“the origin of the family, private property and the state.” F. Engels's work "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" The emergence of the family of private property and the state

05.12.2019

and Engels it was obvious that class society with all its institutions arose historically. But to characterize pre-class society, the process of its decomposition and transition to class society, they lacked scientific data, which were still very scattered. A book published in London in 1877 clarified a lot in this regard. L.Morgana “Ancient Society”, in which the tribal system of the American Indians was essentially considered from a materialistic perspective in the context of the evolution of primitive society. After the death of Marx, Engels discovered his summary (with comments) of this book and, using it, as well as his own research on the history of antiquity, ancient Germans, Celts, etc., in the spring of 1884 he wrote this work, which filled a significant gap in the socio-historical concepts of Marxism.

The book develops the position that the production and reproduction of immediate life are twofold: the production of means of subsistence and the production of man himself. And the less developed the first, the greater the influence the second has on people’s lives. Following Morgan, Engels identified periods of savagery and barbarism in the prehistory of mankind, each of which included lower, middle and higher stages. The transition from one stage to another is due to the development of tools. He especially noted that it was the discovery of the use of fire that allowed humanity to escape from the animal state. Making primitive stone tools, people subsisted by gathering, hunting, and fishing. During the period of barbarism, there was a transition to the production of means of subsistence - agriculture and cattle breeding arose (later this transition was called the Neolithic revolution). The development of productive forces on this basis prepared the material prerequisites for the emergence civilization . Thus, the change of stages of primitive society is determined by the development of material production. But the forms social organization They also turn out to depend on the production of the person himself, which gives rise to different forms of family and kinship systems. These latter characterize the relations of people of that time. Historically, they arose on the basis of prohibitions on sexual relations, first between generations, parents and children, then between brothers and sisters. As a result, a clan arises consisting of maternal relatives. Several closely related clans made up the tribe. Marriages within the clan were prohibited. But there were various shapes group marriage between men and women from different clans of a given tribe. During the transition to barbarism, relatively stable marriage pairs began to form, and group marriage began to develop into pair marriage. Gradually, the family also acquires the function of an economic unit, which leads to its isolation within the clan. As wealth increases, the problem of inheritance from father to son also arises. Created patriarchal family, which included relatives on the paternal side, destroying the maternal line. It established the inequality of men and women, the dominant position of men, and was a form of transition to the monogamous family characteristic of civilization. This inequality continues in the bourgeois family. In the future society, the economic function of the family will die out, and with it the economic calculation in the relationship between a man and a woman will disappear. These relationships will be built only on individual love, and the people of the future will determine their forms themselves.

For Engels, it was of fundamental importance to have common features in the clan of the American Indians and the clan of the ancient peoples of Europe, to establish the fact that they were different stages of the same clan organization of society. This meant that the form of social structure of the prehistoric period of human existence had been discovered. This form corresponded to a low level of development of productive forces, a sparse population, and the almost complete subordination of man to nature, and of the individual to the community to which he belonged. Common property, the natural gender and age division of labor, and joint farming united the clan, and this made it possible for people to survive in those conditions. It was impossible to survive alone. Not an isolated individual, but a primitive collective - clan, tribe, community - were at the beginning of human history. The development of productive forces began to undermine the foundations of the clan organization, since a surplus product appeared and the possibility of its accumulation, redistribution, etc., which was incompatible with primitive equality. The process of decomposition of the tribal system coincided with the genesis of private property, social inequality, classes and the state. Thus, the starting positions were determined for the scientific formulation of the question of the origin of class society and its institutions or, as indicated in the book, the emergence of civilization. Here, the growth in labor productivity associated with the advent of iron tools and the social division of labor was of decisive importance. Engels named three major stages in the division of social labor, which formed the path to civilization: the separation of pastoral tribes, which made necessary the systematic exchange of products, the emergence of money; separation of crafts from agriculture, which led to the widespread use of slave labor, the establishment of commodity production and trade, property inequality, private property and the division of society into classes; the separation of trade into an independent type of activity: merchants could no longer do without metal money. The development of crafts and trade, the growth of wealth, the severance of previous tribal ties, the emergence of property inequality and social classes paved the way for the formation of the state.

In a class society with its antagonisms, according to Engels, to preserve the existing order and protect the interests of the ruling class, an organized political force is necessary. This is what the state is. The book, based on extensive material, provides a description and analysis of the formation of state institutions among the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Germans. Different peoples had their own characteristics of this process. But its common features were the emergence of public power (army, officials), taxes and the division of the population not according to clan, but according to territoriality. The state performs some functions necessary for society, but unlike the clan organization, it places itself above society. The history of civilization knows three great forms of exploitation of one class by another: slavery , serfdom and wage labor. In every era, the state, as the organ of the most economically powerful class, has perpetuated these forms of enslavement. This is also the case with a democratic republic in a bourgeois society, where capital rules indirectly, but all the more surely. The state arose along with classes, has a class character, and with the destruction of classes must die out.

The book reflects the level of science. 19th century Since then, both science and history have moved far forward, and many of the issues discussed in the book are now interpreted differently. Many new problems have also arisen. But the work, having played important role in the history of Marxism and worldview in general, retains its significance as an expression of fundamental positions on a number of fundamental problems of Marxist socio-historical theory.

INTRODUCTION

F. Engels's work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” was completed by F. Engels in 1884. This book was written in connection with the analysis of Lewis Morgan's book Ancient Society. It reveals the patterns of development of the primitive communal system, the main stages of its development and the reasons for its inevitable death. It shows the development processes and emergence of the family, private property and the state, which led to the emergence of class society.

It has not lost its significance even today. Here he convincingly exposes the myths of modern nationalists about the chosenness of some peoples and the inferiority of others.

In the first preface, it is noted: “According to the materialist understanding, the defining moment in history is, ultimately, the production and reproduction of life itself. But it itself is of two kinds. On the one hand, the production of means of subsistence, food, clothing, housing, and the tools necessary for this; and on the other, the production of man himself, the continuation of the race.”

PRE-STORIC STAGES OF CULTURE

Morgan identifies three main eras of human existence: savagery, barbarism and civilization. In his work he focuses on the second era and the process of transition to civilization. Savagery and barbarism are divided into three stages and a description is given [p. 21].

Wildness is a period of predominantly appropriation of finished products of nature; works created by man serve primarily as auxiliary instruments for such appropriation [p. 27].

Lowest level. Childhood of the human race. People were still in their original places of residence, in the tropical forests. Their food was fruits, nuts, roots; the main achievement of this period is the emergence of articulate speech [p. 21-22].

Middle stage. It begins with the introduction of fish food and the use of fire. But with this new food they people became independent of climate and terrain; they could have already settled over a long distance. The settlement of new places and the constant desire to search, in combination with possession of fire, obtained by friction, provided new means of nutrition [p. 22].

Highest level. It begins with the invention of the bow and arrow, thanks to which game became a constant food, and hunting became one of the usual branches of labor. Comparing with each other peoples who already know the bow and arrow, but are not yet familiar with the art of pottery, one can find some of the beginnings of settlement in villages, a certain stage of mastering the production of means of subsistence: wooden vessels and utensils, hand weaving, stone tools. Fire and a stone ax already make it possible to make boats and produce logs and planks for building a dwelling [p. 23].

Barbarism is the period of the introduction of cattle breeding and agriculture, the period of assimilation of methods for increasing the production of natural products with the help of human activity [p. 27].

Lowest level. Begins with the introduction of pottery art. It owed its origin to the coating of wicker vessels with clay in order to make them fireproof.

A characteristic feature of this period is the domestication and breeding of animals and the cultivation of plants. The eastern continent, the so-called Old World, possessed almost all species of animals and species of cereals suitable for breeding, except one; the western continent, America, of all domesticable animals, only the llama, and of all cultivated cereals, only one - maize. As a result of this difference in natural conditions and conditions, the population of each hemisphere develops according to its own scenario, and boundary signs at the boundaries of individual stages of development become different for each hemisphere.

