On the Origin of Society
the Impact of the form of
Ownership on History
Written by Miroslav Zlatev
The purpose of this book is to describe the common rules, which predetermined the development of the human society. Social sciences have agreed upon common human history prior to the emergence of state. It means that the tribal society based on incest elimination, together with the primitive institutionalization of tribal society were typical of all humans at that low stage of social organization. So, the main question is: what was the reason for the emergence of different states and civilizations by character from one and the same tribal base In other words, why was in ancient Athens and Rome the state rule democratic, while in Egypt, the Middle East, India and China the state rule was despotic? Why did the religions of ancient Greeks and Romans give a birth of sports and theater and glorified the material life, while all Oriental religions stressed on the time after death? Why did the Roman Empire leave after itself mainly civil buildings like, stadiums, bathrooms and theaters, while the rest of the ancient world built up only temples, tombs and pyramids? Why did Europeans colonize the Indian Ocean, and not the Asians? Why did the Christian religion underwent the Reformation, and other religions did not? Why did Europeans make the Industrial Revolution, while Chinese did not? Why were the humanistic art and capitalism born in Northern Italy? Why couldn’t any eastern philosopher say: “The man is a measure of everything?” Why did communism, the Christian and Muslim religions reject the interest? These and many other questions are left to be answered.
As it was said the tribal society was common for all people, and therefore this form of social organization was based on one and the same rules. As a result it may be assumed that the creation of state and its development are based also on particular rules. It means that the establishment of democracy or despotism as forms of ruling, and generally the formation of civilizations was not a result of the contingency, but common social rules to be followed by the state as a form of social organization. Emergence and application of the rules forming any type of the civilization are described in this book.
1. Emergence of the primitive group
Human history started with the emergence of the primitive group and its establishment as a permanent form of coexistence. What were the reasons behind that? The first reason for the formation of the primitive human group was the instinct of self-preservation. The primitive man could hardly survive alone in the wild nature, but surrounded by other human beings he felt more safe. So, the first humans gathered together, guided by their instinct of self-preservation.
The second reason for the emergence of the primitive group was the natural need of every living creature to mingle with creatures of his own kind.
2. Relations in the primitive group
At that early stage of human development sexual contacts were of greatest importance. There were no limits for these contacts. It means that each male in the group had unlimited contacts with all females in the group and vice versa. Given the small number of the humans and the primitive way of life no permanent sexual couples existed. Sexual contacts were based on sex urge satisfaction and not human reproduction. As a final result of this type of sexual relations, women knew their children but fathers were unknown. That is why all male adults were considered fathers of every child.
3. Organization of the primitive group
The primitive group was absolutely informal by its nature. Members were distinguished only by sex and age. Consequently, in those ancient times any possible classification originated from the laws of the nature.
4. Consequences of the emergence of the primitive group
The most important consequences of the human coexistence were the creation of speech and regular human reproduction. The speech is of greater importance, as it was a result of human sense. Thanks to this humans could permanently communicate. The speech gave a way of thinking, and the man entered into the world of ideas, because every word expressed a definite concept. The exchange of ideas is the engine of human progress. So, the emergence of speech gave a start of human civilization.
1. Appearance of law. Creation of society
The first great achievement of the mankind was the discovery of incest and the real human history started with its prohibition. What were the results of that event for the human race? The first consequence was the appearance of mentally and physically improved generations.
The second consequence was the change in the character of human contacts. After the discovery of incest, it was clear enough that humans had to communicate in a new way. Incest elimination led to the regulation of sexual contacts. This happened after the introduction of such rules of human behavior, which are called "laws". So, the law can be defined as a rule for regulation of human relations. Sexual relations occurred first, and therefore the first laws regulated only sexual relations. These relations are also called “private relations”.
The third consequence of incest prohibition was the liquidation of the primitive group and creation of the “society”. The interruption of the link with the wild nature started with the introduction of laws different from those of the nature. While in the wild world the behavior of every living creature was predetermined by the laws of nature, in the human society relations were based on laws created by people themselves. So, the main difference between the primitive human group and the human society is that in the primitive group the human relations were not regulated, while in the society they are regulated by laws different from those of nature. If in the primitive group every human lived being guided by natural instinct, in the society the same human had to live in accordance with social laws, which were above personal desires. For the first time the man had to obey something made by him, which distinguished him from the wild nature. The man himself created the rules of his behavior; he could change the rules but he had to follow them.
The second difference between the primitive group and the society was the occurrence of classification of people based on the origin and not on sex or age.
As it was noted, prior to the incest prohibition sexual relations were beyond regulation. Each man had sexual contacts with any woman in the primitive group. Initially, the incest prohibition eliminated sexual contacts between parents and children. Actually, sexual contacts were limited within a particular generation. The second limitation was the elimination of sexual contacts among brothers and sisters, which was followed by a prohibition of sexual contacts among their children. That was a tendency toward a limitation of sexual partners. Incest elimination was possible only in case of a strict origin separation. This could happen only on the maternal side, because each person had many sexual partners and fathers were unknown.
Limitations of sexual contacts led to the creation of special groups. The members of these groups did not have the right to contact sexually among each other and had a common mother. The human society called these groups “clans”.
3. Emergence of the clan
Members of the clan did not contact sexually among each other, since they observed the law of incest prohibition. But what kind of sexual relations were established immediately after the emergence of the clan structure? The humans still had many sexual partners. Members of clan A had the right to contact sexually with the members of clan B, C, D, etc. In these contacts women kept a static position, because they did not change their clan, while men had to leave the clan of their mothers and settle themselves in the clans of their sexual partners. Children belonged to the clan of the mother, because the society was based on the origin principle and that was the only way to trace the origin. When children grew up, boys left the mother's clan and joined the clans of their sexual partners. This movement of men led to an unexpected event in the society. The primitive group had almost permanent number of men and women, while the number of men in the clan fluctuated since men moved from one clan to another. Under that very primitive form of life the separation of any sexual couple seemed normal. After the sexual partnership was over, the man just left the clan of his sexual partner and returned to the clan of his mother.
4. Disturbance of the common household of the primitive group and emergence of clan household
Initially, the primitive group had one common household of all its members but later each clan created its own household of all its members. In that early period of human history food supply was an every-day problem, because hunting provided food day to day, and the human community did not have any food reserves. Prior to the emergence of clans, sexual contacts could not influence food supply, because the number of men was unchangeable. The household of the clan depended entirely on the period of existence of each sexual couple, because men were hunters and as it was mentioned they were not permanent members of the clan. So, when a man had left his sexual partner and her clan respectively, the rest of men in the clan had to provide food for his children. Consequently, food supply depended on the sexual life, the existence of the clan depended on the private life of each individual. The society had to make changes ensuring the survival of the clan.
5. Liquidation of the practice of unlimited sexual partners and establishment of a permanent sexual couple
Changes were intended to limit sexual partners of each individual. In other words, the existence of every sexual couple had to continue a longer time. If for a woman her sexual partner was just a lover, for the other members of the clan he was one more pair of working hands. For a second time after the incest elimination the interest of the human community became of greater importance than interests of an individual person. The time of free sexual contacts was over. If previously the reproduction of new generations was a result of unlimited sexual contacts, at this stage it was a result of sexual contact of two partners. So, the permanent sexual couple occurred as a result of very rude material circumstances: every clan and every household respectively appeared to be on the edge of death from starvation if two or three men had left it. This threatened the existence of the clan and the entire clan structure of the society, because the death of any clan automatically limited the number of possible sexual partners based on incest elimination. Therefore, the human community did not approve any longer sexual relations with various partners without any responsibility to the clan. Finally, the society created an environment, providing for a much longer stay of each man in his partner’s clan. As a result the society established new rules of human behavior.
6. Emergence of matrimony
Human community introduced new rules that put the life of each sexual couple under control. As a result the “matrimony” occurred and it can be defined as “a contract between two sexual partners determining their responsibility to the society”. The new rules increased the importance of men, because the matrimony had to hold the man in the clan for regular food supply. The difference between the free couple and the matrimonial one was the responsibility of the latter to regularly provide food for children. Prior to the emergence of matrimony each man could leave his sexual partner owing no explanation to anyone and each woman could kick out any of her lovers. Matrimony needed a reasonable cause for the disturbance of the partnership. Not only sexual partners, but also the whole clan had to approve the disturbance. If a man left his sexual partner and his children, he did not have the right to return to his mother’s clan. If a woman kicked out her lover without the approval of the clan, the divorce was deemed illegal and the man remained a member of the clan. Soon after getting the right to approve the divorce the clan started to approve matrimony. In other words, the clan started to approve its new members, who were chosen mainly according to their hunting skills. The choice of the clan yielded to the personal choice of a woman. This is the origin of the old-fashioned tradition, where the choice of a husband or a wife is a business of the parents, and not children themselves. At that early stage of human history the major obligation of each husband was to supply the household of the clan with food.
Matrimony put an end to the development of private relations. At the very early stage of matrimony the husband did not have bigger power than wife. The matriarchy was sustained and the divorce was not a serious problem. These matrimonial relations were typical of a very poor household, providing a day-to-day existence. At that time, the survival of the human community was the main problem, because the bow and the arrow provided food regularly, but there were no any food reserves and people fought every day for their life.
7. Emergence of family and household
The origin of family and household needs a detail explanation.
Family originates from the sexual relations and is based on the right of sexual contacts. So, in the primitive group there was only one family, because all members of the group contact sexually without any limitations. With the prohibition of incest and the attempts of decreasing the number of sexual partners the family changed. Finally, the family transformed from a community with unlimited sexual contacts into a couple of sexual partners.
Unlike family the household was based on consumption and did not originate from sexual relations. The primitive group and the clan had one common household, where all members had equal rights as consumers. The food was apportioned to every individual, not to every family.
During their historical development the family and household were very often identified as one social unit. Actually, they are two different social units based on different relations. One family consisted of at least two persons who had sexual contacts, while the household could be consisted of only one person or several families. The incest prohibition and heterosexual contacts were obligatory rules for the creation of a family, while the creation of a household was not tied to any social rules. Most often the household was a product of tax treatment rather than of any personal willing.
8. Emergence of war
When hunting was the main source of food supply, the existence of each human community depended on the size of its territory. When the number of people grew up, human community covered new territories. This very often confronted different communities. The lack of land caused conflicts, where there were no any captures. The male members of the defeated community were killed. So, initially the war occurred from the natural need for food and much later it became a greedy conquest for money and estate. In ancient Egypt the slaves were called the “alive-killed”, which means that initially, ancient Egyptians treated captures as Indians in North America, i.e. they killed them.
9. Organization of the human society. Origin of the primitive democracy
a) Form of social organization
As it was mentioned sexual relations were the only relations, existing in the matriarchal society. These relations were based on the incest elimination and the form of social organization was based on that principle as well. Upon incest elimination humans were divided by origin. Therefore, the clan emerged as the main social unit. Several clans formed a tribe and several tribes formed an intertribe union. So, the tribal form of social organization emerged as a result of sexual relations based on the incest elimination principle.
b) Form of ruling
The blood separation principle gave equal rights to all members of the society. That was the origin of the equality in primitive times, because the division by origin required equality among humans. So, on the basis of private relations, established on the incest elimination principle, a form of ruling in the society occurred, that we will call “primitive democracy”.
c) Ruling entities
The primitive equality constituted primitive ruling entities. Clans were ruled by clan’s meetings, where all adults irrespective of the sex had the basic right to a vote in taking decisions. The same applied to the tribe: all adults gathered together and solved current problems keeping to the natural equality, which derived from private relations. So, at that time clan’s and tribe’s meetings were the only ruling entities.
10. Changes in the society
a) Emergence of the institution of the elder
The increasing population caused the establishment of the institution of the elder. He was elected, and due to the matriarchal origin, the elder represented the clan of his wife not of his mother. This institution did not give any extraordinary rights: the elder just represented the clan.
b) The council of elders
When the population increased to such a degree which impeded the normal operation of the meeting of the tribe, the institution of the Council of Elders was established by the society, where each clan was represented by its elder. This new institution did not replace the meeting of the tribe, thus remaining the most important ruling entity.
c) The basic principle
As it was said clans were formed on the basis of blood origin. In accordance with that principle of the society, usually the closest male relative of the previous elder was elected the new elder by the clan’s meeting. Probably, the very first elder was the husband of the mother-founder of the clan or her closest female relative.
d) The Warrior
The emergence of war created the institution of the main warrior. His position was electable and what was very important, his election did not have any blood link. The war was still not a permanent business.
e) Intertribal units
The closest clans formed interclan units which mirrored the organization of the tribe. These new units did not replace the clans as major social units.
11. Types of powers in the society
The primitive democracy originated from sexual relations. It was characterized by collective ruling entities: the meeting of the clan, the meeting of the tribe and the Council of Elders. These ruling entities created rules for regulating relations between people and settled disputes that might arise in case of a divorce or other current problems. So, we see that the primitive ruling entities made legislative and court decisions. Therefore, at that primitive stage of development the society knew only two types of power: legislative and court. These two powers were executed by one and the same ruling entity.
1. Food supply prior to the Agricultural Revolution
Prior to the Agricultural Revolution humans supplied their food by a direct consumption of the objects of the nature. The humans hunted and gathered fruit and roots, but meat and fruit had low durability and they had to be consumed immediately. So, prior to the Agricultural Revolution households were characterized by the lack of food reserves. In his actions and way of life the man depended entirely on the balance of the nature.
Food supply passed through the following stages:
a) Wild consumption - There was no difference between humans and animals. The food was every object in the nature that human hands could touch. Therefore, it can be assumed that at this earliest stage the man was a vegetarian, or he consumed small animals as helices.
b) Food supply with the help of objects in the nature - Humans used stones and sticks for hunting and protection from wild beasts. Thanks to these primitive tools humans started to consume meat.
c) Food supply by changing the shape of objects - At that stage the man started to improve his tools by changing their initial shape. If at the previous stage the man looked for a sharp stone, later he sharpened it with another stone. So, he realized an interaction between two objects from the inanimate nature.
The greatest achievement was the invention of the bow and arrow. Thanks to them the man supplied himself with food more regularly.
The fire is of greatest importance for the survival of human community. Therefore, fire was not a tool for preparation of food but a source of heat. In comparison with the bow and the arrow the fire is of second significance in the regular food supply.
2. Food supply from agricultural activity
The Agricultural Revolution started with the establishment of control over objects of the animate nature. At the previous stage the man could use almost all objects of the inanimate nature, but he was helpless in respect of animate nature. Animals moved freely and the man could only kill them. But dead meat was not durable and after every meal the man had to go hunting again. Besides, the number of the animals used as food was naturally limited by the initial balance of the nature. Therefore, the man came to the following conclusion: first, animals should be near to him when he needed food and second, the number of consumable animals should be sufficient to satisfy his needs. The first step in cutting the human dependence on the balance of the nature was the capture of animals, and not their physical liquidation. The man fed captured animals. Initially, captured animals were used only as food reserves and hunting remained the main source of food supply. Over time they were kept as untouchable reserves animals experienced all natural processes, including reproduction. So, the number of captured animals increased. This was good for humans, but the bigger number of animals needed more care. As a result, the time for hunting diminished and the time on breeding animals increased. Meat reserves from hunting decreased and humans started to consume more often meat from their own reserves. Finally, the man left hunting and supplied food mainly by breeding animals.
