animals and humans "(p.214; see also: 19456, p.289-311).

In higher mammals, individually acquired actions, which are conditioned cortical reflexes in their mechanism, cannot become inherited, cannot be inherited. This does not mean at all that it is generally impossible for them to transfer the experience of activity from one individual to another. The emergence of higher nervous activity entailed the development of such a form of transfer of experience as imitation, imitation. Experiments show that even in animals with a level of development of higher nervous activity lower than monkeys, conditioned reflexes can be formed on the basis of imitation (V. Kryazhev, 1955; L. Voronin, 1957). In monkeys, on the basis of imitation, a wide variety of reflexes and reflex chains can be formed. Monkeys imitate each other both in separate movements and in complex directional activity (Shtodin, 1947; Voitonis, 1949; L. Voronin, 1957; Harlow, 1959). Life in associations in the presence of developed imitation leads to the fact that the life experience of a monkey is formed not only from its individual experience, but also from the experience of comrades in association. Through imitation, there was an exchange of work experience with prepeople.

But if mammals have new way the transfer of the experience of adaptive activity, then they did not have a new way of fixing, consolidating and accumulating from generation to generation the experience of adaptive activity. Natural selection of actions that best ensure adaptation to the environment and the accumulation of these actions from generation to generation in higher mammals was impossible, because these actions of theirs were neither hereditary nor capable of transforming into hereditary ones. The adaptive activity of higher mammals, taken by itself, falls outside the scope of natural selection (Kremyanskiy, 1941). In higher mammals, it is impossible to consolidate and accumulate from generation to generation the experience of adaptive activity; it is impossible to improve the adaptive activity taken by itself. The improvement of their adaptive activity can be carried out in only one way - by improving the body's ability to such activity, by improving the morphological organization of the animal. The improvement of the adaptive activity of higher mammals is carried out through the selection of animals, the morphological organization of which makes them more capable of performing adaptive actions. Natural selection improved the adaptive activity and behavior of higher mammals by improving their morphological organization, primarily the structure of the brain and motor apparatus. In this way, the perfection of prehuman adaptive labor went.

The situation began to change with the transition from the use of ready-made tools to the manufacture of means of labor. Each manufacture of a tool is, in principle, nothing more than a material, objective fixation, a consolidation of the activity of its manufacture. With the beginning of the fixation of production experience in the instruments, each new generation, entering into life, received at its disposal the materialized experience of the production activities of previous generations fixed in the instruments.

In the course of the activity of this generation, the experience of the previous generation was enriched and in this form was passed on to the next, etc. The emergence of production activity essentially meant the emergence of a completely new method of fixing, transferring and accumulating the experience of activity, a new way of improving activity, which had no place in the animal world. The development of production is an entirely new form of movement, qualitatively different from the development of adaptive activity. If adaptive activity can develop and improve only under the decisive action of natural selection, then the development and improvement of production activity is not determined by any form of selection. Production has a source of development in itself and therefore is capable of self-movement, self-development.

However, this does not mean that the development of production activity in general could do without the action of any form of selection. Running a little ahead, we must say that up to the emergence of the modern physical type, the improvement of production was inevitably impeded by the morphological organization of those creatures who were engaged in the manufacture of tools. The arising contradiction between the need for further development of production activity and the morphological organization could only be overcome by improving this organization, and this could not happen without the action of selection. But selection, under the influence of which the organism's ability to perform production activities was improved, was different from that which determined the improvement of the ability to adaptive activity. He not only did not determine the direction of development and improvement of production activities, the direction of changes in the morphological organization, but, on the contrary, the very direction of its action was determined by the development of production activities.

However, everything that has been said above fully applies only to production activity, which has already begun to free itself from the reflex, animal form. All this is applicable to reflex production activity only with certain reservations. The reflex form in which the emerging production activity was clothed at first hindered the manifestation of its ability for self-development, hindered its progress.

In the case when the instrument of labor is the result of the act of making the instrument of labor, the degree of its perfection is determined by the course of this very act, the act of production. The course of an act of production can necessarily lead to the appearance of the desired result, that is, an object with the desired properties, only if it is directed towards this result, will it be determined by this result. In other words, the course of the act of production can necessarily lead to desired result if this result will exist at its beginning and determine its course. It is quite understandable that the result of the act of production cannot exist before its beginning in reality, materially. It can exist only in the head of the worker, only ideally. The ideal result of this process, the goal, existing in the head of the employee at the beginning of production, determines the course of this process and thereby its material result. At the end of the production process begins to exist in reality, materially that existed at its beginning only ideally, only in the head of the worker.

The goal - the ideal result of the manufacturing process - cannot be anything other than the result of the ideal manufacturing process. For the successful development and improvement of production activity, therefore, it is required that, in addition to the material processing of the object, its ideal processing takes place and that this ideal processing of the object overtakes its material processing and directs it. By its nature, production presupposes and requires the existence of an active reflection of the world, such a reflection of the world that is capable of anticipating and directing the process of transforming the world. Such a reflection of the world is human thinking, human consciousness and will. Acts of production can be successfully implemented and developed only if they are purposeful, conscious, volitional actions. Such purposeful, conscious, volitional acts of human labor are.

In late prehumans, as in early ones, and in other higher animals, the form of reflection of the world was higher nervous activity, which is an indissoluble unity of reflection and behavior. Only reflex stimuli could be reflected in their brains. Images not yet existing in this moment phenomena could not arise in their brain. They, like other animals, could not foresee the course and results of their actions, which were reflex acts. Hence the extremely sharp contradiction between the content and form of the acts of making tools that they had. Being acts of production, acts of transformation of nature, and not of adaptation to it, they did not differ in content from acts of human labor and could not develop successfully only under the condition of the existence of a process of ideal processing of objects, overtaking and directing their material processing. But being in content acts of human labor, in their form they remained acts of animal labor and, like any reflex acts, could be determined only by external phenomena that existed at the beginning of these acts. This conditioned the largely random nature of the results of these acts, which could not be completely overcome without the emergence of a qualitatively different form of reflection of the world.

