07.03.2020

Crisis theory. Theories of the origin of the state The crisis theory of the origin of the state is

Crisis theory

This concept uses new knowledge and focuses on organizational functions primary city-states, on the relationship between the origin of the state and the formation of a producing economy. At the same time, special importance is attached to the major ecological crisis at the turn of the Neolithic revolution, the transition at this stage to a producing economy and, above all, breeding activity.

The theory takes into account both large, generally significant crises and local crises, for example those that underlie revolutions (French, October, etc.).

Demographic theory

Then a surplus product appeared, stimulating the development of crafts, which means that administration became necessary to manage and divide resources.

The level of organization grew accordingly, along with the size of the settlement.

The formation of a state is always determined by the growth of the population living in a certain territory, which needs to be managed.

Economic theory

The author of this theory is Plato, who explained the reasons for the emergence of the state by the social division of labor. According to this theory, the state is the result of historical progress. It is changes in the economic field that lead to the formation of a state.

The emergence of the state is preceded by the appropriation of natural products by man, and then, using the most primitive tools of labor, man proceeds to the production of products for consumption. The initial stage of development gives way to the theological, covering the times of antiquity and feudalism, and then comes the metaphysical stage (according to Saint-Simon, the period of the bourgeois world order). Following it, a positive stage will begin, when a system will be established that will make “the lives of the people who make up the majority of society the happiest, providing them with maximum means and opportunities to satisfy their most important needs.” If at the first stage of the development of society dominance belonged to the elders and leaders, at the second to priests and feudal lords, at the third to lawyers and metaphysicians, then it should pass to industrialists and, finally, scientists. This is one of the most logical and plausible theories, if we take into account other factors, psychological, ideological, etc.

Diffusion theory

According to this theory, experience state-legal life is transferred from developed countries to backward regions.

As a result, a new state arises, the experience of which will be useful in the future (Grebner).

This theory does not explain why or how the first state appeared.

Specialization theory

The initial premise of the theory. The basis of the proposed theory of the origin of the state is the following thesis: the law of specialization is a universal law of development of the surrounding world. Specialization is inherent in the world of biology. The appearance of various cells, and then various organs, in a living organism is the result of specialization. Again for this reason, i.e. depending on the degree of specialization of its cells, the organism occupies a place in the biological hierarchy: the more specialized its functions are, the higher its place in the biological world, the better adapted it is to life.

IN social world The law of specialization also operates, and here it is even more intensified.

As soon as a person showed himself to be something different from animals, he almost immediately embarked on the path of social specialization (T.V. Kashanina).

Management (organizational) theory

The main factor in the formation of the state is the unification of a society under stress.

In particular, as the population increases, the need for unification may increase so much that it will give rise to the emergence of management structures.

Internal Conflict Theory

In accordance with this theory, the formation of the state occurred through the collapse of primitive relations and the division of society into classes with opposite interests. The resulting inequality was reinforced by law.

Thus, at the heart of the complication of society was a class conflict, to suppress which governing bodies and the army were created and power was consolidated.

The state is a product of the division of society into two classes: producers and managers (L. Krader).

External Conflict Theory

The essence of the theory is that due to bad conditions in life, conflicts arose over resources, and victory went to groups with strong leaders. The conquest of lands enriched the elite and consolidated the power of the leaders.

Synthetic theory

This theory of the origin of the state emphasizes factors such as the influence of agriculture on social organization, which in turn affects craft production.

Two types of processes occupy an important place in this theory: centralization and segregation.

Centralization is the degree of communication between various subsystems, which determines the most high level control in society. Segregation is an expression of internal diversity and specialization of subsystems.

Libertarian legal theory

This theory proceeds from the fact that law is a form of relations of equality, freedom and justice, based on the principle of formal equality. Accordingly, the state is a legal state that expresses freedom and justice. According to this theory, law and the state arise, function, develop and still exist and act as two interconnected components of a single entity in their essence. social life.

According to the crisis theory (its author is Professor A.B. Vengerov), the state arises as a result of the so-called Neolithic revolution - the transition of humanity from an appropriating economy to a producing economy. This transition, according to A.B. Vengerov was called an ecological crisis (hence the name of the theory), which arose approximately 10-12 thousand years ago. Global climate change on Earth, the extinction of mammoths, woolly rhinoceroses, cave bears and other megafauna have threatened the existence of humanity as a biological species. Having managed to get out of the environmental crisis through the transition to a producing economy, humanity has rebuilt its entire social and economic organization. This led to the stratification of society, the emergence of classes and the emergence of the state, which was supposed to ensure the functioning of the producing economy, new forms labor activity, the very existence of humanity in new conditions.

3. Reasons for the diversity of doctrines on the origin of the state

There are many different opinions, assumptions, hypotheses and theories regarding the issue of the origin of the state. This diversity is due to a number of reasons.

Firstly, the scientists and thinkers who took up the resolution of this issue lived in completely different historical eras. They had at their disposal a different amount of knowledge accumulated by humanity at the time of the creation of this or that theory. However, many judgments of ancient thinkers are relevant and valid to this day.

Secondly, when explaining the process of the emergence of a state, scientists took for consideration a specific region of the planet, with its originality and special ethnocultural features. At the same time, scientists did not take into account similar features of other regions.

Thirdly, the human factor cannot be completely excluded. The views of the authors of the theories were in many ways a kind of mirror of the time in which they lived. The theories put forward by the authors were influenced by their own personal, ideological and philosophical biases.

Fourthly, scientists sometimes, acting under the influence of various other sciences, thought one-sidedly, excessively illustrating some factors and ignoring others. Thus, their theories turned out to be rather one-sided and could not fully reveal the essence of the process of the origin of the state.

However, one way or another, the creators of the theories sincerely sought to find an explanation for the process of the emergence of the state.

Formation of the state different nations went in different ways. This also led to a large number of different points of view in explaining the reasons for the emergence of the state.

Most scientists proceed from the fact that the emergence of the state cannot be associated with only one factor, namely, a complex of factors, objective processes taking place in society, determined the emergence of a state organization.

When considering the problems of the emergence of a state, it is important to take into account that the process of the emergence of a state itself is far from ambiguous. On the one hand, it is necessary to distinguish the process of the initial emergence of the state in the public arena. This is the process of forming state-legal phenomena, institutions and institutions on the basis of pre-state and, accordingly, pre-legal phenomena, institutions and institutions that decomposed as society developed.

On the other hand, it is necessary to highlight the process of emergence and development of new state-legal phenomena, institutions and institutions on the basis of previously existing, but for some reason state-legal phenomena, institutions and institutions that have left the socio-political scene.

Thus, there have always been many different theories in the world that explain the process of the emergence and development of the state. This is quite natural and understandable, because each of them reflects either different views and judgments of different groups, layers, classes, nations and other social communities on a given process, or - views and judgments of the same social community on various aspects this process emergence and development of the state. These views and judgments have always been based on various economic, financial, political and other interests. We are talking not only about class interests and the contradictions associated with them, as has been argued for a long time in our domestic and partly in foreign literature. The question is much broader. This refers to the entire spectrum of interests and contradictions existing in society that have a direct or indirect impact on the process of emergence, formation and development of the state.

During the existence of legal, philosophical and political science, dozens of different theories and doctrines have been created. Hundreds, if not thousands, of conflicting assumptions have been made. At the same time, debates about the nature of the state, the causes, origins and conditions of its emergence continue to this day.

The reasons and the numerous theories generated by them are as follows. Firstly, in the complexity and versatility of the very process of the origin of the state and the objectively existing difficulties of its adequate perception. Secondly, the inevitability of different subjective perceptions of this process on the part of researchers, due to their divergent and sometimes contradictory economic, political and other views and interests. Thirdly, in the deliberate distortion of the process of the initial or subsequent (based on a pre-existing state), the emergence of a state-legal system due to opportunistic or other considerations. And, fourthly, in the intentional or unintentional admission of confusion in a number of cases of the process of the emergence of a state with other adjacent processes related to it.

The first form of human life activity in the history of mankind, covering the era from the appearance of man to the formation of the state, was primitive society.

Legal science uses archaeological periodization, which distinguishes in the development primitive society two main stages: the stage of the appropriating economy and the stage of the producing economy, between which lay an important the turn of the Neolithic revolution.

For a considerable time, man lived in the form of a primitive herd, and then through the clan community, its decomposition led to the formation of a state.

During the period of the appropriating economy man was content with what nature gave him, therefore he was mainly engaged in gathering, hunting, fishing, and also used natural materials- stones and sticks.

Form of social organization primitive society was tribal community, i.e., a community (association) of people based on consanguinity and leading a joint household. The clan community united several generations - parents, young men and women and their children. The family community was headed by the most authoritative, wise, experienced food providers, experts in customs and rituals (leaders). Thus, the clan community was private, and not a territorial union of people. Family communities united into larger entities - clan associations, tribes, tribal unions. These formations were also based on blood relationships. The purpose of such associations was protection from external attack, organization of hikes, collective hunting, etc.

A feature of primitive communities was a nomadic way of life and a strictly fixed system gender and age division of labor, i.e., a strict distribution of functions for the life support of the community. Gradually, group marriage was replaced by pair marriage, a ban on incest, since it led to the birth of inferior people.

At the first stage of primitive society, management in the community was built on the principles natural self-government, that is, the form that corresponded to the level of human development. Power carried public character, since it came from the community, which itself formed self-government bodies. The community as a whole was the source of power, and its members directly exercised the fullness of the latter.

The following institutions of power existed in the primitive community:

a) leader (leader, leader);

b) council of elders;

c) a general meeting of all adult members of the community, which decided the most important questions life.

The main features of power in primitive society– this is election, turnover, urgency, lack of privileges, public character. Power under tribal system was consistently democratic in nature, which was possible in the absence of any property differences between members of the community, the presence of complete de facto equality, the unity of needs and interests of all members.

