Marxist (materialistic) version (theory) of the origin of the state, its main provisions.

The materialist (class) theory proceeds from the fact that the state arose primarily due to economic reasons: the social division of labor, the emergence of a surplus product and private property, and then the split of society into classes with opposing economic interests. As an objective result of these processes, a state arises, which, by means of special means of suppression and control, restrains the confrontation between these classes, ensuring primarily the interests of the economically dominant class.

The essence of the theory lies in the fact that the state came to replace the tribal organization, and law - customs. In the materialist theory, the state and law are not imposed on society from the outside, but arise on the basis of the natural development of society itself, associated with the decomposition of the tribal system, the emergence of private property and the social stratification of society according to property (with the advent of rich and poor), the interests of various social groups began to contradict each other. In the emerging new economic conditions, the tribal organization was unable to manage society. There was a need for an authoritative body capable of ensuring the advantage of the interests of some members of society as opposed to the interests of others. Therefore, a society consisting of economically unequal social strata gives rise to a special organization that, while supporting the interests of the haves, restrains the confrontation of the dependent part of society. The state has become such a special organization.

According to representatives of the materialist theory, it is a historically transient, temporary phenomenon and will die out with the disappearance of class differences.

Materialist theory distinguishes three main forms of the emergence of the state: Athenian, Roman and German.

The Athenian form is classical. The state arises directly and mainly from the class contradictions that are formed within society.

The Roman form differs in that the tribal society turns into a closed aristocracy, isolated from the numerous and disenfranchised plebeian masses. The victory of the last explodes tribal system on the ruins of which the state arises.

The German form - the state arises as a result of the conquest of vast territories for the state over which the tribal system does not provide any means.

The main provisions of the materialistic theory are presented in the works of K. Marx and F. Engels.

The class nature and economic conditionality of law is the most important fundamental position of Marxist theory. The main content of this theory is the notion that law is a product of class society; expression and consolidation of the will of the economically dominant class. Under these relations, “the ruling individuals ... must constitute their power in the form of the state and give their will ... universal expression in the form of the state will, in the form of law.” That is, the emergence and existence of law is explained by the need to consolidate the will of the economically dominant class in the form of laws and the normative regulation of social relations in the interests of this class. "Right is only the will raised to the law."

Subsequently, the provisions of Marxist theory firmly entered the domestic law. Based on the class attribute of law, it was concluded that in a society where there are no antagonistic classes, the will of all friendly classes and strata of society, led by the working class, is expressed in law.

The right is complete only when society implements the rule: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” that is, when people are so accustomed to observing the basic rules of community life that they will voluntarily work according to their abilities.

The materialist theory limits the life of law to the historical framework of class society. She believes that law is a historically transient phenomenon that society needs only at a certain stage of its development. With the disappearance of classes, it will completely lose its social value. Marxist-Leninist theory claims to be fully determined by his will.

The merit of Marxism is the postulates that law is essential tool ensuring the economic freedom of the individual, which is an “impartial” regulator of the relations of production and consumption. Its moral foundations in the civilized world take into account and implement the objective needs community development within the framework of permitted and prohibited behavior of participants in public relations.

Representatives of other concepts and theories of the origin of the state consider the provisions of the materialist theory to be one-sided, incorrect, since they do not take into account the psychological, biological, moral, ethnic and other factors that led to the formation of society and the emergence of the state. Nevertheless, Shershenevich believes, the great merit of economic materialism lies in proving the outstanding importance of the economic factor, thanks to which “in the end” it is possible to link “even the lofty and noble feelings of a person with the material side of his existence.” “In any case,” Shershenevich continues, “economic materialism is one of the largest hypotheses in the theory of society, capable of best explaining a host of social phenomena.”

Materialist theory of the origin of the state of law is one of the main theories explaining the emergence of such a social phenomenon as law and the state. Its outstanding representatives were K. Marx, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin. The essence of the materialist theory can be concluded that the main reason for the emergence of law is by no means religious or cultural reasons, but exclusively economic prerequisites.

Representatives of the materialistic theory of the origin of the state and law argue that the state has replaced tribal relations, but the right to replace mononorms and customs. Such a transition occurred due to significant transformations in economic and economic activity. primitive society. At the same time, changes in social relations and culture, representatives of this theory do not take into account. Thus, it was economic changes that led to the decomposition of primitive society and the formation of such social phenomena as a state and law.