As already indicated, the results of reflex acts aimed at making tools were initially purely accidental. The degree of suitability of the stone fragments obtained by the method of breaking up to function as tools depended on the case. It is quite understandable that the tools obtained in this way cannot be regarded as a true fixation of the result of the activity on their manufacture, as a true materialization work experience... The emerging reflex production activity possessed the ability for self-movement, self-development, but not so much in reality as in possibility. Therefore, at the first steps of its development, it was largely improved under the decisive influence of group selection, which conditioned the improvement of the ability to perform production operations. But with the development of production activity, its ability to self-propulsion began to increasingly turn from a possibility into reality, which inevitably caused a change in the role of group selection. The last factor that determined the development of reflex production activity began to increasingly turn into a factor whose direction of action was determined by the development of production activity itself, into a factor subordinate to production activity and fulfilling the latter's "orders".

The reflex form, in which the initial production activity was clothed, from the very beginning hindered, hindered its development. However, a certain improvement in production activity was also possible in a reflex form. The tools found together with the creatures from Oldowai I can judge the level of development that production activity was able to achieve before its release from the reflex form. ; Leakey, Tobias, Napier, 1964, etc.).

According to a number of researchers, the Oldowan stone industry in Africa is not the oldest known to science. It, in their opinion, grew out of the Kafuan industry that preceded it in the same territory. The Kafuan and Oldowan cultures essentially represent two successive stages of development of one (Cole, 1954, p. 1034–1035), dating back to the period preceding the Schellian archaeological era, the transition to which is associated with the appearance of the first stone tool having a developed, stable standardized form , - manual chopper (Childe, 1944, p. 41; Ravdonikas, 1939, I, p. 157-158; Efimenko, 1953, p. 107; Panichkina, 1953, p. 31-32; Artsikhovsky, 1955, p. 26 and etc.).

G. Mortilier (1903, p. 189), who gave the first clear scheme of the Paleolithic periodization, considered the hand chopper as the first tool made by a human hand, and the shell as the first era in the development of the human stone industry, as the first era of the ancient stone age. The tools attributed to the era that preceded the Schellen era were considered by G. Mortilier as products of the activity not of a person, but of a creature theoretically constructed by him, intermediate between animals and humans - anthropopithecus or homosimius.

By the works of subsequent researchers, the periodization of G. Mortilier was supplemented by the introduction of the pre-Chelles era. However, many scientists still do not recognize this era as an independent one. The Schellian era remains the first generally recognized archaeological era (Artsikhovsky, 1947: 8-9; 1955, p. 26; Efimenko, 1953: 109-110). Researchers who recognize that the first archaeological epoch was the pre-Sheller one, nowhere give it a detailed characterization, confining themselves to the most general provisions... In their works, it is emphasized that tools of the pre-Shellian era usually have a random, unstable, extremely indefinite shape and can hardly be distinguished from fragments of stone that have undergone natural processing (Osborne, 1924, p. 103; Boriskovsky, 1957a, p. 40; Panichkina, 1953, p. 18).

Of all the archaeologists, only L. Leakey (Leakey, 1953, p. 57, 66–68) gives a more detailed description of the pre-Schellian epoch, who studied in detail the Oldowai culture related to it, but he also emphasizes that characteristic feature this industry is the absence of any developed stable forms of stone tools (p. 68). Perhaps, only the late Oldowan tools, directly preceding the Early Shell ones, have a somewhat more elaborate form.

The randomness, instability of the forms of pre-Shelley tools allows, in our opinion, with sufficient reason to consider them, with the exception, perhaps, only of the most recent, immediately preceding the Schellian choppers, the results of the activity of not people, even those forming, but of late pre-humans, products of reflex production activity, transformative prehuman labor. The stone industry of the late prehumans, which is, in all likelihood, almost the entire pre-Chelian industry, excluding, perhaps, only the latest, it would be best to call the eolithic, and the epoch of its existence and development is eolith. The tools found at Oldoway I make it possible, with a high degree of probability, to attribute all or almost all of the Oldowai industry and the entire Kafuan industry to the Eolith.

The Kafuan implements are very simple. They are water-rolled pebbles (or sometimes nodules of flint limestone or quartzite boulders), from which one or two flakes are separated to sharpen the end. Oldowai tools differ from Kafuan tools only by a slightly larger number of spalls (Leakey, 1953: 57, 67–68; Ali-man, 1960: 169–170, 236–238, 274, 314; Clark, 1961, etc. ). Pebbles and boulders, sharpened by one, two or three chips, are found not only in Africa. They were also found in the pre-Shelly layers of Europe and Asia (Efimenko, 1953, p. 109-NO; Panichkina, 1953, pp. 18–20; World History, 1955, 1, pp. 24–25; Movis, 1944, r. Z, 104–107) Along with tools of this kind, which are often referred to as coarse chopping tools, there are a large number of flakes of purely random outlines.

The discovery, together with creatures from Oldoway 1, of tools of the culture of the same name indicates that already in the eolithic era, along with the technique of breaking stone, a new method of stone processing arose and developed, consisting in beating fragments from a stone nodule or pebble and thereby in knocking a nodule or pebble ... It can be assumed that initially this technique arose as a means of eliminating some defect that hindered the successful use of a piece of stone as a tool (Gorodtsov, 1930, p. 10; 1935, p. 69–70). In the future, this technique acquired an independent significance and laid the foundation for a new type of stone processing technique - the upholstery technique, which was at the same time a beating technique. As tools were used both fragments knocked off a pebble (boulder) and chipped pebble (boulder).

The emergence and development of the upholstery-beating technique opened up the possibility of obtaining more advanced weapons than the smashing technique could provide. In addition to improving the methods of stone processing, the progress of stone technology was also facilitated by the development of the ability to choose the most suitable for the manufacture of tools from a large number of stones of the most diverse types and sizes.