At the turn of 12–10 thousand BC. e. environmental crisis phenomena arose - unfavorable climate changes, which led to changes in megafauna - the disappearance of animals and plants consumed by humans as food. These phenomena, according to scientists, threatened the existence of humanity as a biological species, which led to need for transition to a new way of existence and reproduction – to a producing economy. This transition was called in the literature “Neolithic revolution” (Neolithic - new stone Age). And although this phenomenon is called a revolution, it was not of a one-time, fleeting nature, but occurred over a long period, the transition itself spanning tens of millennia. For of this period There was a transition from hunting, fishing, gathering, archaic forms of agriculture and cattle breeding to developed forms of agriculture (irrigated, slash-and-burn, non-irrigated, etc.), and in the field of cattle breeding - to pasture, transhumance, etc.

The main essence of the Neolithic revolution was that in order to satisfy his life needs, a person was forced move from the appropriation of ready-made animal and plant forms to genuine labor activity, including the manufacture of tools. This transition was accompanied by selection activities both in the field of cattle breeding and agriculture. Gradually, man learned to make ceramic objects, and subsequently moved on to metalworking and metallurgy.

According to scientists, a productive economy already existed by the 4th–3rd millennium BC. e. became the second and main way of human existence and reproduction. This transition also entailed a restructuring of the organization of power relations, including the emergence of early state formations - early class city-states.

The emergence and then the flourishing of early agricultural societies led to the emergence of the first civilizations based on them. They arose originally in the valleys large rivers– Nile, Euphrates, Indus, Tigris, Yangtze, etc., which can be explained by the most favorable climatic and landscape conditions of these territories. The transition to a producing economy also led to the growth of humanity, which is necessary for the flourishing of civilization. The producing economy has led to the complication of the organization of production, the emergence of new organizational and management functions, the need to regulate agricultural production, normalize and take into account the labor contribution of each member of the community, the results of his labor, participation in the creation of public funds, and distribute the share of the created product.

The producing economy led to an increase in labor productivity and the emergence of a surplus product. The emergence of a surplus product, in turn, led to the formation of new forms of ownership (collective, group, private) and, as a consequence, to the further stratification of society according to social sign. In particular, there is a separation of the elite from the bulk of producers, since the elite does not participate in material production.

Gradually, classes and layers of society are formed, differing in their interests and needs, which often develop into antagonistic ones.

Thus, the Neolithic revolution, which determined the transition of mankind to a producing economy, objectively led primitive society to its stratification, the emergence of classes and then to the emergence of the state.

2. Theological theory, whose name comes from Greek words“theo” - God and “logos” - doctrine, i.e. the doctrine of God. This one of the ancient theories of the origin of the state. She explains the emergence and existence of the state by God's will, the result of God's providence. The state is eternal, like God himself, and the sovereign is endowed by God with the power to command people and implement God's will on the ground. People must unquestioningly obey the will of the sovereign.

In the surviving literary monuments of Ancient Egypt, Babylon, India, and China, the idea of the divine origin of the state is clearly expressed. This theory became most widespread in the Middle Ages. Its main focus was to substantiate the superiority of church power over secular power. Since the 9th–10th centuries. the so-called theory of swords is being formed (the sword is a symbol of power), according to which, to protect Christianity, God gave the church two swords - spiritual and secular. The Church, keeping the spiritual sword for itself, handed over the secular sword to the monarch. Therefore, the monarch must obey the church, for it is the source of his power. However, there was another interpretation of this theory: supporters of independent secular power argued that monarchs received their sword directly from God. In Russia, he was a supporter of independent tsarist power Joseph Volotsky (1439–1515. In the world Ivan Sanin) - abbot of the Volokolamsk Monastery. He believed that the king’s power was given by God, so it could not be limited by anything or anyone.

In the West, the most prominent representative of theological theory was Thomas Aquinas (Aquinas)(1225–1274). In his essay “On the Rule of Rulers,” he argued that the emergence and development of the state is similar to God’s creation of the world. Divine reason governs the world, underlies nature, society, world order and every state. The ruler is the authority above the state. “The ruler in the state,” he wrote, “occupies the same position as God in the Universe.”

Representatives of theological theory were also Jean Maritain, F. Lebuff, D. Euwe, ideologists of Islam, modern Catholic, Orthodox and other churches.

When assessing theological theory, it should be borne in mind that it was determined by the religious consciousness of people that dominated during the Middle Ages and earlier, as well as the level of knowledge about society that existed at that time. This theory correctly reflects the fact that the state appears along with mono-religion. It also reflected the realities that the first states were theocratic, the accession to the throne of the monarch was sanctified by the church and this gave the government special authority. In more late times this theory was used to justify the unlimited power of the monarch.

This theory is in circulation in the modern period, in particular in the teachings of theologians.

3. Patriarchal theory, the origins of which were laid by Aristotle (384–322 BC). He, in particular, believed that people as collective beings strive for communication and the formation of families, and their development leads to the formation of a state. But in its most complete form this theory was substantiated in the work of the English scientist Robert Filmer "Patriarchy, or the Natural Power of the King" (XVII century), where he argued that the power of the monarch is unlimited, since it comes from Adam, and he received his power from God and was not only the father of mankind, but also its ruler. Monarchs are the successors of Adam and inherited their power from him. In general, R. Filmer interpreted the emergence of the state as a result of the growth of families, the union of clans into tribes, tribes into larger communities, up to the state.

Filmer's ideas were later used G. Maine, E. Westermarck, D. Murdoch, and in Russia - Nikolai Mikhailovsky (1842–1904).

In China, patriarchal theory was developed by Confucius (551–479 BC). He interpreted the state as a big family. The power of the emperor (“son of heaven”) was likened to the power of a father, and the relationship between rulers and subjects was likened to family relationships based on the principles of virtue. Subjects must be loyal to the rulers (elders), respectful and obey their elders in everything. The elders are obliged to take care of the younger ones, as is customary in the family.

This theory has received a modern meaning in the idea of state paternalism, i.e. the care of the state for its citizens and subjects in the event of an unfavorable situation - illness, unemployment, disability, etc. The positive thing about the patriarchal theory is that its supporters, for example N. Mikhailovsky, called for eliminating from life everything that is immoral, harmful, unreasonable in relation to man, and this is only possible in a society built according to the type family relations. The patriarchal theory correctly emphasizes the relationship between the family and the state, which is not lost for a long time after the transition of society to a state state. The ruler continues in his new capacity to treat his subjects as his own children, and not as strangers.

This theory makes it possible to establish order in society as a result of submission to the “will of the fathers,” and also supports people’s belief in the inviolability of the world, since there are no quarrels and hostility in good families.

Flaw The patriarchal theory is that it cannot explain this fact: if the state is a single family, then why do people fight among themselves, why do revolutions occur, if the power of the father is initially unshakable?

4.Contractual, or natural law, theory in some of its provisions originated in the V – IV centuries. BC e. in the teachings of the sophists of Ancient Greece. They believed that the state is created by people based on voluntary agreement to ensure the common good. This theory was based on two main provisions: 1) before the emergence of state and law, people lived in the conditions of the so-called state of nature; 2) the state arises as a result of the conclusion of a social contract.

Plan:

Introduction 2

Chapter 2. Basic theories of the origin of the state 8

§2.1. Theological theory 8

§2.2. Patriarchal theory 10

§2.3 Contract theory 14

§2.4 Theory of violence 19

§2.5. Class theory 22

§2.6. Psychological Theory 24

§2.7. Organic theory 26

§2.8 Irrigation theory 29

Chapter 3: Modern theories of the origin of the state 31

§3.1. Incest theory 31

§3.2. Theory of specialization 32

§3.3 Crisis theory 35

§3.4 Dualistic theory 36

Conclusion 37

References: 40

Introduction

The study of the process of the origin of the state is not only purely cognitive, academic, but also political and practical in nature. It allows us to better understand the social nature of the state and law, their characteristics and features, and makes it possible to analyze the causes and conditions of their emergence and development. Allows you to more clearly define all their inherent functions - the main directions of their activities, and more accurately establish their place and role in the life of society and the political system.

Among state theorists there has never been before and at present there is not only unity, but even a commonality of views regarding the process of the origin of the state. There have always been and still are many different theories in the world that explain the process of the emergence and development of the state. This is quite natural and understandable, since each of them reflects different views and judgments of various groups, layers, nations and other social communities on a given process. Or - the views and judgments of one and the same social community on different aspects of a given process of the emergence and development of the state.

In the process of human development, dozens of different theories and doctrines were created, hundreds, if not thousands of different assumptions were made. However, debates about the nature of the state continue to this day.

Today there are several theories of the origin of the state. Traditionally, theological, class, patriarchal, contractual theory, theory of violence, as well as irrigation theory are distinguished.

It would seem that only one theory can be true, it is no coincidence that the Latin saying says: “Error multiplex, veritas una” - there is always one truth, there can be as many false judgments as you like. However, such a schematic approach to such a complex social institution as the state would be incorrect. Many theories cover only certain aspects of the origin of the state, although they exaggerate and universalize these aspects. It is important in the general description of these theories, some of which originated in ancient times or in the Middle Ages, along with a critical attitude, to highlight the positive that they contain.

The purpose of this work is to study the basic and some modern theories of the origin of the state, as well as consider the reasons for their diversity.

Chapter 1. Reasons for the diversity of theories of the origin of the state

As we study the process of the emergence of the state, it becomes obvious that certain patterns are visible in this process.

Questions about the laws of the emergence of the state and questions about the reasons for the emergence of the state should not be considered mixed.

There are many different opinions, assumptions, hypotheses and theories regarding the issue of the origin of the state. This diversity is due to a number of reasons.

However, one way or another, the creators of the theories sincerely sought to find an explanation for the process of the emergence of the state.

The formation of the state among different peoples followed different paths. This also led to a large number of different points of view in explaining the reasons for the emergence of the state.

All of these issues require further consideration and study, which is the purpose of this work, the tasks of which include systematization, accumulation and consolidation of knowledge about theories of the origin of the state.

Among theorists of state and law, there has never been before and at present there is not only unity, but even a commonality of views regarding the process of the origin of the state. When considering this issue, no one, as a rule, questions such, for example, well-known historical facts that the first state-legal systems in Ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome and other countries were the slave state and law. No one disputes the fact that there has never been slavery in the territory of present-day Russia, Poland, Germany and a number of other countries. Historically, the first to emerge here were not slaveholding, but feudal states and laws.