Absolutely the same happened with the plants used as food. Initially, their quantity depended on the balance of the nature. If in the forest there were only two apple trees, their number could increase only by the action of the man. So, the man supplied with plant food not by direct consumption, but by a conscious growing plants.
3. The core of the Agricultural Revolution
Each object of animate nature depends on the rules of life, which starts with birth and ends with death. The creation of an apple garden is a direction of a natural process. Initially, this process was beyond the will and action of the man. The same was with captured animals: they had lived and reproduced in accordance with the existing balance of nature, but at this stage these processes depended on the will and action of the man. So, the establishment of control over objects of animate nature resulted in control over nature processes, which is the core of the Agricultural Revolution.
As a result the man stopped consuming objects directly from the nature, he started reproducing them. The man did not receive his food, he created it.
4. Results of the Agricultural Revolution
Control over processes in animate nature caused a change in the correlation of the nature’s balance. Tamed animals did not obey natural rules, because they were under the control of the man. Therefore, the number of living species controlled by the man increased, while the number of wild living species decreased.
The same happened with plants. Instead of two or three apple trees, there was an apple garden. These events changed the correlation in the nature balance, but the balance itself was not disturbed. We, humans think that the balance of the nature is disturbed only if our own existence is threatened.
So, the result of the control over processes in the nature was the change in the correlation of the nature’s balance.
As it has been already concluded the core of the Agricultural Revolution was in the control over natural processes resulting in a change of the correlation of the nature’s balance. We will call this human activity production. Consequently, the following definition can be given: Production is the application of human activity in order to control processes of the nature intended to change the correlation of the nature’s balance. It is very important to note that the result of control over natural processes is of greatest importance, since not all processes cause quantitative and qualitative changes in the correlation of the nature’s balance. If a man breeds a canary in his apartment, he also exercise control over a process, but finally this activity will not bring about quantitative or qualitative changes in the nature. Therefore, for the purpose of our inquiry we will pay attention only to processes that lead to qualitative and quantitative changes in the correlation of the balance of the nature.
6. Production in the animate nature
As it was seen, the Agricultural Revolution resulted in a production of food. This was realized by cultivating plants and breeding animals aimed at increasing food reserves. The bigger number of cultivated plants and tamed animals appeared to be a quantitative change. But every change should also have a qualitative dimension. The improvement of species proved to be a qualitative change. The man needs not just a cow, but a cow that gives more milk, he also needs not just an apple tree, but an apple tree that gives more apples. That is the entire picture of production in animate nature. The purpose of controlling processes was to increase the quantity and improve food quality. Therefore, a qualitative change in animate nature was the improvement of the species.
7. Production in the inanimate nature
The nature is composed of many elements that interact, and dependent on the conditions form different states. The elements transform from one state into another but never disappear. Consequently, we should not seek for quantitative changes of every element, but for a change in the state of objects.
Let us take as an example a lake that contains X water in the spring. In the summer the water evaporates X-1. This process in inanimate nature causes a global decrease in liquid water on the planet, and increases the vaporized water. Thus, the change of an object from one state into another has qualitative and quantitative dimensions. Therefore, if a man controls any process in inanimate nature it will result in production. In the above case, if the man controls the transition of water from liquid into vapor state, he will produce vapor.
Let us have a look at the production of metals to clarify entirely the production in inanimate nature. We have new quantitative and qualitative dimensions. After melting ore, the global quantity of metal ores diminishes, but at the same time the total quantity of metals increases. The metal is qualitatively different from the ore.
In the nature there is a definite quantity of Fe element, which can be found in the ore, sea, human body, etc. If we melt non-ferrous ore we will obtain iron metal, but the total quantity of Fe element will not diminish. The quantity of the Fe ore will decrease and the quantity of the iron metal will increase. Consequently, control over processes in inanimate nature is considered to be production.
8. Emergence of labor
Sense directs each human activity, and therefore the nature of the activity depends on its purpose. What was the human activity prior to the Agricultural Revolution? Simple use of nature’s objects. In that case the quantity of applied human activities is limited by the natural number of objects. If there are only two apple trees and six rabbits, the applied human activity will be limited by the number of apple trees and rabbits. Thus, the result of the human activity was predetermined and could not exceed that what was a balance of nature. Therefore, we can conclude that the direct use of nature’s objects, which number derives from the balance of nature, is a result of the function of the correlation in the nature and does not depend on the applied quantity of human activity.
Let us see what was the purpose of the human activity after the Agricultural Revolution. It was a change in the correlation of the existing nature’s balance. The man did this as a result of consciously applied human activity in order to control nature’s processes. As a result of this activity the number of consumed objects increased. If previously there were only two apple trees and six rabbits, later there were an apple garden and sixty rabbits. They themselves were a result of human activity, and this result was a function of the quantity of applied human activity. The number of apples depended on the cultivated apple trees and the quantity of meat depended on the number of bred rabbits. As it was said the number of apples and rabbits depends on the quantity of applied human activity. We shall call that human activity intended to control processes “labor”. So, labor is a conscious human activity applied to control nature processes. The main feature of labor is that its result depends on the quantity of applied human activity.
9. Emergence of the newly created product
As it was said the result of control over processes is expressed as a change in the correlation of the nature’s balance. Control over processes always leads to an increase or a decrease against a past moment. The material expression of the difference between the correlation in the nature from one moment in the past to a moment in the present, which is a result of the application of labor, will be called newly created product.
It should be noted that a newly created product exists only for the human society. In respect of nature a decrease or an increase in the number of cows or the quantity of the produced metals is a change in its correlation.
10. Size of human activity
What forms the size of applied human activity?
t- period of application of human activity The time for application of labor is limited, that is why it will occupy values from 1 to n.
v- physical energy applied by the man. The physical ability is also limited and will occupy values from 1 to m.
k- applied knowledge. It is theoretically and practically unlimited and will occupy values from 1 to plus infinity.
The quantity of applied human activity will be expressed by the following formula: Q=v.t.k. The element k is the only unlimited one. The element t and v can not exceed the limits of the nature, since the man can not change his physical characteristics. Therefore, the physical energy of the man and the period of its application can be considered as permanent quantities, as they occupy very low values and no significant changes are possible. At the same time the element k displays a permanent upward trend. Therefore, the size of the applied human activity Q depends on the size of applied knowledge k.
Finally, this expresses the evolution of the human progress. The humanity obtains new knowledge and applies it in production.
11. Results of labor
After determination of the value of applied human activity, let us see what defines the result of labor called also newly created product. As it was explained a newly created product appears as a result of control over processes. If processes are marked with C and the result of labor with P, we can derive the following formula: P=C.Q
Prior to determining the values of C we will explore the connection between q and the quantity of controlled processes. As it was said Q depends entirely on k, and consequently we must explore the link between the applied knowledge and quantity of controlled processes. The values of C are unknown, while the values of k are unlimited. If a man wants to control any process he must first study it, and therefore the quantity of controlled processes depends entirely on the quantity of achieved knowledge. So, the values of C are identical with values of k, because the multitude of C is the same as the multitude of k. Finally, k is the only changeable element in the formula P=C.v.t.k and the result of labor or the size of the newly created product depends entirely on the quantity of the applied knowledge.
12. Composition of the newly created product
As it was said tamed animals were reproduced under the control of the man. This activity had only one purpose: production of meat. However, this process needed animals. Therefore, a part of newly born animals were not consumed and were used to produce meat later. So, a part of the newly created product was kept for the maintenance of production. If such a part of the newly born animals was not kept, the production of animals would stop. If a part of the old plant production is not assigned for insemination of the land there will not be a new crop. If a part of produced metals is not apportioned for new instruments the production of metals will stop. Therefore, the newly created product is inevitably composed of two parts: one for consumption, and the other for maintenance of production.
1. Emergence of production sources
As it was said prior to the agricultural activity the humans supplied food by hunting and gathering fruits. The main human activity was consummation of objects created by the balance of the nature. The existence of every clan’s household depended on the territory used to provide food, and the clan considered this land as its own. Actually, the clan belonged to the territory and not the territory to the clan, because the household depended entirely on the correlation of the nature’s balance. Due to this dependence the clan could not pretend to possess any land. The clan inhabited the territory and similar to every wild beast controls its own region.
What happened after the Agricultural Revolution? As a result of the new relations many tamed animals and enormous areas of cultivated land surrounded the man. We will call them “sources of production”. What were their main characteristics?
First, sources of production were a result of conscious activity of the man. The man did not receive cultivated land and tamed animals directly from the nature. The cultivation of any land needed a long-term work, as the creation of any herd of sheep needs a long period of breeding.
Second, the sources of production were under a direct control of the man. If any natural object, for example a rabbit, exists thanks to the care of the man, this object can be considered as man’s property. If the same rabbit is a part of the wild nature, it is not a property, because it is out of the society. This relation is even more applicable to the land, because it is a man’s decision whether any part of the land will be field or wild. This is the dependence of the sources of production on the man.
And third, the man applied conscious activity called labor. The most important feature of the sources of production is their labor nature. The control over processes irrespective of the type of production (metals or wheat) determined the objects as sources of production. The land was a source of production only when it was cultivated, when the man controlled the growth of the plants.
These are the three characteristic features of the sources of production or the wealth of the society.
2. Emergence of production relations and property relations
Emergence of the sources of production entailed regulation of the relations connected with them. As it was said the sources of production predetermined the establishment of labor relations and relations of disposition.
Let us have a look at the relations of disposition. They reflected the right of taking decisions about property. It means that those men who had this right decided whether the rabbit would be consumed or not, whether the land would be cultivated or not. In other words, these men who had this right decided whether to use labor or not. If they decided that labor should be used, they specified the men who would apply labor. We will call the relations of disposition with the sources of production also “ownership relations”. Members of the society who participated in those relations will be called owners and users.
The labor relations reflected the application of labor toward the sources of production. Consequently, we will call them “production relations”. Their most characteristic feature is that they are dependent on ownership relations. This dependence originates from the right of the owner to decide who can apply labor and when to apply it.
After clarification of the relations based on sources of production we should clear up the relations with the newly created product, because the sources of production and the newly created product have one and the same genesis.
Newly created product depends on two factors: labor and sources of production. Labor is most important, as it is the reason for the existence of sources of production. Historically, the first newly crated product was a source of production. Thus the right of applied labor on a part of the newly created product derives from the fact that the creation of sources of production is impossible without applied labor. It should be noted that the right of the men who had applied labor on a part of the product depends on the period of labor application.
As it is known, one part of the newly created product went back to the sources of production to maintain production. As a result the owner always obtained a part of the newly created product, irrespective of the fact whether he had applied labor or not.
3. The right of ownership is:
a) absolute - the right of property can not be big or small. If an agrarian land is apportioned to several parts with different sizes, each part of the apportioned land gives equal rights of ownership. The owner of the biggest part of the land has absolutely the same rights as the owner of the smallest part of the land.
b) permanent - the right can not be temporary. For example, an owner can not be owner only on Monday.
c) unconditional - the right of property can not be conditional. If a forest is a property of two men a hunter and a woodcutter, they both are owners, even if they did not divide the forest between themselves. We can not say that the hunter is owner when he hunts, or that the woodcutter is owner only when he cuts. They both are owners no matter they work or not.
d) transferable - the right of ownership can be exchanged. It can be traded, herited and transferred under a will.
e) untouchable - the right of ownership can be disturbed by nobody, no matter who is a bearer of the right. Every action of disturbance of that right is considered crime.
4. Transition from Matriarchy to Patriarchy
The human society solved the problem with food supply by cultivation of land and breeding animals. As a result the importance of the woman decreased, because the man bred animals and cultivated land, thanks to his physique. So, the members of the society were assessed by their economic efficiency. From this point of view, males were more valuable for the society, because the sources of production directly depended on the number of men. Greater number of men provided more labor to be applied on land and cattle resulting in an increase in the wealth of the clan.
At the same time the number of the men was volatile, since under the matriarchy men were not permanent members of the clan. The same was the situation with male children. They had to leave their native clan and join the clan of their wives. Women and girls were permanent members of the clan, but they could not substitute men in agricultural activity. So, the human society faced the following problem: How to ensure permanent working force for the agricultural work?
So to meet the needs of the clan’s household men should stay in the clan. This could happen only by removing matriarchy and establishing patriarchy. The roles changed. The men became permanent members of the clan, while the women lost their static position.
At the same time the property of the clan could not leave the clan. Therefore, women had to keep sexual contacts only with men from the clan, because the men were real owners of the clan’s property and their male kids were their successors. It was absolutely impossible for a woman to keep sexual contacts with a man from another clan, because his sons could pretend for the property of the father’s clan, and as it was mentioned the property could not leave the clan.
5. Emergence of surpluses
Following the Agricultural Revolution, the man created new correlation in the nature’s balance through control over nature processes. The main purpose of the new nature’s balance was bigger quantity of food. Finally, as a result of continuous changes in the nature’s correlation, produced quantities of food could not be consumed. The unused food will be called “surplus” and the Agricultural Revolution finished with the occurrence of surpluses. At the same time, surpluses put the following question: What to do with the unconsummated quantity of food?
In primitive times the answer was clear: To keep surpluses as untouchable reserves. This decision did not solve the problem, because the production of surpluses became regular due to regularity of production. At the same time, weather conditions were beyond man’s control. As a result the humans made one very important conclusion. If all members of the community worked as farmers food supply would exceed demand. Therefore, humans could work less and produce food necessary to meet their consumption needs.
Finally, we came to the origin of surplus. As it was said the result of labor depends on applied human activity intended to control processes. Therefore, there was excess labor behind the surplus of food.
From that moment the excess labor will be one of most important problems of the human civilization.
6. Labor control
As it was described, a surplus of labor occurred in the society. It was absolutely useless to apply the excess labor for production of food. So, the following question arose: What to do with released quantity of human activity? Quite naturally this free human energy had to control processes other than those in agriculture. But here came another question: To which processes should free labor be directed and how much labor to be applied for each process? The answer of the question is predetermined by human needs and to some extent by the nature and the human sense. It was quite natural that humans preferred to produce things they needed. Therefore, irrespective of the nature’s conditions metallurgy and ceramics developed as new branches of production. Nature’s conditions were of second significance, they could affect the volume of the product, but not the choice of controlling processes. For example, where there was clay the ceramic production developed at a faster rate than metallurgy, and where there were ores metal production developed faster than ceramic production. Needs of the society predetermined the choice of production and not conditions for production.
Besides food surplus the human community had to decide what to produce and what to consume on the basis of the choice which processes to control. Having determined the quantity of labor necessary for each process, the human community had to decide how much it will produce and consume from each process. The decisions on what and how much to produce and consume we will call “control over labor”.
7. Division of labor
As it was said the excess quantity of labor was used to control the processes other than those in agriculture. Prior to the emergence of surpluses, agriculture was the main working activity for all members of the society. The ceramic production and the other crafts were additional activities for every farmer and he spent on these processes a quantity of labor that had remained after finishing his agricultural work. Due to the emergence of surpluses the time spent on various crafts increased. So, initially total quantity of labor spent on different processes was based on the division of time. This manner of controlling labor based of time division existed until the number of the controlled processes increased to a degree, that it became impossible for a single farmer to spend time on each process. As a result a new question occurred: How to govern the total quantity of labor given the increasing number of production processes?