Middle stage. In the east it begins with the domestication of domestic animals, in the west - with the cultivation of edible plants using irrigation and the use of buildings made of adobes (sun-dried raw bricks) and stone. The domestication of herds and the formation of large herds led to a pastoral life. The cultivation of cereals was driven primarily by the need for animal feed and only later became an important source of food for people [p. 24-25].

The full flowering of the highest stage of barbarism appears before us in the poems of Homer, especially in the Iliad. Improved iron tools, blacksmith's bellows, hand mill, potter's wheel, making vegetable oil and winemaking, advanced metal processing, passing

into artistic craft, the cart and war chariot, the construction of ships from logs and planks, the beginnings of architecture as an art, cities surrounded by battlements with towers, the Homeric epic and all mythology - this is the main legacy that the Greeks transferred from barbarism to civilization. Comparing with this the description given by Caesar and even Tacitus of the Germans, who were in the initial stage of the very stage of culture from which the Homeric Greeks were preparing to move to a higher one, we see what a wealth of achievements in the development of production the highest stage of barbarism has.

The picture I sketched here, according to Morgan, of the development of mankind through the stages of savagery and barbarism to the origins of civilization is already quite rich in features that are new and, more importantly, undeniable, since they are taken directly from production. And yet this picture will seem pale and pitiful in comparison with the one that will unfold before us at the end of our

wandering; only then will it be possible to fully illuminate the transition from barbarism to civilization and the striking contrast between the two [p. 27].

Also at the end of this chapter a definition of the concept of civilization is given. Civilization is a period of assimilation of further processing of natural products, a period of industry in the proper sense of the word and art” [p. 27].

FAMILY

In primitive human society there was a state when every woman belonged to every man and equally every man belonged to every woman. This was the period of the so-called group marriage [p. 31].

From this primitive state of disordered intercourse gradually developed:

Consanguineous family is the first level of family. Here, marriage groups are divided by generation: all grandparents within the family are husbands and wives for each other, as well as their children, i.e. fathers and mothers; in the same way, the children of the latter form the third circle of common spouses, and their children, the great-grandchildren of the former, form the fourth circle [p. 37].

Punalual family. In it, parents and children, as well as brothers and sisters, are excluded from sexual intercourse. From the punalual family the institution of the clan arose. A clan is understood as a community of relatives who have one female ancestor. In a group marriage, naturally, kinship could only be established through the female line [p. 39-41].

Couple family. In it, a man lives with one woman, but polygamy does occur, although it is rare. The strictest fidelity is required from a woman for the entire duration of cohabitation. Banning in-law marriage leads to increased resilience and development mental abilities people [p. 48-49].

“A woman among all savages and all tribes at the lower, middle, and partly even the highest level of barbarism not only enjoys freedom, but also occupies a very honorable position.” The era of barbarism is distinguished by the presence of matriarchy. This is explained by the fact that women running a communist household belong to one clan, and men belong to different ones [p. 50-51].

At the stage of savagery, wealth consists of housing, rude ornaments, clothing, boats, and household utensils of the simplest kind [p. 56].

During the era of barbarism, herds of horses, camels, donkeys, cattle, sheep, goats and pigs appeared. This property multiplied and provided abundant milk and meat food. The hunt receded into the background. Slaves appeared. The emergence of slavery is due to the fact that human labor began to provide significant income, prevailing over the costs of its maintenance. At the same time, the husband became the owner of livestock and slaves [p. 58].

Gradually, family wealth becomes the property of the heads of families (herds, metal utensils, luxury items and slaves). “Thus, as wealth increased, it gave the husband a more powerful position in the family than the wife, and gave rise, on the one hand, to the desire to use this strengthened position in order to change the usual order of inheritance in favor of the children.” But this could not be so long as descent was considered by maternal right. It had to be cancelled, and it was cancelled. At the same time, descent began to be determined not through the maternal line, but through the male line, and the right of inheritance through the father was introduced [p. 59].

“The overthrow of maternal rights was a world-historical defeat for the female sex. The husband seized the reins of government in the house, and the woman lost her honorable position, was turned into a servant, into a slave of his lust, into a simple instrument of childbearing” [p. 60].

Monogamous family. “It arises from a paired family, as explained above, at the boundary between the middle and highest stages of barbarism; its final victory is one of the signs of the beginning of civilization. It is based on the dominance of the husband with the express purpose of producing children whose descent from the father is not subject to doubt, and this indisputability of descent is necessary because the children, as direct heirs, must eventually take possession of the father's property. It differs from a couple’s marriage in the much greater strength of the marriage bonds, which can no longer be dissolved at the request of either party [p. 65].

The emerging monogamy is nothing more than the enslavement of one sex by the other. F. Engels writes: “the first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of antagonism between husband and wife under monogamy, and the first class oppression coincides with the enslavement of the female sex by the male” [p. 70].

We have three main forms of marriage, generally corresponding to the three main stages of human development. Savagery corresponds to group marriage, barbarism - pair marriage, civilization - monogamy. “Monogamy arose as a result of the concentration of great wealth in one hand, namely in the hands of a man, and from the need to pass on this wealth by inheritance to the children of this man and not another” [p. 80].

At the conclusion of the second section, F. Engels makes a forecast: “since the monogamous family has noticeably improved over the period since the beginning of civilization, and especially noticeably in modern times, we can at least assume that it is capable of further improvement until it reaches gender equality. If a monogamous family in the distant future turns out to be unable to fulfill the demands of society, then it is impossible to predict in advance what kind of character its successor will have” [p. 90].

IROQUIOSIAN CLIENT

Morgan takes the Iroquois gens, especially the Seneca gens, as the classic gens of the original era. In this tribe there are eight genera bearing the names of animals: 1) wolf, 2) bear, 3) turtle, 4) beaver, 5) deer, 6) sandpiper, 7) heron, 8) falcon. Each clan has the following customs:

1.The clan chooses its “sachem” (elder for peacetime) and chief (military leader). The son of the previous sachem was never chosen as a sachem, since maternal right and son, therefore, prevailed among the Iroquois. belonged to a different family, but often his brother or sister’s son was chosen. All men and women participated in the elections. The military leader could order something only during campaigns. 2. The clan, at its discretion, removes the sachem and the military leader. This is decided jointly by men and women. The tribal council can remove the sachem even against the will of the clan. 3. None of the members of the clan can take a wife within the members of the clan. With the discovery of this simple fact, Morgan for the first time revealed the essence of the clan. 4. The property of the dead passed to other relatives, it had to remain in the clan. . Hence, from the blood ties of the clan, the obligation of blood feud arose. 6. The clan has certain names or series of names. The name of an individual clan member indicated which clan he belonged to. The clan's rights are inextricably linked with the clan's name. 7. The clan can adopt outsiders and thus accept them as members of the tribe. Among the Iroquois, ceremonial adoption into the clan took place during a public meeting of the tribal council, often turning this celebration into a religious ceremony. 8. Indian religious ceremonies are more or less associated with the clan. 9. The clan has a common burial place. 10. The clan has a council - a democratic assembly all adult members, men and women, with equal voting rights. This council elected and removed sachems and military leaders, as well as other “guardians of the faith”, it passed decisions on ransom or blood place for killed relatives, it accepted strangers into the clan. In a word, he was the supreme authority in the family. These are the rights of a typical Indian family [p. 93-96].

“All its members are free people, obliged to protect each other's freedom. Possessing equal personal rights, neither the sachem nor the military chief claims any personal advantage. The clan represents a brotherhood. connected by blood ties. Liberty, equality, fraternity - although these were never formed - were the basic principles of the clan, and the clan, in turn, was the unit of the whole social system, the basis of organized Indian society. This explained the inflexible sense of independence and self-worth that everyone must recognize in the Indians" [p. 96].