Many other historical facts regarding the origin of the state are not disputed. However, this cannot be said about all those cases where we're talking about about the causes, conditions, nature and nature of the origin of the state. Here the diversity of opinions prevails over the unity or community of opinions.

In addition to generally accepted opinions and judgments in matters of the origin of the state, there are often direct distortions of this process, deliberate ignorance of a number of facts that are very significant for its deep and comprehensive understanding. “If the concept of the state,” wrote the prominent state scientist L. Gumplowicz in this regard at the beginning of the 20th century, “often came down to the expression of political tendencies, to the depiction of a political program and served as a banner for political aspirations, then purely "the historical act of the origin of states. It has often been distorted and deliberately ignored in favor of so-called 'higher ideas'." The purely historical act of the origin of states, the author continued, was built on an idea, derived from certain needs or, in other words, from certain rationalistic and moral motives. They believed that in order to maintain morality and human dignity, it is imperative to hide the real, natural way of the emergence of states and put in its place some kind of “legal” and humane formula.”

The point, however, was not only and not so much the deliberate concealment of the “real, natural method” of the emergence of state and law, but rather a different understanding of the essence and very significance of this method. After all, one approach to understanding the natural way of the emergence of the state and law can be associated, say, with the natural development of the economy and society, on the basis or within the framework of which the state and law arise. And completely different - with the natural development of the general culture of people, their intellect, psyche, and, finally, common sense, which led to the awareness of the objective need for the formation and existence of the state and law.

In addition, when considering the problems of the emergence of a state, it is important to take into account the fact that the process of the emergence of a state itself is far from ambiguous. On the one hand, it is necessary to distinguish the process of the initial emergence of the state in the public arena. This is the process of forming state-legal phenomena, institutions and institutions on the basis of pre-state and, accordingly, pre-legal phenomena, institutions and institutions that decomposed as society developed.

Noting the ambiguous, dual nature of the process of the emergence of the state, the famous Russian jurist G. F. Shershenevich wrote back in 1910 that this process certainly needs to be studied on at least two levels. It is important to explore how the state first emerged in the depths of society. This is one plane, one perception of the process of the emergence of a state. And the question is posed quite differently when it is examined how, at the present time, when almost all of humanity lives in a state, new state formations are possible.

Thus, there have always been many different theories in the world that explain the process of the emergence and development of the state.

This is quite natural and understandable, because each of them reflects either different views and judgments of various groups, layers, classes, nations and other social communities on a given process, or - views and judgments of the same social community on various aspects of a given process of emergence and development of the state. These views and judgments have always been based on various economic, financial, political and other interests.

We are talking not only about class interests and the contradictions associated with them, as has been argued for a long time in our domestic and partly in foreign literature. The question is much broader. This refers to the entire spectrum of interests and contradictions existing in society that have a direct or indirect impact on the process of emergence, formation and development of the state.

Drawing attention to the last circumstance, G. F. Shershenevich, not without reason, complained, in particular, about the fact that the question of the origin of the state is often confused with the question of “the justification of the state.” Of course, he reasoned, logically these two questions are completely different, but “psychologically they converge by common roots.” In this view, the question of why one should obey state power is logically connected with the question of what its origin is.

Thus, a purely political aspect is introduced into the strictly theoretical problem of the origin of the state. “It is not important what the state really was, but how to find such an origin that could justify a preconceived conclusion.” This is the main purpose of mixing these phenomena and the concepts that reflect them. This is one of the reasons for the multiplicity and ambiguity of theories growing on this basis. Various kinds of theories arise in connection with the unlawful confusion of the process of the emergence of the state with other processes interconnected with it.

Chapter 2. Basic theories of the origin of the state

§2.1. Theological theory

The theological theory of the emergence of the state is the oldest existing in the world. Also in Ancient Egypt, Babylon and Judea, ideas of the divine origin of the organization of political power in society were put forward. Thus, the laws of King Hammurabi (ancient Babylon) spoke about the king’s power in a similar way: “The gods appointed Hammurabi to rule the “black-headed”; “Man is the shadow of God, the slave is the shadow of man, and the king is equal to God” (i.e., God-like). A similar attitude towards the power of the ruler was observed in ancient China: there the emperor was called “the son of heaven.”

The theological theory was very widespread in Byzantium in the 4th-6th centuries, where its most ardent supporter was the Orthodox theologian John Chrysostom. This man noted that the existence of authorities is a matter of God’s wisdom and therefore “we must offer great gratitude to God both for the fact that there are kings and for the fact that there are judges.” 1 Chrysostom especially insisted on the need to obey all authorities as the fulfillment of a duty towards God. He warned that with the destruction of the authorities, all order would disappear, because the king, answerable to God for the kingdom entrusted to his care, bears 3 most important responsibilities for the existence of society: “to punish the enemies of God who do evil,” “to spread the teaching of God in his kingdom,” “to create conditions for the pious life of people."

Theological theory became more widespread during the era of the transition of many nations to feudalism and during the feudal period. At the turn of the XII - XIII centuries. V Western Europe There was, for example, the “two swords” theory. She assumed that the founders of the church had 2 swords. They sheathed one and kept it with them, because it was not proper for the church to use the sword itself, and they handed the second to the sovereigns so that they could carry out earthly affairs. The sovereign, according to theologians, was endowed by the church with the right to command people and was a servant of the church. The main meaning of this theory is to affirm the priority of the spiritual organization over the secular and to prove that there is no state and power “not from God.”

Around the same period, the teachings of a scientist and theologian, widely known in the enlightened world, the Dominican monk Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), appeared and developed, whose writings were a kind of encyclopedia of the official church ideology of the Middle Ages. Along with a host of other subjects treated in his writings, Aquinas touches on questions about the state in his work “On the Government of Rulers” (1265-1266), in his work “Summa Theologica” (1266-1274) and in other works.

Thomas tries to build his doctrine of the state and its origin, using the theories of Greek philosophers and Roman jurists to substantiate it. In particular, he tries to adapt Aristotle's views to the dogmas catholic church and in this way further strengthen its position. So, for example, from Aristotle Aquinas adopted the idea that man by nature is a “social and political animal.” People initially have the desire to unite and live in a state, because an individual cannot satisfy his needs alone. For this natural reason, a political community (state) arises. The procedure for establishing statehood is similar to the process of creation of the world by God. During the act of creation, things as such first appear, then their differentiation follows in accordance with the functions that they perform within the boundaries of the internally dissected world order. The activity of a monarch is similar to the activity of a god. Before beginning to lead the world, God brings harmony and organization into it. So the monarch first of all establishes and organizes the state, and then begins to govern it. 1

At the same time, Aquinas makes a number of corrections to the teachings of Aristotle in accordance with his theological views. Unlike Aristotle, who believed that the state is created with the aim of ensuring bliss in earthly life, he does not consider it possible for a person to achieve complete bliss through the forces of the state without the help of the church, and considers the final achievement of this goal possible only in the “afterlife.”

It is worth noting the most important progressive feature of the theory of the emergence of the state created by Thomas Aquinas: the assertion that the divine origin of power relates only to its essence, and since the acquisition and use of it may be contrary to the divine will, then in such cases subjects have the right to refuse obedience to a usurper or unworthy ruler.

In the XVI-XVIII centuries. theological theory experienced a “rebirth”: it began to be used to justify the unlimited power of the monarch. And supporters of royal absolutism in France, for example, Joseph de Maistre, zealously defended it at the beginning of the 19th century.

The theological theory also received a unique development in the works of some modern theologians who, recognizing the landmark significance of the “Neolithic revolution,” argued that the transition to a productive economy, which began 10-12 thousand years ago, had a divine origin. At the same time, theologians note that, in their opinion, science has not yet established the exact natural reasons for this qualitative change in the history of mankind, but the religious justification is contained in the Bible.

It is very difficult to evaluate the theological theory of the origin of the state: it cannot be proven, nor can it be directly refuted. The question of the truth of this concept is resolved together with the question of the existence of God, the Supreme Mind, i.e. ultimately with a matter of faith. Some scientists say that there is obvious unscientificness here, that the theory is not based on objective historical facts, which is its main drawback. Others in response point to the positive, in their opinion, circumstance that at all times such a theory has severely condemned crime, contributed to the establishment of mutual understanding and reasonable order in society, and that it still has considerable opportunities for improving the spiritual life in the country and strengthening statehood. The author of this work is inclined to adhere to a certain neutrality in this matter, so as not to offend the feelings of either one or the other (especially since freedom of conscience is enshrined in Russian Federation its Basic Law).

§2.2. Patriarchal theory

The patriarchal theory of the origin of the state was widespread in Ancient Greece and slave-owning Rome, received a second wind during the period of medieval absolutism and, with some echoes, has survived to this day.

The founding father of this theory is rightfully considered to be the famous Greek thinker Aristotle (384-322 BC), who examined in sufficient detail the problem of the origin of the state in his work “Politics”.

Refuting the attempts of the Sophists, his contemporaries, to explain the state as the result of a voluntary agreement of people, Aristotle argued that such an organization of power does not arise for the sake of concluding an offensive or defensive alliance, not in order to prevent the possibility of mutual grievances, and not even in the interests of mutual trade exchange, as he was told opponents (otherwise the Etruscans and Carthaginians and all peoples in general united by trade agreements concluded between them would have to be considered citizens of one state).

Aristotle associates the emergence of the state with the instinctive desire of people to communicate, conditioned by the gift of speech, which serves not only to express joy and sadness, which is characteristic of animals, but also in order to “express what is useful and what is harmful, and also what is fair and what is unfair... " Therefore, the state, according to the philosopher, is a natural form of community life, since man by nature is created to coexist with others, for he is a “political being,” a being much more social than bees and all other living beings.

The attraction to communicate with other people leads to the formation of a family: “Necessity prompts first of all to combine in pairs those who cannot exist without each other - a woman and a man;... and this combination... depends on the natural desire... - to leave behind another similar creature " Aristotle also notes that “in the same way, for the purpose of mutual preservation, it is necessary to unite in pairs between a being that, by virtue of its nature, rules, and a being, by virtue of its nature, a subject,” because “The same thing is beneficial for both master and slave.” Thus, it turns out that in the family all forms of government are present in the embryo: monarchy - in the relationship of the father to children and slaves, aristocracy - in the relationship between husband and wife, democracy - in the relationship between children.

