Let's talk about state building, or more precisely, about the state system... In principle, Plato also identified three main systems: democracy/anarchy, aristocracy/oligarchy, monarchy/tyranny, replacing each other.
1) Democracy/anarchy - everyone is equal, everyone has the same level of opportunities, and the same amount of conditional resources. It is clear that everyone wants a better life for themselves (and their children), and, accordingly, tries to win back certain resources from the other players. Even if they (the conditional players) play the toss (the outcome of each conditional confrontation is random), then, in the population as a whole, the rich will become richer, and the poor will become poorer. There is a transition to the second stage
2) Aristocracy/oligarchy - the power of the few. Few, having received as a result of any advantages (or simple accidents) power (financial/economic/military/political/religious - no difference) use it to further strengthen their positions both in relation to the lower strata of the population and to fight between themselves. As a result, only one wins, and the transition to the third stage occurs:
3) Monarchy/tyranny - the rule of one. Having seized power, the monarch/tyrant must retain and strengthen it. This is achieved by different methods - purely military, the creation of a bureaucratic system, religious norms, support for the weak in their opposition to the strong (good king vs evil boyars), etc., but the result is the same - strengthening the sole power of the ruler, increasing the dependence of society on his personality, often - the establishment of one or another order of succession to the throne. However, sooner or later an incompetent monarch comes to power, who ruins the country and the state (in extreme cases) returns to point “one”, i.e. democracy/anarchy.
It is important to know that “the mincemeat cannot be turned back” - an oligarchy/aristocracy cannot become a democracy/anarchy on its own, because each oligarch/aristocrat, acting in his own interests, is forced to rob “ordinary people” and fight with other oligarchs/aristocrats. Only after one of the oligarchs wins and strengthens his power is a transition to monarchy/tyranny possible, and only after the next monarch becomes very seriously stupid will the state collapse and move to phase “1”.
But this is a purely “spherical state in a vacuum.” In reality, the process depends on many other factors. The first of them is the level of material production.
It is clear that the poorer a society is, the smaller the superstructure it can support. Roughly speaking, hunter-gatherers in the Amazon jungle (very rich in species, but very poor in terms of food and mineral resources) - in principle, cannot create a more or less developed “superstructure” and will lose (in a direct military clash) to a society where “seven with a bipod” can contain “one with a spoon,” and it, in turn, will lose to the one where “one with a bipod” contains “ten with a spoon” (other things being equal). The important point here is that the productivity of this “one with a bipod” depends, among other things, on the work of “ten with a spoon,” who can invent and produce new “bipods” and can engage in science, war, crafts or trade. Roughly speaking, having “overthrown the tsar,” the “poor peasant” is faced with the fact that “the whites will come and rake, the reds will come and rob,” you can’t buy a good plow, and from among the equally poor peasants, fists begin to emerge, enslaving their neighbor economically, and bandits/activists - robbing him by force.
The next point: state power is primarily determined by the possibility of using organized violence, and, accordingly, power belongs (in fact) to the class that actually fights, that protects the state and is able to suppress internal unrest. First of all, we are talking about the main “strike force” of a given society at a specific stage of development; in the context of democracy/aristocracy, the ratio of roles between expensive small troops and cheap mass ones is important (according to the principle - smart in artillery, rich in cavalry, drunkard in the navy, and fool - in the infantry).
Example: in the Chalcolithic, the main striking force was the infantry (there were simply no other types of troops), accordingly, society was forced to be egalitarian. A rich man who had robbed his fellow villagers too much, in principle, could not resist their armed attack, after which he either ceased to be rich or simply ceased to be. With the advent of war chariots, the situation changed dramatically - a chariot costs money (and a lot of it), but at the same time, in principle, is capable of withstanding an almost unlimited number of pre-hoplite infantry (see the Battle of Kadesh, where Ramses II for some time, almost single-handedly resisted all enemy infantry). The era of kings and heroes has come. The situation was changed by someone's brilliant idea that it was possible to make two handles for the shield - one on the edge, into which the hand is inserted up to the elbow, the other in the middle, it is held with a hand. Such an innovation made it possible to increase the size of the shield, which could be manipulated with one hand, leaving the right hand free for weapons, and quite quickly led to the appearance of protohoplites, and later hoplites. The infantry, organized into phalanxes, completely removed chariots and light cavalry from the battlefield, and took the place of the main striking force, and as a result, led to the growth of democracy. However, another ten to fifteen centuries later, stirrups were invented, which allowed the cavalry to become the main striking force, and the aristocracy to become the ruling class. Subsequently, the invention of the crossbow, gunpowder, firearms, and even later - automatic firearms sharply reduced the importance of cavalry on the battlefield, and, accordingly, the role of the aristocracy in government. The modern heirs of cavalry - tanks and aircraft - certainly play an important role on the battlefield, but is it a decisive one? An interesting question, and the answer to it is given in the course of everyday military clashes in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine...