The only answer was: By a division of the different production processes among members of the society. So, the agriculture should not be the main activity for every man. Crafts separated as different jobs and some of men could work as farmers, while other only as craftsmen.
We will call the division of the production processes among members of the society “division of labor”, and keep in mind that governing of labor is based on the division of labor or on the division of different processes among the members of the society.
8. Establishment of the clan’s ownership
After the establishment of regular production and the emergence of sources of production the problem with ownership occurred. Historically, the clan was the first owner. The cattle and the land were the clan’s ownership and the clan’s meeting disposed with them. At the same time, the clan’s meeting was based on the blood origin and the clan itself was a single production unit. All members of the clan cultivated together the clan’s land and the clan’s household coincided with the production unit. The total created product was produced and consumed by only one production unit, because it was also one household. Due to the identity of a household and a production unit the labor was governed directly, because the clan was the main and smallest social unit. Needs of the society coincided with the needs of the household and the production unit. Actually, the society was just a big family.
9. Destruction of the common household of the clan
When production in agriculture reached a level to generate surpluses regularly, the big household of the clan, where many families lived together became useless. The big household saved the humans, when food supply was insufficient, but this problem was no longer in place. Therefore, the common household of the clan disappeared together with the hunger.
Initially, the clan formed several big patriarchal families, including a number of matrimonial couples. These were the families of the sons and grandsons of the oldest man of the patriarchal family. This patriarchal family was one production unit and one household.
The clan’s land was apportioned every year among the patriarchal families for agricultural cultivation. Forest, rivers and pasture remained for common use. As agriculture improved, a tendency towards a permanent division of cultivated land occurred.
10. Emergence of exchange
As a result of the destruction of the clan’s household, a number of small production units occurred. Although they were identical with households, they produced different products, because of the division of labor. Farmers produced food and craftsmen produced goods. Different households exchanged their production to satisfy their needs. As a consequence of the destruction of the common household of the clan, the exchange occurred.
11. Changes in the organization of the society after the Agricultural Revolution
As it was described the Agricultural Revolution raised the importance of the men. Due to his physique the man was to cultivate land and breed cattle. Therefore, men were predetermined to participate in production relations, i.e. they could apply labor, while women could not. At the same time, the existence of the society depended much more on the agricultural activity than on incest. The importance of women decreased, because they did not participate in the new relations and the regulation of ownership relations legalized the lower social position of women.
Historically, the clan was the first owner but that was patriarchal one, not matriarchal. Men were permanent members of the clan and actual bearers of the clan’s property. It does not mean that the clan was a community of owners. On the contrary, there was no even one man, who could pretend for any private ownership, because the men participated only in indirect property relations. Since women could not participate in the new production relations and were not any longer permanent members of the clan, they could not participate in political life. Men had more rights thanks to their physique: they could do heavy work, that the women could not. So, this inequality of rights changed the ruling entities. Women did not participate in production relations, and therefore they did not participate in the clan’s and tribe’s meetings. At same time, the organization of the society was still based on blood separation. Actually, the society saved its tribal form of organization together with the ruling entities. The difference between matriarchy and patriarchy was only one: women did not participate in political life and were not allowed to ruling entities. As a result the form of ruling changed only its sexual characteristics. This form of ruling based again on the blood separation, but excluding women will be called “military democracy”.
The blood separation remained the main principle in the society.
1. Development of relations
a) Private relations
Historically, private relations, expressed in sexual contacts were the first relations people participated in. After the discovery of incest these relations had to be established on the basis of the blood separation principle. That is why after the legal regulation of private relations, sexual contacts were realized in compliance with the laws of the society, and not in compliance with the laws of nature. The right of sexual contacts was not any longer a natural right, because it became a social right. As a result the clan appeared as the main social unit. It gathered people who could not contact sexually. The family was an opposite social unit, because it gathered people that could contact sexually. The clan derived entirely from the blood separation, while the family only depended on it. Historically, the family emerged first, because the sexual relations were initially a natural law and much later it became a social law. Blood separation as a main principle in social relations influenced directly the clan and indirectly the family.
Blood separation determines the humans as relatives, i.e. the members of the society are divided in accordance with their blood origin, which turns the blood sign into a social sign.
b) Production relations
Production relations emerged historically as second social relations in the society. Occurrence of food surpluses and the introduction of new production processes made the division of labor a main principle in production relations. These relations caused the creation of a production unit as a social unit, attributable entirely to production relations. The production unit is a social formation, in which one or several individuals control one or several processes.
Historically, the production unit coincides with the family until the Industrial Revolution. This happened due to the agrarian nature of the economy, which required a permanent link between the land as a main source of production and the man.
The application of labor is obligatory to control processes. The application of labor became a social right similar to the right of sexual contacts. It must be noted that only men participated in these relations due to their physique.
Division of labor defines every member of the society according to his profession. Production relations prompted professional division, which also became a social sigh for each member of the society.
c) Ownership relations
Ownership relations, expressed in disposition with sources of production were the third relations which emerged in the society. The main principle of these relations was the form of ownership. Therefore, the form of ownership was regulated by law. As a result an ownership unit occurred, and according to the form of ownership it will be a unit of users or a unit of owners. The following chapters describe in detail the importance of the form of ownership. It should be noted that the ownership unit always has material expression. Since agriculture was the main economic activity, the production unit had mainly territorial expression.
The form of ownership determines the members of the society as users and owners, but this problem will be discussed later.
2. Main conclusions
a) Any relations among people are based on a definite principle. The sexual relations are based on the principle of incest elimination. Production relations are based on the principle of labor division and ownership relations on the form of ownership
b) Any relations create definite social units. Sexual relations created the clan as a main social unit (later replaced by the family), production relations created the production unit, and ownership relations created the unit of owners or users.
c) A definite social sign derives from each relation. The social right of sexual contacts derived from private relations. The social right of labor derived from production relations. The right of disposition with the wealth of the society derived from ownership relations.
d) Any relations result in a definite social sign characterizing the members of the human society. Sexual relations resulted in a blood sign characterizing people as relatives. Production relations resulted in a professional sign characterizing people according to their jobs, and ownership relations resulted in a sign characterizing people as owners and users.
3. Constitution of the form of organization of the human society
As it was mentioned the clan appeared as the main social unit as a result of sexual relations based on incest principle of blood mixture elimination. When the human society knew only these relations the form of organization of the society was established in compliance with that social unit. So the clan was a natural form of organization of the society, because there were no any other relations. Therefore, we can conclude that the form of organization of the human society originated from the relations among people and their basic principles. So, the tribal form of organization appeared as a result of sexual relations based on the incest elimination principle.
With the emergence of production relations based on the labor division principle the form of organization of the society did not change. The production unit covered entirely the clan as a main social unit and changes of the society were necessary.
The emergence of ownership relations did not change the society because the ownership unit coincided with the clan structure.
As we see sexual relations played a key role in the society, while production and ownership relations were of second importance. The form of organization of the society was a result of sexual relations and their basic principle became fundamental for the form of organization of the society. We will call the relations determining the form of organization of the society “leading relations”, and their basic principle will be called the basic principle of the society. In that case these were sexual relations and incest elimination.
4. Constitution of the form of ruling of the society
The legal regulation of relations among people created rights valid only for the human society. Therefore, we will call them “social rights”. These rights created the form of ruling of the society. So, first sexual relations prompted the occurrence of the social right of sexual contacts. All adult members of the society had this right and this equality created the primitive democracy as a form of ruling of the society. This was democracy, since it was based on equal rights of all members of the society, but it was primitive due to its sexual relation basis.
Production relations prompted the emergence of the social right of labor application. Due to their physical power, only men had that right. This fact caused inequality, since some members of the society had one right more than other members. This inequality between the men and the women resulted in a military democracy as a form of ruling of the society. We call it military, because it was actually male democracy. At the same time, men did not dominate over women, since the leading relations in the tribal society were sexual relations where men and women had equal rights.
Emergence of ownership relations did not change the form of ruling of the society. The right of disposition with the wealth of the society depended on the form of ownership. At that time, the only owner was the clan and its members participated only as users of the clan’s land and live stock. The disposition with the clan’s wealth was a right of the clan’s meeting.
5. Constitution of ruling entities
The constitution of ruling entities of the society also derived from social relations and social rights. Sexual relations gave equal social rights to all members of the society. Therefore, in the time of primitive democracy all adult men and women participated in the clan’s and tribe’s meetings. At the same time, the ruling entities were constituted on the basis of incest elimination, because the clan’s and tribe’s meetings composed their membership on the basis of the blood origin. In other words these were meetings of relatives.
The introduction of production relations eliminated women from primitive meetings. Men who participated in production relations had one right more, and they participated in primitive meetings, while women did not.
The ruling entities were meetings of male relatives.
Ownership relations did not change anything because of the common clan’s ownership.
So we see that those individuals who participated in all social relations and therefore had all social rights formed the ruling entities of the society. The ruling entities were based on the fundamental principle of leading relations in the society: incest elimination.
6. Constitution of the social status of humans
The social status of members of the society depended on the leading social relations and ensuing social signs and social rights. The leading sexual relations characterized each member of the society as a relative and parent and gave the right of sexual contacts. Production relations characterized people in accordance with their jobs and gave the social right of labor application. Ownership relations characterized them as users and owners and gave the right of disposition with the wealth.
In a society based on the sexual relations, the social sign and social right derived from these relations were most important. Other social signs and social rights were of second importance. Consequently, the membership of the clan or the tribe was the most important social sign, while the job sign and ownership sign were of second importance. Consequently, we can define the social status of people at that time as “relatives’ equality”, because all members of the society had the right which was a result of the leading relations.
7. Centralization of political life
It is quite clear that the clan was the main social unit and several clans formed a tribe. Over time the tribes that had common origin and inhabited neighboring territory created unions. These unions had tribal ruling entities. So, several tribal meetings formed one intertribal meeting of all men. The elders formed an intertribal Council of Elders. As a result the center of political life started to shift from the old ruling entities to new ones.
Initially, ruling entities gathered irregularly, mainly in a case of a war or religious holidays. War was the first reason for centralization of political life. The increasing frequency of wars increased the importance of intertribal ruling entities, and finally a separate tribe lost a part of its sovereignty, especially in taking decisions on war and peace. The trend toward a centralization of social life put the following question: How to govern total quantity of labor in the intertribal union?
Previously this was a problem only of the clan and tribe. The traditional practice was simple: every year the clan’s meeting apportioned the land among the patriarchal families and, a part of the land was assigned for common work. The products from the unapportioned part of land were for common use. When a special work required the labor of many people clan’s or tribe’s meetings decided when and how this work to be done. The governance of the total quantity of labor was irregular and covered the clan or the tribe. However, the increasing centralization of social life required common governance of the economy. Invention of the tax resolved the problem.
8. Emergence of tax
We saw that the governance of labor is based on the principle of labor division. Let us see what the possible ways for governing the total quantity of labor are. There were only two possible ways to govern the labor. The first one is through a direct control over the total quantity of labor: labor was directed to particular processes, as agriculture, metallurgy and etc. The second way includes direct control over newly created product, that is through indirect control over labor: by apportion of newly created product. For example, 10% of produced wheat will be stored as reserves. So, there are two methods to control labor: direct or indirect dependent on the object of control, the labor or product. So, the exercise of direct control over total quantity of labor or newly created product is the only tool to govern labor. We will call this ”tax”.
By type taxes are direct and indirect, and by nature they can be labor, material and financial.
Which are the most characteristic features of taxes:
a) Regularity - production needs regular application of labor and the tax regulates the quantity of labor. Therefore, the tax should be regular.
b) Compulsoriness - the tax is obligatory for all members of the society, because it is intended to govern total quantity of labor.
Historically, labor taxes emerged first. The tax burden reflected the direction of a definite quantity of labor to particular processes. Indirect and material taxes occurred later: a part of the newly created product was apportioned as a tax.
Emergence of money changed radically taxes. The shift from a natural to monetary taxation allowed for taxation of the product upon its production and consumption.
9. Emergence of executive power
Emergence of taxes created a new power in the society intended to govern the total quantity of labor. We will call it “executive power”. It included the following functions: determination of taxes, tax collection and use of taxes. So, the human society had three types of power: court, legislative and executive powers, concentrating the whole power in the society. The most characteristic feature of the executive power is its permanent nature, due to regularity of production. Prior to the emergence of the executive power, the ruling entities represented by clan’s and tribe’s meetings had irregular character. They gathered only for a solution of a particular problem. However, the exercise of executive power required a permanent ruling body.
10. Creation of the state
The executive power occurred as a result of establishing the production as a basis of the society. Prior to the Agricultural Revolution the society was based on the blood division principle, but after the Agricultural Revolution the existence of the society depended on production. Emergence of taxes legalized the key role of production for the existence of the society. The executive power treated the members of the society not as relatives and parents, but as producers and taxpayers. Finally, production relations replaced private relations in the society.
In the previous chapter it was described that production relations depended on ownership relations. This dependence was expressed in the right of the owner to decide how much labor to be applied and to appoint who will apply it. Therefore, the owner had the right to determine the size of the tax, as he could exercise direct control over labor by determining the quantity of the applied labor, and over newly created product by apportioning it. Given this dependence ownership relations replaced production relations from their leading position in the society. Consequently, due to the introduction of production as a major human activity, the hierarchy of social relations changed. Ownership relations occupied the leading position, followed by production relations and private relations. Ownership relations became leading, and they prompted changes in the form of social organization. The new leading relations resulted in a new form of organization of the society based on the form of ownership, which was fundamental in establishing ownership relations. We will call this new form of social organization a “state”. The state is a form of organization of the society based on ownership relations, with the form of ownership being a fundamental principle. The state has also court, legislative and executive powers represented by permanent ruling bodies.
11. Forms of ownership
As it was described above the clan was the first owner, and therefore the society had common form of ownership. It was also said that the land was apportioned every year among the patriarchal families, with a tendency toward a permanent apportion. When this happened the following question arose: Who would be the owner of the apportioned land? There were two possible answers. First, the land should remain the clan’s ownership, i.e. families were only users and did not have the right to dispose with the land. Second, the apportioned land should be transformed into a property of the families, i.e. they had the right to dispose with the land and to trade it. As a result two forms of ownership occurred: the first one was the already known “common ownership” of the clan, and the second one will be called “private ownership”. The human society had to choose between the two forms of ownership. Until that moment the society had not faced a challenge like this. There were two forms of ownership, i.e. two basic principles, which would form two types of ownership relations, and correspondingly two types of societies. Some of the societies would be based on common state ownership, while other societies would be based on private ownership of individuals. If prior to the occurrence of this choice the humanity had identical social history, from that moment it would have two social histories because of the two types of societies according to the form of ownership.
With the creation of the state as a form of organization of the human society based on ownership relations, the development of the human society was entirely determined by the form of ownership. That is why we will call the form of ownership also a “basic principle of the state”, and classify the states in accordance with the choice of the form of ownership.
1. Permanent apportion of the land
As it was said there was a tendency toward a permanent apportion of agrarian land among patriarchal families. Previously, the common practice was temporary apportion of land. At the same time, there was unapportioned land for common cultivation and common use of products from this land. The permanent apportion was realized in accordance with the well-known method of drawing lot for the land. The family of the elder received the land for common use.