“A community consisting of several families and aimed at serving not only short-term needs is a village. It is quite natural that a village can be regarded as a colony of families.” The state, being, according to Aristotle, the most perfect form of community life, in which “self-sufficiency”, a “self-sufficient state” is achieved (i.e. all conditions for a perfect life are created), consists of several villages. “It follows from this that every state is a product of natural origin, like primary communications: it is the completion of them, and at the end nature shows itself... Formed due to natural elementary needs, the state becomes... a union that comprehensively embraces a person’s life and educates him to be virtuous and blessed life."

In the Middle Ages, justifying the existence of absolutism in England, Robert Filmer in his work “Patriarchy, or the Natural Power of the King” (1642), with reference to the patriarchal theory of the origin of the state, argued that God originally granted royal power to Adam, who is therefore not only the father humanity, but also its ruler. The rulers, being direct descendants of Adam, receive his power over people by inheritance. This is what J. Locke wrote about this, who very strongly criticized Filmer in his work “Two Treatises of Government,” which will also be mentioned in this work as part of the consideration of the contractual theory of the origin of the state: “He (Filmer) assures us that this is paternity began with Adam, continued in its natural course and continuously maintained order in the world during the time of the monarchs before the flood, came out of the ark with Noah and his sons, installed in power and supported all the monarchs on earth.” The main arguments of criticism of Locke are the statements that “there is only an assumption of the power of Adam, but not a single proof of this power is given,” even from the Holy Scriptures, as well as the presence of other “intricacies and dark places that are found in various branches of the amazing Filmer’s system,” because never before, according to the opponent, “has so much plausible nonsense, children’s tales, been presented in euphonious English.”

The patriarchal theory of the origin of the state found favorable soil in Russia. It was actively promoted by sociologist, publicist, and populist theorist N.K. Mikhailovsky (XIX century). Prominent historian M.N. Pokrovsky also believed that the oldest type of state power developed directly from paternal power. “Apparently, not without the influence of this theory, the centuries-old tradition of belief in the “father of the people,” a good king, a leader, a kind of superpersonality capable of solving all problems for everyone, took deep roots in our country. In essence, such a tradition is anti-democratic, dooms people to passively wait for other people’s decisions, undermines self-confidence, reduces social activity among the masses and reduces responsibility for the fate of their country.” 1 From a similar point of view, the theory under consideration is criticized by many state scientists and legal figures of our time.

If we evaluate the patriarchal theory in relation to the objective process of the origin of the state, then, as in any other doctrine, its pros and cons are revealed. The study of archaic structures that have survived to this day allows, according to some experts, to assert that Aristotle and his followers were right in many respects. For example, observing the life and everyday life of North American Indians, scientists came to the conclusion that the rudiments of state structures among the studied tribes were indeed created by analogy with family ones. At the same time, another part of the scientists proves the assertion that the main provisions of this theory are convincingly refuted by modern science, because it is allegedly established that the patriarchal family appeared along with the state during the decomposition of the primitive communal system.

However, we should not forget when the patriarchal theory was created. More than 20 centuries ago, people could not know that society develops in many ways, as a result of which no theory is simply able to explain the formation of the state in all parts of the world. This concept undoubtedly has certain gaps (for example, it is not clear how its creators could link the tasks of public administration, primarily defense and aggression, with the functions of the family - reproduction and joint consumption). It was often used to justify monarchical power in order to suppress any initiative of the people in managing the affairs of society. And yet she also has considerable merits in science: she was one of the first to study primitive society in order to identify in it the prerequisites for the creation of a political organization of power, and its authors grasped a certain objective process - the concentration of power in the hands of leaders accumulating the life experience of society. 1

§2.3 Contract theory

The natural law theory of the origin of the state was very progressive for its time, and it has not lost its significance to this day. This theory considers the state as the result of the unification of people on a voluntary basis (based on a contract). Certain provisions of this theory developed back in the 5th-6th centuries. BC. sophists in Ancient Greece, who, as already mentioned in this work, served as the object of criticism from Aristotle, who defended the patriarchal theory of the emergence of state power. “The people gathered here! - one of them addressed his interlocutors (Ginnius - 460-400 BC). – I believe that you are all relatives and fellow citizens here. by nature, but not in law. The law, while ruling over people, forces them to do many things that are contrary to nature.” 2

As human thought developed, this theory also improved. In the XVII – XVIII centuries. it was actively used in the fight against serfdom and the feudal monarchy. During this period, the ideas of contract theory were supported and developed by many great European thinkers and educators, whose views will be briefly described below.

So, there are many variants of the natural law theory of the origin of the state, sometimes significantly diverging from each other. Considering the points of view of various authors, it is advisable to pay attention mainly to the following 4 points:

1. Characteristics of the pre-state, “natural” state in which people were. Different thinkers have understood it differently. In particular, two opposing views are known - those of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) devoted the second book of one of his main works, “Leviathan, or the Matter, Form and Power of the State, Ecclesiastical and Civil” (1651), to the origin and essence of the state. He believed that initially all people were created equal in terms of physical and mental abilities and each of them had the same “right to everything” as others. However, man is also a deeply selfish creature, overwhelmed by greed, fear and ambition. He is surrounded only by envious people, rivals, and enemies, hence the principle of the life of society that he formulated at that time: “Man is a wolf to man.” Hence the fatal inevitability in society of a “war of all against all.” To have the “right to everything” in the conditions of such a war means in fact to have no right to anything. This plight is what Hobbes calls “the natural state of the human race.”

In contrast to this judgment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), in his work “On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law” (1762), characterizes the “natural state” of people as the “golden age” of general prosperity. In those days, according to Rousseau, there was no private property, all people were free and equal. Inequality here at first existed only physically, due to the natural differences of people. And only with the advent of private property and social inequality, which contradicted natural equality, did the struggle between the poor and the rich begin, when the destruction of equality was followed, in the words of Rousseau, by “terrible unrest... unjust seizures of the rich, robberies of the poor,” “constant clashes between the right of the strong and the right of the one who came first.” Characterizing this pre-state state, Rousseau writes: “The nascent society came into a state of the most terrible war: the human race, mired in vices and despair, could neither return back nor abandon the ill-fated acquisitions it had made.”

2. The reasons that led to the conclusion of the social contract and the formation of the state. The main focus here was on the impossibility of properly ensuring one’s natural rights (to life, to property, etc.), as well as the impossibility of eliminating violence and establishing order.

For example, the Dutch thinker Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in his fundamental work “On the Law of War and Peace” (1625) characterizes the reasons for the emergence of state power: “... people united into a state not by divine command, but voluntarily, having become convinced from experience of the powerlessness of individual scattered families against violence.” And since man by nature is a being of a “higher order”, who is characterized by a “striving for communication” (there is a borrowing of certain provisions of Aristotle’s teaching), he establishes a state not only to “ensure public peace”, but also for the sake of his own “striving for calm and reason-guided communication with one’s own kind.”

Other supporters of the contract theory of the origin of the state thought in a similar way. Even Charles-Louis Montesquieu (1689-1755), one of prominent representatives French Enlightenment, an outstanding lawyer and political thinker, always distinguished by the originality of his judgments, was inclined to accept this point of view. In his main work - the result of twenty years of work as a philosopher - the work “On the Spirit of Laws” (1748), he, specifically noting the wrongness of Hobbes, who attributed to people initial aggressiveness and the desire to rule over each other, said that man is initially weak, extremely fearful and strives for equality and peace with others. Moreover, the idea of power and domination is so complex and dependent on so many other ideas that it cannot be the first idea of man in time. But as soon as people unite in society, they lose consciousness of their weakness. The equality that existed between them disappears, wars of two kinds begin - between individuals and between nations. “The appearance of these two types of war,” wrote Montesquieu, “prompts us to establish laws between people.” The need of people living in society for general laws determines, according to Montesquieu, the need for the formation of a state: “Society cannot exist without government.”

3. Understanding the social contract itself. What was usually meant here was not some actually existing document, but some general agreement that developed naturally, by virtue of which each individual alienated part of his rights in favor of the state and had to obey it. The state, in turn, must guarantee everyone the proper implementation of their remaining natural rights.

The English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), the creator of the work “Two Treatises of Government” already mentioned in this work, writes about this: “Man is born... having the right to complete freedom and unlimited enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of natural law..., and he by nature has the power not only to protect his property, i.e. his life, liberty and property, from injury and attack from other people, but also to judge and punish others for violating this law, as, in his opinion, this crime deserves... But since neither political society cannot...exist without the very right to protect property and, for these purposes, to punish the crimes of all members of this society, then political society is present where each of its members has renounced this natural power, transferring it into the hands of society...Thus, the state receives the power to determine what punishment should be due for the various offenses committed by the members of that society, and what offenses deserve it (this is legislature), just as it has the power to punish injury done to any of its members... (this is the power to decide questions of war and peace), and all this for the preservation of the property of all members of the society, as far as possible."

Similar judgments were expressed by the Russian representative of the contractual theory of the origin of the state - A.N. Radishchev (1749-1802), who believed that the state arises as a consequence of a silent agreement between members of society in order to jointly protect the weak and oppressed. It, in his opinion, “is a great colossus, whose goal is the bliss of the citizens.” Radishchev, however, believed that by concluding a social contract, people transfer only part of their rights to the state, due to which each member of society unconditionally retains the natural right to protect life, honor and property. Thus, according to Radishchev, if a person does not receive protection in society, he has the right to defend his violated rights himself. This formulation of the question called for an uprising, for a revolution, the decisive force of which was supposed to be the masses.

4. Conclusions that follow from the emergence of statehood by contract. The views of representatives of the considered theory of the origin of the state also differ here.

Some argued that since the state arose and is still based on the social contract, state legal institutions must correspond to their original meaning, otherwise they must be replaced (for example, the people have the right to overthrow a tyrant who violates the social contract). This opinion was expressed, for example, by the French thinker Paul Holbach (1723-1789), who in his work “Natural Politics” substantiated it primarily by the terms of the social contract between the citizen and the state: “if a person undertakes obligations to society (the state), then and the latter, in turn, accepts certain obligations in relation to it,” failure to fulfill which may lead to the initiative of the people to terminate the concluded agreement.