The tools obtained as a result of the hammering-beating technique, although they continued to wear largely random outlines and did not have a developed shape, nevertheless, to a certain extent, can already be characterized as a fixation of the activity in their manufacture, as a materialization of production experience. With the emergence of the upholstery-beating technique, production activity received the opportunity to show its ability for self-development, the ability to turn selection into a factor subordinate to it. However, despite all this, the progress of stone processing technology in the Eolithic era was extremely low and was not so much qualitative as quantitative. It consisted not so much in improving the quality of manufactured tools, as in increasing the percentage of the number of pieces of stone suitable for use as tools to the total number of stone fragments obtained as a result of processing.

The reflex form in which the acts of production were clothed interfered with the qualitative improvement of production activity. The further the production activity developed, the more the reflex form in which it was clothed interfered with its self-development. The new content for the time being, for the time being, could develop in the old form, but sooner or later the latter had to become an insurmountable obstacle to the further development of the content. Production, developing, sooner or later had to reach such a limit, beyond which its further development was completely impossible without liberating its acts from the reflex form, without converting them from reflex into volitional, conscious, without the emergence of thinking and will.

But reflex activity was not the only obstacle to its development. Another no less, and perhaps a more important obstacle was the unrestrained zoological individualism that prevailed in the herd of later prehumans.

The historical formation of a person is inextricably linked with labor activity. Labor contributed to the formation and development of material culture. The role of labor has been discussed by philosophers since antiquity. Its meaning, as a pre-ordained path "from above", was contained in the traditions and mythology of many peoples. Through labor, people showed themselves, earned food, improved their dwellings. In many ways, the concept of human evolution is viewed through the prism of labor activity. The creative quality of labor has survived to this day. And it probably will continue to be so.

For the first time, labor, as a decisive factor in development, was considered by F. Engels. According to him - "work is the first and basic condition of all human life." The data of modern anthropology fully confirmed the theory of F. Engels about the role of labor in the origin of man. The role of labor in the formation of mankind was also considered in the works of O. Comte and G. Spencer. Modern science quite extensively researches labor activity, both historical and modern stages... By the way, modern labor activity is studied by such disciplines as labor economics, labor physiology, labor psychology, personnel management, labor sociology, ergonomics, labor law, labor safety, etc. Labor is a necessary and natural condition for our existence. It is that qualitatively new feature that distinguishes human society from animals.

The fossil record of the human race is rich in artifacts. Excavations of the sites of ancient people helped to recreate the chronology of his physiological and socio-cultural development. Although still unanswered questions about the primacy of the development of material culture, physiological characteristics, intelligent activity of ancient people. The fact remains that different time periods were organized differently. The development of these three aspects can be traced in the gradual complication and improvement. Most likely, it is somewhat incorrect to talk about the primacy or supremacy of one of them. It can be assumed that they are co-dependent and their evolution became possible with mutual complementarity.

In turn, the labor process has undergone a long and complex evolution. Gradually, new skills were formed, a person mastered the art of using fire and organizing dwellings. The fire warmed, protected from large predators, and helped to improve the quality of food. Fire has entered the daily life of a person, significantly improving the quality of his life. The importance of fire was especially great in the settlement of primitive man: fire made it possible to preserve and maintain the life of the community in previously inaccessible areas with a cold climate. At the same time, social relations became more complicated. The interaction of people during joint hunting, making tools, organizing everyday life, led to the emergence of articulate speech. By this time, the physical nature of a person is being improved, it becomes more complicated nervous system, mental abilities are transformed. Ideas about the world around them are generalized into abstract concepts and transferred among themselves. As a result, a combination of many factors resulted in the complication of labor activity. By influencing the external environment, a person changed it in accordance with personal needs and goals. Knowledge of the laws of nature began. A person's power over the environment increased, a person, through his skills and abilities, learned to adapt to the conditions of the external environment. Thousands of years of continuous efforts have changed not only the appearance, but also the essence of man. Man went beyond the limits of natural evolution and began intelligent life activity. “Nature,” wrote K. Marx, “does not build cars, steam locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, selfactors, etc. All these are products human activity; natural material, transformed into organs of power of human will over nature or into organs of execution of this will in nature. These are all organs of the human brain created by the human hand; materialized power of knowledge ”.

Since people have mastered agriculture and animal husbandry, labor has entered a new evolutionary stage. The changes have affected not only the nature of food production, the way of life has changed. Hunting and gathering were gradually replaced by animal breeding and plant cultivation. Freed additional time, which was previously used to search for game and edible vegetation. The release of time, and a sedentary lifestyle, contributed to the transformation social relations towards active communications. As a result, this was expressed in the totality of multilateral ties and relationships between people. In addition, perfect sense organs, developed physiology, intelligence, made it possible not only to perceive information from the surrounding world, but to bring into it “missing” - from the point of view of a person - elements. The introduction of new objects and things into nature had a characteristic influence on her. Artificial conditions"Dilute" natural ones, and gradually take them out. The anthropogenic environment in terms of the level and quality of life is in many ways superior to the biological environment. The artificial world provides more protection and stability.

In labor activity, a person's attention is directed to the created tool, and, consequently, to his own activity. The activity of an individual is included in the activity of the whole society, therefore, human activity is aimed at meeting social needs. Under these conditions, the need for a critical attitude of a person to his activities is manifested. Human activity becomes conscious and intelligent. As characteristic properties reasonable activity can be identified search and elimination of imperfections. Imperfection is a highly subjective indicator. However, many subjective views of the first people on the imperfection of life grew into a systemic transformation of the anthropogenic environment, which systematically took root in the natural conditions of the earth's biosphere. Everyday life improved, material culture developed, and social intra- and intercommunal communications became more complex. The manufacture, use and preservation of tools for future use led man to greater independence from direct influence the environment... Farmed food supplies parallel the foundations of human food security. Partial overproduction in livestock and Agriculture created food surpluses in some social groups... This contributed to the emergence of barter and trafficking between people and communities. Along with this, other branches of the national economy developed: the production of tools, household items and household items, processing and preservation of food, the manufacture of clothing and accessories, the attributes of a cult; new crafts appeared. If earlier a person resisted the world of random events, then with the complication of labor activity and the development of material culture, he creates for himself a world of permanent objects. The tools created by people are the material carriers of the operations, actions and activities of previous generations. Through tools, one generation passes on its experience, lifestyle and worldview to another. A complex hereditary and hereditary tradition of transferring information from generation to generation is being formed.