What economic changes led to the emergence of the state and law? (materialistic approach).

First of all, there is a separation of cattle breeding from agriculture and then the separation of handicrafts and the appearance of a class of people engaged exclusively in the exchange of goods. These changes in economic and economic reality stimulated the rapid growth of production relations and the appearance of a surplus product. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that it is during this period that it becomes very profitable to exploit the labor of others. An example of this is the beginning of the practice of enslaving captured warriors, who were forced to work for themselves, and the product they produced was appropriated.

All of the above factors lead to an increase in property stratification and a deepening division of labor, a class society is formed, rich and poor sections of the population appear. The rich strata begin to use the labor of the poor strata of the population and other members of the community. As a result, stable words of the population and classes are being formed for a long time. Closed social groups managers (leaders), military leaders and spiritual leaders (priests). These strata had a higher status than other members of society and used their high position in order to appropriate the excess product produced by society (livestock, tools, utensils), and also sought to transfer their privileges by inheritance. These aspirations determined the task of these classes to keep the rest of society in a state of obedience, especially slaves and unprotected representatives of society.

The new conditions of the social and economic life of society led to the fact that the established system of management of the tribal organization of society ceased to meet the demands of the time, insurmountable contradictions appeared, as a result of which the state and law appeared.

The tribal system has outlived its time (excerpt). F. Engels "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"

The representatives of the materialist theory usually include Marx, Engels, Lenin. They explain the emergence of statehood primarily by socio-economic reasons.

Of paramount importance for the development of the economy, and consequently for the emergence of statehood, were three major divisions of labor (cattle breeding and handicrafts separated from agriculture, a class of people engaged only in exchange became isolated). Such a division of labor and the improvement of the instruments of labor associated with it gave impetus to the growth of its productivity. A surplus product arose, which ultimately led to the emergence of private property, as a result of which society split into possessing and non-possessing classes, into exploiters and exploited.

The most important consequence of the emergence of private property is the allocation of public power, which no longer coincides with society and does not express the interests of all its members. The power role passes to the rich people, who turn into the category of managers. To protect their economic interests, they create a new political structure - the state, which primarily serves as an instrument for realizing the will of the possessors.

Thus, the state arose primarily in order to preserve and support the dominance of one class over another, and also in order to guarantee the existence and functioning of society as an integral organism.

Psychological theory of the origin of the state

Among the most well-known representatives The psychological theory of the origin of the state can be distinguished by Petrazhitsky, Tarde, Freud, etc. They associate the emergence of statehood with the special properties of the human psyche: the need for some people to have power over others, the desire of some to obey, imitate, and others to subordinate, to be a role model.

The reasons for the origin of the state lie in those abilities that primitive attributed to tribal leaders, priests, shamans, sorcerers, etc. Their magical power, psychic energy (they made hunting successful, fought diseases, predicted events, etc.) created conditions for the dependence of the consciousness of members of primitive society on the above-named elite. It is from the power attributed to this elite that state power arises.

The state, according to the representatives of this theory, is a product of resolving psychological contradictions between initiative (active) individuals capable of making responsible decisions, and a passive mass, capable only of imitative actions, executing these decisions.

10. General patterns of emergence and development of the state and law.

The state is a political structure of a special kind that arose at a certain stage of social development, which is the central institution of power in the political system of a particular society.

The formation of the state is a long process, which went in different ways for different peoples of the world.

In the East, such a form as the "Asiatic mode of production" (Egypt, Babylon, China, India, etc.) has become most widespread. Here, the socio-economic structures of the tribal system - the land community, collective property, and others - turned out to be stable. The first states that arose in the Ancient East were pre-class, they both exploited rural communities and ruled them, acting as organizers of production.

The process followed a different historical path in Athens and Rome, where the slave-owning state arose as a result of the emergence of private property and the split of society into classes.

Athens is the purest, classical form of the emergence of the state, since it will grow directly from the class opposites that develop within the tribal system.

In Rome, the formation of the state was accelerated by the struggle of the disenfranchised plebeians who lived outside the Roman clans against the tribal aristocracy (patricians).

The emergence of the ancient German state is largely associated with the conquest of vast territories, for domination over which the tribal organization was not adapted. A number of scientists adhere to the point of view that Germany, Russia and some other states arose not as feudal (with classical signs of such statehood - the consolidation of the peasantry and large private ownership of land), but as ancestral feudal (the nobility did not yet have large land ownership, and the peasants retained both freedom and land ownership).