Accordingly, words about “development of democracy” sound as wild to me as they do to prof. Preobrazhensky's words "down with devastation." In fact, of course, what all these loudmouths mean by “democracy” is not “the power of the people”, but “strict and strict implementation of orders, instructions and simply hints received from the Stronghold of Democracy (tm).”
In the history of Western civilization, a huge role was played by the historical example of the ancient Greek city-states, especially ancient Athens, where the reformers Solon (elected archon in 594 BC) and Cleisthenes (509-507 BC) introduced a new concept into everyday life and legislation : a citizen of the policy is a free person who cannot be enslaved for non-payment of debts. All citizens are equal before the law and are endowed with equal civil rights, as well as responsibilities, for non-fulfillment of which punishment is imposed. Some magistrates (government positions) are elected by the people's assembly (voting was open). Others are appointed by lot, so that the majority does not dictate its will to the minority in everything.
The land was given to those who wanted to cultivate it, but in plots that did not exceed the capabilities of one large family. They were not allowed to be crushed. Periodically, a “court of shards” (“ostracons”) was held at a public meeting. Citizens threw shards with the name of a person suspected of lust for power (potential tyrant) into large vessels. The ancient Greeks knew very well: it is much easier to put a tyrant on your neck than to throw him off from there. Therefore, bright and persistent political figures were simply expelled from Athens for several years - they were ostracized, sometimes undeservedly.
There is only one thing I disagree with here. With the idea that democracy is “an invention of Solon.” In fact, Greek democracy “emerged” from the Temple of Artemis of Ephesus.
The first settlements arose in the area of the future Ephesus back in 1500-1400. BC e. The Carians and Lycians settled here. Herodotus says that these Carians And Lycians were immigrants from the island of Crete. Crete was the center matriarchal Minoan civilization. Ionic Greeks, p Having arrived in these places in the 11th century BC, they discovered here the cult of the ancient Goddess, whom the locals called the “Great Mother”. The Ionians called her Artemis in Greek, and after some time they erected a stone temple in her honor, which became one of the wonders of the world.
We know that all ancient laws originated from mothers. The law is the protection of a weak woman. A man does not need the law; he is used to taking what is right according to the strong. And so the Carians and Lycians, worshipers of the Great Mother, made Ephesus a city with an exemplary socio-political system. It is known that the famous sage Solon, one of the “seven Greek sages,” came here to study local legislation in order to later write famous laws for the Athenian state. Now open Wikipedia and read "
The authors - Yuliy Aleksandrovich Labas and Igor Vladimirovich Sedletsky - quite rightly emphasize that democracy is the only form of human relations that has no analogues in the animal world. Democracy is a creation of the human intellect, and, therefore, democracy does not appear “naturally,” as if by itself. Quite naturally, all sorts of tyrannies appear with bandits (anpirator kings) at the head of a group of dominant males. And here democracy- a phenomenon in some sense supernatural. For the weak to dictate their will to the strong and expel them from society - this does not exist in nature. But also matriarchy- the power of weak women is also supernatural phenomenon. Therefore, it is quite “natural” that Greek democracy “emerged” from matriarchy.
Aristocracy and oligarchy
Aristocracy
. The Virtues of the Aristocracy
. Disadvantages of the Aristocracy
. Oligarchy
. Bureaucracy and oligarchy
. Oligarchy of secret societies
. The press of our time is like an oligarchy
. Police modes
Aristocracy
Aristocracy is power, or rather, the rule of the best.
It must be said that over the centuries many terms have changed their meaning. Today, the terms “aristocracy” and especially “aristocrat” have lost their political meaning. In modern language, an aristocrat is a person belonging to the hereditary nobility, even if he has nothing to do with power. But speaking about aristocracy as a form of power, it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of “nobility” and “aristocracy”. Aristocracy is the nobility, the powerful, the ruling nobility. And the Hellenes simply called noble people not aristocrats, but eupatrides, that is, coming from a good family, noble origin (in Greek, “ev” - good, “patros” - father). Of course, every aristocrat was required to have a noble origin, otherwise he could not become an aristocrat (it is true that there are no aristocrats in the first generation). However, strictly legally and historically, an aristocrat is not only a noble person, but a noble person who, on this basis, has power or part of it.