The favorable climatic environment of the Middle East, North Africa and Asia has created all the necessary conditions for systematic production. The most progressive tribes mastered new territories, sowed new fields, herds of their animals many times exceeded the need for food. The dynamics of an increase in the number of community members and their life expectancy can be traced. Communities are taking on a new form - communities. It is distinguished by a more organized system of social and economic relations. There is a need to manage the dynamics of community development, control, respect the rights and obligations of people, and protect them from other tribes. To manage territories, maintain the economy and cultivate the land, families and groups of people are separated while maintaining economic, defense, cultural and political ties. The concept of ethnos is being formed - a group of people united by common features: objective or subjective. These features include: origin, language, culture, territory of residence, self-awareness. On the basis of ethnic groups, the first local civilizations are formed - ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hellenic, Minoan, Indian and Chinese. Local civilizations are integral systems, representing a complex of economic, political, social and spiritual subsystems. If earlier unification into a family and a community was based on the innate instincts of jointly obtaining food, co-cultivation offspring, protection from predators, etc., now the basis of communication between people is increasingly becoming work and joint activities.

During the period of early civilizations, the evolution of labor reaches the stage of formation labor relations... Labor has acquired the property of voluntary (hiring), forced (service) and forced (slavery). Labor activity development trends were determined by adaptation to external factors... But if earlier it was required to adapt to the natural conditions of nature, then the development of society required a new skill from a person - social adaptation. Voluntary recruitment took into account the needs of all parties to production. Service to a monarch, merchant or landowner was symbolic in nature of remuneration. Slavery made the slave an object of his master's property, like a horse or gloves. All the results of slave labor were appropriated by the slave owners.

Historical epochs differ not in what is produced, but in how it is produced, by what means of labor. In turn, the means of labor are a measure of the development of a person, his knowledge and skills, the development of labor. Labor shapes personality. Man develops in the process of labor even under conditions of slavery and exploitation. A social formation that creates the most complete conditions for the development of a personality in the labor process also receives a higher level of productivity. Labor is the easiest way to satisfy needs and the most accessible. In any conditions, it contributes to the development of a person's personal qualities. The nature of working conditions determines the set of qualities that a person will master. Creation of something new, useful, effective, meaningful, evokes a sense of dignity, pride, inspiration. These states prompt a person to new deeds and achievements. In turn, routine, mechanical, and "Sisyphean" work lowers a person's self-esteem and satisfaction from their activities. After all, labor is not only production, its second, no less important function is the improvement of man. In the course of work, views change, enriches personal experience, the actions and behavior of a person change.

In addition to the labor intended for a person to serve himself and his family, there is also social labor. This is a set of human actions aimed at the good of society. Specializing in the production of material, social or intellectual goods, people produce them primarily for others, and not for themselves. But they also need the results of other people's labor to satisfy their needs. So, working for themselves, for others or for society, people simultaneously satisfy their own and social needs.

And, finally, the pinnacle of the evolution of labor - Creation, which allows you to achieve true freedom of an individual, to reveal individuality. The personal development of each individual person contributes to the development of the team and society as a whole. It is expressed in mastering a profession, increasing knowledge, abilities and skills, increasing labor productivity. Through self-improvement, each person expands the boundaries of his knowledge, and knowledge provides the ability to manage all of the above. This is how a person achieves personal freedom. At the same time, the boundaries of freedom of society in relation to the forces of nature are expanding, people have the opportunity to predict their development for the future.

The prerequisite for studying any problem is, as you know, the definition of basic terms. Therefore, we consider it expedient to first clarify that the term "labor productivity" in this case means the utility of individual costs by the system of both living and materialized labor.

The use in a number of cases of the term “productivity” instead of “labor productivity” is associated with an appeal to primary sources (mainly Western) using this term. The term "production efficiency" means the application of the category "efficiency" not only to the sphere of material production, but also to the sphere of production of services and information. As its synonyms, the terms "efficiency", "efficiency economic activity". An organizational and economic system is understood as a structural unit that takes part in production (economic) activities and is characterized by a different set of resources and products used.

With all the variety of points of view on the definition of "labor productivity", they are united by the fact that this concept is necessarily considered in the context of the concept of "production efficiency" or "activity efficiency".

The main indicator of the efficiency of labor use was the growth of labor productivity, which in the process of practical measurement could be represented by production or labor intensity. Production was reflected in the fraction of production / costs of living labor, and labor intensity was reflected in their inverse ratio. Products could be assessed in natural (conditionally natural), monetary and labor units, and labor costs - by the number of industrial and production and auxiliary personnel or the amount of time they worked. Thus, labor productivity was initially characterized as the productivity of only living labor, and it was recognized as a function of a quantitative measure that assesses efficiency in terms of the use of applied labor. The labor productivity indicator has been the subject of more than 20 years of discussion by domestic and foreign experts.

Many copies were also broken when discussing the "best" indicator of output for measuring labor productivity.

In addition to the traditional indicators of gross and net production, regulatory pure production with individual and averaged standards, conditional standard-net production, etc.

The system of performance indicators was also presented differently. As a rule, it necessarily included an indicator of labor productivity or a set of particular factor indicators: labor productivity, capital productivity, material productivity / material consumption. They were supplemented with indicators of product quality (for example, the proportion of products with a quality mark), restrictions were established in the form of a given ratio of growth in the productivity of living labor and wages etc. Attempts were made to take into account the impact of the activities of enterprises on the labor collective: for this, efficiency was divided into economic and social. The latter was determined by the level social development the labor collective and was expressed in such indicators as a change in the qualification structure of personnel, an increase in production qualifications and the educational level of workers, an improvement in working conditions and health protection, an improvement in housing and cultural conditions, communist education and the development of social activity of workers.

The most famous researchers of the Soviet period in the field of measuring labor productivity at the level of enterprises and organizations were S.G. Strumilin, L.S. Blyakhman, R.V. Gavrilov, V.M. Danyuk, A.A. Ivanchenko, A.I. Notkin, V.S. Nemchinov, V.I. Oligin-Nesaterov, G.E. Slezinger, T.S. Khachaturov, N. D. Karpukhin, L.A. Kostin, A.M. Kolota, I.A. Mashinsky, M.G. Nazarov, P.A. Khromov and others.

