Hegel, developing teaching Kant, on the one hand, perceives the previously-employed predecessors, but, on the other hand, the VNO-screens fundamentally new in its consideration of the dialectics of civil society – the state. Prior to Hegel, one way or another is clearly not distinguish civil society
and obviously do not compare it, as something independent, self-ing, with the state. With Hegel, civil society has a place alongside, not within the state. Civil society and the state-tion is as independent institutions form an identity. Of the last forked: private interests (civil society, se-Mya) and universal (state). In the collision of the interests of families and civil society, they must be subordinated to the state. And thus the family and civil society are parts of the state. Civil society and the family – a way of existence of the first States; they base state. Thus, Hegel, as we have before us-etsya, consistently produces the separation of civil society and the state-wa, formulates their identity, notes the dependence and subordination of civil society to the state, and then the absorption of civil society and the state. By the sphere of civil society, he included police, judicial authorities, the scope of the state – the government’s authority. If governments vennaya power comes into the limits of civil society-sions of law, it appears as though against civil society. That is, when the army carries out police duties, telephone right – all this is government interference in the affairs of civil society. Civil society and the state as either a simple identity, or as a contradictory unity can exist only on the objective basis of the existing set of classes that are the objective basis of the existence and civil society and the state.
Tags: socium