Law as a social institution arises practically together with the state, because in many respects they are designed to ensure the effectiveness of each other's actions. Just as the existence of a state is impossible without law (the latter organizes political power, often acts as a means of implementing the policy of a particular state), so is law without a state (which establishes, applies and guarantees legal norms). It is the state bodies that become the main structures that control the implementation of legal regulations and implement appropriate legal sanctions in case of their violation.

Law historically arose as a class phenomenon and primarily expressed the will and interests of the economically dominant classes (to be convinced of this, it is enough to look at the most ancient legal acts of the slave-owning and feudal epochs).

If customs were contained in the minds and behavior of people, then legal regulations started to be made publicly available.

The emergence of law is a consequence of the complication of social ties, the aggravation of contradictions, with the regulation of which primitive norms coped less and less.

Legal norms developed mainly in three main ways:

the development of mononorms (primitive customs) into the norms of customary law and their sanctioning in this regard by the power of the state;

law-making of the state, which is expressed in the publication of special documents - regulations (laws, decrees, etc.);

case law, consisting of specific decisions (taken by judicial or administrative bodies and acquiring the character of samples, standards for solving other similar cases).

Theological theory of the origin of the state

Theological theory the origin of the state became widespread in the Middle Ages in the writings of F. Aquinas; V modern conditions It was developed by the ideologists of the Islamic religion, the Catholic Church (J. Maritain, D. Mercier, and others).

According to the representatives of this doctrine, the state is a product of divine will, due to which state power is eternal and unshakable, dependent mainly on religious organizations and figures. Hence, everyone is obliged to obey the sovereign in everything. The existing socio-economic and legal inequality of people is predetermined by the same divine will, with which it is necessary to reconcile and not resist the successor of the power of God on earth. Therefore, disobedience to state power can be regarded as disobedience to the Almighty.

The founders of this theory, expressing the previously widespread religious consciousness, argued that the state was created and exists by the will of God. In this regard, ecclesiastical authority takes precedence over secular authority. That is why the accession of any monarch to the throne must be consecrated by the church. This action gives secular power special strength and authority, turns the monarch into a representative of God on earth. This theory was widely used to substantiate and justify an unlimited monarchy, as well as to promote the humility of subjects before state power.

Giving the state and sovereigns (as representatives and spokesmen of divine decrees) an aura of holiness, the ideologists of this theory have raised and are raising their prestige, have contributed and continue to promote the establishment of order, harmony, and spirituality in society. Particular attention is paid here to the "intermediaries" between God and state power - the church and religious organizations.

At the same time, this doctrine diminishes the influence of socio-economic and other relations on the state and does not allow determining how to improve the form of the state, how to improve the state structure. In addition, theological theory is in principle unprovable, because it is built mainly on faith.

Patriarchal theory of the origin of the state

To the most famous representatives patriarchal theory The origin of the state can be attributed to Aristotle, R. Filmer, N.K. Mikhailovsky and others.

They proceed from the fact that people are collective beings, striving for mutual communication, leading to the emergence of a family. Subsequently, the development and growth of the family as a result of the unification of people and the increase in the number of these families ultimately leads to the formation of the state.

The state is the result historical development family (extended family). The head of state (monarch) is a father (patriarch) in relation to his subjects, who must treat him with respect and obey strictly.

Hence the power of the sovereign is the continuation of the power of the father (patriarch) in the family, which acts as unlimited. Since the initially divine origin of the power of the “patriarch” is recognized, subjects are asked to obediently obey the sovereign. Any resistance to such power is unacceptable. Only the paternal care of the king (king, etc.) is able to provide the necessary living conditions for a person. In turn, the head of state and older children should (as is customary in the family) take care of the younger ones.

As in the family the father, so in the state the monarch is not chosen, appointed and mixed by his subjects, for the latter are his children.

Of course, the well-known analogy between the state and the family is possible, since the structure of statehood did not arise immediately, but developed from the simplest forms, which, indeed, could well be comparable with the structure of a primitive family. In addition, this theory creates an aura of holiness, respect for the state power, "kinship" of all in a single country. In modern conditions, this theory is reflected in the idea of ​​state paternalism (state care for the sick, the disabled, the elderly, large families, etc.).