In many Indian tribes there were more than five or six clans; we find the organization of special groups of three, four or more clans in each. Morgan calls such a group a phratry (brotherhood).

Just as several clans form a phratry, so several phratries in the classical form of the clan system form a tribe.

A separate tribe is characterized by its own history and its own name. 2. The tribe is characterized by a dialect. 3. The right to solemnly inaugurate sachems and military leaders elected by the clans. 4. The right to remove them even against the wishes of their clan. Since these sachems and military leaders are members of the tribal council, these rights of the tribe in relation to them are self-explanatory. 5. general religious beliefs. of which, however, are very small [p. 98-101].

Alliances between related tribes were sometimes concluded in cases of temporary need and disintegrated when it was eliminated. In certain localities, initially related but disunited tribes were again united into long-term alliances, thus taking the first step towards the formation of nations. At the latest, at the beginning of the 15th century, an “eternal union” developed - a federation that, in the consciousness of the power it had acquired, immediately took on an offensive character and conquered the significant areas surrounding it. The Iroquois Union represents the most developed public organization [pp. 101-102].

The main features of this union:

Complete equality and independence in all internal affairs tribe. Consanguinity constituted the true basis of the union. They had a common language. 2. The body of the union was the union council, consisting of 50 sachems, equal in position and honor. This council made final decisions on all matters of the union. 3. When the union was established, these 50 sachems were distributed among the tribes and clans as holders of new positions specially established for the purposes of the union. Their re-election was carried out by the members of the clan themselves, but they had to be approved by the union council. 4. The union sachems were also sachems of their tribes. 5. All decisions of the union council had to be adopted unanimously. 6. Each of the five tribal councils could convene a union council, while the latter could not gather on his own initiative. 7. The meeting took place before the assembled people, each Iroquois could take the floor. 8. The union did not have a personal supreme head, a person who would stand at the head of the executive power. 9. The union had two military leaders with equal powers [p. 102-103].

Such was the social system under which the Iroquois lived for over 400 years and are still living today. We had the opportunity to study the organization of a society that did not yet know the state. The state presupposes a special public power, separated from the totality of its permanent members [p. 103-104].

GREEK KIND

According to the Greek history of Grotto, the Athenian family rested on the following foundations:

Common religious festivals, the exclusive right of the priesthood to perform sacred rites in honor of a specific god. 2. Common burial place. 3. The right of mutual inheritance. 4. Mutual obligation to provide assistance and protection to each other in case of violence. 5. Possession common property, own archon (elder) and treasurer.7. Account of descent in accordance with paternal law.8.Prohibition of marriages within the clan, with the exception of marriages with heiresses.9.Right of adoption by clan; it was carried out by adoption of one of the families, but with the observance of public formalities, and only as an exception.10.Right to elect and remove elders [p. 109-110].

Each clan had its own archon. The phratry, like among the Americans, was the original clan, divided into several daughter clans.

Phratries are found in Homer as a military unit. The phratry had an elder (fratriarch). General meetings made binding decisions and had judicial and administrative powers. Even the later state, which ignored the gens, reserved for the phratry some public functions of an administrative nature [p. 112-113].

Several related phratries make up a tribe. In Attica there were four tribes: in each tribe there were three phratries and in each phratry there were thirty clans [p. 113].

The organization of governance of these tribes and nationalities was as follows:

The permanent body of power was the council, consisting of the elders of the clans, and later, when their number increased too much, of special elected representatives, which became a condition for the formation and strengthening of the aristocratic element. In important matters, the council makes final decisions. Subsequently, when the state was created, this council turned into the Senate. 2. People's Assembly (agora). It was called a council for deciding important issues; every man could take the floor. The decision was made by raising hands or shouting. The supreme power belonged to the assembly in the last instance. Indeed, at a time when every adult man in the tribe was a warrior, there was no public authority separate from the people that could be opposed to it. 3. Military commander. (basileus) Among the Greeks, under the rule of paternal law, the position of basileus is usually to a son or one of the sons, this only proves that the sons could count on inheritance by virtue of popular election, but does not at all serve as evidence of legal inheritance in addition to such election . IN in this case We find among the Iroquois and Greeks the first embryo of special noble families within the clan, and among the Greeks also the first embryo of the future hereditary leadership or monarchy. It should be assumed that among the Greeks the basileus was either elected by the people or had to be approved by their recognized bodies - the council or agora, as was the practice in relation to the Roman “king” [p. 115].

In the Greek system, we see the ancient clan organization still in full force, but at the same time, the beginning of its erosion: we see here paternal right with the inheritance of property by children, which favored the accumulation of wealth in the family and strengthened the family as opposed to the clan; the reverse influence of property differences on the social system through the formation of the first embryos of hereditary nobility and royal power; the praise and veneration of wealth as the highest good and the abuse of ancient tribal institutions to justify the violent plunder of wealth. What was missing was an institution that would perpetuate not only the beginning division of society into classes, but also the rights of the propertied class to exploit the have-nots and the domination of the former over the latter [p. 118].

THE RISE OF THE ATHENIAN STATE

The organization of government corresponded to the heroic era: the people's assembly, people's council, basilei. In the era from which written history begins, the land was already divided and passed into private ownership, as is typical for commodity production and the corresponding trade in goods, which was relatively already developed towards the end of the highest stage of barbarism [p. 119].

The device attributed to Theseus was introduced. The change consisted, first of all, in the fact that a central administration was established in Athens, that is, part of the affairs that had previously been under the independent jurisdiction of the tribes was declared to be of general importance and transferred to the jurisdiction of the general council located in Athens [p. 120].

The second innovation, attributed to Theseus, was to divide the entire people, regardless of gens, phratry or tribe, into three classes: eupatrides, or nobles, geomores, or farmers, and demiurges, or artisans, and to grant the nobles an exclusive right to hold positions [ p. 120-121].

Solon divided citizens into four classes according to the size of landholding and its profitability; 500, 300 and 150 medimn of grain (1 medimn = approximately 41 liters) were minimum sizes income for the first three classes; those who had lower incomes or did not own land property at all fell into the fourth class [p. 127].

The class antagonism on which social and political institutions now rested was no longer an antagonism between the nobility and the common people, but an antagonism between slaves and freemen, between protected and full citizens.

But with the development of trade and industry, there was an accumulation and concentration of wealth in a few hands, as well as the impoverishment of the mass of free citizens, who were left with a choice: either to enter into competition with slave labor, taking up a craft themselves, which was considered a shameful, low occupation and did not promise besides great success, or turn into beggars. It was not democracy that destroyed Athens, as European school pedants who grovel before monarchs claim, but slavery, which made the work of a free citizen despicable [p. 131].

“The emergence of a state among the Athenians is a highly typical example of the formation of a state in general, because, on the one hand, it occurs in its pure form, without any intervention of external or internal violence - the seizure of power by Pisistratus did not leave any traces of its short existence, - with on the other hand, because in this case a very developed form of state, a democratic republic, arises directly from tribal society and, finally, because we are sufficiently aware of all the essential details of the formation of this state" [p. 132].

FAMILY AND STATE IN ROME

The first settlers in Rome were a number of Latin clans united into one tribe. It is generally accepted that the Roman gens was the same institution as the Greek gens; if the Greek clan represents the further development of that social unit, the primitive form of which we find among the American Redskins, then this applies entirely to the Roman clan.

The Roman family had the following structure:

Mutual right of inheritance among members of the clan; the property remained within the clan. In Roman law, paternal law already dominated, and offspring through the female line were excluded from inheritance. 2. Possession of a common burial place. 3. Common religious celebrations. 4. Obligations not to marry within the clan. This, apparently, never turned into a written law in Rome, but remained a custom. 5. Common ownership of land. 6. The duty of relatives to provide each other with protection and assistance. 7. The right to bear a family name. 8. The right to accept strangers into the clan. 9. The right to elect and remove an elder [p. 134-135].