Hobbes expressed the opposite point of view. In his opinion, individuals who have once concluded a social contract lose the opportunity to change the chosen form of government, to free themselves from the supreme power, which is elevated to an absolute.

The natural law theory of the origin of the state is, therefore, the creation of the mind of a whole team of outstanding thinkers. IN total The period of its creation is 200 years. And of course, having absorbed all the achievements of the philosophical mind of that period, it should be appreciated.

The first undoubted achievement of this theory is that its authors noted the characteristic features inherent in humans: fear and a sense of self-preservation. This is what pushes him to unite, to reach compromises with other people, and contributes to the desire to give up something in order to feel calm and confident. Such an understanding of one of the reasons for the emergence of state power in society became a major step in understanding the social nature of the state.

Secondly, the contract theory is democratic in nature, it proceeds from the fact that a person is valuable in himself, and therefore from birth has rights and freedoms that are so important to him that he is ready to fight for them, up to the overthrow of public authority that abuses trust on the part of the people, who believed her and transferred part of their rights. The humane content of this theory greatly contributed to the spread of revolutionary ideas in society, calling on people to fight for their natural rights and for a better life. It also formed the basis of the concept of the rule of law and even found expression in the constitutional documents of a number of Western states, for example in the US Declaration of Independence of 1776.

It is impossible not to note one more advantage of the contract theory: it broke with the religious idea of the origin of the state, which ultimately helped to a large extent to shift the theological worldview doctrine from its leading position in the consciousness of society, replacing it with a secular one.

However, one should not idealize the contract theory too much. For all her advantages, she undoubtedly had her shortcomings. In particular, many scientists note that, apart from purely speculative constructions, there is no convincing scientific data confirming the reality of this theory. Moreover, in their opinion, it is almost impossible to imagine the possibility that tens of thousands of people could come to an agreement among themselves in the presence of acute social contradictions between them.

Another important drawback of the natural law theory is the fact that the state here acts exclusively as a product of the conscious will of people. As a result, this theory loses sight of the objective historical, economic, geopolitical and other reasons for the emergence of the state. In addition, as the experience of world history shows, the vast majority of states in the world were not based on any agreement between the state and the population of the country.

§2.4 Theory of violence

One of the theories of the origin of the state common in the West is the theory of violence. We can say that it consists, in turn, of two theories - the theory of external violence and the theory of internal violence.

External violence theory

The cornerstone of this theory is the assertion that the main reason for the emergence of the state lies neither in the socio-economic development of society nor in anything else, but in conquest, violence, and the enslavement of some tribes by others.

Thus, one of the most prominent representatives of the theory of violence, the Austrian sociologist and statesman Ludwig Gumplowicz(1838-1909), whose works on state issues are “Race and the State. A study on the law of state formation”, “General doctrine of the state” - considered the question of its origin from the standpoint of a realistic worldview and sociology, wrote: “History does not present us with a single example where the state arose not through an act of violence, but as something else. In addition, this has always been violence of one tribe over another...” 77 The struggle for existence is, according to Gumplowicz, the main factor in social life. She is the eternal companion of humanity and the main stimulator of social development. In practice, it results in a struggle between various social groups, each of which seeks to subjugate the other group and establish dominance over it. The highest law of history is obvious: “The strongest defeat the weakest, the strong immediately unite in order to in unity surpass the third, also strong, and so on.” Having depicted the highest law of history in this way, Gumplowicz argued: “If we clearly understand this simple law, then the seemingly insoluble riddle of political history will be solved by us.”

Another representative of the theory of external violence is the German philosopher Kautsky(1854-1938) in his work “Materialistic Understanding of History” also said that the state is formed as a result of the clash of tribes and the conquest of some tribes by others. As a result, one community becomes the ruling class, another becomes the oppressed and exploited, and the coercive apparatus created by the winner to control the vanquished turns into a state. Kautsky, thus, proved the fact that the tribal organization was replaced by the state one not as a result of the disintegration of the primitive communal system, but under blows from the outside, during the war.

Theory of internal violence

To explain his concept, Dühring proposed to imagine society as two people. Two human wills are completely equal to each other, and neither of them can make any demands on the other. In this state of affairs, when society consists of two equal persons, inequality and slavery are impossible. But equal people may argue on certain issues. What to do then? In this case, Dühring proposed to involve a third person, without whom it would be impossible to make a decision by majority vote and resolve the dispute. Without similar decisions, i.e. Without the rule of the majority over the minority, a state cannot arise. In his opinion, property, classes and the state arise precisely as a result of such, “internal” violence of one part of society over another.

As the main advantage of both types of theories of violence, it should be noted that they are based on real historical circumstances. Indeed, the conquest of one people by another was always reflected in some way on all aspects of the life of the newly emerging society (the state apparatus was almost always staffed by the conquerors), and violence in society in the form of the subordination of the minority to the will of the majority is a fairly common phenomenon. But, according to the majority of modern scientists, neither one nor the other can in itself lead to the emergence of the state as a special form of organization of power. In many cases, internal and external violence was a necessary condition, but not main reason formation of the state. Now experts agree on a common opinion: in order for a state to emerge, a level of economic development of society is necessary that would allow maintaining the state apparatus, and if such a level is not achieved, then no conquests will lead to the emergence of a state. By the time the state is formed, certain internal conditions must have matured, without which this process is simply impossible. In addition, the theory of violence, like all the others discussed in this work, is far from universal, cannot explain the process of the emergence of the state in all regions of the globe and represents only the views of a certain part of society that arose in them under the influence of their contemporary situation, as well as knowledge known in their time.

§2.5. Class theory

Until recently, during the years of Soviet power, this theory was considered as the only acceptable and correct one for describing the process of the origin of the state. Nowadays, when everything connected with Russia’s Soviet past is, as a rule, subject to fierce criticism, this theory is not entirely deservedly rejected by theorists of state and law. In the author’s opinion, whatever the shortcomings of this theory, it still represents a great achievement of theoretical thought, sometimes distinguished by much greater clarity and clarity of initial provisions and logical coherence than some of the other theories of the emergence of the state considered in this work. Therefore, it has every right to exist, along with all other concepts and points of view.

The materialistic theory is most fully presented in the work Friedrich Engels“The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (1884), the very name of which reflects the connection between the phenomena that led to the emergence of the phenomenon being studied.

Class theory is characterized by a consistent materialist approach. It proceeds from the fact that state power is replacing the tribal organization of society due to fundamental changes in the economic sphere, the largest divisions of labor associated with the separation of cattle breeding from agriculture, crafts from agriculture and with the advent of trade and exchange (the merchant class), which led to the rapid growth of productive forces, the ability of man to produce more than was necessary to maintain life. As a result, property stratification first emerged in society and then, as labor was divided, quickly intensified. Property inequality entailed social inequality: a society arose that, due to its economic conditions of life, had to split into free and slaves, into exploiting rich and exploited poor - a society that not only could not reconcile these opposites again, but had to sharpen them more and more. Such a society could only exist in the ongoing open struggle of these classes. The clan system has outlived its time. It was blown up by the division of labor and its consequence - the split of society into classes. It was replaced by the state.

Representatives of the materialist theory placed special emphasis on the statement that “the state in no way represents a force imposed on society from the outside,” it “is a product of society at a certain stage of development,” it is “a force that originated from society, but places itself above it, everything alienating herself more and more from him.”

Subsequently, however, the initial interpretation of the state as a certain force standing above society, “moderating the class clash and keeping it within the limits of “order” so that “these opposites ... with conflicting economic interests do not devour each other and society in a fruitless struggle,” was slightly changed. The state began to be presented as a special apparatus for maintaining the position of the ruling class in society, as a machine with the help of which the oppressed class can be kept in obedience. Many modern scientists believe that in this case there was a grandiose falsification of the content of Engels’ work in Russia, considering it from a deliberately incorrect position.

Be that as it may, the main thesis of Marxist theory remains, according to IN AND. Lenin, the following: “History shows that the state... arose only there and then, where and when the division of society into classes appeared - that is, the division into such groups of people, of which some can constantly appropriate the work of others, where one exploits the other... It arose there , then and insofar as, where, when and insofar as class contradictions cannot be reconciled.” 100

There is no reason to deny the influence of classes on the emergence of the state. But there is also no reason to consider classes to be the only root cause of its appearance. The latest data from archeology and ethnography show that the state often arose before the emergence of classes. The undoubted advantage of the materialist theory is its thesis about the heterogeneity of society (as mentioned earlier, society is a rather complex system of interconnected elements, including classes), as well as a well-founded conclusion about the large role of the economy in the process being studied. We should not forget that many provisions of this theory are actively used by modern historical science in creating a description of the objective process of the emergence of a state, just as Engels’s classification of ways (forms) of state formation, previously discussed in this work, continues to exist with some changes and additions .

Thus, the merits of class theory in the science of the theory of state and law are indeed quite great. Having abandoned the attitude to the heritage of the classics of Marxism-Leninism as absolutely infallible, suitable for all times and countries, having gotten rid of all-encompassing economic determinism in considering the problem of the origin of the state and having received the latest knowledge about primitive society in the field of archeology and ethnography, the theory of state and law with the help This theory has come significantly closer to the truth in considering such a complex and controversial process of the emergence of a state.

§2.6. Psychological theory

Another theory of the origin of the state, quite well known in the science of the theory of state and law, is psychological. The emergence of the state in it is explained by the properties of the human psyche, the individual’s need to live in a group, his desire to search for authority, whose instructions could be guided in everyday life, the desire to command and obey.

The largest representative of this theory is the Russian statesman and jurist L.I. Petrazhitsky(1867-1931), who created the two-volume work “The Theory of Law and State in Connection with the Theory of Morality” (1907).

Petrazhitsky tries to portray the formation of the state as a product of the phenomena of the individual psyche; he tries to explain it by the psyche of an individual, taken in isolation, in isolation from public relations, public environment. The human psyche, according to Petrazhitsky, his impulses and emotions play a major role not only in a person’s adaptation to changing conditions, but also in the mental interactions of people and their various associations, the sum of which makes up the state. Thus, the state appears as a result of the psychological laws of human development, his natural need to communicate with other people, known to ancient thinkers (take, for example, the theory of “social being” by Aristotle).