At the same time, representatives of this doctrine simplify the process of the origin of the state, in fact, extrapolate the concept of "family" to the concept of "state", and such categories as "father", "family members" are unreasonably identified, respectively, with the categories "sovereign", " subjects." In addition, according to historians, the family (as a social institution) arose almost simultaneously with the emergence of the state in the process of decomposition of the primitive communal system.

Contractual theory of the origin of the state

contract theory origin of the state was developed in the XVII-XVIII centuries. in the works of G. Grotius, J. J. Rousseau, A. N. Radishchev and others.

According to the representatives of the contractual theory, the state arises as a product of conscious creativity, as a result of an agreement entered into by people who were previously in a “natural”, primitive state. The state is not a manifestation of the divine will, but a product human mind. Before the creation of the state, there was a “golden age of mankind” (J. J. Rousseau), which ended with the emergence of private property, which stratified society into the poor and the rich, leading to a “war of all against all” (T. Hobbes).

According to this theory, the only source of state power is the people, and all civil servants, as servants of society, are obliged to report to them for the use of power. The rights and freedoms of every person are not a "gift" of the state. They arise at the moment of birth and equally in every person. Therefore, all people are by nature equal.

The state is a rational association of people on the basis of an agreement between them, by virtue of which they transfer part of their freedom, their power to the state. Individuals, isolated before the origin of the state, turn into a single people. As a result, the rulers and society have a complex of mutual rights and obligations, and consequently, responsibility for failure to fulfill the latter.

So, the state has the right to make laws, collect taxes, punish criminals, etc., but is obliged to protect its territory, the rights of citizens, their property, etc. Citizens are obliged to comply with laws, pay taxes, etc., in turn, they have the right to the protection of freedom and property, and in case of abuse of power by the rulers, to terminate the contract with them, even by overthrow.

On the one hand, the contract theory was a major step forward in the knowledge of the state, because it broke with religious ideas about the origin of statehood and political power. This concept also has a deep democratic content, justifying the natural right of the people to revolt against the power of a worthless ruler and overthrow him.

On the other hand, the weak link of this theory is a schematic, idealized and abstract idea of ​​a primitive society, which supposedly at a certain stage of its development realizes the need for an agreement between the people and the rulers. The underestimation of objective (primarily socio-economic, military-political, etc.) factors in the origin of statehood and the exaggeration of subjective factors in this process are obvious.

Theory of Violence

Theory of Violence became popular in the 19th century. and was presented in the most complete form in the works of E. Dühring, L. Gumplovich, K. Kautsky and others.

They saw the reason for the origin of statehood not in economic relations, divine providence and social contract, but in military-political factors - violence, the enslavement of some tribes by others. To manage the conquered peoples and territories, an apparatus of coercion is needed, which the state has become.

According to the representatives of this doctrine, the state is “naturally” (that is, through violence) the emerging organization of the rule of one tribe over another. Violence and subjugation of the ruled by the ruled is the basis for the emergence of economic domination. As a result of wars, tribes were reborn into castes, estates and classes. The conquerors turned the conquered into slaves.

Therefore, the state is not the result internal development society, but a force imposed on it from outside.

On the one hand, military-political factors in the formation of statehood cannot be completely rejected. Historical experience confirms that elements of violence accompanied the process of the emergence of many states (for example, the ancient Germanic, ancient Hungarian).

On the other hand, it is important to remember that the degree to which violence was used in this process varied. Therefore, violence should be considered as one of the reasons for the emergence of the state, along with others. In addition, military-political factors in a number of regions played mainly secondary roles, giving way to socio-economic ones.

organic theory

organic theory origin of the state became widespread in the second half of the XIX century. in the works of G. Spencer, R. Worms, G. Preuss and others. It was during this era that science, including the humanities, was powerfully influenced by the idea natural selection expressed by Ch. Darwin.

According to the representatives of this doctrine, the state is an organism, the constant relations between the parts of which are similar to the constant relations between the parts of a living being. That is, the state is a product of social evolution, which in this connection is only a kind of biological evolution.

The state, being a kind of biological organism, has a brain (rulers) and means of carrying out its decisions (subjects).

Just as among biological organisms, as a result of natural selection, the fittest survive, so in social organisms, in the process of struggle and wars (also natural selection), specific states are formed, governments are formed, and the management structure is improved. Thus, the state is practically equated with a biological organism.

It would be wrong to deny the influence of biological factors on the process of the origin of statehood, because people are not only social, but also biological organisms.