Such were the rights of the Roman family. With the exception of the already completed transition to patrilineal rights, they accurately reproduce the rights and duties of the Iroquois clan [p. 136].

Ten clans made up the phratry, which here was called the curia and had more important social functions than the Greek phratry. The ten curiae constituted a tribe which, initially, like other Latin tribes, had its own elected elder - a military leader and high priest. All three tribes taken together constituted the Roman people [p. 140].

Thus, only one who was a member of the clan, and through his clan, a member of the curia and tribe, could belong to the Roman people. The initial social system of this people was as follows. At first, public affairs were in charge of the Senate, which was composed of the elders of three hundred clans; That is why, as clan elders, they were called fathers (patres), and their totality was called the senate (council of elders, from the word senex - old). The customary election of elders always from the same family of each clan created the first clan nobility here too. These families were called patricians and claimed the exclusive right to enter the Senate and the right to defend all other offices. The fact that the people eventually came to terms with these claims, and they turned into valid law, is expressed in the legend that Romulus granted the first senators and their posterity the patriciate with its privileges [p. 140].

The Senate had a decisive vote in many matters and preliminarily discussed the most important of them, especially new laws. The latter were finally adopted by the people's assembly (assembly of curiae). The people gathered, grouping themselves into curiae, and in each curia, probably, into clans; When deciding issues, each of the thirty curiae had one vote. The assembly of curiae accepted or rejected all laws, elected all the highest officials, including the so-called king, declared war (but peace was concluded by the Senate), and, as the highest court, made the final decision on the appeal of the parties in all cases where the death sentence was a matter of a Roman citizen. Next to the Senate and the People's Assembly stood the king (rex), who exactly corresponded to the Greek basileus, and was almost an autocratic king. He, too, was a military leader, high priest and chairman of some courts. The position of rex was not hereditary; on the contrary, he was first elected, on the proposal of his predecessor, by the assembly of the curiae, and then in the second assembly he was solemnly inaugurated [p. 141-142].

Thanks to the conquest, the population of the city of Rome and the Roman region increased, partly due to the population of the conquered, mostly Latin, districts. All these new subjects stood outside the old clans, curiae and tribes and, therefore, did not form part of the Roman people proper. They were personally free people, could own land property, had to pay taxes and serve military service. But they could not hold any positions and could not participate either in the assembly of curiae or in the division of conquered state lands. They constituted the plebs, deprived of all public rights. Thanks to their ever-increasing numbers, their military training and weapons, they became a formidable force opposing the old populus [p. 142-143].

It is impossible to say anything definite about the time, course, or causes of the revolution that put an end to the ancient clan system. The only thing that is certain is that its cause was rooted in the struggle between the plebs and the populus.

The new constitution created a new popular assembly, from which people participated or were excluded depending on military service. The entire male population liable for military service was divided according to their property into six classes. The sixth class, the proletarian, consisted of the poor, free from service and taxes. In the new national assembly of centuries, citizens lined up in a military manner, in detachments in their centuries of 100 people, and each century had one vote. But the first class exhibited 80 centuries, the second - 22, the third - 20, the fourth - 22, the fifth -30, the sixth, for the sake of decency, one century. In addition, horsemen, recruited from the richest citizens, fielded 18 centuries; a total of 193 centuries; the majority of votes was 97. But the riders and first class together had 98 votes, i.e. majority; with their unanimity, the others were not even asked; the decision was considered accepted [p. 143].

All the political rights of the previous assembly of curiae have now passed to this new assembly of centuries; the curiae and their constituent clans were thereby relegated, as in Athens, to the role of simple private and religious associations. The assembly of curiae soon ceased to exist altogether. In order to eliminate the three old clan tribes from the state, four territorial tribes were created, each of which lived in a separate quarter of the city and had a number of political rights. Thus, in Rome, even before the abolition of the so-called royal power, the ancient social system, based on personal blood ties, was destroyed, and in its place a new, truly state structure was created, based on territorial division and property differences. With the eventual dissolution of the patrician nobility into a new class of large landowners and money magnates, who gradually absorbed all the agriculture of the ruined military service peasants, cultivated the huge estates that arose in this way with the help of slaves, depopulated Italy and thereby paved the way not only for imperial power, but also for its successors - the German barbarians

[page 143-144].

THE GENESIS OF THE CELTS AND THE GERMANS

The existence of the Irish family (the tribe was called a clan) is attested, and it is described not only in ancient collections and laws, but also by English lawyers of the 17th century, who were sent to Ireland to transform the lands of the clans into the crown possessions of the English king. Land was the property of the clan or clan [p. 147].

Irish peasants are often divided into parties, which are based on different parties that are completely incomprehensible to the English and seem to be pursuing no other purpose than the favorite solemn brawls that they arrange for each other. This is an artificial revival, a later replacement for the destruction of clans, which uniquely testifies to the vitality of the inherited tribal instinct [p. 148].

In Scotland, the death of the clan system coincided with the suppression of the 1745 uprising. This clan “exceeds the example of the clan in its organization and new spirit, a striking example of the power of clan life over the members of the clan. ..In their feuds and in their blood feuds, in the division of territory into clans, in their communal land use, in the loyalty of clan members to the leader and to each other, we meet everywhere the newly emerging features of clan society... Descent was considered according to paternal right, so that the children of men remained in the clan, while the children of women went to the clans of their fathers" [p. 149].

The Germans, right up to the migration of peoples, were organized into clans. Even in the conquered Roman provinces they still settled, apparently in clans.

From the clan system came the obligation to inherit not only friendly relations, but also hostile relations of the father or relatives; the wergeld was also inherited - an expiatory fine paid in lieu of blood feud for murder or damage [p. 155].

The settlement of the Germans on the lands occupied during the time of the Romans, as well as on those raised by them later from the Romans, consisted not of villages, but of large family communities, which included several generations, occupied the corresponding strip of land for cultivation and used the surrounding wastelands in the place with neighbors as a common mark.

The organization of government also corresponds to the highest level of barbarism. Everywhere there was a council of elders, which decided smaller matters, and prepared more important ones for decision in the people's assembly. The elders are still sharply different from military leaders, just like among the Iroquois. The transition to paternal (clan) law favors, as in Greece and Rome, the transformation of the elective principle into inheritance law and thereby the emergence of a noble family in each clan. This ancient, so-called clan nobility, for the most part, perished during the migration of peoples or shortly after it. Military leaders were elected regardless of origin, solely on the basis of suitability. They had little power and had to influence by example; the actual disciplinary power in the army was definitely attributed to the priests. Real power was concentrated in the hands of the people's assembly. The king or tribal elder presides; the people make their decision; negative - with a murmur, affirmative - with exclamations of approval, the rattling of weapons. The People's Assembly also serves as a court; they bring them here and here they resolve complaints and pronounce death sentences. In clans and other divisions, all assemblies are also ruled by a court presided over by an elder, who, as in all German initial courts, could only be the leader of the process and raise questions; Among the Germans, the verdict was always and everywhere passed by the entire collective [p. 159-160].

Since the time of Caesar, tribal alliances have been formed; some of them already had kings, the supreme military leader, like the Greeks and Romans, already sought tyrant power and sometimes achieved it. Such happy usurpers, however, were not unlimited rulers; but they were already beginning to break the shackles of the tribal system [p. 160].

The emergence of royal power was facilitated by one institution - squads. Already among the American Redskins we saw how, along with the clan system, private associations were created to wage war at their own peril and risk. These private associations became permanent unions among the Germans. A military leader who had gained fame gathered around him a detachment of young men eager for booty, who owed him personal loyalty, like himself. The leader supported them and rewarded them. Robbery became the goal of the system of military mercenaryism - the shame and curse of the Germans was already here in its first form. After the conquest of the Roman Empire, these warriors of the kings formed the nobility [p. 161].