Petrazhitsky echoes E.N. Trubetskoy, who pointed, with reference to Spencer, to the main feature of man - solidarity: “there is a physical connection between the parts of a biological organism; on the contrary, there is a psychic connection between people – parts of the social organism.”

Another adherent of psychological theory, a French scientist G. Tarde(XIX century) places the main emphasis on the fact that people are not equal in their psychological qualities, just as they are not equal, for example, in physical strength. Some are inclined to subordinate their actions to authority, and the consciousness of dependence on the top of society, the awareness of the fairness of certain options for actions and relationships, etc., brings peace to their soul and gives a state of stability and confidence in their behavior. Other people, on the contrary, are distinguished by their desire to command and subjugate others to their will. It is they who become leaders in society, and then representatives of public authority, employees of the state apparatus. 1

The creation of a psychological theory of the origin of the state was, to a certain extent, a breakthrough in legal science, which became possible only thanks to the formation of psychology as an independent branch of knowledge. As a result of the development of the experimental research method, psychologists have identified a pattern that is interesting for sociologists and lawyers: humans have a much more developed psyche than animals, one of the main principles of which is a sense of solidarity and collectivism. The merit of psychological theory is precisely the introduction of a certain psychological factor into the study of the causes of the emergence of the state, which was very important in the conditions of economic determinism that reigned at that time.

Also, as an advantage of psychological theory, one should note its skillful use of historical examples of the dependence of human consciousness on the authority of leaders, religious and political figures, kings, kings and other leaders to substantiate its ideas.

Modern scientists see the main drawback of psychological theory in its psychological determinism, a strong exaggeration of the significance of the psychological experiences it describes in the process of state formation. We should not, in the opinion of some experts, forget about the significant difference between the human psyche of the 20th century studied by psychologists and the psyche of people of primitive society. Here, as some believe, one can notice some contradictions between the need to understand the advantages of the state and the unformed psyche of primitive people. 1

In general, for all its merits, psychological theory is also not able to provide a complete picture of the process of the origin of the state.

§2.7. Organic theory

Among the most famous theories of the origin of the state, it is also necessary to mention the organic theory, which equated the state with the human body and ascribed to it independent will and consciousness, different from the will and consciousness of the individual people included in it. According to the organic theory, the state is the result of the actions of the forces of nature, which create it along with society and the individual.

It is believed that the ideas of the compatibility of the state with the human body developed in the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato(427-347 BC) “State” and “Laws”, although many experts point out the absence, in their opinion, of this kind of direct comparisons. Plato wrote about society as a single whole, consisting of many people united by “communication, friendship, decency, temperance and the highest justice.” 87 The philosopher also compared the structure and functions of the state with the abilities and individual aspects of the human soul. Perhaps such ideas laid the foundation for the emergence of organic theory in its pure form.

Disciple of Plato Aristotle, despite the fact that he created his own theory of the origin of the state and very often even criticized the judgments of his teacher (for example, he owned the catchphrases: “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer”), he was still inclined to some extent to adhere to the opinion the latter that the state in many respects resembles the human body. For example, Aristotle argued that a person cannot exist on his own: he, “finding himself in an isolated state, is not a self-sufficient being,” which means that “his relationship to the state is the same as the relationship of any part to its whole” (illustrative example , cited by the philosopher to prove his words - the impossibility of the independent existence of arms or legs taken away from the human body).

“In reality, however, the ancients did not know the terms “organism”, “organic” in the sense as they are used now, but they compared society with a living body, and behind this comparison lies a view that is essentially similar to that expressed new supporters of the organic theory... Just as the members of a living organism are by nature connected into one whole and cannot exist outside the unity of this living whole, so man by nature is part of a living whole of a higher order... - this is the element of the organic view of society that was already known to the ancients."

The organic theory received its greatest development at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, which was due to the successes of the natural sciences, in particular, various discoveries in natural science. The theory of evolution created by Darwin caused a certain ferment in the minds of people; it began to be applied to almost all social phenomena. Many lawyers and sociologists (Bluntschli, Worms, Preuss, etc.) began to disseminate biological laws (interspecific and intraspecific struggle, natural selection etc.) on various social processes, incl. and on the process of state emergence. Judgments are beginning to be expressed that society is not a product of the free creativity of man, as the representatives of the contractual theory of the origin of the state, which was almost unchallenged in those days, believed, but, on the contrary, man is a product of historically established social conditions, a certain historical environment, a part of the social organism, subordinate the laws of the whole.

The English scientist developed this idea and created a complete theory in a complete and well-reasoned form. Herbert Spencer(1820-1903), author of the work “Positive Politics”. Spencer believes that the development of society is based on the law of evolution: “Matter passes from a state of indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a state of definite coherent homogeneity,” in other words, it differentiates. He considers this law to be universal and uses a large amount of factual material to trace its effect in various fields, incl. and in the history of society.

Turning to the history of the emergence of the state and political institutions, Spencer argued that the initial political differentiation arises from family differentiation - when men become the ruling class in relation to women. At the same time, differentiation occurs in the class of men (domestic slavery), which leads to political differentiation as the number of enslaved and dependent persons increases as a result of military seizures and captivity. With the formation of the slave-prisoner-of-war class, the “political division (differentiation) between ruling structures and structures under power, which continues to go through ever higher forms of social evolution.” At the same time, as conquests expand, both the class structure and the political organization become more complex: various classes arise, a special governing system is formed, which ultimately leads to the emergence of a state.

In considering the essence of the state, Spencer largely repeats the Greek thinkers. It is, indeed, similar to the human body, but not only in the fact that a person is like a cell of a single whole in it. In a state - a “living body” - all parts specialize in performing certain functions, on which the existence of the entire organism completely depends. “If an organism is healthy, then its cells function normally, but a disease of the organism endangers its constituent parts, just as diseased cells reduce the efficiency of the functioning of the entire organism.” 1

Assessing the above theory, one should note as its main merit the introduction by its supporters of a systemic feature into the concept of the state, as well as its elevation to the level of a general universal law. The state, indeed, consists of various social strata, groups and people themselves, so a comparison with a multicellular organism here, one might say, suggests itself. It is necessary to agree with the authors of the theory that the state is not a phenomenon imposed on society from the outside, it is the result of the gradual development of society, its evolution.

However, the organic theory still does not indicate the underlying reasons for the formation of the state. Among the disadvantages is the fact that the difference in the very nature of the state and a living organism requires a separation of methods and approaches when studying them. “It is impossible to directly identify social processes with physiological processes. The state has a number of tasks and functions that have no analogues with the functions of the body.” As a result, the biological determinism inherent in this theory, coupled with a clearly visible touch of some other theories of the origin of the state (in particular, the theory of violence), mixed into a single concept, makes it overly speculative, schematic, does not correspond to scientific data and gives it, in the opinion of many experts, , "extremely confused character."

§2.8 Irrigation theory

This theory is outlined in the work of a modern German scientist K. Wittfogel"Eastern Despotism".

In the above-mentioned work, the emergence of states and their first despotic forms is associated with the peculiarities of climate in certain regions of the globe. In Ancient Egypt and Western Asia, where the Babylonian kingdom arose, vast territories could bring rich harvests, but only when the dry lands were abundantly irrigated. As a result, irrigated agriculture arose in those places, associated with the need to build giant irrigation structures in agricultural areas. “Irrigation work, being quite complex and labor-intensive, required skillful organization. It began to be carried out by specially appointed people who were able to cover with their minds the entire course of irrigation construction, organize the work, and eliminate possible obstacles during construction.” 1 This course of events leads to the formation of a “managerial-bureaucratic class” that enslaves society. At the same time, Wittfogel calls despotism a “hydraulic” or “agromanagerial” civilization. 2

In assessing this theory, we must pay tribute to the fact that Wittfogel put forward it based on specific historical facts. Indeed, the processes of creating and maintaining powerful irrigation systems occurred in the regions where the primary city-states were formed: in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, and other areas. The connection of these processes with the formation of a large class of managers and officials, services protecting canals from siltation, ensuring navigation through them, etc. is also obvious. Wittfogel’s idea about the connection between the despotic forms of states of the Asian mode of production and the implementation of grandiose irrigation constructions is also original and quite objective. Such work undoubtedly dictated the need for strict centralized management, distribution of functions, accounting of people, their subordination, etc.

However, at the same time, the irrigation theory, like most other theories of the origin of the state known to science, captures only individual connections, individual aspects of the process of state formation, exaggerating and universalizing them subsequently. And yet, even having an exclusively local character, capable of explaining the emergence of the state only in regions with a hot climate, this theory made a very great contribution to the science of the theory of state and law, serving as the basis for the development, based on the latest data of archeology and ethnography, of the concept of the “eastern path” formation of the state previously mentioned in this work.

Chapter 3: Modern theories of the origin of the state

§3.1. Incest theory

A talented French sociologist and ethnographer of the 20th century put forward and substantiated the incest theory Claude Lévi-Strauss, the author of many scientific works, most of which he to one degree or another dealt with the problem of the connection between the prohibition of incest (incest) in primitive society and the emergence of the state (“Structural Anthropology”, “Primitive Thinking”, etc.).

According to Lévi-Strauss, humanity’s awareness of the fact that incest leads it to degeneration and puts it on the brink of death became almost the greatest event of the primitive era, which turned the lives of primitive people upside down, changed relations both between clans and within them.

Firstly, as L. Vasiliev, a famous popularizer of Lévi-Strauss, writes, “the renunciation of the right to a woman of one’s group created the conditions for a kind of social contract with a neighboring group based on the principle of equivalence and thereby laid the foundation for a system of constant communications: the exchange of women , property or food (gifts), words-signs, symbols formed the structural basis of a single culture, with its rituals..., norms, rules, taboos and other social regulators,” which, in turn, subsequently served as the main basis for the creation of the state .

