On the Origin of Society
or
the Impact of the form of
Ownership on History
Written by Miroslav Zlatev
ISBN 954-799-805-6
Contact: mzlatev@abv.bg
INTRODUCTION
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.
II.DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMAN SOCIETY PRIOR THE AGRICULTURAL
REVOLUTION
III. THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION
IV.CHANGES IN THE SOCIETY AFTER THE AGRICULTURAL
REVOLUTION
VI. CREATION OF THE STATE IN SOCIETIES BASED ON PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP
VII. CREATION OF THE STATE IN SOCIETIES BASED ON COMMON
OWNERSHIP
IX. FORMATION OF IDEOLOGY OF THE SOCIETY
X. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOCIETY
XI. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIETY
XII.APPEARANCE AND SPREAD OF THE POLITICAL IDEAS
XV. FORECAST FOR THE NEW CENTURY
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.
II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMAN SOCIETY PRIOR TO THE AGRICULTURAL
REVOLUTION
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.
2. Matriarchy
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.
III. THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION
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.
5. Production
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.
IV. CHANGES IN THE SOCIETY AFTER THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION
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.
VI. CREATION OF THE STATE IN SOCIETIES BASED ON PRIVATE 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.
VII. CREATION OF THE STATE IN A SOCIETY BASED ON COMMON 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.
IX. FORMATION OF IDEOLOGY OF THE SOCIETY
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.
a) Existence
- it is material by composition
- the man is its main element
- it is measured for a period of one human life
b) Nonexistence
-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.
4. Religion
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.
5. Art
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.
6. Summary
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.
X. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOCIETY
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.
XI. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIETY
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.
XII. APPEARANCE AND SPREAD OF POLITICAL IDEAS
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.
6. Art
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
1. North America, Europe, Japan and Korea
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.
b) Europe
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.
4. India
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.
5. China
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.