At the same time, it is impossible to mechanically extend all the regularities inherent only in biological evolution to social organisms, it is impossible to completely reduce social problems to biological problems. These are, although interconnected, but different levels of life, subject to different laws and having different causes of occurrence in their basis.

Materialistic theory of the origin of the state

Representatives materialistic theory The origins of the state are K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin, who explain the emergence of statehood primarily by socio-economic reasons.

Three major divisions of labor were of paramount importance for the development of the economy, and, consequently, for the emergence of statehood (cattle breeding and handicrafts separated from agriculture, a class of people engaged only in exchange became isolated). Such a division of labor and the improvement of the instruments of labor associated with it gave impetus to the growth of its productivity. A surplus product arose, which ultimately led to the emergence of private property, as a result of which society split into possessing and non-possessing classes, into exploiters and exploited.

The most important consequence of the emergence of private property is the allocation of public power, which no longer coincides with society and does not express the interests of all its members. The power role is shifting to rich people who are turning into the category of managers. To protect their economic interests, they create a new political structure - the state, which primarily acts as an instrument for carrying out the will of the possessors.

Thus, the state arose mainly in order to preserve and support the dominance of one class over another, as well as to ensure the existence and functioning of society as an integral organism.

This theory is characterized by a fascination with economic determinism and class antagonism, while simultaneously underestimating national, religious, psychological, military-political and other reasons that affect the process of the origin of statehood.

Psychological theory

Among the most famous representatives psychological theory The origin of the state can be distinguished by L. I. Petrazhytsky, G. Tarde, Z. Freud and others. They associate the emergence of statehood with the special properties of the human psyche: people's need for power over other people, the desire to obey, imitate.

The reasons for the origin of the state lie in those abilities that primitive man attributed to tribal leaders, priests, shamans, sorcerers, etc. Their Magic force, mental energy (they made hunting successful, fought diseases, predicted events, etc.) created conditions for the dependence of the consciousness of members of primitive society on the above-mentioned elite. It is from the power attributed to this elite that state power arises.

At the same time, there are always people who do not agree with the authorities, show TS or other aggressive aspirations, instincts. To keep in check such mental principles of the individual, the state arises.

Consequently, the state is necessary both to satisfy the needs of the majority in submission, obedience, obedience to certain individuals in society, and to suppress the aggressive drives of some individuals. Hence the nature of the state is psychological, rooted in laws. human consciousness. The state, according to representatives of this theory, is a product of resolving psychological contradictions between initiative (active) individuals capable of making responsible decisions, and a passive mass, capable only of imitative actions that carry out these decisions.

Undoubtedly, the psychological patterns by which human activity is carried out - important factor that affects everything social institutions which should never be ignored. Take, for example, only the problem of charisma to see this.

At the same time, one should not exaggerate the role of the psychological properties of the individual (irrational principles) in the process of the origin of the state. They do not always act as decisive causes and should be considered only as moments of state formation, because human psyche is formed under the influence of relevant socio-economic, military-political and other external conditions.

Patrimonial theory

Most prominent representativepatrimonial theory the origin of the state was K. Haller.

The state, in his opinion, like the land, is the private property of the ruler, that is, the patrimonial theory explains the origin of the state from landed property. Such rulers dominate the territory by virtue of their "original" right to property. In such a situation, the people are represented as tenants of the owner's land, and officials as clerks of the rulers.

In the relationship between the concepts of "power - property", representatives of this theory give priority to the right of ownership. The possession of this property subsequently extends to the possession of the territory, which underlies the emergence of the state. Thus, the right to own land is the fundamental principle of domination over the territory.

Indeed, the state can be considered the property of a certain ruler, because he to some extent owns, uses and disposes (especially in the era of absolutism) almost everything that is located on the territory of this particular country, including the state apparatus, which has power properties. In addition, in the era of the formation of a state, its territory was largely determined by the space in which the leader, military leader and other head of the clan, tribe dominated. The state economy, finances, etc., are gradually formed from the private economy of the sovereign, the prince.

However, during its formation state institutions far from always actually being at the full disposal of the ruler. In addition, in that era there was not so much the right of private property as the forcible possession of land. Within the framework of this theory, in the process of the origin of statehood, the role of private ownership of land is exaggerated and, at the same time, the influence of military-political, national, religious and other factors on it is underestimated.