The works of domestic specialists contained a lot of very interesting ideas, approaches, techniques. However, these works were created under the conditions of administrative-command methods of economic management and were in direct dependence on the methodological foundations of central planning and the ideological guidelines of the Communist Party.

The current stage of economic development requires a rethinking of many concepts and approaches that satisfy socialist economic practice. The new conditions of social and economic development of post-industrial society require a corresponding reflection in the theory of labor economics, updating its conceptual apparatus. Of the works written taking into account the changed conditions, one can note the studies of V.M. Zubov and I.I. Prokopenko.

Among Western researchers, G. Emerson should be especially noted, who introduced the very concept of productivity into the science of production management. The works of the following Western experts J. Grayson, P. Drucker, G. Davis, D.W. Kendrick, K. Kurosawa, R.M. Lehrer, A. Lawlor, P. Meiley, W. Morris, W. Racha, D.S. Sinka, W.T. Stewart, J. Felix. When preparing the manual, their positions, methodological approaches to solving problems and specific methods were taken into account.

The positions of Western authors in relation to the categories of labor productivity and efficiency are built as follows: in foreign practice, the term labor productivity (labor productivity) means the productivity of only living labor, and for its "broad" definition, which, in particular, is accepted in this work, they use the term productivity ', translated into Russian as "productivity". These nuances are also taken into account in the tutorial.

For foreign and domestic specialists, it is typical to define labor productivity as a quotient of two quantities - production and costs: “The definition of productivity as the ratio of output to costs is widespread.

As for the ratio of labor productivity and other characteristics of the activities of enterprises and organizations, there are two points of view.

According to some authors, labor productivity is an extremely broad economic category that reflects general ideas about what productive labor should be used for, and covers most of the aspects of the final activities of enterprises and organizations (Figure 14.1).

A similar approach is proposed by the American creators of the program for measuring labor productivity in agencies of general administrative services... They understand labor productivity as a multifunctional category that includes effect, private productivity, quality, and timeliness. A broad interpretation of the concept of labor productivity is also typical for specialists Japan Center productivity.

Rice. 14.1. Labor productivity as a generalizing category of the final activity of the enterprise 1 2

According to other authors, labor productivity is presented as one of several performance criteria. At the same time, efficiency is not subdivided into economic and social components. One of the classic works in this direction is the book by D.S. Sinka "Performance Management: Planning, Measuring and Evaluating, Monitoring and Improving." The author characterizes the efficiency of production as "... a kind of generalized category that expresses the correspondence of the organizational and economic system to its goals, the integral quality of its functioning, and its success." He further notes that experience with more than 500 managers suggests that “... many managers seem to believe that productivity = performance. The main problem is that the term "performance" in almost all cases is used in a broad, broad sense ... In contrast, productivity is a fairly well-defined and limited in meaning term, representing the relationship between products organizational system for a certain period of time and costs for the production of these products. Productivity is actually just an element of the performance measurement system. "

He identifies 7 performance criteria:

Efficiency (effectivness);

Efficiency ",

Quality ",

Profitability;

Labor productivity (productivity),

Quality of work life;

Innovation.

Let us briefly describe what D.S. Sink. Effectiveness is the degree of completion of the "needed" work, which is assessed by the following criteria:

Are we doing the "necessary" things in accordance with the predetermined. divided requirements?

Are we doing all the "right" things?

Are we doing the “right” things on time?

Efficiency - the degree to which the system uses “necessary things. It can be expressed as follows:

Quality is the degree to which a system meets requirements, specifications, and expectations. main feature quality, due to which it differs from efficiency, is associated with the concept of qualitative features - specific properties that are laid down in the design and creation of a product and seek to identify during its testing.

Profitability is the ratio between gross income and total costs.

Productivity is the ratio of the number of products of the system and the cost of its production.

The quality of working life is the psychological reaction of people to working conditions in an organization. It includes satisfaction directly with working conditions, the nature of the work and the organization in which a person works.

Innovation is the process by which we get new, better products and services.

It is especially emphasized that each of the criteria, depending on the type of organizational system (state or private sector, one or another industry, size, level of specialization), as well as from a specific unit of analysis (employee, working group, branch, firm, industry, etc.) can have different meanings.

Bringing his system of 7 elements, Sink points out its commonality with other systems of factors successful activities firms proposed by such generally recognized researchers as P. Drucker, T. Peters and R. Waterman (Fig. 14.2).

Comparison of these systems shows that they have much in common, as well as that there is a constant process of transformation, evolution of efficiency criteria, and an increase in their number. There were so many proposed criteria that experts began to talk about the "jungle" of indicators, in which it was impossible to navigate, and began to make efforts to develop principles for systematizing indicators and models of their use. There are three large families of efficiency models.

Rice. 14.2. Performance Criteria for Organizational Systems

Goal-centered models are best known. Their central idea is that efficiency economic organization determines its ability to achieve predetermined goals. The typical logic of ends and means applies here. But these models are based on a hypothesis, the explanation of which is difficult.

The goal-oriented approach assumes that organizations form certain groups that act rationally in order to achieve their goals. Therefore, one must proceed from the fact that goals can be accurately recorded and, as a rule, are measurable.

The family of models built on the basis of precise target criteria can be contrasted with a family of models where systemic criteria prevail, i.e. criteria that are imposed on the economic organization, since such models are able to ensure internal unity and guarantee survival in a changing environment. The selected criteria confirm the prevalence

s See: D.S. Cuhk Decree. Op. - S. 274.

giving the internal characteristics of the organization. But here we are also faced with a complex hypothesis that makes empirical computation difficult.