Secondly, the ban on incest also overturned the internal organization of childbirth. Understanding the harmfulness of this phenomenon was only half the battle; it was much more difficult to eradicate it, which required severe measures to suppress deviations from a taboo that had not existed until recently, and therefore was initially difficult for people to perceive. Therefore, Lévi-Strauss believes, there is every reason to believe that the clan bodies that support the prohibition of incest and its violent suppression within the clan, as well as the development of connections with other clans described above, were the most ancient elements of the nascent statehood.

In modern theory of state and law, incest theory is used to explain one of the important prerequisites for the emergence of the state, but does not claim a major role.

§3.2. Specialization theory

Since none of the theories put forward could claim to be a comprehensive theory, Professor Kashanina put forward and substantiated a universal theory, suitable for all countries and peoples.

The main thesis of this theory is as follows: the law of specialization is a universal law of development of the surrounding world. Specialization is inherent in the world of biology. The appearance of various cells in a living organism - and then various organs - is the result of specialization. Again for this reason, i.e. depending on the degree of specialization of its cells, the organism occupies a place in the biological hierarchy: the more specialized its functions are, the higher its place in the biological world, the better adapted it is to life. The law of specialization also operates in the social world, and here it is even more intensified. The manufacturing economy gradually gained momentum, and a moment came when production labor began to specialize. Specialization in the field of economics is the first type of cardinal specialization of labor or economic specialization. In turn, within its boundaries there are several varieties of large social divisions of labor. F. Engels, following other historians, noted three major divisions of labor:

Separation of animal husbandry from agriculture

Highlighting craft

The emergence of trade

But this is just the beginning. IN modern world specialization in the economic sphere is very extensive. Along with agriculture, industry, and trade, finance, healthcare, education, tourism, etc. have become a special type of activity.

But even within each type of economic specialization, specialization in certain areas of activity is visible. Thus, in industry alone there are several dozen branches.

Already the initial varieties of economic specialization (the separation of cattle breeding from agriculture, the separation of crafts, the emergence of trade) gave a powerful impetus to the development of both production itself and society as a whole. Firstly, the intellectual baggage of society has increased: the specialized development of types of production took place on a qualitatively new heights. Secondly, as a result of increased productivity, social product began to accumulate in excess of what was needed for consumption by the producers themselves. Thirdly, relationships between members of society have become more complicated.

All this made it possible to move on to further specialization of labor. And it happened, but the specialization of labor had already gone beyond the sphere of production, although in the sphere of production itself the process of specialization continued to gain momentum. There was a need for managerial or organizational work. Let's call it political specialization. This is the second type of radical specialization that has occurred in the life of society.

Political specialization arose as if gradually and began to occur gradually. Of course, economic specialization gave it an impetus and laid its material foundation. First, chiefdoms were formed, but they were not fundamentally different from the previously existing governing bodies of primitive society. When there was a new rise in the economy, the chiefdoms ceased to meet the needs of society. A cardinal leap occurred, and the state arose.

From the point of view of the theory of specialization, the state is the result of the emergence, along with specialization in the production sphere (economic specialization), of specialization in the management sphere (political specialization).

Within each type of cardinal specialization of labor, several major social divisions of labor occur. Political specialization is no exception in this regard. In the political sphere, three major social divisions of labor occurred: legislative, executive and law enforcement activities. These three types of managerial specialization did not appear immediately. As we know from history, at first the field of public administration was inseparable. Then management activities begin to be separated by levels, and the state apparatus was already a ladder with several steps occupied by various officials. Subsequently, judicial activity emerged in the political sphere or the sphere of public administration. Much later, the formation of such state bodies as parliaments took place, taking upon themselves the professional implementation of legislative activity. The executive bodies of state power, which previously united in their hands all the threads of public administration (both judicial functions and legislative functions) and therefore were not allocated to a special group, began to have a certain competence and focused on executive activities themselves, i.e. activities related to the implementation of legislative norms. Recently, military activity in many countries has been completely transferred to a professional basis and can rightfully be classified as a special type of political specialization.

The progress of mankind does not stop there. A little later, the third cardinal division of labor occurs: ideology is singled out as an independent type of human activity or ideological specialization occurs. This becomes a reality when paganism gives way to mono-religion and professional specialists of the ideological front appear - priests, priests. At the initial stage of ideological specialization, for reasons that are quite understandable (limited knowledge of the world), religious ideology established itself as dominant. Later, when appropriate objective conditions arise, the palm passes to legal ideology. In the future, the world will witness the triumph of moral ideology. These are the three major divisions of labor in the sphere of ideology. The role of any ideology is to preserve world order.

The accumulation of wealth by society allowed the fourth cardinal division of labor to occur: science became a special type of activity. Scientific research and discoveries were used to obtain knowledge about the world back in ancient times, but then they were dealt with, as it were, by fortune-tellers, priests, etc. Science began to stand out as an independent professional activity from the 15th century. Perhaps in the future, as futurologists suggest, the world will be ruled by scientists. In the field of science one can also discern several major divisions of labor. The natural sciences and humanities became isolated. Within these types of sciences, in turn, there are many varieties of sciences. For example, the humanities are divided into historical, legal, economic, sociological, philological, political science, philosophical, psychological, etc.

It is possible that labor specialization was initially generated by the diversity of geographic environments in which individuals found themselves. If there was a sea nearby, then marine fishing developed; if the land was sufficiently moist, then people switched to agriculture; if the landscape was mountainous, cattle breeding came first, etc.

However, the main thing was not the natural environment. The main thing that determines specialization is the degree of development and organization of society itself.

The denser and more developed the society, the faster, more extensive and deeper the specialization.

Specialization of labor is the result of man's struggle for his existence and represents its peaceful outcome.

The division of labor leads to the formation of social groups with their own specific interests: the emergence of political specialization led to the isolation of a bureaucratic stratum or stratum, civil servants, whose interests often conflict with the interests of the people. However, the solidarity between people existing in society outweighs. And the reason for this solidarity must be seen in the fact that the bureaucratic layer performs, on the whole, useful and even necessary work for the whole of society. Between the managed and the managers there is a kind of mutual exchange of services, cooperation and even cohesion on many issues. The basis of such interaction is a minimum of common, unifying values. Managerial work is highly intellectual and energy-intensive work.

§3.3 Crisis theory

According to the crisis theory (its author is Prof. A. B. Vengrov), the state arises as a result of the so-called Neolithic revolution - the transition of humanity from an appropriating economy to a producing economy. This transition, according to A. B. Vengerov, was caused by an environmental crisis (hence the name of the theory), which arose

approximately 10-12 thousand years ago. Global climate change on Earth, the extinction of mammoths, woolly rhinoceroses, cave bears and other megafauna have put the

threat to the existence of humanity as a biological species. Having managed to overcome the environmental crisis by transitioning to a producing economy, humanity has rebuilt its entire social and economic organization. This led to

stratification of society, the emergence of classes and the emergence of the state, which was supposed to ensure the functioning of the producing economy, new forms

labor activity, the very existence of humanity in new conditions.

§3.4 Dualistic theory

The dualistic theory (its authors are Prof. V.S. Afanasyev and Prof. A.Ya. Malygin) also connects the process of the emergence of the state with the Neolithic revolution. But unlike the crisis theory, it speaks of two ways of the emergence of a state - eastern (Asian) and western (European). At the same time, the eastern path of the emergence of the state is considered as universal, since it is considered characteristic of the states of Asia, Africa and America, and the western one is considered unique, since it is characteristic only of European states.

The main feature of the eastern way of the emergence of the state is seen by the authors of the dualistic theory in the fact that the state is formed on the basis of the administrative apparatus that developed in primitive society. In areas of irrigated agriculture (namely, where the first states arose) there was a need for the construction of complex irrigation structures. This required centralized management and the creation of a special apparatus, i.e. bodies, officials who would carry out this management. Public administration bodies and corresponding positions were created to perform some other functions (for example, to manage special reserve funds, worship, etc.). Gradually officials

persons performing the functions of public administration turned into a privileged closed social stratum, a caste of officials, which became the basis of the state apparatus.

It is considered characteristic of the Western path of the emergence of the state that the leading state-forming factor here was the division of society into classes, which was based on private ownership of land, livestock, slaves and other means of production.

Conclusion

“In the life of every person and any country, in the affairs and concerns of the world community, much depends on the state. Therefore, the natural questions are: what is its nature and goals, how it is structured and how it functions, and whether it successfully solves socially useful problems. Such questions have to be answered, which can be specific and situational. But attempts at general assessments are no less important. Unfortunately, there are clearly not enough of them now.”

In connection with the above, it is very important to state that the history of human knowledge of the state, its emergence and development is the most important source and an essential part of modern scientific knowledge about political phenomena, as well as a necessary prerequisite for its development. Already in the light of the relationships between the historical and the logical, it is obvious that in the political and legal sphere there is no theory without history.

This paper examines the problems of the evolution of scientists' views on the process of the origin of the state, their various assessments of this phenomenon bearing the imprint of the historical era, which is also of considerable interest and serious practical value for the science of the theory of state and law, because the interpretation of the method of the emergence of the state, as it turns out, always depends on the understanding of its essence, on the basis of which, in turn, the system of public policy priorities is very often built.

By identifying several stages in the development of political thought, we can confidently trace the main changes in the perception of the state. The democracy and humanism inherent in antiquity were fully reflected in the theories of Aristotle and Cicero created at that time, which derived state power from the family, the power of its head and, as a result, considered the state to be a union of people united in a certain way and communicating with each other, who are in a special political relationship. In the Middle Ages, when almost all public institutions were under the great influence of the church, the theological theory of the origin of the state, the idea of its creation by God, came to the fore, designed to further strengthen the power of church organizations. In modern times, with the awakening of popular consciousness in Europe and the desire of people to liberate themselves from feudal shackles and to create better living conditions, numerous models of ideal states are created, and with them a semi-utopian idea appears about the emergence of a state as the conclusion of an agreement on the formation of some kind of perfect union free citizens, who also have the right to terminate this agreement in the event of failure by the state to fulfill its obligations. Marxist-Leninist teaching proceeded from the interpretation of the state as an apparatus of class domination and suppression, with a theory of the origin of state power corresponding to this concept. Each new point of view here, thus, almost completely refuted the provisions of the previous one (with rare exceptions, when individual ideas of a concept received further development) and created in society its own view of the state.