Thus, the German names united into peoples had the same management organization as the Greeks of the heroic era of the so-called kings: a national assembly, a council of clan elders, a military leader, who were already striving for truly royal power. This was the most developed organization of management that could have developed under the clan system; it was an exemplary organization of government at the highest level of barbarism. As soon as society left the framework within which this organization satisfied its purpose, the end of orphanhood came; it exploded, the state took its place

[page 161-162].

FORMATION OF THE STATE AMONG THE GERMANS

The German state, and this is its main difference from the examples given above, did not appear out of nowhere, as was the case with the Roman and Athenian states, but on the site of the collapsed Western part of the Roman Empire.

The main difference in the emergence of the state among the Germans was the absence of a tribal system in the lands they conquered, since it degenerated after a long stay under the rule of the Roman Empire. The state of the Germans developed at an accelerated pace, the main catalyst for this was the fact that the Germanic peoples, who became masters of the Roman provinces, had to organize the administration of this territory they had conquered. However, it was impossible either to accept the masses of the Romans into clan associations, nor to dominate them through the latter [p. 169-170].

At the head of the Roman local government bodies, which at first mostly continued to exist, it was necessary to put some kind of substitute in place of the Roman state, and this substitute could only be another state. Therefore, the organs of the clan system had to turn into organs of the state, and, moreover, under the pressure of circumstances, very quickly. But the closest representative of the conquering people was the military leader. Protecting the conquered region from internal and external danger required strengthening his power. The moment had come for the transformation of the power of a military leader into royal power, and this transformation was accomplished [p. 170].

BARBARY AND CIVILIZATION

This final section is a summary of what has been said above, and deals with the general economic conditions which undermined the tribal organization of society and, with the advent of civilization, completely eliminated it. Here we cannot do without extensive quotations from the work of F. Engels, since they formulate in a generalized form the results of what is presented in the work.

The genus, notes F. Engels, “reaches its heyday at the lowest level of barbarism.” “The greatness of the clan system, but at the same time its limitations, is manifested in the fact that there is no place for domination and enslavement. Within the clan system there is still no distinction between rights and duties...” [p. 176].

Subsequently, among a number of advanced tribes, the main branch of labor became not hunting and fishing, but domestication, and then livestock breeding. The exchange of livestock began between the tribes. Livestock became a commodity by which all goods were valued; it acquired the functions of money. The loom was invented and metal smelting began. Production tools and weapons were quickly improved [p.179].

The first major division of labor, together with an increase in labor productivity, and therefore wealth, and with an expansion of the field of productive activity, under the totality of given historical conditions, necessarily entailed slavery. From the first major social division of labor arose the first major division of society into two classes - masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited [p.180].

The “wild” warrior and hunter was content with second place in the house after the woman, the “meeker” shepherd, bragging about his wealth, moved to first place, and pushed the woman to second. And she couldn't complain. The division of labor in the family served as the basis for the distribution of property between men and women [pp. 180-181].

“The differences between rich and poor appear along with the difference between free and slaves, with a new division of labor - a new division of society into classes” [p. 183].

Exchange between individual producers turns into a vital necessity for society. The third most important division of labor occurs - a “class arises that is no longer engaged in production, but only in the exchange of products.” A class of merchants is created [p.185].

Along with the emergence of merchants, metallic money also appeared. This was a new means of domination; a commodity of goods was discovered, which in a hidden form contains all other goods. “Following the purchase of goods with money, money lending appeared, and with it interest and usury.” During the same period, new land relations emerged. Previously, the land was the property of the clan. Now it began to belong to individuals with the right of inheritance, that is, private property. They began to sell and mortgage the land [p.186].

“Thus, along with the expansion of trade, along with money and monetary usury, land ownership and mortgages, the concentration and centralization of wealth quickly took place in the hands of a small class, and along with this, the impoverishment of the masses grew, and the mass of the poor increased.” The tribal system turned out to be powerless in the face of new elements that grew up without its assistance. “The tribal system has outlived its time. It was exploded by the division of labor and its consequence - the division of society into classes. It was replaced by the state [p.189].

Thus, “the state is a product of society at a certain stage of development; the state is a recognition that this society is entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, split into irreconcilable opposites, from which it is powerless to get rid of. And so that these opposites, classes with contradictory economic interests, do not devour each other and society in a fruitless struggle, a force becomes necessary for this to moderate the collision, to keep it within the boundaries of “order.” This force is the state [p.190].

The distinctive features of the state are the territorial division of subjects and public power [pp. 190-191].

To contain public power, contributions from citizens - taxes - are necessary. With the development of civilization, even taxes are not enough; the state issues bills for the future, makes loans, public debts [pp. 191-192].

And now, in conclusion, Morgan’s judgment on civilization: “With the advent of civilization, the growth of wealth became so enormous, its forms so varied, its uses so extensive, and its management in the interests of the owners so skillful, that this wealth became an irresistible force opposing the people. The human mind stands in confusion and confusion before his own creation. But still the time will come when human reason will be strengthened for the mastery over wealth, when it will establish both the relation of the state to the property it protects and the limits of the rights of the owners. The interests of society are certainly higher than the interests of the individual persons, and just and harmonious relations should be created between them. The pursuit of wealth alone is not the final destination of humanity, if only progress remains the law for the future, as it was for the past. The time that has passed since the advent of civilization is an insignificant fraction of the time lived humanity, an insignificant fraction of the time that he still has to live. The completion of a historical field, the only ultimate goal of which is wealth, threatens us with the death of society, for such a field contains elements of its own destruction. Democracy in government, fraternity within society, equality of rights, universal education will sanctify the next, highest stage of society, towards which experience, reason and science are constantly striving. It will be a revival - but in a higher form - of freedom, equality and fraternity of the ancient families" [pp. 199-200].

state genus German Athenian

CONCLUSION

According to what has been said, civilization is a stage of social development at which the division of labor and the resulting exchange between individuals and the commodity production that unites both of these processes reach their full flowering and revolutionize the entire previous society.

Production at all other previous stages of social development was essentially collective, and consumption was also reduced to the direct distribution of products within large communist communities. This collective nature of production is carried out within the narrowest limits, but it entailed the dominance of producers over their production process product of production. They know what is being done with the product: they consume it, it does not leave their hands, and as long as production is carried out on this basis, it cannot outgrow the producers, cannot give rise to forces alien to them, as happens in the era of civilization [p. 195 ].

It is necessary to highlight the stages of commodity production from which civilization begins:

The introduction of money, capital, usury;

The emergence of merchants as an intermediary class between producers;

The emergence of private ownership of land;

The emergence of slave labor as the dominant form of production [p.197].

Making a forecast for the future, in conclusion F. Engels writes the following.

“The state has not existed forever. There were societies that managed without it, that had no idea about the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily associated with the split of society into classes, the state became a necessity due to this split. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but has become a direct obstacle to production [p. 194].

From the book History of the Ancient World [with illustrations] author Nefedov Sergey Alexandrovich

THE BIRTH OF PRIVATE PROPERTY Do not covet your neighbor's house, do not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his field, nor his ox... Exodus, 20, 17. Once upon a time, six thousand years ago, the plain of Mesopotamia was a country of impassable swamps overgrown with reeds. During the spill period, two large

From the book Utopia in Power author Nekrich Alexander Moiseevich

Barrier to private property Private property, as is known, is the basis of the exploitation of man by man, and our revolution was carried out precisely in order to eliminate it, to transfer everything into the ownership of the people. Mikhail Gorbachev General Secretary was

author

THE PLOOTING AND LOOT OF STATE, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES The plunder and looting of private, public and state property in the occupied territories was premeditated, planned and

From the book The Nuremberg Trials, a collection of materials author Gorshenin Konstantin Petrovich

LOOT OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY IN POLAND. FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE POLISH GOVERNMENT ON THE ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY THE HITLERS IN POLAND [Document USSR-93]4. Expropriation and plunder of public and private propertya) September 27, 1939 German

From the book Biblical Israel. A tale of two nations author Lipovsky Igor Pavlovich

The origin of the patriarch Abraham and his family Who exactly was Abram, and to what nation did he and his family belong? The names of the members of the biblical family, and most importantly, the time of their appearance in Mesopotamia, Canaan, and then in Egypt, speak not only about their West Semitic

From the book Satirical History from Rurik to the Revolution author Orsher Joseph Lvovich

Origin of the Russian state The Rus tribe first appeared in Russia in 862. No one knew where it came from. Everyone in this tribe had no passport and gave evasive answers to the chroniclers’ questions. “We descend from Adam!” - they said

From the book Political Anthropology author Kradin Nikolay Nikolaevich

4. Origin of the state Perhaps the most controversial issue in political anthropology is the formation of statehood. There are many different points of view on this matter. In the modern era, the so-called theory of “social contract” arose (T.