A systematic approach, focusing on the criteria of internal unity, appealing rather to the means of maintaining relations between participants than to such goals as the internal allocation of resources, the definition of hierarchical relations; the introduction of rules for the interaction of participants leads to delicate problems of cost estimation, as the experience of people involved in planning within the framework of a particular enterprise or the entire state suggests. Moreover, the survival criterion puts forward the idea that the organization's attitude to its environment occurs through a single factor - adaptability to an uncertain world, and this leads to a very passive vision of the organization, concentrated on its reactions. The very ability to react tacitly assumes that an effective system has some amount of unused resources that allow it to withstand unforeseen changes in the external environment, but if so, does the criterion of efficiency in terms of adaptability contradict the criterion of efficiency in terms of internal resource allocation?

Finally, the last family of models brings together the criteria that are found in theories of the so-called strategic constituents (Miles, 1980; Mintzberg 1985). In this case, the analysis rejects the idea that performance can be assessed on the basis of predetermined criteria or from systemic characteristics alone. Perceiving essentially the satisficing hypothesis proposed by Simon (1972), these approaches highlight the fact that an organization prefers criteria that enable it to provide minimum level satisfaction for its constituent parts, the motives of the activity and the goals of which are different. If this level is not reached, tensions and conflicts paralyze the organization and render it ineffective. These components can be internal components of the organization (employees, managers, shareholders of the firm), and can be external (national or local government, interest groups that are affected by the activities of the organization). The difficulties in dealing with these criteria are evidently in the problem of the accuracy of the identification of strategic components (those from which the activities of the

depends most critically) and in the ability to establish exactly how the organization depends on component parts... Experience with game theory shows how difficult it is to analyze these coalitions and strategies.

Multiple performance indicators economic activity does not in the least detract from the importance of labor productivity for enterprises and organizations in modern world... Its high level is still a prerequisite their successful functioning, but not the only one.

The real value of labor productivity for the activities of organizational and economic systems at the level of an enterprise / organization depends on the conditions in which the system operates. If the level of her interaction with external environment corresponds to the era of mass production, labor productivity is the defining goal of the economic activity of the system and is of paramount importance for its sustainable existence. Maintaining high labor productivity on the basis of economical use of resources and motivation of workers mainly through the satisfaction of personal needs with the use of innovations for this introduction allows the enterprise to successfully compete in the market.

More complex relations with the external environment, characteristic of the era of mass consumption, change the role of labor productivity. Its high level at this stage is no longer a sufficient condition for the successful functioning of an enterprise, but it remains a necessary prerequisite for overall efficiency. Achieving the required quality of goods with low labor productivity will lead to an unjustified rise in the cost of products and make them unnecessary in market conditions. This situation, no doubt, will entail the collapse of the organizational and economic system, built on the principles of self-sufficiency. Labor productivity itself, as a goal-setting characteristic of production activity, has such components in the era of mass consumption that it did not have in the era of mass production and which arose as a result of the increase and complication of the objective needs of the system, the satisfaction of which determines the quality of working life and the quality of products at any given moment. ...

The further expansion of relations with the external environment, inherent in the post-industrial era, forces the organizational and economic system to take into account more and more goal-forming factors. Accordingly, the share of the importance of labor productivity in the overall set of goals of the system decreases. However, its still high level ensures the competitiveness of products due to lower costs in comparison with other manufacturers, provided that other results of production activities are relatively equal. The recognition by society of the usefulness of the individual costs of the organizational and economic system remains the most important condition for the effectiveness of the system as long as it produces products for this very society. Strong motivation for highly productive work in postindustrial era becomes the satisfaction in the labor process of the needs of the creative and intellectual growth of employees of the enterprise.

EVOLUTION OF PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Alexander Pustov
June 2007

The evolution of production systems moved towards cost reduction. The first stage of evolution was the transition to mass production. Ford pioneered the interchangeability and flow concepts at Ford factories. Mass production allowed for economies of scale, but it was designed to produce a limited number of models. For Ford, it was beneficial because she had at her disposal a huge American and international market... However, for small markets this was not acceptable.

The next phase in the evolution of manufacturing comes at a time when Toyota, constrained by resources from the recently ended World War II, is adapting the idea of ​​mass production to the Japanese market, also weakened after the war. The Just-in-time system appears, which eliminates excess inventory, thereby reducing costs. This system assumes production in small batches, which avoids overproduction and diversifies products.

The third stage of evolution is associated with the emergence of a "production cell". In the production cell, the product is made from start to finish in one place. This ensures cost savings. The creation of production cells allows you to develop a high update rate, because it is easier to rebuild a relatively small production cell than an entire company.

In the evolution of the production process, one can see the action of the Law of increasing the consistency of the system, which is included in the Laws of Development technical systems.

The law of increasing consistency lies in the fact that in the process of development, there is a consistent coordination of the characteristics of the parts of the system with each other, as well as the system and its parts with the supersystem.

The production process evolves through a "coordinated action" mechanism. The increase in the consistency of action occurs in different ways depending on the type of action that occurs when the consistency is increased, and the type of resource on which the efficiency of the system depends (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Options for the Law of Enhancing Consistency

The evolution of the production system enhances the usefulness of the system, i.e. increase profits, and the efficiency of the system depends on the relative amount of resources involved, i.e. resources spent on the production of a unit of output. Thus, there is an evolution along the path volume - plane - line - point.

According to the ZRS, at the beginning of the existence of the system, the interaction of resources with the action of the system occurs in volume. The interaction in the volume is characterized by a change in the parameter of the system along three axes. As soon as the parameter is fixed along one of the axes, the interaction goes into plane. When the next parameter is fixed along the other axis - in line. When all the parameters of the system are fixed along three axes, it has reached the fourth stage and the highest point of its development. In this case, it is said that the contact of the action with the resources went into point.

The axes of the production process system are shown in Fig. 2.

To describe the action of the law of increasing consistency, it is necessary to choose axes that have a quantitative dimension. The following axes were selected:

1. Moving resources, which ensures the movement of the flow of resources in production (for example, the movement of parts).

2. The number of reserves of resources, which provides a constant replenishment of the flow of resources (for example, stocks of parts in warehouses).

3. Time spent on changing processes, those. the time it takes to innovate and innovate in production processes to improve resource efficiency.

Let's take a closer look at how the coordination took place along each of the axes.