2. Creation of private agricultural units
Each patriarchal family was an owner of its land and therefore of its production unit. Private ownership replaced the clan’s ownership and every owner in the face of the patriarchal family had the irreversible right to dispose with the sources of production, and first of all with the land.
3. Creation of tribal aristocracy
The importance of the clan’s meeting faded with the centralization of social life, and particularly with the transformation of ownership. In that situation most of the functions of the clan’s meeting were acquired by the ruling bodies of the state. At the same time, private ownership broke common ownership relations. The constitution of the Council of Elders needed one representative from each clan, and given the blood origin principle the elder was always a member of the founder family of the clan. Actually, the institution of the elder became heritable and the Council of Elders emerged as a group in the society which had the extraordinary privilege to occupy ruling positions. That was the origin of the well-known nobles. The heritage of the elder’s institution resulted in a creation of tribal aristocracy. It should be noted that the aristocracy originated from the blood separation and its privileges were a result of the blood-origin based structures of the society. Actually, the tribal aristocracy concentrated significant political power from the clan due to blood separation.
4. Ownership differentiation
The previous chapter described that due to ownership equality, ownership relations did not create new form of social organization. Over time, property differentiation replaced the initial estate equality due to private ownership relations. Some members of the society possessed bigger wealth than other. The basic blood separation principle and job classification proved archaic for the new reality. Consequently, ownership relations appeared as most important, although they did not seem so significant during the patriarchal equality. The society needed new order, since the real classification was based on the private wealth, and not on the blood origin.
5. Tax reformation
a) Property classification of tax payers
Tax legislation needed an urgent reform, because it had been adjusted to work under ownership equality, and at that time the society lived under property inequality. As a result reforms started with taxes and the purpose of reform was to establish tax obligations in accordance with private wealth.
So, the members of the society were classified in groups based on the income gained from land cultivation or land price.
b) Military tax
In ancient times the military tax burden was the most important one, because each soldier had to arm himself for his own account. So, tax reform determined the armament for each property group. The richest class had to form the cavalry, and therefore every rich man had to support a military horse in peacetime, while the poorest classes were exempt from the military tax and they were not obliged to serve in the army.
6. Ruling bodies
a) People’s assembly
The intertribal meetings were composed of tribes and clans, i.e. they were constituted on the basis of blood origin. The state form of social organization required a constitution of ruling bodies based on ownership relations. That is why territorial units, which changed the presentation of the vote replaced clans and tribes because the only legal classification remained that based on private wealth. So, men voted not as relatives, but as owners of the land and producers. The liquidation of the blood units made the members of the society citizens.
b) Council of Elders
The Council of Elders was the executive authority in the society. Actually, this collective ruling body directed the policy of the state. The only difference between the tribal Council of Elders and the new one was in the total heritage of ruling positions. This institution had to be replaced by a new one or to be renewed on the basis of ownership relations. In Rome the Council of Elders was opened for the plebes, while in Athens the Council of Elders was replaced by a new ruling entity. The Council of the Four Hundred
c) The institution of the Head of the state
The institution of the intertribal union became a Rex in Rome and Basilevs in Athens. Initially, this position was heritable but collective ruling bodies were authorized to dethrone the leader from this mostly representative political position. Later due to the increasing importance of private relations, the heritable leadership of the state was replaced by an electable position of the Arhont-regent in Athens and by the Consuls in Rome.
The access to the ruling positions depended on the private wealth, and poorest people could not occupy such a position but had the irrevocable right to a vote.
7. Social structure
Tax reform legalized the ownership differentiation and establishment of ownership relations as the leading, liquidated social units based on the blood origin. So, the society classified citizens on the basis of their private wealth and not their clans or tribes. As a result the old clan structure was replaced by an ownership structure which formed ownership groups. We will call these ownership groups “classes” and consider that societies based on private ownership have a class structure.
8. Social status
Initially, the society was constituted by members treated as relatives, but the blood sign did not correspond to the new leading ownership relations. The ownership sign was most important, followed by job and blood signs. So, the right of disposition with the wealth predetermined the social status of the members of the society. Private ownership relations gave equal rights to all members of the society, because they all had the irrevocable right to dispose with the wealth, and first of all with the land. That is why the social status in a society based on private ownership relations can be determined as “civil equality”.
9. Form of ruling
As it was explained all members of the society had the most important right of disposition with the wealth. That is why when ruling bodies were constituted on the basis of private ownership relations, all men continued to participate in the governance of the state due to the equality of the leading rights. This equality preserved democracy as a form of ruling but it was based on ownership relations and not on private relations. Due to private ownership relations, this was an absolutely new form of ruling. We will call it “modern democracy”.
10. Form of social organization
The state is such a form of social organization in which ownership relations predetermine the human behavior. The private ownership constitutes modern democracy, class structure and civil equality. Consequently, we can consider that the creation of the state based on private ownership is completed only when all social derivatives are constituted on basis of private ownership.
1. Reasons behind the preservation of the common ownership on land
As it was said the state emerged when the choice of the form of ownership on the apportioned land of the clan occurred. Societies, which preserved common ownership on the land and created states on that basis without external influence were: India, China, Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indian countries in Central and South America. What could be the reason for their choice of the form of ownership? Most probably it was a result of the type of agriculture. Cultivation of land in those countries depended mainly on the irrigation systems. Actually, the agrarian land existed due to artificial irrigation. Therefore, cultivated land could not be apportioned once and forever, because its size depended entirely on the size of irrigation channels. They remained common ownership, because construction and maintenance of channels required the work of many people and they could not be apportioned among families. Common ownership on irrigation systems preserved the common ownership on land. It could be assumed that a society which chose the common ownership as a basic principle of its state did this due to the use of irrigation systems in agriculture, i.e. the decision depended on the nature. In China, India, Egypt and Mesopotamia the states occurred alongside big rivers providing water for the irrigation systems. In Central and South America agriculture also depended on irrigation channels. For example, the town of Mexico was in the center of an unique system of channels.
2. Creation of the agrarian territorial unit
Land was apportioned among patriarchal families, but the clan remained the only owner. Clans’ meetings could dispose with the ownership of the clan, but these meetings were not any longer meetings of relatives. Production relations were more important than blood relations and humans participated in the meetings mainly as farmers cultivating one and the same land. The community of the clan was first of all a community of producers and after that a community of relatives. The clan’s meeting gathered people who had common land and common ownership relations, and after that common origin. As a result the blood community transformed itself into an “agrarian territorial community”. This was the first social unit born by the new leading ownership relations.
3. The apportion of the land and its governance
After the apportion of the land, forests, pastures and rivers together with irrigation channels remained for common use. Creation of the state transferred the governance of these common objects from the clan’s meeting to the central executive power, which had to determine the tax burden of agrarian territorial units. The rest of the land was under the control of local meetings: former clan's meetings. Initially, one part of the land was under the control of the central power, while the other part was under the control of the local power.
4. Transformation of the form of ownership
The regularity of wars replaced the tribal volunteers with professional soldiers and this led to changes in the governance of the land. As it was mentioned above, the agrarian territorial unit autonomously governed its land, but the creation of a professional army entailed a reapportion of the land for the financial support of soldiers and their families. As a result the local power lost its initial independence to dispose with the land, and finally the central administration became the only authority that could dispose with the wealth of the society. Consequently, the common ownership of the tribal society was transformed into ownership of the state and the state administration had the irrevocable right to dispose with the wealth, since people were users and not owners. That was the most characteristic feature of the societies based on common ownership: the right of disposition with the wealth is delegated to the state rulers. It was a professional and not a personal right. In other words the state inherited the ownership of the clan.
5. Ruling entities
a) People’s meeting
The most important ruling entity of the tribal society could not be based on ownership relations, since its members did not have the right of disposition with the land. That is why the people’s meeting disappeared in all societies, which had established states based on common ownership.
b) The Head of the state
This institution changed entirely its representative function due to war. The wartime required total concentration of social wealth for the needs of the army. Like dictators in republican Rome, the leader of the state and the army had the chance to rule personally the whole society. Actually, most often the whole political power was in the hands of only one man. The increasing frequency of wars made the tribal Rex an absolute master of the society who could rule as he wanted. As a result the tribal Rex became a Despot. The road from the tribal Rex to the absolute despotic monarchies was not easy. The biggest enemy of the personal rule was the Council of Elders, which was the executive ruling body in peacetime. But as history says the resistance of the elders was destroyed and the Despot of the state became the most important political body. Common ownership made the Despot an absolute master of the land, and correspondingly of the rest of the wealth of the society.
c) Council of Elders Creation of the state aristocracy
According to the blood tradition, elders belonged to one and the same family. The Council of elders, the executive ruling entity, made this position entirely heritable and the elders became nobles both in Rome and Athens. Centralization of political life of the society enabled nobles to govern land, because they had the extraordinary right to occupy ruling positions. As members of the society who had an access to the political power, they were automatically authorized to dispose with the wealth. As a result the Council of Elders became a Council of Nobles. The increasing power of the personal military despotism included political influence of the nobles. The despot could appoint anyone for a minister, and not only the origin-based aristocracy. As a result the blood aristocracy was replaced by state aristocracy that received its rights and privileges directly from the Despot, and not from the clan’s strictures.
5. Form of ruling
Common ownership of the land and concentration of the political power created inequality among the members of the society. A small group of people or even only one person could dispose with the wealth. We will call this form of ruling, based on the inequality in disposition with the sources of production “despotism”. Traditionally, totalitarian societies have as their basic principle the state form of ownership.
6. Social status
Common ownership relations delegated the right of disposition with the wealth to none in the society. This political right belonged to political bodies and not to social individuals. It was a professional and not a personal right. We see that individuals in this society were users and not owners of the land. As a result they had the social status of “subjects”, because the right of personal disposition with the land excluded them from political life.
7. Form of organization of the society
We can consider the process of state creation in a society based on common ownership completed when a personal leadership is established. The total concentration of the political power in the hands of only one person constituted a society based on common ownership relations. The ruling minority did not originate from the blood structures, but from the right to dispose with the land, because the new territorial units replaced clans. When a society is based on common ownership it causes only political tyranny due to inequality among the members of the society.
1. Form of organization of the society
a) The link between the form of social organization and social relations
Initially, humans formed the primitive group. It can not be treated as a form of social organization, because humans did not live in accordance with social laws, and therefore no society existed. The primitive group depended entirely on the rude laws of the nature.
Appearance of social laws led to the occurrence of the human society. The first form of social organization was based on private relations, established on the blood separation principle. We call it tribal form of social organization. This form of social organization was created when humans participated in only one type of relations, and quite naturally the principle of those relations became fundamental for the society.
The Agricultural Revolution gave a life of production and ownership relations. The new relations did not change the tribal form of the society. Therefore, we will call sexual relations “leading relations” and their principle a “basic principle” in the society.
Further development of social relations changed the form of social organization due to changes in the hierarchy of social relations. Ownership relations replaced the leading private relations. As a result the state occurred as a new form of social organization. The form of ownership, which was the basis of ownership relations, became fundamental for the state form of social organization.
So we can conclude:
1. The form of social organization is based on only one type of relations, and not on all relations that people participate in.
2. These relations, constituting the form of social organization are leading and their principle is fundamental in the society.
b) Forms of social organization
In its development the humanity knows only two types of social organization: the tribal and the state form, because there were only two types of leading relations: the private and the ownership relations.
The tribal form of social organization originated from private or the sexual relations. Its basic principle is the blood separation, and consequently the tribal form of social organization is identical for all human communities, since the prohibition of incest was a step made by all humans.
The state form of organization reflected ownership relations based on the form of ownership. There is, however, more than one form of ownership. Therefore, the state form of organization can not use one and the same basic principle. Humanity knows two types of ownership: the common state ownership and private ownership. These two forms of ownership represent two basic principles of the society and two principles for the establishment of ownership relations. These two different forms of ownership create different types of ownership relations and different types of states respectively.
We will know that there are two types of states, in accordance with the form of ownership, which is the basic principle of the state.
2. Forms of ruling
a) The link between the form of ruling and social relations
The form of ruling is also connected with the relations people participate in. In contrast the form of organization the form of ruling is constituted by the rights originating from relations, and not the principle on which the relations are based. As a result of the discovery of incest and its legal regulation, the social right of sexual contacts emerged. This right was given to all members of the society, and that is why ruling entities were open for all members of the society. The form of ruling was based on the equality of rights and we will call this primitive democracy, because it was based only on the rights based on private relations.
Emergence of production relations created the social right of labor application. Due to their physique only men participated in those relations, because they were able to breed cattle and to cultivate land. As a result an inequality appeared in the society, because men had one right more than women. On the basis of this inequality the society created ruling entities composed of men only. This form of ruling, originating from the inequality in production relations will be called military democracy.
Emergence of ownership relations created the social right of disposition with the social wealth or sources of production. This right depends entirely on the form of ownership. In the states based on common ownership the members of the society did not have the right of disposition with the social wealth. On the contrary, in the states based on private ownership the members of the society had the right to dispose with the sources of production. Thus, in accordance with the form of ownership humans had various rights in the different states. In these states based on common ownership, persons who had an access to the ruling entities had the right to dispose with the wealth, but only for the time they occupied ruling positions. The right to dispose with sources of production belonged only to the representatives of the state administration. At the same time the access to the ruling entities could be based only on private and production relations, but not on ownership relations. This inequality led to occurrence of despotism as a form of ruling in the states based on common ownership.
In the states based on private ownership the ruling entities included all members of the society, because they all had the right to dispose with the wealth. The form of ruling originating from private ownership relations will be called modern democracy, because it was based on the equality of social rights.
Conclusions are as follows:
1. Ruing entities and the form of ruling depend on rights ensuing from social relations.
2. The members of the society, who participate in all social relations, and therefore have all social rights, have a full access to the political power.
3. The form of ruling can be based only on the equality or inequality of social rights among the members of the society.
b) Forms of ruling
As it was mentioned, the form of ruling can be based only on the equality or the inequality among people. Thus the primitive democracy is based on the equality of sexual relations. On the contrary, the military democracy is based on the inequality of production relations.
We see that different forms of ownership create different rights. The private form of ownership delegates equal rights to all members of the society, while the common form of ownership provides the right of disposition with the wealth only to the ruling entities and their representatives respectively. That is why the state form of ownership creates inequality and its form of ruling is despotic. To this end, societies based on private form of ownership have democratic form of ruling as a result of the equality ensuing from the basic relations.
It can be concluded that the form of ruling depends on the form of ownership called also a basic principle of the society.
3. Social status of the members of the society
a) Social signs
The social status depends on social signs and social rights ensuing from social relations. As a result of private relations, based on the blood separation principle, each member of the society received a blood sign. Production relations determined the professional sign, and the ownership relations, based on the form of ownership principle the ownership sign.
These social signs form the social status of each member of the society.
b) The link between social signs, leading relations and social rights
We know that there are leading relations constituting the form of social organization, and their principle is fundamental for the society. To this end, the social sign and social right ensuing from leading relations will be more important than other social signs and rights. Therefore, the social status of each member of the society depends on the social signs and rights originating from leading relations.
c) Types of social status in accordance with the form of social organization
The tribal form of social organization was based on private relations and that is why the blood sign and social right of sexual contacts were of greatest importance. The rest of social signs and rights influenced to a much smaller degree the formation of the social status of the tribal society. Private relations delegated equal rights and signs to all members of the society and the social status can be defined as relatives’ equality. The emergence of production relations resulted in military democracy as a form of ruling. The fact that women did not participate in political life did not change their social status established by leading relations. Production relations were of second importance for the tribal society, and that is why at that level of social development men did not dominate over women in the family and in the society.