Irrigation theory

The most prominent representative irrigation (hydraulic) theory The origin of the state is K. Wittfogel.

He connects the process of the emergence of statehood with the need to build irrigation facilities in eastern agrarian societies. This process is accompanied by a great growth of bureaucracy, sovereign people, ensuring the effective use of these facilities and exploiting the rest of the citizens, the non-ruling strata.

The state, forced to pursue a rigidly centralized policy in such conditions, acts as the sole owner and at the same time the exploiter. It manages by distributing, considering, subordinating, etc.

Irrigation problems, according to Wittfogel, inevitably lead to the formation of a "management-bureaucratic class" that enslaves society, to the formation of an "agro-management" civilization.

Indeed, the processes of creating and maintaining powerful irrigation systems took place in the regions where the primary city-states were formed, in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, and other areas. Also obvious are the connections of these processes with the formation of a large class of managers-officials, services that protect canals from silting, ensure navigation through them, etc. (A. B. Vengerov).

In addition, the fact of the influence of geographical and climatic (soil) conditions on the course of the origin of statehood can be considered practically indisputable. In some of the most unfavorable for management Agriculture regions, such factors catalyzed this process, "brought" the regime of a particular state to extreme despotic forms.

However, within the framework of this theory, separate fragments of the process of state formation are unnecessarily categorically singled out as basic ones. Meanwhile, irrigation reasons were characteristic mainly only for some regions of the East. Consequently, representatives of this doctrine underestimate the socio-economic, military-political, psychological and other factors that also have a very tangible effect on the course of the emergence of statehood.

In the article we will talk about the materialistic theory of the origin of the state. It's pretty interesting topic, which will be considered by us from all points of view. We will talk about the advantages and disadvantages of this theory, as well as consider its main provisions. If you are interested in questions of the origin of the state and law, read the article below.

A little about the topic

The materialistic theory of the origin of the state links the emergence of such a structure with the fact that private property appeared in society. It was because of this that a split into classes occurred, which ultimately gave rise to class contradictions that underlie many revolutions. Experts believe that the materialist theory of the origin of the state is distinguished by greater clarity of its initial provisions and the clarity of their formulation, logical consistency. But at the same time, it should be noted that this theory is a huge achievement of all theoretical thought.

Basic provisions

The main provisions of this theory of the origin of the state are most fully set out in the work of Friedrich Engels entitled "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, the State." You can also get a good starting base by reading the work of Vladimir Lenin called "States and Revolution".

According to the firm conviction of Friedrich Engels, the state cannot exist permanently. It should be noted that indeed in history there were societies that could do without such a power apparatus. However, at a certain stage of its development, which was accompanied by economic growth and the invariable split of society into layers, the state became a kind of necessity for accomplishing such a split.

At the same time, the opposition of classes must always be regulated so that a global conflict does not occur, which will lead to massive destruction. It is for this that a force is needed that will stand above and control everything that happens. In other words, a state is needed that will determine the strength of the opposing forces and contain them within certain boundaries. At the same time, such a force must come out of society itself, but be able to place itself above it. Only then, thanks to alienation, it will be possible to build state power.

Differences

What are the differences between states and tribal organization F. Engels singles out in his work "The Origin of the Family of Private Property and the State"? The author says that the difference lies in his division of subjects on a territorial basis. As we know, the basis for the existence of tribal communities was based on the connection of members of the clan with a certain territory on which people ran a household and lived for years. We understand that time has passed and the world has evolved. Due to the fact that the mobility of the population increased and due to the driving economic reasons, the tribal society no longer had a place in the world, since it could not fulfill its functions. A society appeared, consisting of citizens who could already take part in the choice of the supreme power. People received public rights and duties that did not belong to clans or tribes, as it was before.

Power as coercion

Next distinguishing feature, according to the materialist theory of the origin of the state, lies in the fact that the state is, in fact, a public authority, which may not always coincide with the opinion of the population. At the same time, the purpose of such power is that it will keep people in obedience. In the modern world, public authority exists in absolutely every state. It consists not only of the army as the main coercive force, but also of various institutions that, if necessary, can influence and pressure citizens through various restrictions. It is clear that such levers of influence were not available in a tribal society.