From the book History Lessons author Begichev Pavel Alexandrovich

37. The holy opponent of private property Today he plays jazz, And tomorrow he will sell his homeland. From saxophone to knife One step! From the horror stories of the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee Once upon a time, after another collision with the impenetrable cast-iron logic of modern Pharisees,

author

Chapter 5. On private property and types of socialization Until now, we have not had the opportunity to talk about private property, yet the dispute about it is perhaps the main content of the social question in its modern formulation. Private property, how could we

From the book Russian People and State author Alekseev Nikolay Nikolaevich

Chapter 7. Opponents and defenders of private property Criticism of private property is a criticism of the existing economic system, called capitalist or bourgeois. And, in essence, all communist and socialist theories proceed in their

From the book “Order of the Sword.” Party and power after the revolution of 1917-1929. author Pavlyuchenkov Sergey Alekseevich

Chapter 1 ORIGIN OF THE PARTY - STATE The secret of “immense power” “Comrade. Stalin, having become General Secretary, concentrated immense power in his hands,” Lenin dictated in his famous “Letter to the Congress,” expressing fears about whether Stalin would be able to

From the book ISSUE 2. HISTORY OF PRIMITIVE SOCIETY author Semenov Yuri Ivanovich

4.2. Rodya as a unit of private property. Familyless development There were societies where, along with families, the clan continued to exist and even played a leading role. In these societies there was the possibility of the emergence of households based not on the family, but on the clan. And in a row

From the book Princely Possessions in Rus' in the 10th - first half of the 13th centuries. author Rapov Oleg Mikhailovich

From the book Course of lectures on social philosophy author Semenov Yuri Ivanovich

§ 8. Rodya as a unit of private property. Familyless development option In the case of rodya, it was necessary to sever economic ties between husband and wife, between husband and wife’s children and, accordingly, the complete disappearance of the family as a dependent unit and in general a special

From the book Pyotr Stolypin. great person Great Russia! author Lobanov Dmitry Viktorovich

November 16, 1907 The inviolability of private property is the basis of the existence of the Russian powers (First speech of P. A. Stolypin in the Third State Duma) Gentlemen, members of the State Duma! For success collaboration between you and the government, you need to be aware of

From the book Complete Works. Volume 16. June 1907 - March 1908 author Lenin Vladimir Ilyich

5. Criticism of private land ownership from the point of view of the development of capitalism The erroneous denial of absolute rent, this form of realization of private land ownership in capitalist income, led to one important shortcoming of the Social-Democrats. literature and all Social-Democratic

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Summary

The first edition of this work was published in 1884 under the authorship of Friedrich Engels. His work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” is based on factual material contained in L. Morgan’s work “Ancient Society”.

Then, in 1891, F. Engels published a new edition of his work, with some additions, because seven years have passed since the first edition was published, and during these years great strides have been made in the study of primitive family forms.

In his work, Engels reworked the data of Morgan and other scientists on this topic, made additions and expressed his point of view and his theory. Thus, F. Engels, in Morgan's study, made critical remarks that relate to this topic and wrote them down in the first preface in 1884: “According to the materialist understanding, the defining moment in history is, ultimately, the production and reproduction of immediate life. But it itself is of two kinds. On the one hand, the production of means of subsistence: food, clothing, housing and the tools necessary for this; on the other hand, the production of man himself, the continuation of the race. The social orders under which people of a certain historical era of a certain country live are determined by both types of production: the stage of development, on the one hand, of labor, on the other, of the family. The less developed labor is, the more limited the quantity of its products, and therefore the wealth of society, the more the stronger the The dependence of the social system on tribal ties is more pronounced. Meanwhile, within the framework of this structure of society based on clan ties, labor productivity is increasingly developing, and with it private property exchange, property differences, the ability to use someone else’s labor force, and thus the basis of class contradictions: new social elements who, over the course of generations, try to adapt the old social system to new conditions, until finally, the incompatibility of both leads to a complete revolution. The old society, resting on ancestral icings, explodes as a result of the clash of newly formed social classes; its place is taken by a new society, organized into a state, the lowest links of which are no longer tribal, but territorial associations - a society in which the family system is completely subordinated to property relations and in which class contradictions and class struggle, which form the content of all written history, now freely develop right up to our time."

This work reveals the patterns of development of the primitive communal system, the main stages of its development and the reasons for its inevitable death. Here, in a dialectical connection, the development processes and emergence of the family, private property and state are shown, which led to the emergence of class society.

The first chapter is called “Prehistoric Stages of Culture” and is divided into 3 main eras: savagery, barbarism, civilization. But this work describes only the first two eras, which within themselves are still divided into 3 stages of development - lower, middle and higher.

Let us briefly characterize these 2 eras.

Lowest level. Childhood of the human race. People were still in their original places of residence, in the tropical forests. Their food was fruits, nuts, roots; The main achievement of this period was the emergence of articulate speech.

Middle stage. It begins with the introduction of fish food and the use of fire. But with this new food they people became independent of climate and terrain; they could have already settled over a long distance. The settlement of new places and the constant desire to search, in combination with the possession of fire, obtained by friction, provided new means of nutrition.

Highest level. It begins with the invention of the bow and arrow, thanks to which game became a constant food, and hunting became one of the common branches of labor. Comparing with each other peoples who already know the bow and arrow, but are not yet familiar with the art of pottery, one can find some of the beginnings of settlement in villages, a certain stage of mastering the production of means of subsistence: wooden vessels and utensils, hand weaving, stone tools. Fire and a stone ax already make it possible to make boats and produce logs and boards for building a dwelling.

Barbarism

Lowest level. Begins with the introduction of pottery art. It owed its origin to the coating of wicker vessels with clay in order to make them fireproof.

The middle stage, in the east, begins with the domestication of domestic animals, in the west - with the cultivation of edible plants using irrigation and the use of buildings made of adobes (sun-dried raw bricks) and stone. The domestication of herds and the formation of large herds led to a pastoral life. The cultivation of cereals was driven primarily by the need for animal feed and only later became an important source of food for people.

Highest level. It begins with the smelting of iron ore and passes into civilization as a result of alphabetic writing and the application of its recording of verbal creativity. This stage, independently completed only in the eastern hemisphere, is richer in successes in the field of production than all previous stages. It includes the Greeks of the heroic era, the Italian tribes shortly before the founding of Rome, the Germans of Tacitus, and the Normans of the Viking times.

The invention of the iron plow, ax, and shovel occurred; thanks to this, agriculture became large size, field cultivation, increasing vital supplies. The rapid growth of the population also began, which became more dense in small spaces, and the makings of a central government appeared. Iron tools appeared, metal processing turned into artistic craft, the beginnings of architecture as an art, cities surrounded by battlements with towers, the Homeric era and all mythology - this is the main legacy that the Greeks transferred from barbarism to civilization.

The second chapter is called “Family,” in which, based on an analysis of vast factual material, it is concluded that in primitive human society there was a state when every woman belonged to every man and equally every man belonged to every woman. This was the period of the so-called group marriage, in which there was very little room for jealousy. This marriage can be called disordered.

