The theory of a post-industrial society or post-industrialism is a remarkable phenomenon in the humanities. As a theory, post-industrialism has the potential of offering interpretations and forecasts that make sense of the development of the modern world, but it has political, structural, and manipulative features as well.       As a result, the issue is not as simple as it seems.

The concept of post-industrialism is applied not only in the sphere of socio-economic development. Its popularity in mass-media and its use by publicists who consistently introduce this notion into social discourse demonstrates that it is a political question as well. The concept of a post-industrial society is regarded as an established and scientifically confirmed fact. However, what is more important in this theory: science or politics? This is quite a complicated problem, especially in a world where more direct means of dominating the global stage are being replaced by more subtle mechanisms of control over world development. Generally, the question is posed as follows: can scientific disciplines be used to wage war against geopolitical or civilizational enemies[①] as a means of damaging its human and material resources or infrastructure? Can the humanities be used as such an instrument? For example, if one could convince the leadership of a potential geopolitical rival to follow an ineffective path to development—leading the country into deadlock—there would not be any necessity to wage “traditional” war against it. If we consider the experience of contemporary history, we see examples of potential geopolitical enemies being transformed into subservient states and their leadership becoming satellites and puppets. This takes place even without conquest of territory.

This is characteristic of modern tactics and means of waging wars. As a result, two questions remain: How can this modern type of weapon be understood or labeled? What scientific disciplines are used to produce such a weapon?

The question under consideration is the use of a so-called “information” weapon. It is created on the basis of methods developed in the humanities and social sciences. The tools of social science, when genuinely used scientifically and not as a screen for primitive manipulation, can be a powerful factor directing socio-political processes on the world stage. Does Russia have a defensive “information” weapon? Is it being handled properly? The serious nature of “information” security cannot be underestimated today.

So, that is the context within which the concept of post-industrialism is considered in this paper. This concept has all the external features of an artificial, theoretical model aimed at the realization of concrete political goals. That is why verifying the theory of a “post-industrial society” is essential, not only from a scientific point of view, but also with a view of ensuring Russia’s national “information” security. Is the post-industrial theory true or false? If it is false, why is this the case?

These questions are the research problem analyzed by the author. The working assumption is formulated as follows: some states redistribute their national industrial resources in the global framework, transferring a part of them to other countries. They simultaneously retain super-profitable, nonpolluting resources while getting rid of those with limited yields. As a result, a parasitic form of material exploitation of so-called “backward” countries takes place. Behind the screen of the manipulation of information, a new form of neocolonialism develops.

The key idea is to analyze the post-industrial society theory formulated by D. Bell and its modifications emphasizing a stage-branch (sectoral) approach as the main criterion of society’s evolution and determinant of future transformations. The analysis considers industrial structure (in order to measure the importance of the service sector in the economies of contemporary countries) and sectoral structure of employment (in order to show the evolution of the employment rate in the service sector) as the most characteristic features of the “coming” society.

Special attention should be paid to the verification of the fundamental thesis of the post-industrial society theory and the historical interchange of social and economic structure types. The concept of the universality of the above-mentioned stage approach and the criteria used to classify contemporary world countries based on their rate of development also need to be analyzed.

So, the main objectives of this research are: analysis of the post-industrial society theory; research of industrial and employment structure dynamics in different countries; exploring manipulative and ideological components of the post-industrial society category and its utilization as a screen for modern neocolonialism; evaluating perspectives of Russia’s socio-economic development within the context of the post-industrial society theory.

On Post-industrial Discourse.

For the more than 50 years of its existence the post-industrial society theory has been characterized in a variety of ways. On one hand it has been highly valued as “the only theory of the 20th century having found complete confirmation.” On the other hand it has been defined as “antimarxism” and “ordinary bourgeois propaganda.” In fact, post-industrial society theory has moved beyond the limits of a pure scientific concept and has turned into a widely accepted modern ideology. This explains the specificity of recent discussions on the problem. The key arguments that form the basis of the discussion of the scientific character of post-industrialism are given below. The most important are those that have resulted in post-industrial ideology becoming attractive and widespread.

Up to the present time, supporters of post-industrial theory have not succeeded in providing a clear definition of the very notion of “post-industrial society.” A certain ambiguity appears early on when D. Bell formulates the main theses of the theory. A modern researcher of Bell’s scientific views asserts that this ambiguity is a unique feature of the post-industrialism concept. “It provides an explorer with a wide range of instruments of social analysis and sets no strict bounds as other sociological doctrines do.”[②] It should be noted that such an approach has nothing in common with a scientific approach that requires maximal accuracy of all the basic definitions which form the structure of the research.

