It is necessary to clearly distinguish the concepts of revolution and reforms.

A reform – is a way of changes within the system of social relations that do not suppose the change of the system itself. Reforms are usually used to soften the tension of social contradictions. Reforms is a way of quantitative changes in the system of social relations aimed to preserve the system proper; they represent continuation in historical development while revolution is always a break of continuity, a qualitative leap in development. The motive forces of social revolution are classes, nations, peoples, social groups when they realize

their place and role in society; when they are guided by common socially valued ideals, and when they carry out revolutionary turns. The types of social revolutions depend on the mode of production type they give rise to. The classical types of social revolutions are: bourgeois and socialist revolutions; in the XX century new types of social revolutions came into being: social-democratic revolutions in Europe and Asia, national-liberating revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The opposite form of social development is evolution that is characterized by accumulating quantitative changes which are smoothly transformed into qualitative ones. Democratic system of governing gives room for such development; the significance of human in social being and his responsibility is growing.

Evolution in history has concrete-historical meaning. Each social-economic formation has its evolutionary period which is characterized by gradual progressive development of contradictions: between productive forces and production relations; between economical basis and ideological superstructure; social-class contradictions. Historical evolution has its own concrete-historical essence conditioned by the definite mode of production. Evolution takes place in accordance with the dialectical laws though its specificity is that the contradictions mentioned above go through only quantitative-qualitative changes, the first stage of negation, without changing the mode of production as a whole. When the development of social-economic formation’s internal contradictions reaches the level of impossibility of further existence within this system the epoch of social revolution comes; this is the second negation

(negation of negation), the break of continuity in evolutionary development of history.

Conclussion:

It is obvious that history is the result of human activity, it is conditioned and determined by that activity; its unfolding is possible only in a definite social-cultural environment. Social progress is a natural way of historical development that has its definite criteria. There are various types of social dynamics that is

revolution and evolution which are different from the concept of revolutionary turn and reform.

III. The role and significance of masses of people and personalities in history.

It was already stated that the motive forces of historical

development are multiplied interests that is society’s and individuals’ realized multiplied needs. The next question is what the subjects of historical process are. Society as a whole is the subject in its relation to nature and to society itself, for society aims to subject nature to society’s interests. But simultaneously

society appears the object of activity of all connections and relations created by society and alienated from its control. As far as such subjective-objective status is characteristic to society as a whole, it is right for smaller subjects of historical process: people, crowd, classes, nations and individuals.

The People is the concept the least researched in philosophy, so far as people’s role in history was being ignored by historians for centuries. Only in the XIX century common people were set forth and opposed to aristocracy and clerics, they were given importance in historical process; they were regarded as an objective force in the flow of history. Nevertheless the substantiation of the term is limited: 1) usually only participants of material production are referred to people as a subject of history; 2) only social groups whose activity leads to progressive development of society is thought of as the people; 3) a barrier is erected between the people and outstanding personalities who are absolutely opposed, as if the people does not consist of persons.

Sometimes the term “the people” is identified with that of “nation” or “ethnos” so far as an individual is simultaneously associated both with the people and with a definite nation or ethnos. But this identification is not correct; as there are uninational people (Japanese, French, etc.) and multinational ones (American, former Soviet, etc.).

The same correlation one can see between the concepts of “the people” and “the class”: there are uniclass people (peasantry) or multiclass communities (In the time of French revolution of 1848 when peasantry, factory workers, artisans, small owners, clerks and tradesmen were combined into a single community).

To clear out the term of “the people” it is necessary to take into consideration several moments:

1) common historical destiny which is not obligatory connected with common territory and state though it is the precondition of its formation. The people’s destiny sometimes is represented in dispersing throughout the world: the Jews, Armenians, or in the long period of division: the North and South Korea, former West and East Germany, Poland as a result of three divisions of the end of the XVIII century;

2) common faith and common idea that integrate the people into a single whole. This faith may be not only religious but secular as well (national- liberation, for instance). L.Tolstoy, the greatest Russian writer said: “It is bad if man has nothing peculiar for what he is ready to die”. The lack of such “something peculiar” is evident in our society now.

3) common historical perspective when the people is able to enjoy life without making great sacrifices to “happy future”. The lack of such historical

perspective that once united people into a single whole makes this unity weaker and destroys it.

A few words should be said of people’s historical memory that is preserving the past in the present, the way people evaluate their past, correlate it with their ideals, activity, perspectives. All this influences social- psychological

state of people. People who do not respect their own past have no future.

So without claiming to rigorous definition one can conclude that the people – is a social integrity characterized by common historical destiny and historical memory that reflects this destiny; by common faith, common idea and common historical perspective.

In the process of its development people pass through qualitatively different social-psychological stages-states, crowd being one of them. There are two various meaning of crowd: in the wide meaning crowd is the state that precedes the formation of people as integrity or indicates its degradation; in the narrow meaning crowd is a group of people who are in direct “face-to-face” contact with each other. These two meanings are correlative, having the same features: quick excitability, huge but short-termed energy, instability and mobility together with unprognostication and veering from one extreme to another.

The transition from the state of crowd is not at all a straight forward process; it is possible under the condition of entire individuals’ self-creation and up bringing on the base of social experience that is not always only positive.

The formation of the entire masses of individuals into the people is the most meaningful result of civilization process which is not exhausted till now.