The state form of social organization is based on ownership relations, determined by the form of ownership. In the states based on common ownership the members of the society received the social sign of users, while the right to dispose with the wealth belonged to the ruling bodies of the state. The members of a society based on common ownership do not have the leading right of disposition with the wealth. Therefore, their social status can be defined as that of "subjects", i.e. unequal members of the society.
In states based on private ownership members of the society had the leading right of disposition with the wealth. Consequently, they received the social sign of owners. We can define the social status of the humans in a society based on private ownership as citizens, i.e. equal members of the society.
A conclusion could be drawn that the form of ownership determines the social status of the members of the society under the state form of organization.
1. The man and his existence
a) Natural existence
The man is a phenomenon in the nature due to his sense. What is the position of the man in the nature then? Even a phenomenon the man obeys the laws of nature and can not change them in any way. He can show his worth within the limits established by the nature. The relations established by the nature are predetermined and the man can not live as a fish or a bird. The nature’s status of the man is unchangeable and does not depend on him. Consequently, in his actions the man can not change his natural existence.
b) Social existence
In the society the man is in the center of a system of relations established by him. What is his performance in the social world? Laws regulating social relations are created by the man and may be changed by him. Therefore, the man can change his social existence.
c) Social nonexistence
Along with the existence there is nonexistence, which does not have material dimensions and appears only in the human conscious. Nonexistence originates from the human sense and is social by its nature. The social character of nonexistence is indisputable because everything connected with it concerns only communication among people, i.e. it concerns the performance of the man in the society.
The laws of nonexistence depends only on the sense of each individual.
2. Characteristics of existence and nonexistence
Let us have a look at the characteristics of the existence and nonexistence as they are situated in the human conscious.
- it is material by composition
- the man is its main element
- it is measured for a period of one human life
-it is nonmaterial by composition
- its main element is the nonmaterial soul
- it starts after death
3. Direction of the thought
a) Abilities for a change of existence
As it was said the man can reform its social existence by changing social laws. This can happen only if a man has an access to the political power and it depends on the basic principle of the state. No any person can change its social existence. Therefore, in compliance with the basic principles of the state some people can change their social existence, while other people can not.
b) Direction of aggregate social thought
In any society thoughts of the majority of the people form a common stream of thoughts, which can be called aggregate social thought. The direction of the aggregate social thought should be explored, because the thought is moving inside the human conscience and in every movement has a definite direction.
The natural movement of each thought is intended to show the worth of the man. Consequently, if a man can reform his existence the thought is directed to the civil world due to the possibility for a change of social laws. On the contrary, if a man can not reform his existence, thoughts are directed to nonexistence, i.e. out of his civil life, because laws of nonexistence are imaginary. Therefore, the thought determines its direction in accordance with the ability for a reformation of social existence. Finally, there are two types of thoughts according to their direction: existence or nonexistence. At the same time, their formation is directly dependent on the form of ownership, which determines the political system and social status of the man.
Let us see how the direction of aggregate social thought influences the ideology of the society.
Let us see how the opposite directions of existence and nonexistence form the ideology of religion.
a) Religions created by nonexistence thought
Following its direction the nonexistence thought seeks for immateriality, the death and soul. This direction creates the following key points of religious doctrines:
1. Nonmatter is initial, while the matter is second by appearance and importance.
2. Nonmaterial soul is the main object of religious action and stays higher than the material body.
3. Physical life is less important than death and is just a step to nonexistence.
As a result nonexistence was highly apprised and the stress falls on the death and nonmaterial world. On the contrary, physical existence was apprised in much smaller degree and the material life was lowered in the hierarchy of human conscience. Religious ceremonies are dark, long and heavy, and the religious trance was expressed in deeply humility and endless preys.
World religions created by the nonexistence thought are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Dead religions of ancient Egypt, Persia and Mesopotamia were also born by nonexistence thought.
b) Religions created by the existence thought
None of the nowadays world religions is created by the existence thought, but there is no doubt that religions of the ancient Greece and Rome originated from the existence thought. Their doctrine was an absolute antipode of the doctrine of nonexistence:
1. The matter is initial. Humans considered themselves as relatives of the Gods.
2. The material body was an extraordinary element of the religious behavior. The Olympic games were the greatest religious celebrations.
3. The material life was more important than death, because death itself meant a world of shadows and not a new life.
Consequently, religious celebrations stressed on joy, physical activity and social performance of the man, while death was of second importance.
Art is a result of the meeting between the material world and human thought. In the interaction between existence and thought, the existence appears as an object of a creative study on behalf of the thought, and the main subject of art is to display existence.
a) Interaction between social world and existence thought
As it was said material reality is subject to study. The existence thought is interested in the matter, physical man and real life. Thus, following its direction the existence thought explores the man and his life. As a result the man and his life are the main subjects of art created by the existence thought. Moreover, the man himself appears as a tool for expression of ideas. That is why art created by the existence thought can be characterized by the famous sentence: “The man is a measure of everything”.
This orientation creates an art that can be determined as “humanistic”, because its main object of study is the man as a phenomenon, and its main subject is the human’s performance.
b) Interaction between the social world and nonexistence thought
Following its direction the nonexistence thought does not seek for an object of inquiry in the social world. So, the nonexistence thought is oriented to the nature and nonexistence. That is why the object of study of the nonexistence thought will always be outside the social world, and outside the real human life respectively. Art created by the nonexistence thought is characterized by an extraordinary perfectionism of displaying the objects of the nature, and the human body is displayed most often as a primitive illustration. It is not a tool for expressing any ideas, or even feelings of the human soul. The literature of the non-existence thought stresses on the description of pictures and important events, beyond the problems of human life. This resulted in sculpture and architecture creating tiny or dark monumental strict forms. Therefore, the nonexistence art does not accept the man as its main object of exploration and human life as is its subject.
6. Behavior of the individual and realization of the thought
a) Existence thought
As it was said the existence thought is directly related to the ability for reformation of the social world. That is why the performance of the individual is oriented to the problems of the society. The ability to reform the society promotes the civil performance of individuals and the human being is acting as a social creature. So, the main objective of a society based on private ownership is improvement of the society itself. As a result civil performance is appreciated higher than anything else and the society focused on civil problems.
The biggest buildings of a private ownership society are usually for civil use: stadiums, theaters, bathrooms and etc.
b) Nonexistence thought
In a society where the nonexistence thought is leading, the ability for reformation is limited. That is why the states, which are based on common ownership are traditionally frozen societies. The inability to implement social reforms leads the human behavior into self-examination and self-improvement, which does not affect the social order. Asceticism was seriously encouraged and the stress was put on the struggle between the soul and the body. The doctrines of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism idealized rejection of the social world and encourage exploration of the soul. So, the humans are mainly connected with the Heaven. As a result in a society based on common ownership those rejecting absolutely material life were most highly appreciated people. The activity associated with every-day life of humans did not enjoy great appreciation. If a man built up a bridge he was applauded, but if a man spent 10 years in a cave just praying to the Heaven, he was proclaimed as a model of behavior. To this end, in those societies the feelings to the beloved woman are inferior in comparison with the feelings to God, i.e. the degree of love depends on the object of love.
Communist societies replaced the religion by an aggressive atheism and fearful political propaganda. Devotion to the communist ideology was treated the same way as the devotion to the Church.
Materialization of the nonexistence thought is expressed in the best way in art and construction. Nonexistence societies created mainly religious monuments like tombs, pyramids and temples and developed enormously theological culture.
As it was described the direction of thought is the most important feature of though and it is predetermined by the social world. Societies are changeable and unchangable by their type. If the members of the society have the legal right to reform their social laws the society is changeable, if they do not have the legal right of reforming the society, it is unchangeable. The aggregate social thought created by the changeable existence is material by its character, because the existence is material and its main goal is improvement of the society. The existence thought puts the man in the center of values’ scale in the society. As a result the humanistic culture appeared where the man is treated as a measure of beauty. The individuals’ behavior is definitely civil, because the work for the society is highly appreciated. At the same time, the religion focused on the real life, and the ideology of a society based on private ownership can be defined as “civil materialism”, because the matter is considered as the initial element and the social world is of primary importance.
Aggregate social thought created by the nonexistence thought is also material by its nature, but its main goal is not to change the social world. The direction of thought is oriented primarily to social nonexistence. The soul and the God are the core of the social nonexistence. As a result the man is not a measure of beauty in art, and he is used only as a simple illustration. The religious doctrine focuses on death and the performance of the individual is mainly occult. That is why the ideology of a society based on common ownership can be determined as “nonmatter occult”, because nonmatter is initial and nonexistence is of primary importance.
1. Social structure
a) A society based on private ownership
In the societies based on private ownership sources of production were apportioned among the members of the society, who had the right of disposition with the wealth. This means that sources of production were in a permanent circulation and private possession. The free exchange of sources of production resulted in a continuous redistribution of the social wealth. As a result the size and value of the private wealth changed very often. The continuous circulation of wealth led to the formation of new social groups possessing bigger or smaller part of the common wealth. We will call these social groups in the private ownership societies “classes”. Consequently, a society based on private ownership has a class structure and citizens are classified in accordance with their private wealth.
The most important feature of the class structure is the ability of every citizen to change its position in the class society. Even under the most primitive classification of poor and rich, none of rich citizens is protected against bankruptcy, and hence a class degradation. At the same time none of poor citizens is prevented from becoming rich.
b) A society based on common ownership
In a society based on state ownership, sources of production were possessed by the state and controlled by the state administration. The land as a main source of production was given only for use and the users could not dispose with it, i.e. farmers could not sell it. Consequently, mortgage was absolutely unknown in those societies. That is why the social wealth did not change its owner, and sources of production could not be redistributed as a result of economic activity.
Once established the state ownership enslaves the members of the society in a fixed wealth position. Moreover, the state ownership enslaves people to their jobs. Members of the society could not participate in free economic relations and change their jobs, since they did not have the right to dispose with sources of production. This was the way of creating professional groups, where the membership is usually heritable. If a farmer wanted to change the type of his economic activity he needed a permission by state authorities, since sources of production are not freely exchangeable. As a result the society had a blood-origin professional structure.
This structure is most clearly illustrated in the caste system of India, where every caste group had a different religious role. The hierarchy is one and the same for all totalitarian societies. Clerical representatives and the nobility occupied the highest position, while peasants are always in the bottom. Merchants, craftsmen and lower-level administrators occupied the middle position in the society.
Under the communist system members of the society are divided in accordance with their jobs and membership in the sole political party. Children of party leaders used to start their social career from much higher level than those who did not belong to the party nomenclature. The clear tendency of heritable social positions is absolutely inevitable in a society based on state ownership.
The social system of totalitarian societies usually provides privileges to higher social groups and determines legally the development of each man in the society. Actually, the privileges are more social rights, and first of all the right to dispose with the wealth.
2. Governance of the economy
a) Methods of governance
The state form of social organization is based on production, and sources of production are objects of the economic policy.
In states based on common ownership, the state is the owner of the sources of production. So, the only method of governance is the state monopoly on the sources of production. On the contrary, in states based on private ownership, the members of the society possess the sources of production and they can dispose with them. Therefore, the governance of the economy can be effected by exercising control over the sources of production.
b) Governance of economic agents
As it was said the newly created product is composed of two parts: for consumption and support of the production process. Due to labor division economic agents exchange the consumable part of the new product. In exchanging the consumable part of the product, the sources of production are also involved. If the state is an owner of the sources of production, it is also an owner of the newly created product. Governance of economic agents is based on the monopolistic right of the state to fix the prices of goods and to prohibit or fix the interest rate. All these measures lead to autarchy of the economic life and concentration of foreign trade in the hands of the state administration. In ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Japan the foreign trade was run by the state officials and the foreign traders lived in isolation. The Christianity and the Islam totally rejected the interest rate and lending of money is proclaimed as a big sin. The practice of the fair price is another confirmation of the state ownership on the new product. In this case the state officials or the local nobility fixed the price and this price rarely exceeded production costs.
The above mentioned features are typical of the communist economy as well.
On the contrary, economies based on private ownership may be ruled by exercising control over the exchange and economic agents. From the ancient time up to now the government officials have been authorized to put limitations but they could not fix prices or the interest rate. As a result economies based on private ownership are open, since trade is effected by independent economic agents.
3. Development of science
a) In a society based on common ownership.
As it was described these societies had caste structure based on labor division. That is why scientists formed a special social group deeply tied to the state authorities. In the ancient world priests performed the role of scientists. As a result science development was impeded because the achieved knowledge was considered as universal truth, which was unchangeable. The mixture between theology and science halted rationalism.
Consequently, in societies based on state ownership, science development and knowledge spread was a state monopoly. This fact coupled with the inability to dispose with the wealth hampered development of knowledge and progress correspondingly. The most illustrative example is China, which possessed all tools for the introduction of the Industrial Revolution but this was prevented by the state monopoly.
b) In a society based on private ownership
In societies where the wealth was apportioned among citizens, who had the right of disposition with the sources of production, every man could devote himself to science. Initially, science was called philosophy and studied the origin of the world. Knowledge was not a state monopoly, because science was a private business. As a result there were many scientific views, which were presented to the public. Anyone who could pay may receive any knowledge. The freedom of thought and private ownership on the sources of production boosted progress. The best example is Europe, which conquered the world due to private interests and civil science.
4. Development of art
a) In a society based on state ownership
In societies based on state ownership the state administration was the only source for financing art. The members of the society did not possess sources of production, and therefore were unable to finance art. Consequently, the state administration was the only client, and therefore art actually serviced the interests of the government. As a result art was used mainly for propaganda and illustration of political events. At the same time, the state was the only owner of the products of art and control the spread of art. Production and spread of art were under the state monopoly.
b) In states based on private ownership
In these states there were sufficient wealthy people to spend money on art. Consequently, artists depended on the interests of their clients who did not represent the state administration. The appearance of another mighty center for financing art, composed of free individuals, created the Western culture. Artists and their clients were free citizens who were able to finance art for themselves, and not for public propaganda. Due to this the theater and sports lost their initial religious nature and became civil events. Further development of art is directly related to the private ownership freedom, a reason behind the glorious art production of the West.
5. Religion and religious institutions
In the period of tribal form of social organization the leader of the tribe performed religious rituals. The religious doctrine was very simple and gave explanation about the position of the man in the cosmogony world. Actually, the religious life was under the supervision of the tribal meeting
a) In a society based on common ownership
The establishment of the state form of social organization having as its basic principle common ownership changed the order of religious life. As it was said the tribal meeting controlled observance of religious rules, but in states based on common ownership this institution disappeared. So the society needed a new institution to replace the tribal meeting in controlling the religious worship. That is why in states based on common ownership, special religious institutions and a social group of professional priests were created. The main purpose of the new institution was to develop the political part of the religious doctrine, i.e. the religion had to give an explanation about the political aspect of the society based on state ownership and despotic ruling. The redirection of religion from the cosmogony world to the social existence turned the religious institution into a political entity, as the religious explanation of the social world concerned mainly the political order. The social aspect of the religious doctrine proclaimed the political order and the form of ownership as given by the God. As a result the religious institution became a part of the state government. Moreover, as a political body the religious institution received the right of disposition with the wealth. Consequently, the temples became landowners.