Manufacturing is the process of converting stocks of raw materials and supplies into stocks finished products... Initially, the production process consisted of many operations assigned to one worker. That is, one worker was involved in several levels of production. The lack of specialization did not allow workers to reduce the time per unit of production and, consequently, increase the efficiency of production as a whole. The use of machine tools came in second place. The machines in production were often located inconsistently, far from each other, and parts moved between them inefficiently. Therefore, the reason for the inefficiency of production was the improper planning of the functioning of resources.

In the process of evolution, the main parameter of the system changes - the amount of resources spent on the production of a unit of output. Because the system develops in the direction of increasing ideality; in the process of system development, the value of the main parameter should decrease. Resources include parts and labor. Those. the efficiency of resource use must be improved.

In the process of evolution of the production system, resources are coordinated with fixed assets. The coordination takes place according to the following parameters:

1. parameters for the resource "labor force": professional skills, creativity.

2. parameters for the resource "components": flow rate of parts, stock of parts.

3. parameters for fixed assets: - location of machines, productivity of machines.

So, the first axis is the movement of resources within the production process. When the main parameter on this axis was not yet fixed, contact occurred in volume.

Go to contact in plane, i.e. to fixing the main parameter, occurred when Henry Ford introduced the division of labor in his factories and for the first time successfully applied conveyor production. Each worker began to perform only one specific operation. By placing equipment and workers close to each other in the process flow, the plant created specialized paths for the movement of products, which minimized manual and transport time and increased efficiency. The movement of resources in space has become clearly recorded. Thus, at the first stage, professional skills are coordinated with the flow rate, and the flow rate with the location of the machines.

However, there were two major drawbacks to Ford's mass production. The first was the immoderate inventory, both at the manufacturing stage and at the assembly stage. In production, the equipment required a lengthy adjustment, and therefore the products were made immediately in huge batches, and as a result, an excessive stock arose. During the assembly, the entire line could stop due to the fact that a breakdown occurred at one workplace, a quality defect, a lack of component parts, or other misfortune was found. To eliminate delays, large safety stocks were created along the entire line. Thus, the second axis can be considered the amount of reserves of resources (parts).

Go to contact by the lines, i.e. fixing the amount of resources occurs with the introduction of the Just-in-time (JIT) method ("just in time") at the Toyota factories. JIT reduces costs by supplying the right parts in the right quantity at the right time... The creation of a high value-added stream is carried out in the form of combating seven forms of production loss: overproduction, downtime, unnecessary transportation, excess inventory, unnecessary unproductive operations, and scrap. According to the JIT method, only two types of manufacturing operations remain: transportation, as an operation that ensures the movement of parts, and production, as the only operation that directly creates added value. That is, it appears line"transportation-production". At the second stage, the coordination of professional skills with the flow rate, as well as the flow rate with the location of the machines, remains, and the coordination of the stock of parts with the productivity of the machines is added.

But the JIT system itself was not perfect. She did not pay enough attention to people and their development. creativity... Their connection with production was poorly established. This worsened the permeability of production processes and procedures, increased their resistance to change. We will consider the third axis as the time spent on changing the process.

To increase the speed of communication between processes and workers, workers needed to be given more freedom in their choice of actions. This has been implemented through the production cell system, which also includes JIT principles.

A group of workers forms a single cell and assembles the product from start to finish, abandoning the mass production system on the conveyor. The system of production cells makes it possible to increase labor productivity using the independence and ingenuity of workers. In fact, there is an establishment of communication between processes and people. The contact of resources with the system goes to point since the product is completely assembled in one place. In addition to the parameters agreed upon in the previous steps, the alignment of creativity with flow rate and machine productivity is added.

Thus, the alignment goes the full path volume - plane - line - point. It can be concluded that the evolution of production systems is complete.

conclusions

The evolution of production systems, from "pre-conveyor" production to the Toyota production system, which has the lowest costs in the industry, is analyzed.

It is shown that the evolution of production systems can be described by the law of increasing the consistency included in the evolution laws of TRIZ technical systems. It is suggested that the evolution of production systems has reached its limit.

Bibliographic list

1. A. Lyubomirsky, S. Litvin. "Laws of Engineering Systems Evolution" - Boston, MA: GEN3 Partners, 2003.

2.www.artkis.ru.

3. Jeffie K. Liker, TOYOTA DAO - M .: Alpina business books, 2005.

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. "ECONOMIC MAN"

§ 2. "TECHNOLOGICAL" PERSON

§ 3. "BIOLOGICAL" PERSON

§ 4. "SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL" PERSON

§ 5. "SOCIAL AND POLITICAL" EMPLOYEE

INTRODUCTION

Until the end of the 19th century, the economy as a whole and its most advanced part, the industry, developed without an orientation towards taking into account the social parameters of its development. They tried to siphon out the maximum possible from the worker - by increasing the working day to 16, and sometimes up to 18 hours, through the exploitation of female and child labor. Even the great technical innovations of the 19th century were little focused on how to dock man and machine: in the existing conditions, it was the worker's concern to adapt to technology. The complete disregard for the human factor was complemented by the desire of employers to ensure total control over workers, to improve the techniques and methods of supervision in the activities of foremen and other production managers. This horrifying life, and especially work in production, was reflected in numerous works of the 19th century (see, for example, the work of Engels "The Condition of the Working Class in England" and the amazing life of workers in the novels of Charles Dickens, E. Zola, and others).

But by the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, the idea objectively matured - to turn to those reserves that lie in the employee himself, to awaken his interest in effective and efficient activity. This was a truly revolutionary, cardinal step that changed the whole situation in production. The discovery (scientific and practical) of the role of consciousness and behavior of people made it possible to understand, assimilate, and then use the personal capabilities of an employee to increase production efficiency. This discovery - critical stage in the development of the economy, in the knowledge and application of social reserves of labor.

The sociology of labor focuses on understanding the capabilities of the employee, the conditions for their implementation, ways of reconciling personal interests with public interests in the process of production activities.