And according to Morgan, from this primitive state of disordered relations probably developed quite early:

This type of family has already died out. Even among the most savage peoples of which history tells, not a single indisputable example of it can be found. But that such a family must have existed, we are forced to recognize by the Hawaiian system of kinship, which remains in force to this day throughout Polynesia and expresses such degrees of consanguinity as can arise only under this form of family; All further development of the family, which presupposes the existence of this form as a necessary initial stage, forces us to admit this.

According to Hawaiian custom, a certain number of sisters, uterine or more distant degrees of kinship (first cousins, second cousins, etc.), were common wives of their common husbands, from which, however, their brothers were excluded; these husbands no longer called each other brother, they were no longer supposed to be brothers, but “punalua,” that is, a close comrade. Likewise, a number of brothers, uterine or more distant degrees of kinship, were in common marriage with a certain number of women, but not their sisters, and these women called each other punalua.

Couple family. In it, a man lives with one woman, but polygamy does occur, although it is rare. The strictest fidelity is required from a woman for the entire duration of cohabitation. The ban on marriage between relatives leads to strengthening the resilience and development of people's mental abilities.

During the era of barbarism, herds of horses, camels, donkeys, cattle, sheep, goats and pigs appeared. This property multiplied and provided abundant milk and meat food. The hunt receded into the background. Slaves appeared. The emergence of slavery is due to the fact that human labor began to provide significant income, prevailing over the costs of its maintenance. The husband then became the owner of livestock and slaves.

So, we have three main forms of marriage, in general corresponding to the three main stages of human development: savagery corresponds to group marriage, barbarism - paired marriage, civilization - monogamy, supplemented by adultery and prostitution. Between paired marriage and monogamy, at the highest level of barbarism, wedges the dominance of men over slaves and polygamy.

“Monogamy arose as a result of the concentration of great wealth in one hand, namely in the hands of a man, and from the need to pass on this wealth by inheritance to the children of this man, and not of another.”

Until the Middle Ages there could be no talk of individual sexual love. It goes without saying that physical beauty, friendly relations, identical inclinations, etc. aroused in people of different sexes the desire for sexual intercourse, that for both men and women it was not completely indifferent with whom they entered into these most intimate relationships . But this is still an infinite distance from modern sexual love. Throughout antiquity, marriages were concluded by the parents of the parties entering into marriage, who calmly put up with it.

Modern sexual love differs significantly from simple sexual desire, from the eros of the ancients. Firstly, it presupposes mutual love in the beloved being; in this respect, a woman is in an equal position with a man. Secondly, the strength and duration of sexual love are such that the impossibility of possession and separation seem to both parties to be a great, if not the greatest misfortune, they take enormous risks, even put their lives on the line just to belong to each other, which happened in ancient times except in cases of adultery. And finally, a new moral criterion appears for condemning and justifying sexual intercourse; they ask not only whether it was marital or extramarital, but also whether it arose out of mutual love or not.

The third chapter is called “Iroquois clan”, which describes the composition of the Iroquois clan, the specifics of this kind. For example, an interesting fact was noted by Morgan: in the Iroquois family, the Seneca tribe has eight genera bearing the names of animals: 1) Wolf, 2) Bear, 3) Turtle, 4) Beaver, 5) Deer, 6) Sandpiper, 7) Heron, 8) Falcon . Each clan has its own specific customs.

Several more clans form a phratry, so several phratries, if we take the classical form, form a tribe. The overwhelming majority did not go further than uniting into a tribe. Their few tribes, separated from each other by vast border strips, weakened by eternal wars, occupied a huge space with a small number of people. Alliances between related tribes were concluded here and there in case of temporary necessity and disintegrated with its disappearance.

However, in certain localities, initially related, but subsequently disunited tribes again rallied into permanent alliances, thus taking the first step towards the formation of nations. In the United States we find the most developed form of such an alliance among the Iroquois.

Thus, we see that the main cell is the clan, and from it come various clan associations: a phratry, a tribe, or even a union.

In the next, fourth chapter, we will learn a lot about the Greek gender.

The Greeks, like the Pelasgians and other tribal peoples, already in prehistoric times were organized according to the same organic series as the Americans: clan, phratry, tribe, union of tribes. There might not have been a phratry, like among the Dorians, a union of tribes might not have been formed everywhere, but in all cases the main unit was the clan. By the time of their appearance on the historical stage, the Greeks stood on the threshold of civilization; between them and the American tribes discussed above lie almost two large periods of development, during which the Greeks of the heroic era were ahead of the Iroquois. The Greek clan is therefore no longer the archaic clan of the Iroquois; the mark of group marriage begins to noticeably wear off. Maternal right gave way to her father's, the property of a rich heiress would have to pass to her husband upon her marriage, therefore, to another clan, the basis of all clan law was undermined, due to this they began to allow a girl to marry within her clan in the interests of preserving this for the latter property.

In the fifth chapter, Engels examines “The Emergence of the Athenian State.” Which developed, partly transforming the organs of the tribal system, partly displacing them through the introduction of new organs and, in the end, completely replacing them with real bodies of state power. In the historical course of events in Athens, the clan system collapsed before our eyes, lost its authority, thereby imperceptibly developing the state. Thanks to the division of labor, new groups and industries were formed, new bodies for protecting interests were created, public power appeared, against which the clan system could no longer resist, or rather the clan system in this new society could no longer help society in any way, in connection with their new needs. And the state came to replace it.

The extent to which the state that had developed in its main features corresponded to the new social position of the Athenians is evidenced by the rapid flourishing of wealth, trade and industry. The class antagonism on which social and political institutions now rested was no longer an antagonism between the nobility and the common people, but an antagonism between slaves and freemen, between protected and full citizens.

The emergence of a state among the Athenians is a highly typical example of the formation of a state in general, because, on the one hand, it occurs in its pure form, without any violent intervention, external or internal - the short-term usurpation of power by Pisistratus left no traces - on the other hand , because in this case a very highly developed form of state, a democratic republic, arises directly from tribal society and, finally, because we are sufficiently aware of all the essential details of the formation of this state.

Chapters: six, seven and eight tell us about the origin and origin of the state in Rome, among the Celts and Germans. These chapters tell us about their structure, about the family, about the laws by which they lived from generation to generation, and about the fact that with the formation of the state the life of society changed. Which is already understandable and inevitable when moving from one system to another. Unfortunately, not all states arose in the same way as Athens, i.e. without any violent intervention. Let's say in Scotland the death of the clan system coincides with the suppression of the uprising of 1745. And the Roman state turned into a gigantic complex machine solely for sucking the juices out of its subjects. Taxes, state duties and various kinds of extortions plunged the mass of the population into ever deeper poverty, this oppression was strengthened and made unbearable by the extortion of governors, tax collectors, and soldiers. This is what the Roman state came to with its world domination, it based its right to exist on maintaining order within and on protection from barbarians from without, but its order was worse than the worst disorder, and the barbarians, from whom it undertook to protect citizens, were expected by the latter as saviors . It follows from this that each nation has its own history and its own transition to state power.

Summing up, F. Engels writes:

“Above we examined separately the three main forms in which the state rises from the ruins of the tribal system. Athens represents the purest, most classical form: here the state arises directly and primarily from the class antagonisms developing within the clan society itself. In Rome, clan society turns into a closed aristocracy among the numerous plebs, standing outside it, without rights, but bearing responsibilities; the victory of the plebs explodes the old clan system and erects a state on its ruins, in which both the clan aristocracy and the plebs soon disappear. Finally, among the German victors of the Roman Empire, the state arises as a direct product of the conquest of vast foreign territories, for domination over which the clan system does not provide any means.