The institutionalization of the religion and its transformation into a ruling entity created the dogmas.
World religions governed by various institutions with a great number of professional priests and enormous possessions of land were: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and the religions of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Among the above-mentioned religions there are some differences, which did not change their common concept. For example, Buddhist monasteries did not posses land but the whole civil society worked to support the worship.
b) In states based on private ownership
In a society based on private ownership the tribal meeting was replaced by the People’s meeting. As a result the execution of the religious worship remained a part of civil life. Due to the same reason the society did not need a political part of the religious doctrine. Until the establishment of the Roman Empire the religion concerned the fate of every man, but did not concern the political order. The power of the People’s meeting to appoint religious servants allowed the ancient religions of Rome and Greece to be free of professional priests, special religious institutions and dogmas.
The introduction of state ownership in the Western civilization changed the situation. The Christianity replaced original religions of private ownership societies. The new religion was created in the Orient and its distribution was a result of the introduction of the Oriental social order in the Roman Empire.
Following many centuries of dark ages the Western society returned again to its basic principle and private ownership. As a result a contradiction occurred between ownership relations and the form of religious organization. This marked the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and its first aim was to liquidate the political power of the Church. The second aim involved political independence from the Church, i.e. Protestants demanded for a civil control over the Church. These goals were achieved by confiscation of clerical estates and liquidation of monasteries.
Social processes developed along with economic relations, and finally the Church lost its political power and estates.
6. Cities and Architecture
As it was mentioned, a society based on private ownership usually had democratic ruling. Religious institutions had a civil nature or were separated from the government. These two features had extraordinary impact on architecture and construction.
Functioning of the democratic form of ruling required concentration of many people in one place. As a result the square (Forum, Agora) appeared in Rome and Greece. The square is the most characteristic feature of urban architecture in private ownership societies. On the contrary, societies based on common ownership did not need such big open places in towns where a lot of people could gather. That is why in Asia no squares were built up. Big open places existed only in the religious complexes or in palaces. The same was the situation in middle-aged Europe with its narrow streets without squares. The square revived in Europe as a result of the emergence of humanism and capitalism. The city square supposed a social life and political activity. That is why in societies where political freedom was absent there were no city squares.
In the field of construction the difference between societies based on different type of ownership was even greater. Societies based on private ownership preferred to invest in civil construction, while societies based on state ownership preferred to invest in propaganda buildings. In ancient times Greeks and Romans built up mainly stadiums, theaters, bathrooms and less temples, while the Oriental civilizations constructed only pyramids and temples. The Middle-aged Europe, the Muslim civilization and Buddhism built mainly temples.
The Protestant Revolution put an end to enormous religious construction.
Other important feature is the size of private construction. In ancient Roman towns archeologists discovered many big private buildings, while in Babylon they found manly small and poor houses. Actually, the only big buildings in societies based on common ownership were palaces of the aristocracy or the Despot. The Ottoman Empire is remarkable with the fact that there was no one big private building, because estates were not heritable, and therefore nobody was interested in construction.
In communist societies the biggest buildings were those of the communist party, because the party combined the civil and the ideological rule of the society.
A conclusion could be drawn that in societies based on private ownership civil buildings were the biggest, while in societies based on common ownership the biggest buildings were those built for ideological and propaganda purposes.
7. Marine activity
When we say marine activity, there should be understood overseas trade and colonization.
a) In a society based on private ownership
The nations which entered the history as marine nations are as follows: Phoenicians, Greeks, Vikings, North Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch and Englishmen. The only people who did not have a state, and therefore knew only clan’s ownership were Vikings. All other nations made marine activity as an official policy of the state. Greeks, Dutch and Englishmen had democratic ruling, North Italians and the Carthaginians had oligarchic ruling and Portuguese and Spaniards had despotic ruling. With the exception of Cretans all other nations established states based on private ownership relations. Spain and Portugal created their societies when the societies were in a process of transformation, but even in that case private ownership dominated the economic life. What was common for all marine nations is that the marine activity was realized by economically free persons who traveled, traded and colonized for their own account. The economic freedom was the first and most important reason in marine activity. To support this Greeks and Dutch imported timber material for the shipbuilding which shows that the geographic position and natural resources did not have a significant influence on the marine activity.
b) In a society based on common ownership
The development of marine activity in the states based on common ownership was impeded by the lack of economic freedom. So, in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Persia, the Arab Halifate, the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire the marine activity was a state monopoly. The lack of economic freedom explains why these states enlarged their land borders and did not initiate an overseas colonization. Marine activity supposed trade based on demand and supply, and not on the fair price principle. The state form of ownership and the state monopoly could be established only on mainland. That is why the great empires of the Orient never tried to conquer the Indian Ocean, although they had better navigation experience and greater resources than Europeans. So we can conclude that the most important condition in the marine activity is the economic freedom of citizens, which can be provided only by private ownership.
1. Historical development
The Roman Empire was the only big ancient state based on private ownership. The rest of the ancient world was based on common form of ownership. Actually, with the exception of Greek-Roman civilization private ownership on the agrarian land was absolutely unknown.
The late Roman Empire was saved due to the introduction of Christianity and the oriental methods of ruling the society, which finally changed the basic principle of the state. So, the Middle Ages are a historical period, when there was no one state based on private ownership. The new empires of the Orient inherited the well-known common ownership and did not reform the social order.
Despite many centuries of despotism, in some places of Europe states based on private ownership appeared. That is why this chapter will trace only the history of Europe, because this continent had the extraordinary fate of changing the form of ownership. The rest of the humanity, including the civilizations in South and North America remained frozen within the framework of the common form of ownership.
2. The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire
The Roman conquest of the Mediterranean zone posted the following question: How to rule the world? The Republic could rule Romans, but not the world. The immense size of the state, its enlargement and protection of the borders required permanent military readiness and personal responsibility. As a result ruling of Italy was assigned to the Roman Senate, and to the army and its commander: the Emperor. So, the Republic was sacrificed in the name of the enormously big state.
3. Transformation of the form of ownership
a) Establishment of a despotic form of ruling in the Roman Empire
If at the early years of the Roman Empire the Emperor ruled together with the Senate, two centuries later this was useless. The Emperor became an absolute master of the state. With the introduction of the oriental methods of ruling the society, Diocletian made a step which caused a transformation in the type of civilization of the Empire. Jobs became heritable, citizens became subjects and the traditional class structure disappeared.
These innovations in the Roman world entailed a new ideology.
b) The ideology of Christianity
Islam and Christianity originate from Judaism, which is connected with the ideology of the state monopoly in the Orient. Like all other oriental people the Jews did not know what private ownership was and considered the social wealth as ownership of God. As a result the Jewish religion contradicted the Roman taxation rules, which prompted anti-Roman uprisings. Initially, the followers of Jesus were only Jews, but later this sect broke its ethnic capsulation and became an international religious movement. When Constantine the Great made Christianity not equal only to other religions but a leading religion in the state, this religion prepared an ideology applicable to the Roman Empire. Christianity legalized the right of the Emperor to dispose personally with the social wealth and proclaimed personal ruling as a decision of God - One master on the Heavens one master on the Earth.
The introduction of Christianity put an end of the only ancient civilization based on private ownership and it may be concluded that the change in the form of ruling could cause a change in the form of ownership in the society. In previous chapters the form of ruling was described as a derivative of the form of ownership. Transformation of the form of ownership was as a result of the transformation in the form of ruling in the Roman Empire which was an unique event in the world history, because a state with democratic ruling based on common ownership never existed.
4. Emergence of new states in Europe
The Barbarians who settled in Europe inherited the social model of the late Roman Empire. Christianity eliminated the question about the choice of a form of ownership and all European states had almost common social structure. At the head of the state stayed a king, followed by the military nobles and a clerical social group, and quite normally, peasants occupied the lowest social level. The land was not heritable and was given for military purposes. This was typical of all societies based on common ownership, because estates did not belong to individuals. That was Europe from the 5-th century until the beginning of the 11-th century.
5. Emergence of private ownership
As it was said nobles did not own estates, but at the same time titles were heritable and the land was transferred to the next generation. Over time the land started to be treated as a private ownership and the king had to accept this fact and to cooperate with the military social group.
Another big achievement was the emergence of towns where private ownership relations dominated. As a result the right of private ownership became again a common social practice. Initially, a very small number of persons possessed this right and in fact the society was still based on common ownership.
The most rapidly developing part of Europe was Northern Italy, where towns received political independence and created small states based on private ownership. The introduction of private ownership relations progressed at different rates in various parts of Europe but the process was irreversible.
6. Cultural transformation
People living between the Alps and Rome were not subjects, but citizens and free economic relations created a class of wealthy persons, who could afford to pay for art, which corresponded to their private interests and not to the interest of religious dogmas. Rich people wanted to see themselves as an object and theme of art. Due to this reason artists’ look was turned to the man and human life. This event is known in the history as the Renascence. If the Greek-Roman civilization is taken into account, this was a real rebirth of the humanistic beginning in art, where the man is a measure of everything. Since that moment humanism became the general concept of the Western culture, because art studied all dimensions of the man and disregarded primitive illustration.
Spread of humanism in Europe is in direct connection with private ownership relations and the class social structure. The humanistic idea was born in Northern Italy as a result of economic and social changes in that region and not because of the ancient heritage or the Italian talent. At the same time in Southern Italy nothing was born due to the domination of the feudal system.
7. Reformation of the religious institution
As it was said societies based on common ownership created a special religious institution, which was a part of the political government and possessed significant estates and controlled a great number of professional clerical servants. The most important feature of this form of religious organization was the political aspect of the religious doctrine supporting the existing political order. In Western Europe the Church was not a simple political body, it was an institution which put itself above civil rulers. At the same time the Church was the biggest landowner on the continent and the clerical social group had better organization than any other social group. The power of the Church was indisputable. In the absence of private ownership relations, the trade was an insignificant branch of the economy and towns were very small. People depended economically on the Church and could not control expenses made or policy pursued by the Church. During the construction of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome the situation was absolutely different. There were big towns with expanding trade. Private ownership relations had changed the social structure not only in towns, but also in villages where many estates were in private hands. Economically free members of the society had a religious institution, which had been modeled to operate under common ownership relations and it was absolutely isolated from laymen. As a result a contradiction between the form of ownership and the form of religious organization occurred. Initially, the protest was absolutely moral, although its roots were entirely material. Burgers outlined several goals:
- control over the Church by laymen;
- confiscation of clerical estates;
- liquidation of monasteries;
- liquidation of the political doctrine of the Church.
Protestant Reformation covered all Western Europe with the exception of Italy, Spain and Portugal. Italy did not have financial and political interest to oppose the Pope, while Iberians were still fighting against Islam. In the rest of Europe, where there was no danger of Islam, the protest was very strong and the most distant countries left the Vatican hegemony. The Reformation was a natural result of private ownership relations which created a class of private owners. The Protestant model of religious organization was very similar to the ancient form of religious organization, because servants of the religious worship did not possess extraordinary powers, sizable estates and were under the control of laymen. Finally, Protestants changed the form of religious organization from a politically and economically independent institution into a modest and almost a civil institution.
Further development of capitalism in Europe eliminated the political power of the Vatican and diminished its estates.
8. Political reformation
The most important part of the Reformation was liquidation of the political doctrine of religion and settling the question of political power in the society. Consequently, after the cultural and religious reformation a political one came in turn. The problem with the political power in the society was directly tied to the religion. That is why the end of the Reformation marked the start of the political revolution. Dutch and English announced the origin of political power in national sovereignty, and although the political despotism became educated and humanistic its end was inevitable. The political order in Europe changed when France, the biggest state on the continent started its political reformation. The French Revolution affected the whole world and the wars made by Napoleon destroyed the old society.
1. Origin of political ideas
The existence of two forms of ownership as two basic principles of the state created two divergent political doctrines. The political doctrine based on private ownership supported free economic relations performed by free economic agents and democratic form of ruling. We will call it liberal democracy. The political doctrine based on state ownership supported the state monopoly, fair prices and despotic form of ruling. We will call it despotic monopoly. These two doctrines can be considered as classical ones, because they derived from the nature of the form of ownership. All other doctrines are a mixture of the two classical doctrines.
2. Types of political ideas
Political ideas can be divided into two types: applicable and inapplicable (utopian). Utopian ideas rejected the basic principle of the state. Thus Plato and Thomas More were utopians, because their ideas were based on state ownership societies and they propagandized their ideas in the states based on private ownership. Due to this contradiction their ideas proved inapplicable, since they required a radical change of the society. Due to the same reason Marxism is absolutely inapplicable in the Western world, because it also requires a change in the form of ownership. On the contrary, communism was applicable in Russia and China, because it was in compliance with the traditional form of ownership in those societies. Accordingly, fascism was applicable in Europe, since it did not reject private ownership. The political ideas which do not reject the traditional form of ownership are applicable and political ideas involving rejection of the traditional form of ownership prove inapplicable (utopian).
3. Reasons for the birth an spread of political ideas
The birth of any political doctrine is a natural result of the development of social relations and their reflection in the human conscious. A definite idea becomes socialized, when many people think in one and the same way and particular events take place when many people want them.
The first serious political doctrine different from the classical ones was the Principate of Roman Empire based on despotic ruling and private ownership. This doctrine was vital, since it guaranteed the protection of private ownership. Long lasting despotism and the consequent shift to the state ownership gave impetus to Christianity as a religion with its own political doctrine providing for despotic ruling and common ownership. That is why Christianity was also a political movement. As a result the Western world adopted the classical Eastern political doctrine involving despotism and state monopoly. When barbarians settled on the territory of the former Roman Empire they established a classical oriental society, where jobs were heritable, peasants belonged to the land and the state was the main landowner.
With the rebirth of private ownership in the Christian world, the political doctrine of the Church proved old-fashioned. The Protestant Reformation was a consequence of private ownership and it is a much more a political idea than a religious one. The Reformation changed the form of religious organization, but not the essence of the Christianity. The moral protest ended quite naturally with the shift of the sovereignty from the monarchy to the nation. The English and Dutch revolutions ended as political movements establishing civil societies. The idea of educated monarchy could not save the despotism against the interest of the nation. Actually, this was associated with the establishment of a civil society and did not become a serious political doctrine.
The establishment of colonial system and the involvement of nations in global economic life put the question about the world economic order. The first anti-national political doctrine born as a result of the contradiction between the national sovereignty and global economy was the communist ideology of Karl Marx. This doctrine was adopted only in societies with traditional state of tribal form of ownership. The Western world could not change its basic principle and communism was nothing but an intellectual utopia.
Fascism as a political doctrine is a real copy of the Roman Empire, pretending to be universal, with despotic ruling, proclaiming worship to the leader. As it was based on private ownership fascism became applicable in the Western world.
After the disruption of the colonial system in Asia and Africa many states adopted communism and later religious fundamentalism, which had common economic background. Private ownership is typical of these two continents because people there lived in tribal societies or states based on common ownership. Due to this reason modern liberal democracy does not have many followers as it does not comply with their cultural traditions. The form of ruling in some states is formally democratic, but actually the majority of people lived in accordance with religious and patriarchal dogmas. Individualism is an absolutely unknown model of social behavior in these states.