Proponents of post-industrialism have been promoting conclusions and forecasts for half a century, but their ideas have not been confirmed in practice and this is a serious problem for supporters of Bell’s ideas. In spite of the lack of confirmation, they have not revised the main principles of post-industrialism. On the contrary, they seek self-justification and continue praising post-industrialism, and this is further evidence of the unscientific character of the concept.

In fact, many of the conclusions of post-industrialists are not based on an analysis of real data and are not reached using methods that modern sociology considers as scientific. For example, in the absence of reliable sociometric data, conclusions are based on subjective impressions of life in Europe and the USA, on the basis of contacts with Western colleagues, or on “reflections on publications indirectly related to the differences under consideration.”[③]

An incomplete understanding of society is another blind spot in the post-industrial concept. Actually, the notorious prefix “post” implies a non-industrial character for the coming society, and offers nothing concrete about the qualities of the “new civilization.” Trying to escape this conceptual trap, proponents of post-industrialism have invented alternative versions of initial theory: “information-oriented society” (F. Machlup, T.Umesao), “technetronic society” (S. Brzezinski), “information-based.”[④] However, these theories share the same shortcomings as the original since they are focused on phenomena which do not define society as a unified whole.

Technological determinism—considering technology as the key factor in society’s evolution, at the core of the very concept of post-industrialism— is also strongly criticized today. Opponents of post-industrialism strongly criticize the lack of attention given to the social sphere and the lack of attention to the objectives and social, and economic results of applying new technologies.

In the end, post-industrialism’s adversaries show that despite new innovations appearing in the market and new means of production (automatization, microelectronics, and the use of modern materials) no fundamental transformations took place in the society. They also emphasize the geographical localization of many of the so called “post-industrial” processes, a point that is difficult to refute.

In summary, when one evaluates the claims of the post-industrial-society theory, one discovers that its supporters have not presented a coherent argument in favor of the theory, and they have failed to refute the arguments of their opponents.

Post-industrialism: Conflict between Concept and Reality

The phenomenon of “service” requires special understanding in the analysis of post-industrial society theory. The development of the service sector is connected in post-industrialism with a perspective on what the future will be. Service plays a sequential, substitutional role in the description of the sectoral model of post-industrial society. However, even in this case, things are not so simple. From the outset, there is a problem with blurring of definitions. There is still no universally accepted definition of service. A definition does not exist, not only in Russia, but also in Western science. Service is the benchmark for post-industrial development, but no one knows exactly how to define service. Its genesis is traditionally explained by the development of the process of the division of labor which results in new kinds of professional activities. However, more detailed historical analysis allows us to see that there are a significant proportion of persons already professionally connected to service activities in traditional societies.

A sequential concept of the development of a service-based economy as a component of post-industrialism is not very convincing. Service historically forms simultaneously even in the most ancient forms of producing economies, without following them sequentially. The so-called "service revolution,” about which so much has been written by apologists of post-industrialism, in fact, might be reduced to the swelling of certain service sectors over the past 40 years in some developed Western countries. Thus, it demonstrates a precise civilizational character (Pic. 1).

Simultaneously with the de-industrialization of the West there is an active exploitation of the industrial potential in the former "Third World.” The current salary level of Asian and Latin American workers makes it more profitable to develop industrial production in Asia or Latin America, rather than in North America or Europe. Costs, through saved parts of salaries, appear to be much lower in this case. There is also another bonus—the burden on the environment also moves to other continents. The logic of profit maximization causes European and American businesses to transfer production to other regions, thereby contributing to the increase of the industrial might of non-Western powers. China has already surpassed the USA in terms of the share of industry as a part of GDP (pic. 2).

Released from involvement in commodity production, western industrial workers re-qualify themselves as employees of non-industrial enterprises. As a result, the rapid development of service infrastructure in the West is a direct consequence of its de-industrialization.

The concept of post-industrialism quite often, at least in Russian public discourse, is used as a theoretical basis to explain global trends.[⑤] However, a longitudinal analysis of statistical data describing development in different parts of the world on the basis of employment structure and GDP composition indicators confirms that, in fact, declared trends of world post-industrial development do not exist. Moreover, a characteristic of the 21st century, according to the structural dynamics of growth in the most rapidly developing countries—China, India and Brazil—is the initiation of a phase of neoindustrialization.

There is a clear recent tendency of moving industrial centers to Asia and Latin America. The current economic breakdown of the West against the background of the economic development of Asia is especially vivid (Pic. 3)[⑥].

Sustainable growth in the proportion of industrial sector employment is demonstrated in data from the 21th century on all non-Western civilization parameters (Pic. 4).