According to most scientists, the criterion of truth for the theory of state and law, the science of society, is practice, but not momentary practice, not today, or even the current decade. The practical laboratory of the theory of state and law consists of long historical periods and the experience of different countries and peoples. Naturally, the course of history and human practice cannot but lead to changes in theoretical ideas about the state and the process of its emergence. In a specific historical period, it is difficult to judge the correctness of a particular theory, since every new achievement of science (archaeology, ethnography) can refute the previous ones (it is not for nothing that scientists at the present time, based solely on the latest knowledge they have acquired about primitive society, are trying to create a concept considering the origin of the state as an objective historical process). The criterion of truth here, most likely, is how convincingly this or that teaching explains the social past and, most importantly, how it predicts the future based on it.

The most important law of comprehension, use of the temporal characteristics of human existence, incl. and the state, for political purposes, derived in this regard by researchers of state and law, is concluded in the following: “Who owns the past, owns the present. Reveal the past to society - and it will organize its present differently.” And undoubtedly, this principle will still justify the interest shown in it.

Bibliography:

1) History of political and legal doctrines / Ed. V.S. Nersesyants. - M.: NORMA-INFRA-M, 1999. - P. - 113

2) Vlasov V.I. Theory of State and Law: Textbook for higher legal educational institutions and faculties. – Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2002. – 512 p.

3) Kashanina T.V. Origin of state and law: Modern interpretations and new approaches. M.: Yurist, 1999. - S. – 52; 55-56; 73; 82-83.

4) Vengerov A. B. Theory of State and Law: Textbook/A. B. Vengerov. – 2nd ed. – M.: Omega – L, 2005. – 608 p.

5) Engels F. The origin of the family, private property and the state // Marx K., Engels F. - Op. T.21.

6) Matuzov N. I., Malko A. V. Theory of State and Law: Textbook. – 2nd ed., revised. And additional – M.: Yurist, 2005. – 541 p.

7) Butenko A.P. The state: its yesterday’s and today’s interpretations // State and law. 1993. No. 7.

8) Theory of state and law: Textbook for universities / Rep. ed. V. D. Perevalov. – 3rd ed., revised. and additional – M.; Norma, 2007. – 496 p.

9) Karabanov A.B. Freudian version of the origin and evolution of state legal institutions // State and Law. 2002. No. 6.

10) Shumakov D.M. Origin of state and law // Fundamentals of state and law. 1999. No. 7.

11) Theory of state and law. Textbook for law schools and faculties. / Ed. V.M. Korelsky and V.D. Perevalova. - P. 44.

12) Theory of state and law: Course of lectures./ Ed. M.N. Marchenko. P. 29.

13) Morozova L.A. Fundamentals of state and law of Russia. Tutorial. – M.: 1997. P. 11-12.

states. Such pluralism... living in a certain territory. IN modern science state in a narrow sense understood as an organization...

Theories origin states (12)

Abstract >> State and law

... origin states. Theories origin states: Mythological and religious concepts origin states. These concepts are based on ideas about the divine (supernatural) origin states ...

Origin states and rights (10)

Abstract >> State and law

Traditional and modern theories origin states, as well as features of the concepts origin rights. 2. Causes and conditions origin rights and states. One of...

Basic theories origin states and rights (2)

Abstract >> State and law

... theories origin states and rights Introduction. Theories origin states and rights. Theological theory Patriarchal. Negotiable theory. Theory violence. Psychological theory. Racial theory. Organic theory ...

Marxist (materialist, class) theory

The Marxist theory of the origin of the state is based on the historical-materialist doctrine of society and social development, on the class interpretation of the state and law.

The state, according to Marxism, arises as a result of the natural-historical process of development of the primitive communal system, which occurs according to the following scheme: improvement of tools of labor - division of labor - increase in labor productivity - the emergence of a surplus product - the process of property and social differentiation of society - the emergence of private property - the split of society into classes of exploiters and exploited - the emergence of the state as an apparatus of coercive power of the economically dominant, exploiting class over the poor, exploited class.

The main provisions of the Marxist concept are set out in the works of Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), and then in the works of Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1856–1918), Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924).

The problem of the emergence of the state is specifically studied in F. Engels’s work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (1884). This work is based on the historical-materialist teachings of Marx and Engels and the work of the American ethnographer, archaeologist and historian of primitive society Lewis Henry Morgan, “Ancient Society” (1877), which highlights the main directions of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization.

Engels emphasizes that the clan system was destroyed and replaced by the state through the action of economic and production factors, the division of labor and its consequences - the split of society into opposing classes. The state is a product of society at a certain stage of its development; the state is the recognition that society is entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, split into irreconcilable opposites, from which it is powerless to get rid of. A new force is needed to resolve these contradictions. And this force, originating from society, but placing itself above it, alienating itself more and more from it, is the state. It is a state exclusively of the ruling class and in all cases remains essentially a machine for the suppression of the oppressed, exploited class.

The essence of the Marxist, materialist interpretation of the origin of the state is, therefore, that the state arises as a result of the split of society into classes. Hence the conclusion is drawn: the state is a historically transitory, temporary phenomenon - it arose along with the emergence of classes and must also inevitably die out along with the disappearance of classes.

Marxist-Leninist social theory, including the concept of the origin and essence of the state, in the Soviet period of our history had an official character and was considered the only correct one. To date, she has lost this status, but remains in the series social theories, having a scientific character and worthy of attention.

Modern views of scientists on the origin of the state (crisis, or potestar, theory)

Proponents of the crisis theory of the origin of the state indicate that they are based on modern achievements of anthropology, history, political science, and state science. In their opinion, the most radical changes that influenced the formation of states are associated with the period of human history, which is called the Neolithic (“Neolithic” - new Stone Age). It is from the late Neolithic era, as many experts believe, that the Neolithic revolution began.

The term "Neolithic revolution" was proposed in 1925 by the young British archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe (1892–1957) in the book "The Dawn of European Civilization."

The Neolithic revolution itself, according to scientists, was generated by a complex of planetary causes, primarily the environmental crisis that occurred on Earth 10–12 thousand years ago. The Neolithic Revolution is a qualitative revolution that occurred in all spheres of life of human society during the transition in the Neolithic from an appropriating economy to a producing economy, i.e. from hunting, fishing and gathering to agriculture, cattle breeding, metallurgy and metalworking, ceramic production. The Neolithic Revolution took several millennia (from about the seventh to the third millennium BC).

The form of social organization at that time was the clan (family) community - clan. A clan community (clan) is a group of blood relatives descending from the same line (maternal or paternal), recognizing themselves as descendants of a common ancestor and bearing a common generic name. The clan community was a personal, not territorial, union of people. Family communities could unite into larger formations - associations of clans, tribes, tribal unions.

Power in primitive society was built on the principles of natural self-government. The authorities in the primitive community were: a) leader, leader; b) council of elders; c) a meeting of all adult members of the clan.

Power in primitive society, in contrast to state power, is called modern science potestarny (lat. potestas – "power, strength").

In the process of the Neolithic revolution, the productive economy led to property and social differentiation ( social stratification) of primitive society, and later - to the emergence of the state. Primary state formations, early class city-states, begin to appear, and therefore the Neolithic revolution is sometimes called the “urban revolution.”

The first city-states were formed in the 4th–3rd millennia BC. in Mesopotamia, Mountain Peru and other regions at different times and independently of each other. The city-state was a settlement (village), in which the population was no longer organized by kinship, but by territorial principle. There was a clear social differentiation, property stratification, division of labor, and the initial administrative apparatus was formed in it.

In the city-state, three control centers are organized, which correspond to the three centers of administrative and ideological leadership: the city community, the palace and the temple. The city subsequently begins to perform public administration functions in relation to the adjacent territories.

Thus, in accordance with the crisis theory, the state as a new organizational form of social life arises as a result of the Neolithic revolution, i.e. in the process of human transition to a producing economy, changes in the material conditions of life of society, the formation of new organizational and labor forms of this life.

Professor A.B. Vengerov notes that the potestar theory retains a materialistic, class approach. But the main emphasis in explaining the origin of the state is not on the emergence of private property institutions and class formation, but on the organizational functions of primary states, on the relationship between the origin of the state and the formation of a producing economy. Moreover, this theory attaches special importance to the major environmental crisis at the turn of the Neolithic revolution, and the transition at this turn to a producing economy.

As for the relationship between the processes of class formation and the emergence of the state, then, according to the authors of the crisis theory, they cannot be understood in a simplified way: as if classes first arose, and then their antagonism led to the emergence of the state. These processes run in parallel, independently, interacting with each other. The class nature of primary states was clearly defined only over time, when the stratification of society and class formation led to the seizure of the state by one class or another and its adaptation to its interests and needs.

Thus, according to the potestar theory, in concrete historical reality the early class state did not arise as a result of the activity of the ruling class alone. It is a consequence of the development of society at the stage of formation of the producing economy, the final development of agricultural crops. But, of course, one or another class, having captured the state, could become, with the help of the state, the ruling class.

In its further development, the early class state grew into a state of the so-called Asian mode of production.

Cm.: Vengerov A. B. Theory of Government and Rights. pp. 34–36.

Makeup

1 0 0

If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl+Enter.

Crisis theory. Theories of the origin of the state The crisis theory of the origin of the state is

Crisis theory

Demographic theory

Economic theory

Diffusion theory

Specialization theory

Management (organizational) theory

Internal Conflict Theory

External Conflict Theory

Synthetic theory

Libertarian legal theory

3. Reasons for the diversity of doctrines on the origin of the state

Plan:

Introduction

Chapter 2. Basic theories of the origin of the state

§2.1. Theological theory

§2.2. Patriarchal theory

§2.3 Contract theory

§2.4 Theory of violence

§2.5. Class theory

§2.6. Psychological theory

§2.7. Organic theory

§2.8 Irrigation theory

Chapter 3: Modern theories of the origin of the state

§3.1. Incest theory

§3.2. Specialization theory

§3.3 Crisis theory

§3.4 Dualistic theory

Conclusion

Bibliography:

Theories origin states (12)

Origin states and rights (10)

Basic theories origin states and rights (2)

Marxist (materialist, class) theory

Modern views of scientists on the origin of the state (crisis, or potestar, theory)

Editor's Choice