The classical stage of the formation of economic sociology is the stage of its theoretical preparation, the formation of the initial methodology: the principles of analyzing real processes from the point of view of the relationship between the economy and society, the development of categories necessary to describe and explain these relationships. This stage (the middle of the XIX – the beginning of the 20s of the XX century) is called “classical economic sociology”, representatives of which are K. Marx, M. Weber and T. Veblen. The features of this stage consist in the formulation and theoretical analysis of the largest problems lying “at the junction” of the economy and society, in the development of a sociological alternative to a purely economic view of the development of the economy.
The approach of K. Marx.
A characteristic feature of the methodology of K. Marx (1818 – 1883) is the social approach to the economy. Marx considered the laws of economic development from the standpoint of interests, activities and relations of classes and, accordingly, the core of the social mechanism of economic development was the class struggle of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (destruction, revolution, explosion). The basis of the social mechanism is, according to K. Marx, the economic institution of property, and the hidden springs through which it is possible to control the course of socio-economic processes are the economic interests of different social groups interacting with regard to the production, distribution and consumption of limited economic resources. In the realization of these economic interests, the bourgeoisie acts as the manager and the proletariat as the controlled, exploited class. The regulator of the social activity of the bourgeoisie is to obtain maximum profit through the exploitation of the workers; the latter seek to sell their labor more expensively in order to improve the conditions and opportunities for the reproduction of their labor force.
The description and explanation of the regulators of social activity of different classes, groups and strata involves the identification of the structure of interrelations between the set of normative standards that determine their vital activity and social expectations in relation to these standards as a prerequisite for their economic behavior. The controlled elements of the social order are, in the context of the concept of K. Marx, the satisfaction and stimulation of economic interests, the creation of favorable conditions for labor and reproduction of labor power, etc. As uncontrollable elements, that is, those that cannot be influenced directly, are the level and scale of primary accumulation of capital, the state of economic relations, the state and level of development of technology and technology, the social organization of civil society. Society. A similar position regarding the uncontrollable elements of the social order is held by M. Weber and T. Veblen.
The action (or rather, inaction) of the social mechanism, according to K. Marx, consists in deepening the contradiction and growing conflict between the economic interests of the bourgeoisie and the workers, which is manifested in the strengthening of the differentiation of society by income and their awareness of this strengthening. K. Marx believed that the contradiction between the economic interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is not subject to regulation and leads to a violent change in the forms of economic and political relations. In reality, as the experience of the development of the leading capitalist countries has shown, it is possible to search for compensatory social mechanisms whose action is aimed at reconciling (to one degree or another) economic interests and improving the economic relations of the existing classes in line with the deployment of scientific and technological progress.
The objective need to form a universal labor force (professional and mobile) forced states to develop at a qualitatively new level the system of higher and secondary specialized education, vocational training. The need to obtain higher profits at the lowest cost forced employers to improve conditions and increase wages, improve living conditions, enrich the functional content of labor, stimulate labor (professional, qualification, career) mobility of workers, implementing a rational personnel policy.
It is obvious that K. Marx did not see (or did not want to see) the inexhaustible possibilities of social mechanisms for regulating economic processes, and therefore made a radically negative conclusion from his analysis of the process of capital production in favor of destruction, in favor of revolution. But the social and economic costs of such a radical conclusion are too great and unpredictable. Revolution, wrote the Russian-American sociologist P. A. Sorokin, “firstly, means a change in people’s behavior, their psychology, ideology, beliefs and values. Second, the revolution marks a change in the biological composition of the population, its reproduction, and the processes of selection. Thirdly, it is a deformation of the entire social structure of society. Fourth, revolution brings with it shifts in fundamental social processes. The assessment of the revolution is a purely subjective thing, its scientific study should be exclusively objective.