In the course of the historically conditioned objective process of the development of material production, human capabilities were gradually realized to achieve more and more significant results that uplift society and man himself in their interaction with nature. It is this approach that makes it possible to trace how ideas about the social reserves of production expanded and how these reserves were used in the life of society. “... The history of industry and the existing objective existence of industry is an open book of human essential forces, sensually presented to us by human psychology, which until now has been considered not in its connection with the essence of man, but always only from the point of view of some external relation of utility ... In ordinary, material industry ... we have before us under the guise of sensual, alien, useful objects ... objectified essential forces of man. "

Therefore, it is of great interest to “leaf through” this book of life: how, when and under what circumstances the social facets of labor were revealed to science and practice, how they developed, how new ones were discovered, how the already known ones were enriched, but had serious reserves at a new round of functioning production.

§ 1. "ECONOMIC MAN"

For the first time, the idea to turn to the social reserves of production in its full form was substantiated by such an outstanding production organizer and scientist as F. Taylor (1856-1915). It was he who not only expressed the idea of ​​the need to interest the employee in the results of his work (such thoughts as wishes, as an ideal, as a theoretical search, were expressed before him), but scientifically substantiated and implemented it, tested it in practice, which found reflected in his work, published in 1894 and devoted to the system of remuneration in production.

Taylor's appeal to the material interest of the employee brought success in his practical activities. Long-term testing of this idea allowed him to formulate a number of features, which were subsequently embodied in the concept of “economic man”. Let's name some of its components: to do more work for more pay and in a shorter time; reward good, not just any work; it is harmful to both underpay and overpay an employee; you need to take care of encouraging the employee to a high-paying job ("you can"), etc.

Taylor's approach spread rapidly. But his ideas did not remain unchanged - they were improved, supplemented, new reserves were sought for them. In G. Ford, they found expression in the development of how to stimulate highly efficient labor in the conditions of conveyor production. The problems of wages were also of concern to such prominent representatives of the scientific organization of labor as A. Fayol, G. Church, G. Emerson.

In the 1920s, Soviet scientists A.K.Tastev (1882-1941), P.M. Kerzhentsev (1881-1940), O.A. Yermansky, P.A. Popov and others were very intensively engaged in these problems. practice, it is especially necessary to pay attention to the results associated with the Stakhanov movement, and to such a little-known fact that A. Stakhanov, who exceeded the rate of cutting coal, earned 200 rubles on this night shift. instead of the usual 23-30 rubles. How much I earned, I got so much. This was a concrete implementation of the principle “to each according to his work”. Incidentally, this principle of high material interest was characteristic of the early years of the Stakhanov movement, and then replaced and supplanted by various forms of falsely interpreted moral encouragement.

The tragedy of the Soviet economy was the constantly repeating fact of ignoring the material interests of the employee, although all business leaders and scientists who constantly think and care about the future raised this issue and even tried to solve it. Suffice it to recall the Shchekino experiment, which began in the mid-60s at the Azot research and production association, which lasted 17 years (!) This experiment, based on the principle of combining jobs and higher wages, gave significant shifts in the growth of labor productivity and efficiency of production, but it was ingloriously failed due to the inertness of the system, bureaucracy of officials and the lack of a normal reaction to the need for innovation.

The same fate awaited the experiment at the "Iliyskiy" state farm, in the Akhchi department in the late 60s - early 70s, where, through the efforts of its organizer I.N.Khudenko, an impressive result was achieved in agricultural production with a high material interest of workers, which allowed to significantly reduce the cost of grain. However, accused of money-grubbing and embezzlement of public funds, Khudenko was fired from his job, convicted and ended his life in prison.

Under these conditions, a formidable pre-crisis phenomenon - the alienation of labor - began to gain momentum. It grew steadily. Between 1962 and 1976, the number of people who shied away from positive or negative assessments of work rose from 3% to 30%.

During the years of perestroika, a number of steps were taken to use such an orientation of economic consciousness and behavior as a motive for high wages. Numerous searches appeared: brigade contracts in industry and construction, non-orderly links in agriculture and some others. However, these attempts were doomed to failure - on the one hand, they did not take into account the need to change property relations, on the other hand, they did not take into account the real motivation of the consciousness and behavior of production workers.

In general, a big deal was ruined: not only was the channel of personal initiative of workers blocked, but the production collective was alienated from solving one of the problems of concern to a person - stimulating labor. After all, the sociological aspect of the brigade contract and lease relations was that the opinion of the collective was involved in assessing the employee's contribution to production, his real participation in the task was “weighed”, which could never be fully provided for by any regulatory documents. It is the team that is called upon to answer the question about the quality of the worker's work in specific production conditions. Strengthening the principles of self-government directly affects the increase in labor efficiency, the development of high responsibility for personal and collective results.

As studies of factory sociologists in the 60s and 80s showed, rarely did anyone manage to overcome this opposition of payment within the framework of state ownership. different types labor. The reigning egalitarianism devalued the work of highly skilled workers and specialists and did not stimulate the search for reserves among low-skilled workers. The change in socio-political conditions in connection with the emergence of diverse forms of ownership in the 90s largely allows to remove this contradiction, although it, in turn, gives rise to other problems manifested in the growth of huge social differentiation and expressed in a sharp and far from justified the gap in the level of provision of various social groups.

At the same time, if we generalize the experience of using the reserves of the "economic man" in the economic life of many countries, then it is general view went through several stages, remaining relevant at the present time. At the first, "Taylor" stage, attention was paid to giving a person the opportunity to earn money, to receive more remuneration for the greatest possible amount of work done. At the second stage, starting from the 30s of the XX century, the basis of incentives is increasingly based on the individual needs of the employee and, accordingly, an orientation towards their satisfaction. This approach made it possible to more flexibly take into account a specific situation and more clearly and substantively respond to the desires and interests of people.

Since the 60s, the factor of social needs (the third stage) began to assert itself more and more powerfully, when material reward was oriented not only to the needs of the employee, but also to his family, not only to meet current or immediate goals, but also in the long term.

And most importantly, the current situation shows that the era of the economy of the “cheap worker” is coming to an end (while remaining characteristic of the countries of Asia, Africa and partially the former socialist countries). The burden of a “dear worker” is becoming a reality, which means significant labor costs at a very high level of labor productivity and production efficiency.