The ninth section is called “Barbarism and Civilization.” This final section is a summary of what has been said above, and deals with the general economic conditions which undermined the tribal organization of society and, with the advent of civilization, completely eliminated it. Here we cannot do without extensive quotations from the work of F. Engels, since they formulate in a generalized form the results of what is presented in the work.

Subsequently, among a number of advanced tribes, the main branch of labor became not hunting and fishing, but domestication, and then livestock breeding. “...this was the first major division of labor.” The exchange of livestock began between the tribes. Cattle became a commodity by which all goods were valued,” it acquired the functions of money. The loom was invented and metal smelting began. Production tools and weapons were quickly improved.

Wealth increased rapidly, it was the wealth of individuals. People's production activities expanded and became differentiated. “... A second major division of labor took place: crafts were separated from agriculture. “With the division of production into two main sectors, agriculture and crafts, production directly for exchange arises - commodity production, and with it trade not only within the tribe and on its borders, but also overseas.” “The differences between rich and poor appear along with the difference between free and slaves, with a new division of labor - a new division of society into classes.” Exchange between individual producers turns into a vital necessity for society. The third most important division of labor occurs - a class arises that is no longer engaged in production, but only in the exchange of products. A class of merchants is created.

“Thus, along with the expansion of trade, along with money and monetary usury, land ownership and mortgages, the concentration and centralization of wealth quickly took place in the hands of a small class, and along with this, the impoverishment of the masses grew and the mass of the poor increased.” The tribal system turned out to be powerless in the face of new elements that grew up without its assistance. “The tribal system has outlived its time. It was blown up by the division of labor and its consequence - the division of society into classes. It was replaced by the state.

The distinctive features of the state are the territorial division of subjects and public authority. To maintain public power, taxes are introduced, the state incurs public debts. As a result of this, officials, as organs of society, become above society.

Making a forecast for the future, in conclusion F. Engels writes the following.

“So, the state does not exist from eternity. There were societies that managed without it, that had no idea about the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily associated with the split of society into classes, the state became a necessity due to this split. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but has become a direct obstacle to production.

Classes will disappear as inevitably as they inevitably arose in the past. With the disappearance of classes, the state will inevitably disappear. A society that organizes production in a new way on the basis of a free and equal association of producers will send the entire state machine where it then belongs: in the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.”

primitive communal system property state

Posted on Allbest.ru

The following chapters represent, to a certain extent, the execution of the will. None other than Karl Marx was going to present the results of Morgan’s research in connection with the data of his—to a certain extent, I can say ours—materialist study of history and only in this way to clarify their full significance. After all, Morgan in America, in his own way, rediscovered the materialist understanding of history, discovered by Marx forty years ago, and, guided by it, came, in comparing barbarism and civilization, in the main points to the same results as Marx. And just as the sworn economists of Germany for years as diligently wrote off Capital as they stubbornly suppressed it, representatives of “prehistoric” science in England did exactly the same with Morgan’s Ancient Society. My work can only weakly replace what my late friend was never destined to accomplish. But I have at my disposal, among his detailed extracts from Morgan, critical remarks, which I, to the extent relevant to the topic, reproduce here.

According to the materialist understanding, the defining moment in history is ultimately the production and reproduction of immediate life. But it itself, again, is of two kinds. On the one hand, the production of means of subsistence: food, clothing, housing and the tools necessary for this; on the other hand, the production of man himself, the continuation of the race. The social orders under which people of a certain historical era and a certain country live are determined by both types of production: the stage of development, on the one hand, of labor, on the other, of the family. The less developed labor is, the more limited the number of its products, and therefore the wealth of society, the more pronounced is the dependence of the social system on clan ties. Meanwhile, within the framework of this structure of society based on clan ties, labor productivity is developing more and more, and with it private property and exchange, property differences, the ability to use someone else’s labor force, and thus the basis of class contradictions: new social elements that over the course of generations they try to adapt the old social system to new conditions, until, finally, the incompatibility of both leads to a complete revolution. The old society, based on clan associations, explodes as a result of the clash of newly formed social classes; its place is taken by a new society, organized into a state, the lowest links of which are no longer tribal, but territorial associations - a society in which the family system is completely subordinated to property relations and in which class contradictions and class struggle, which form the content of all written history, now freely unfold up to our time.

Morgan's great merit lies in the fact that he discovered and restored in its main outlines this prehistoric basis of our written history and in the tribal ties of the North American Indians he found the key to the most important, hitherto insoluble mysteries of ancient Greek, Roman and German history. His writing is not a day's work. He worked on his material for about forty years until he completely mastered it. But his book is one of the few works of our time that make up the era.

In the following presentation the reader will generally be able to easily distinguish between what belongs to Morgan and what I have added. In the historical sections on Greece and Rome, I did not limit myself to Morgan's data and added what was at my disposal. The sections on the Celts and Germans are mostly my own; Morgan had here almost only second-hand materials, and about the Germans - except for Tacitus - only low-grade liberal falsifications of Mr. Firman. Economic justifications that were sufficient for Morgan's purposes, but completely insufficient for my purposes, have all been reworked by me. Finally, it goes without saying that I am responsible for all conclusions that are drawn without direct reference to Morgan.

Published in the book: F. Engels. "Der Ursprung der Familie, desPrivateigent-hums und des Staats." Hottingen Zurich, 1884

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION OF 1891 OF THE HISTORY OF THE PRIMITIVE FAMILY (BACHOFEN, MCLENNAN, MORGAN)

The previous editions of this book, which were published in large numbers, sold out almost six months ago, and the publisher has long asked me to prepare a new one. More pressing work has so far prevented me from doing this. Seven years have passed since the publication of the first edition, and during these years great strides have been made in the study of primitive family forms. Therefore, it was necessary to make careful corrections and additions here, especially since the proposed printing of this text from the stereotype will deprive me for some time of the opportunity to make further changes.

So, I have carefully reviewed the entire text and made a number of additions, which, I hope, take sufficient account of the current state of science. I further give below in this preface a brief overview of the development of views on family history from Bachofen to Morgan; I do this mainly because the chauvinistic English school of primitive history is still doing everything possible to silence the revolution in views on primitive history produced by Morgan's discoveries, however, not at all embarrassed to appropriate the results obtained by Morgan. And in other countries, in some places, this English example is too zealously followed.

My work has been transferred to various foreign languages. First of all into Italian: “The origin of the family, private property and the state”, in the translation reviewed by the author by Pasquale Martignetti, Benevento, 1885. Then into Romanian: “The origin of the family, private property and the state”, translated by Ion Nadezhde; published in the Iasi magazine "Contemporanul" from September 1885 to May 1886. Next - in Danish: “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” a publication prepared by Gerson Trier. Copenhagen, 1888; a French translation by Henri Ravet, made from the present German edition, is in print.

Until the early sixties, there was no question of family history. Historical science in this area was still entirely influenced by the Pentateuch of Moses. The patriarchal form of the family, depicted there in more detail than anywhere else, was not only unconditionally considered the most ancient form, but was also identified - with the exception of polygamy - with the modern bourgeois family, so that the family, strictly speaking, did not experience any supposed historical development; at most it was assumed that in primitive times there could have been a period of disordered sexual relations. – True, in addition to monogamy, eastern polygamy and Indian-Tibetan polyandry were also known; but these three forms could not be placed in historical sequence, and they appeared next to each other without any mutual connection. That among certain peoples of the ancient world, as among some still existing savages, descent was considered not from the father, but from the mother, so that the female line was recognized as the only one of significance; that many modern nations prohibit marriages within certain, more or less large, groups, which at that time had not yet been thoroughly studied, and that this custom is found in all parts of the world - these facts were, however, known, and examples of this kind kept accumulating more. But no one knew how to approach them, and even in “Studies in the Primitive History of Mankind, etc.” E. B. Taylor (1865) they appear simply as “strange customs” along with the current prohibition among some savages to touch a burning tree with an iron tool and similar religious trifles.

ellesilver.ru