4. Emergence of fascism and communism
a) Reasons behind the emergence of communism and fascism
The great geographical discoveries, Industrial Revolution and colonial system created global economic life in the 19-th century. The most intensive economic processes took place in Western Europe, which was the political center of the world due to its colonies. In the 19-th century states in Western Europe were based on private ownership and parliamentarism. With the exception of the Austro-Hungarian Empire all other states constituted their political ruling on the principles of national sovereignty, which formed the idea of a national economy. At the same time, the universal process of economic integration put the question about the position of each nation in the world economy. The existence of national economies prevented liberalization of economic relations and transformation of national markets. The political doctrine of liberal democracy could not reduce national barriers, because democracy was entirely national, i.e. the form of ruling was based on national sovereignty. Therefore, liberalization of the national markets and the creation of a free international economy needed a new political doctrine. The political doctrines born as a result of inability of liberal democracy to eliminate national borders were communism and fascism.
b) Major goals
The major goal of these new political doctrines was the creation of a new economic and political order, which was to be absolutely different from the national liberalism.
Communism considered national economies as a consequence of capitalism based on private ownership. Therefore, liquidation of private ownership was the first step in eliminating national markets. The elimination of national economies and centralization of the economic life was aimed at eliminating the state as a form of organization of the society. The socialized economy was to be based on the planing of human needs and not on the market.
Fascism did not reject the state form of social organization and private ownership. Its major goal was the creation of a non-national state including many nations. The state was considered as a main investor and regulator of economic relations. As a result many big companies as Volkswagen in Germany and the film studio Chinechita in Italy were established.
c) Major social signs
Communism and fascism totally rejected national sovereignty, and the national citizenship respectively. As a result communism and fascism put forward international signs as class belonging and ethnic origin. Both new doctrines attacked the national citizenship and stressed on the class and ethnic differentiation.
d) Manner of implementation of social reform
New doctrines considered the revolution as the only tool to achieve their goals. The use of brutal power was considered normal. Human life was sacrificed in the name of a promising future.
e) Form of ruling
The rejection of national sovereignty means rejection of democratic ruling. Communists expected to replace it by collective dictatorship of the working class, while fascism relied on the unique role of the leaders in ruling all social groups. So, the worship to the leader is the core of the fascist doctrine which mirrored the worship to the Emperor in Rome. On the contrary, communist worship to a leader was a result of the common form of ownership and inevitable concentration of political, economic and military power in the hands of only one person.
5. Spread of fascism
The spread of fascism was possible only in states based traditionally on private ownership with a developed industrial sector or enough urban population. In states with existing tribal structures populated mainly by peasants the spread of fascism is impossible, since these societies did not participate in the global economy.
There were two possible decisions on the global economic order after the World War I. The first decision supported the colonial system and national economies. The second one proposed liberalization of national markets. England and France preserved the status quo prior to the War and due to this reason fascism became popular in Germany, Italy and Spain, since these countries experienced more heavily the lack of liberal economic relations.
The second reason for the spread of fascism was the lack of sound democratic traditions in the above states compared with England and France.
The preservation of the colonial system and close nature of national economies disrupted the universality of liberal democracy.
6. Reasons for the spread of racism and anti-Semitism
a) Spread of racism
Emergence of racism is a direct result of the economic, cultural and scientific progress made by Europeans on the basis of private ownership relations. For many centuries the white European race conquered and ruled the rest of the world. As a result Europeans were obsessed by the feeling of supremacy over the other races, which led to the appearance of theories explaining the progress by racial origin. For example, Winston Churchill classified nations and considered the British Empire as a natural state formation, where the Englishmen were foreordained to rule people in colonies, often called by him “baboons”. In the USA racism was legal and in 1890 a professor from the Colombian University said: “No human rights for barbarians.”
The racial theory of fascism was not a specific German product, it was a reflection of the public opinion of the Western world.
In many states there were no camps and gas cameras, but this does not mean that Western societies were tolerant. Actually, racism went along with ethnic nationalism which dominated in all Western societies. For example, the social-democratic governments in Scandinavia adopted a racial practice of almost obligatory sterilization of women considered as inferior because of their racial or social origin. It is absolutely shocking that this social policy was discontinued in Sweden in 1976.
b) Spread of the anti-Semitism
Anti-Semite reaction is typical only of the Christian world. Under the influence of this religion Europe has created anti-Jewish laws many centuries before Hitler. For example, first rulers of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabel, liquidated all Jewish communities on the territory of their kingdom. All over Europe crimes against Jews were ordinary events. Jews did not have a right to possess land. That is why they settled in towns dealing with trade or banking, which was forbidden for Christians. Due to this anti-Semitism was as popular as the Christian religion. The Enlightenment in the 18-th and 19-th centuries educated many people, but did not liquidate anti-Semite feelings.
7. Spread of communism
According to Karl Marx socialization of sources of production and the class victory had to take place in economically most developed countries. Actually, the communist revolution took place only in countries with a great number of peasant population, where industrialization had just started or was never effected. Unlike Marx’ predictions economically most developed societies, all based on private ownership did not provide a substantial social basis for a communist revolution. His ideas were considered utopian.
The communist revolution was victorious in:
- countries with traditional common ownership, populated by slave peasants: Russia and China;
- countries, where the tribal structures were more sound than state structures.
Consequently, the main idea of communism for socialization of sources of production was accepted only by societies for which private ownership was unknown. That is why the establishment of a communist farming with former slaves or members of a tribe was not difficult. So, communism was an ideology intended to create an industrial society based on common ownership.
Proletarian dictatorship as a despotic form of ruling was adopted easily in societies where despotism was the traditional form of ruling. In tribal societies despotism existed in the form of patriarchal relations. Given this communism was successful only in societies which were traditionally despotic.
8. Adoption of communism
The propaganda of communism is connected with the sovietization of Central and Eastern Europe. The nations in these countries reacted differently. The answer of this question can be found in their history for the last 500 years. During this period Chezchs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Polish and Germans were involved in private ownership relations and establishment of a civil society based on individualism. In other words, these nations had a social idea of a society and experience based on principles of the modern European civilization.
On the contrary, the nations of Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia had spent many centuries under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, where private ownership occurred for the first time in the middle of the 19-th century and the ideas of a democratic rule and citizenship equality were absolutely vague. When Stalin spread communism outside the Soviet Union, nations which belonged to the European civilization made several revolts or tried to revise the Orthodox line as Dubchek did.
Balkan nations met communism as the well known past, because the idea of personal freedom based on the private ownership did not have a long tradition. The economic and political system of the Ottoman Empire was absolutely identical with communism. Due to this the Balkan nations neither approved political leaders nor rejected the system as a whole. After the fall of the Berlin Wall all Balkan nations delayed in economic and political reforms, since these societies did not understand, and consequently could not adopt the principles of the Western civilization.
9. The origin of socialism
Generally, the left idea is a direct result of the feudal order or tribal solidarity. The master of the land was responsible for the survival. These relations created the idea of an inevitable obligation of the state administration to command economic processes and to ensure a job for everyone. The socialist doctrine unlike the liberal one, says that the government is obliged to find a job for individuals as the feudal master ensured jobs and food for its peasants. Given the lack of a feudal tradition, these ideas have never become popular in North America where the power of the individual is considered an engine of the society. At the same time, in the Old World and in Latin America the socialist or the populist ideas are very popular because in these societies people lived many centuries under the dependence of the masters of land which became a part of their culture. In the same way the leader of the tribe or the patriarch of the family organized clans or sons and grandsons and did not recognize personal differentiation.
1. Principles of interstate relations
The history of humanity during the last 5000 years is based on the hegemony of the bigger states over smaller states. So, the world order is predetermined by the balance of powers among different states. The most powerful state will dominate no matter the population of this state wants this domination or not. At the same time, the smallest states will seek for bigger friends in order to survive.
In respect of the existing balance of powers, there are three possible types of world order:
a) a hegemony state and its satellites;
b) a world state composed by the former hegemony and its satellites;
c) balance of powers, with no hegemony state.
The establishment of any type of world order depends entirely on the existing balance of powers, which is actually the main rule in the interstate relations. Each inequality among states immediately provokes hegemony.
2. About the power of the state
The power of each state depends on two factors: economic potential and social organization. The economic potential depends primarily on the state’s technological potential. Raw materials are of second importance, because from ancient times until now the raw materials have been transported from the mines to plants provided with high technologies for processing and further modification. Social organization is composed of two elements. The first one is the mechanism for managing sources of production and the second one is the administrative system of the state.
Personal qualities of political leaders are limited by the above-mentioned factors. The talent of a man can improve the values of the indexes, but cannot change the general disposition.
2. About war
War is the main instrument of the world order. All borders are made by force and are painted with blood, and all interstate unions are based on military power.
Modern war appeared when it became a regular business of the state. From ancient times the economic potential and the perfectness of the social organization have predetermined the end of every war. The human factor composed of bravery and military talent could win one battle, but not a war. The first ancient empires appeared on the most fertile lands of Egypt and Mesopotamia where there was a sufficient surplus of labor. This allowed for establishment of big armies, because war needs first money for arms and after that men to fight. The economic prosperity of ancient Greeks allowed them to built up a mighty fleet and to arm thousands of men for ground troops, which destroyed the united forces of the Orient. Patriotism is of second importance, because no one can fight with naked hands. The Macedonian hegemony in Greece was attributable to gold mines of the mountain of Pangey, which made Macedonia the richest state in the region. The conquest of Alexander the Great was based on the economic productivity of the Greek civilization and its better social organization. The Punic wars proved the supremacy of the state organization over the human factor. Hannibal had many victories in Italy, but finally he lost the war, because his military talent could not oppose the better state order of Rome. The conquest of horse barbarians was a result of their cattle farming and the personal despotism as a political system. The cavalry was very expensive, but they could afford it to much greater degree than crop farming civilizations. The Ottoman invasion in the 15-th and 16-th centuries relied entirely on the centralized state budget. Despite the most primitive mode of production the Sultan in Istanbul collected more taxes than any other ruler in Europe. That is why the religious phantasm can not be considered a serious explanation in history, since the Ottoman armies had one and the same religious feelings, when they conquered Constantinople and when they were defeated at the doors of Vienna. In modern times the Germans invented the Blitz Krieg, because they realized that Germany did not has enough resources to support a long war and all wars which continued longer than a year were lost by Germany. The American victory in the Cold War was predetermined by the higher productivity of its liberal economy.
1. Creation of the state
As it was said the creation of the state is a long and a difficult process, which started with the Agricultural Revolution passed through a labor surplus and finished with the introduction of taxes and the occurrence of executive power. Actually, the state appeared as a form of social organization with the legislative regulation of military service. When military service became a tax obligation, tribal structures disappeared and ownership relations became fundamental for the society. Tax burden depended entirely on the personal wealth of the members of the society. In societies based on private ownership the military tax classified the population in several ownership classes, while in societies based on common ownership it created a special caste of warriors, who were benefited with better estates. The society left its tribal structure and formed the state as a form of social organization when the army was formed as a result of tax regulation.
2. Basic principles in the society
Speaking about the form of ownership as a basic principle of the state, we should know that there are many societies in which the two forms of ownership are combined. In any case one of the forms of ownership is prevailing and determines the nature of the society. The application of private ownership on a part of the sources of production, or the heritable use of land, together with the right to sell it does not mean that the private ownership is a basic principle of the society. For example, in ancient Egypt temples bought land from soldiers. It does not mean that there was a free market of land because temples were state institutions and land trade was a simple transfer of land from one state department to another. In ancient Mesopotamia there was also a trade with land, but these cases were not typical of the society, because the local agrarian community controlled this process and every individual depended on the masters of the community. The lack of land mortgage relations explains the widely spread practice of home slavery in cases of debtor’s insolvency. In China the organization of land cultivation was very simple and entirely based on the common ownership. Eight families received 9 parts of land, the additional one belonged to the master. In Byzantine the Emperor could dispose with the whole land and in 996 the Emperor confiscated all estates acquired by the aristocracy in the previous 75 years.
Actually, in societies based on common ownership there are two types of control over sources of production: centralized and decentralized. In ancient Egypt control over land was highly centralized, while in Mesopotamia it was distributed among the king, temples and local elders. The Middle Aged Europe demonstrated total decentralization of land control. On the contrary, land control in the Ottoman Empire was an unique model of centralization. All the land belonged to the Sultan, who had apportioned it into many nonheritable estates. As a result nobody tried to build up a palace or a castle, because his children would not inherit the estate or even the right to use it.
In industrial societies based on common ownership, land control was strongly centralized and the state administration took all business decisions. Only in former Yugoslavia it was less centralized. The existence of limited private ownership was explained with the term “personal ownership”. This term was used in cases of smaller by size sources of production.
The best criterion of the basic principle of the society is the use of mortgage. It is not an achievement of science or culture, but it is the simplest tool of exchange under private ownership relations. That is why societies can be classified by use of mortgage relations. Where the people were users and not owners of the social wealth they could not secure credits with real estates or another collateral, although there were credit relations. The best criterion is the use of land mortgage. The frequency of using land collateral determines the type of the society and its possible development.
3. Social structure
From the time of ancient Rome and Athens until today, if sources of production have been a private ownership of the members of the society, the social classification is made on the basis of private wealth. All members of the society have had the basic right to dispose with sources of production and all other social differences are of second importance. So, on the basis of the private wealth people are divided into social groups called classes. What is very important for the class structure is the fact that representatives of various classes have equal rights and the richest people are able to pursue more intensive social activity, but they do not have privileges.
On the contrary, in societies based on common ownership the social structure is based on the caste system. If people can not be classified according to ownership relations, they are classified according to labor relations. The difference between the class and the caste is that the caste system is based on the inequality among members of the society, i.e. the members of the society have different social rights. Privileges of the highest castes are nothing but additional social rights. The social structure is a result of the form of ownership no matter what we talk about: communist nomenclature or middle aged aristocracy.
4. Form of ruling
The humanity knows two types of ruling – despotic and democratic. It is absolutely impossible to have a democratic despotism or despotic democracy. At the same time, despotism can be tolerant and educated, while democracy can be bloody and cruel. Social rights determine the form of ruling. If people have the right to dispose with sources of production or the right of private ownership sooner or later they will establish a democratic ruling. On the contrary, where this basic right does not exist, the democratic form of ruling is impossible and despotism is a natural form of ruling. That is why we can conclude that the right to dispose with sources of production determines the form of ruling, since this right provides access to the political power. In ancient Egypt the political struggle was between the priest and the pharaoh, because the land was apportioned between these institutions. In ancient Athens where all citizens had the right of private ownership the political life was a struggle between different ideas and classes.