The same pattern is happening on a global scale. Except for the period of the “Great Depression,” the share of industry as a proportion of world GDP has steadily increased since the beginning of the twentieth century. Nowadays, this indicator grows even more rapidly (Pic. 5).

Thus, contrary to the forecasts of the post-industrialists, today’s world is not entering a post-industrial, but rather a neoindustrial phase of development.

The same pattern can be observed in the agricultural sector. On many occasions, statistics have been used to show a declining share of employment in agriculture, but these statistics are misleading. The conclusion that there is a downward trend in agricultural production share derives from an unrealistic differentiation of three sectors of the economy. Modern production processes consist of multi-staged technological structures.

It is true that there are not as many peasants working the ground directly today, but agriculture is connected with a wide range of implicated industries. Which sector of the economy should they relate to, if the final benchmark in this case is agricultural production? As a rule, modern statistics refer to implicated branches of an industry or service. But is this differentiation correct?

Rapid industrial development involved agriculture as well. New technologies in Asian and Latin American villages had a positive impact on the productivity of peasant labor in respective regions. The former periphery of the "third world" is attacking the West, not only by mastering industrial technology, but also by updating its ancient agricultural traditions. In the 1980s, the main center of agricultural production of the world was Western Europe. Today the situation is fundamentally different—the first two places are confidently occupied by China and India (Pic. 6).

The development of the agrarian sector of the world consists not only of technical upgrades, but also in the development of new arable land. The global scale of this indicator is also growing.

It turns out that the basic thesis of the concept of a post-industrial society in reference to curtailing commodity production sectors is not validated statistically both in time and geographical dimensions. As for industrial production—there is direct misinformation, in the field of agriculture–there is a substitution of absolute growth rates with relative quantities​​. Under the guise of post-industrialism, a new geo-economic model of a global division of labor is being sold, which reproduces global parasitism, but in the more elegant and camouflaged package of modern neocolonialism.

Cognitive and Political Traps of Post-industrialism

Thus, the widely replicated and highly respected “scientific” theory of post-industrialism cannot hold up to logical and phenomenological verification. The concept of post-industrialism extends beyond the borders of scientific theory; it contains a system of ideological assumptions, heavily used in political practice –both within Western society, and as part of its globalization program. Acting as the core of the world system, the West is positioned as a “service center.” In practice, the modern scheme of “service” in financial terms is the same scheme once applied by the ancient metropolis to collect benefits from its colonies using violence. Geopolitical “coordinates” included in this theory are now linked with a specific structure of sectoral division of labor.

The ideological formulation of this scheme today consists of outwardly "respectable" intellectualized theories such as post-industrialism and globalism. The periphery provides the West with goods from real sectors of the economy. Additionally, each of the peripheral countries included in the globalization system is given its own niche in categories of world specialization. There are three main categories: “banana republic,” “raw republic,” and “assembly plant.” Due to this provision by the periphery, the West, in the center, was able to re-establish the preferential development of a service sector, which is dominated by finance.

In the last two decades, Russia has consistently reformed its national economy and is currently situated in the global division of labor as a quasi-periphery country of the second type. In the 1990's the process of deindustrialization of the Russian economy took place precipitously. It was one of the fastest transformations into a service economy in the history of the world. The deindustrialization of the 1990s manifested itself even in a limited increase in agriculture and forestry as a share of the employment structure. In the case of Russia, given its inherent and formal features, post-industrialism took on the form of economic and social archaization (Pic. 7).

Russians have become more engaged in trade and financial transactions, but with less involvement in real good production in the industrial and agricultural sectors.[⑦] In general, the trends of Russia’s development in terms of the quasi-post-industrial model on the coordinates of improvement/deterioration over the last 10 years (2000-2010) appear to be almost indisputably negative. There is a general deterioration of many economic, social, and humanitarian indicators in the country. Aside from growth in excessively frozen sovereign finance and pre-crisis growth of GDP supported by oil export prices and foreign trade, all other indicators worsen or remain at an unacceptable (often record-breaking) level. For example, the number of suicides decreases, but Russia still occupies first place in the world.

Thus, frontal, sequential post-industrialism and the respective post-industrial society, and post-industrial transition in the strictest sense of the terms do not exist. The only thing we can talk about is time-space dynamics of the sectoral production structure. On a global scale, the described mechanisms reproduce a dimensional structure of neocolonialism, including its modern form, the form of financial exploitation. But the exploiters find it necessary to somehow explain themselves to the world. It is necessary to somehow calm it down and arrest its natural resistance to injustice. That is how theories like "the end of history,” "war of civilizations,” “global Islamic terrorism," and finally the subject of this work, post-industrialism, are produced. Such theories will inevitably continue to emerge in the future.

Source of documents：