Control

We have analyzed the main provisions of the theory, now we will pay attention to public power as a special phenomenon. This force is strengthened if class conflicts intensify. Thanks to this, in the international arena, states become more contact and populated. For this whole system to work, financial support is needed, which can be obtained from citizens. For these purposes, taxes were invented. But civilization developed and at some point these contributions were not enough, so in the modern world the state can make loans or have public debts.

People who had enough power, of course, had the right to collect taxes. Thus, even ordinary officials are organs of the state and stand above society, protect its authority and laws. This is a vicious circle, because the officials will always protect the law, as it ensures their immunity.

Who is in charge?

However, who will get the power according to the materialistic theory of the origin of the state? A brief answer can and should be given here. Power will go to the most powerful class, which at the same time necessarily has economic superiority. Thus the political class is formed from the wealthiest citizens, thus strengthening its position and acquiring new means to oppress and exploit the lower classes.

Parallels with history

Note that in ancient society, power was represented by the slave system. That is, all his main levers of pressure were aimed at suppressing the slaves, as the lowest, but very useful class of people for the rich. Feudal society was a state of power, which also set itself one very important similar goal, namely, the suppression of serfs and dependent peasants.

But what is happening now? The state of modern times is nothing but an improved and very well thought-out instrument for the exploitation of wage-workers with the help of capital.

Exceptions

At the same time, we note that the criticism of the theory is based not only on theoretical arguments, but also on some examples from history, which are an exception to general rules. So, history knows cases that violated this entire system. There were periods when a certain balance was established between the opposing classes. Thanks to this, the state power for some time began to move away from both classes and act more independently, regardless of their interests. Such an example was the absolute monarchy in the 17th-18th centuries, thanks to which a certain balance was achieved between the bourgeoisie and the nobility, although, of course, the conflict was not completely settled.

Categories of people

But there were more negative examples. Even the author of the materialistic theory of the origin of the state himself talks about the case when certain states granted people rights regarding elections, based on their property status. Thus, we understand that the main goal state system is to protect the rich from the poor. For example, in Rome and Athens, people were divided into property categories, from which certain rights and restrictions came. In the days of medieval feudal society, the possibilities of political influence were directly correlated with the size of land plots. And as for the new time, this principle is expressed in the electoral qualification in the selection of candidates for the highest state bodies.

Democracy

There are no limits to modern democracy. However, people with money still use their power indirectly. On the one hand, they can simply bribe high-ranking officials, and on the other hand, they can enter into rather cunning alliances between large enterprises and government bodies, thus forcing the latter to act in their interests. Modern representatives of the materialistic theory of the origin of the state say that at the beginning of the last century, society finally began to approach the level where the existence of conflicting classes is no longer a necessity, but becomes a real hindrance to development. This leads to the fact that a social revolution will follow, which will destroy the state as a government apparatus.

Pros and cons of the materialistic theory of the origin of the state

Consider the positive and negative aspects of this theory. Before that, let us recall that the main postulate is that the state apparatus arose due to economic reasons. That is, there was a division of labor, private property, which led to the split of society into opposing layers, which are motivated by different economic interests.

The advantages of the materialistic theory of the origin of the state are that the material side of life and society as a whole occupies a very important place. The emergence of the administrative apparatus itself is influenced by factors such as housekeeping, the form labor activity and property. Thanks to the transition to a productive economy, the differentiation of people occurs on an essential basis, and not on the size of the wallet. At the same time, in such a model of the state, its true features are very clearly revealed.

The disadvantages of the theory are that not only the economy, but also various political and social interests of other citizens or states can influence the functioning of the state apparatus. Also in this case, the role of the administrative apparatus is greatly underestimated, which naturally affects its work. And the last disadvantage is that even according to this model, all states still develop in different ways.

Criticism

Critics V. Korelsky and S. Alekseev believe that economic reasons cannot be considered the driving force behind the emergence of the state apparatus. They confirm their conclusions by the fact that history knows cases when such control apparatuses arose and were formed in a pre-class society. In support of their views, researchers cite various factors when completely different and sometimes opposite reasons influenced the formation of the state.

Summing up the results of the article, I would like to say that the reasons for the emergence of the state can be different. On this moment such a control apparatus exists, operates and does not plan to disappear yet. At the same time, the responsibility for the effectiveness of this apparatus lies not only with the elected candidates, but also with ordinary people who make one choice or another.

In order to select candidates, it is necessary to have at least a minimal understanding of the whole system and understand the possibilities of political contenders, as well as strategies that can be used to create a favorable image.