The oligarchy is not a form of ruling, because the form of ruling is constituted on the basis of the form of ownership. The oligarchy is a small group, which dominates in the society, but in the different societies it has different origin. For example, in middle aged Europe, the rule can be considered an oligarchy, because only nobles could participate in the ruling of the state. This form of ruling is absolutely despotic, because of the origin of the ruling class. Another example of oligarchy were the states in North Italy. The govern of Venice was in the hands of nobles but it is considered a republic, because the political power of nobles was based on private ownership valid for all Venetians. In other words nobles protected the basic principle of freedom: private ownership which legalized their power. Limitations to the access to political power due to blood origin or size of private wealth is not necessarily associated with despotism or limitation of freedom. Actually, oligarchy existed in small town states where several persons could gain a significant influence due to the size of their private wealth or military talent. Oligarchy was absolutely unknown in states with plenty of lands and a great number of population; it is typical only of small town states of merchants and craftsmen. Consequently, the idea of oligarchy is applicable only to small states based on private ownership, where a small group of people can dominate the political life. We can conclude that oligarchy is despotism or democracy based on limited access to political power. It depends entirely on the form of ownership. Where the state is the main owner, a democratic rule is impossible, and if there is private ownership and a cruel dictatorship, democratization is inevitable. So the form of ruling originates from the form of ownership. Despotism is a natural form of ruling in states based on common ownership, while democracy is a natural form of ruling in states based on private ownership.
5. Religion and religious institutions
In societies based on private ownership citizens could change social laws and due to this their religions had a matter nature. The matter was considered as the initial element, life was more important than death, the human body and physical actions expressed the ideas of the Heaven.
When primitive democracy was replaced by modern democracy, the religion remained under the civil supervision and People’s meetings elected priests. As a result religions of societies based on private ownership did not develop doctrines concerning the place of the man in a society and the God was not involved in the political order. The civil supervision prevented the appearance of dogmas and a social group of professional priests. Actually, the service of religious worship had a civil character.
In societies based on common ownership the nonmatter thought dominated and gave a birth of the religious ideology. Death was more important than real life, the nonmater was the initial element and spiritualism was paid much more attention than the civil activity. The imaginerial nonmatter performance of the soul occupied a key place in the pattern of religious activity, while the physical body of the human did not bear anything holy. When the People’s meeting disappeared in societies based on common ownership the supervision on the religious worship was delegated to special religious institutions. As a result the religions of societies based on common ownership developed social doctrines, i.e. the Heaven was involved in the explanation of the social order. The religious institution was a part of the state ruling and it had the basic right to dispose with sources of production, which made the temples big landowners. In many societies the clerical caste possessed more political power than civil rulers. The great number of professional priests and monks was a natural result of the institutionalization of the religion as a part of the state administration.
From all religions based on the common ownership only Christianity underwent Reformation, a result of the change of the form of ownership in Europe. The Protestant Reformation changed the form of religious organization. The Church had to give up its social doctrine, leave its sizable estates and diminish the number of its professionals. The total victory of private ownership entirely separated the church from the state and liquidated its link with the political power.
In societies based on private ownership art served independent people who were interested in their own life. Art was entirely dedicated to material life, where the man occupied a central position. The matter thought created the humanistic art where the man is a measure of everything. Humanism itself is a result of personal freedom, which originated from financial independence guaranteed by private ownership. Social individualism gave a birth of the theater, opera, ballet, literature. The existence of independent sources for financing art is the main reason behind the rapid development of the Western culture. When we speak about European Renaissance and Creek-Roman culture we should note that the Cultural Revolution in Northern Italy was based on capitalism and not on the ancient heritage. Michaelanjelo was a product of social relations, which formed the general direction of the Western civilization.
In societies based on state ownership art developed under the severe control of the state. The essence of this policy can be illustrated with Lenin’s words: “Cinema is the most important art for us”. The state control liquidates creative freedom and predetermines its propaganda character. Cinema is the most important art not because of its ability to combine picture, sound and motion but due to its extraordinary ability to influence the conscious of masses. The political power considers the art as an instrument for propaganda. That is why from the time of ancient Egypt until now all over the world if the state is the main sponsor of the art, it serves mainly to the official policy. As a result art in societies based on common ownership has never studied the man as a phenomenon, but only as a social animal: a peasant, a worker, a king and etc. In any case the choice of the object and its treatment is a right of the state. These limitations prevented the birth of theater, opera or ballet because there were no private sources of financing. The state monopoly on art causes a serious deficiency of new art forms and has a nonhumanistic character.
7. The world order and the role of a single person in the history
a) The world order
As it was said the balance of powers predetermines the behavior of each state, and therefore forms the world order. If one state possesses bigger potential than its neighbors, this state will dominate and establish hegemony. Due to this the establishment of empires is a natural process, where the smallest states are engulfed or totally controlled by the hegemony state. Roman satellites became provinces, because there was no state that could oppose the Roman influence in the Mediterranean. The world empire is an old-fashioned form of world order and is absolutely inapplicable to the modern world. Nowadays hegemony states form alliances. The Cold War was a good example of this type of world order, where the hegemony state controls its satellites and directs the policy of the alliance. The extraordinary position of the USA is a result of the lack of other state which is enough powerful to form an opposing alliance. The economic potential of Europe is bigger, but this continent is terribly disunited in many states, and hence they are all gathered around the USA.
b) The role of a single person in interstate relations
The balance of powers predetermines the behavior of each state, and therefore forms the national policy. A poor or a small state will never try to dominate or to establish hegemony. The politicians make their decisions in compliance with the potential of the state and the opposite is absolutely impossible. Politicians of weak states will always seek for a support from a big one or will try to participate in an alliance with a powerful country. On the contrary, politicians of a powerful state will try to establish a hegemony in order to determine the world order.
The natural processes originating from the potential of the state determine the role of the single person in interstate relations.
To this end, the creation of the Roman Empire was not a personal deed of Caesar, but a result of the Roman power. If not Caesar, some other roman ruler would conquer Galia. Napoleon fought because France was the biggest state in Western Europe and his policy was a continuation of the French expansion started with the centralization of France. In other words, Napoleon’s actions reflected the balance of powers in Western Europe at that time, because only France was able to arm and support 200,000 soldiers. Due to the same reason it will be naive to say that Hitler alone provoked the World War II. The egoistic system created after the World War I forced Germans to revise it. The power of Italy allowed Mussolini to conquer only Ethiopia, but not to change the entire world order. Stalin expanded the territory of communism, because nobody could stop him to do that in Central Europe.
The Perestroyka in the USSR started as a result of the economic crises of the system and was not a result of Gorbachov’s generosity. The USSR lost the Cold War and the Berlin Wall fell. So, we can conclude that a single person can not influence the history. On the contrary, the person is influenced by the general trends in interstate relations.
c) The role of the person in domestic relations
The form of ownership determines the political order and processes in any society. Private ownership prompted the democratic rule in Rome and Athens but not reforms of Serves Tulius or Solon. The introduction of the Christianity in the Roman Empire was a result of the social reforms undertaken by Diocletian, related to the form of ownership and the social structure. At the same time, Diocletian followed the general idea of preserving the state by changing the social order. In this case the dream of Constantine the Great coincided with the tendencies in social processes. Actually, he could not stop them. The Humanism and Renaissance were a result of the establishment of capitalism in Northern Italy. The genotype of people in Florence was not better than that of other Italians, but this town gave more talents due to its liberal atmosphere, a result of the private prosperity and democratic order. Martin Luther was not a father of the Reformation, he had expressed the opinion of many people. Proclamation of the national sovereignty by the Dutch Protestants showed that the moral protest against the institutional organization of the religion was just a part of the total reconstruction of the society. That is why we can consider that social processes form political ideas. Fascism and communism were a result of the contradiction between the global economy and national economies. Consequently, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin planned a world conquest intending to liquidate states based on liberal democracy. These leaders succeeded in occupying the political power because too many people supported their ideas. For example, Lenin made his revolution when he received more than 50% of the votes in the soldiers'’ committees which ruled Russia at that time. The word “Bolshevik” originates from the Russian word for majority. A conclusion may be drawn that the human conscious and actions reflect social laws and processes.
After the World War I 99% of Europeans could not imagine and understand the benefits of a pan-European market and currency. And after many people died the public opinion in Western Europe accepted liberalism and Europeans made the first steps in limiting national sovereignty.
The anti-Semitism in Europe is a result of 17-century Christian propaganda and due to this it is senseless to accuse only Hitler for gas cameras. A definite idea becomes a social one when too many people think in one and the same way and a definite event happens, when many people want it. Millions of Jews were killed because millions of Europeans hated them and not only because Hitler was mad.
Social processes are not influenced by a single person. Social processes developed with the speed of the human conscious and every generation makes one step. In the ancient world Romans needed centuries and several civil wars until they gave roman citizenship to all Italians. In North America racial separation was liquidated just 30 years ago. And Europeans needed centuries and terrible wars to understand that the idea of a national economy absolutely contradicts the private initiative.
XV. FORECAST FOR THE FIRST PART OF THE NEW CENTURY
a) North America
Liberal North America will continue to be the most attractive social model on the planet. Cosmopolitanism will remain the official policy of this region, and therefore the USA will be the absolute world leader during the first half of the coming century.
Probably, the most important event in the first half of the coming century will be the further development of the European integration. This process has only one possible direction: abolishment of the national sovereignty. Europeans have made several important steps to create the basis for the most successful political and military integration. Sooner or later the national armies in Europe will be liquidated and a pan-European professional conventional army will replace them. This step will post the question about the formation of a centralized political government of Europe. The importance of national parliaments will diminish because the decisions of the pan-European institutions will be of primary importance. Probably, Europe will be transformed into a centralized confederation.
Elimination of the national markets will change radically the social model of Europe. First of all the so-called “social state” will disappear and will be replaced by personalization of the tax system. Another important event will be liberalization of emigrant legislation. Decreasing birth rates in Europe will impede economic growth. That is why the only way out is a mechanical increase of active population.
Post-communist countries will join the European Union in three waves. The classification of the countries can be made according to their civilization orientation during the last 500 years. The first group consists of countries traditionally belonging to the Western civilization: Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and the Baltic countries. These countries will be integrated in Europe much easier, because these nations had traditionally participated in private ownership relations until the World War II.
The second group includes the countries from the Southeastern Europe or the Balkans. These nations had been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, where private ownership was absolutely unknown until the middle of the 19-th century. Balkan nations do not have the business and political culture of the first group of countries. Their European integration will be delayed due to formal understanding of democracy and market economy. A very good example of formal democracy is the formation of the Bulgarian Parliament. The Bulgarian election system is proportional and the Bulgarians vote for political parties and not for persons. During the formation of the government many parliament members leave the Parliament and occupy key positions in the government administration. In that case other persons appointed by the respective political party replace them. So, in the Bulgarian Parliament there are many parliament members who are elected by the political leaders and not by free election. The same formal attitude exists toward economic reform where the government still uses such terms as “natural monopoly” and etc. Given these reasons the Balkan countries will develop at a slower pace in comparison with the first group of countries.
The third group includes Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia. Nations of these countries have faced for the first time in their history private ownership relations and free civil life. Their European integration will need the change of at least one or two generations. Actually, these countries will stabilize politically when the political class is composed of people who have never lived in a communist society. It should be noted that their integration will make Europe superpower, because Russia can play an important role only as European and not as a single global power.
The Euro-integration of Turkey will be delayed due to serious social and regional differences. Most probably, Turkey will join Europe after other Balkan countries and only after the ethnic problem with Kurds has been solved.
c) Japan and Korea
During the coming century these societies will become much more liberal and opened to the world. Capitalism leads inevitably to individualism, so most probably the Japanese traditionalism will be replaced by a type of western social behavior.
The change of generations in North Korea will post the question about reunification with the capitalist South Korea. Reunification of Korea will be a more difficult process than that of Germany due to the primitive social order in North Korea.
2. Latin America
If we want to understand the different historical development of South and North America we have to study various colonial systems. British colonies were composed of economically free people who created family farms, i.e. the British colonial system was based on the private initiative of every colonist. At the same time, the colonial economy of Spain and Portugal was based on big farms operating as feudal estates, i.e. the private initiative was not the engine of the economy in South America. For example, until 1850 Africa gave 500,000 slaves to North America and 14,000,000 to South America. Due to this liberal ideas could not find a social base in the post-colonial world in the South of Texas. No civil society was established in Latin America, which impeded its development. This region was socially imbalanced and deeply inclined to populism and dictatorship.
In the beginning of the century Latin America saw a new phase of its development. Although there are some social differences in individual countries it may be assumed that the time of serious political and economic destabilization is over. Most probably, South America’s countries will follow the model of European integration, while the northern countries (Panama and Mexico) will be orientated towards the USA. The rate of integration will develop at a slower pace in comparison with Europe due to the weak economic basis and poor political culture. Generally, South America has the ability to play more important international role in the long run.
3. The Arab world, Pakistan and Iran
This world belongs to the Oriental civilization, where the ruler is a master of the land and life of people. Common or the state form of ownership is the traditional one. The main sources of production are under the control of the state and widely spread retail trade cannot change the state monopoly in economic relations. The land mortgage is absolutely unknown as a business practice.
The core of this society is the traditional patriarchal model of life institutionalized by the Muslim religion. Patriarchal family structures are more powerful than the institutions of the modern state. At the same time, this world knows only despotism as a form of ruling. That is why these countries are inable to corroborate with the rich Western world. The patriarchal traditions impede the development of the individual economic and political practice. Actually, these societies could afford only partial adoption of the modern civilization. This world does not understand that the power of the West is based on the freedom of the person and not on high technologies. Given this democracy and free market economy are inapplicable in the patriarchal societies.
The traditional caste system is still more powerful than civil laws and most people live in the same way as they lived prior to the birth of Buddha. The vitality of the castes may be explained by the fact that this system is also religious. Therefore, the political power and national wealth are in the hands of the higher castes. The bulk of people continue to live the same way and the Indian society will not change its traditional structure. Therefore, no one can expect that India will play a serious role in world affairs.
This state will continue its modernization, but this policy will face a number of problems, originating from the overpopulation of China. First, market-driven reform has not been implemented in the whole country and are concentrated in several regions. As a result a serious part of the population is practically isolated from reforms. This causes regional differences resulting in dramatic imbalances. Second, there will be a serious social differentiation, which will oppose the wealthy minority against the poor majority. The lack of a middle class is a destabilizing factor.
Democratization of the country will be a very delicate question, not for the USA but for China itself. Nobody can prevent an “Albanian scenario” in case of economic failure. That is why the West should speak more reasonably about human rights and should stress on long-term stability. The immediate introduction of democracy is impossible and it will be an experiment with the humanity, which can threaten the existence of the state of China or can seriously damage it.
6. South Eastern Asia
This region is multiethnic, multireligeous, tribal, patriarchal and with very strong regional and social differences. Most probably this region will be unable to escape from the totalitarian ruling. At the same time, the economic crises in the region were caused by the political despotism, which controls the economic life. So, the Asian crisis in 1998 showed the weakness of the political tyranny. Most probably, the strong political influence on business will continue and this will halt further development of the region.
7. Caucasus and Middle Asia: former Soviet republics
These countries have typical patriarchal traditions and despotism. Therefore, it can not be expected that they will make a rapid progress in their development. Political regimes established by former communist leaders cannot guarantee a long-term stability.
8. Black Africa
The African society has a typical tribal structure. As a result in all Africa’s countries political and economic power is in the hands of the tribal aristocracy.
The strong left orientation of post-colonial period was a normal reaction against former colonizers and their private ownership culture. The left ideology based on common ownership and collectivism preserved the political and the economic power in the hands of the tribal aristocracy. For example, the most famous black political leader Nelson Mandela wanted to give voting rights to the 14-year old children.
The tribal structures absolutely contradict the individualism and free economic initiative. During the new century this continent will remain very poor and will continue to lag behind its economic and social development. The modern civilization will not find a basis for its establishment on this continent.