Aristocracy, of course, is of pre-state origin, although, apparently, it is younger not only than monarchy, but also democracy. The prototype of the aristocracy was the tribe. Very often, tribal aristocracy is realized in the form of a council of elders or a meeting of clan leaders. We almost never see aristocracy in its pure form. It usually occurs in composite political systems - together with monarchy, together with democracy, or together with both, and never occurs together with one of the "distortions".
The combination of monarchy and aristocracy in one political system took place in some Greek city-states. Such an association was also found in Western Europe throughout most of the Middle Ages. Aristocracies mostly most characteristic of class societies. One can even argue that the presence of an aristocracy as such already makes a society class-based, because at least one class - the class of nobles - has already been distinguished.
Despite the fact that class society, as we said earlier, is characteristic of the descendants of the Aryans, we can meet aristocracies in other countries and in other cultures. There was a stable aristocracy in old Ashur (that is, Assyria of the ancient period), and in the New Assyrian kingdom, which already represented the experience of creating an empire, we see the remnants of the old Ashur aristocracy and the rapidly emerging new (military) aristocracy, already imperial. In China, aristocratic traditions and institutions enter the Zhou era (around the 12th century BC) and leave a powerful mark on Confucianism, a very, very aristocratic ethical system.
In general, aristocracies develop very slowly. This process is especially slow in the Aryan societies of the East, since it is hampered by a clear division of society into classes or varnas; the entire varna of kshatriyas, that is, warriors, cannot be considered an aristocracy! Nevertheless, the aristocracy is taking shape. In Iran, for example, it developed during the period of the empire and never disappeared.
The Virtues of the Aristocracy
The indisputable dignity of the aristocracy - here it is incomparable with anyone - is ability to obey and give orders (related things, because a person who does not know how to follow orders will never learn to give them). For the aristocracy, this skill is traditional and cultivated from infancy. By the way, military service brings purely aristocratic virtues (including the one mentioned) into democratic systems.
Aristocracy - guardian of the national and, more broadly, great culture for he never commits a sharp betrayal of his own tradition. A monarch can change his own culture (you don’t have to look far - Peter I), this can happen to democratic circles, but this will never happen to the aristocracy.
It should be noted that when forming the imperial elite, or the imperial nobility, or the imperial aristocracy (this is not exactly the same thing, but we can also talk about the aristocracy), the creators of the empire always include representatives of the aristocracy of various nations into it and thus cement the empire. This is highly characteristic of Russian history, but not only of it.
However, if the goal is not the creation of an empire, but the enslavement of a particular people, any the enslaver strikes the first blow precisely at the aristocracy, trying to destroy her at any cost. Moreover, the methods of destruction may be different. The aristocracy can be physically exterminated. It can be destroyed socially, pushing it into the lower social classes (the most difficult path, because both the nobility and the people resist). It can be assimilated, that is, simply stolen. This is how the Western Russian nobility was stolen, Catholicized and Polished during the 15th-17th centuries. As a result, the ancestors of those who are now called Ukrainians and Belarusians entered the New Age without any nobility of their own. In Poland, there are, perhaps, more aristocratic surnames of Russian-Lithuanian origin than native Polish ones. It was not the Lithuanians and Russians who benefited from this, but the Poles. Even the greatest Polish poet Mickiewicz was of Belarusian origin, but he felt himself to be completely Pole.
One should not expect vigorous initiative from the aristocracy, especially in carrying out reforms. Aristocracy conservative. Democracy is proactive, monarchy is proactive, and aristocracy is always a stabilizer. It successfully performs this function in composite systems. The history of the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Times shows: royal power and the democratic chambers of parliaments of Western Europe were proactive components, while the aristocracy was always stabilizing.
The extraordinary importance of the role of the aristocracy was understood back in the 19th century, and perhaps even at the beginning of the 20th. That is why they tried to replace the aristocracy, in its absence, with something. Such is the Italian Senate, which includes a certain number of senators for life. So is the US Senate. In general, the US political system is copied from the three-part polity of Great Britain, but instead of a king, it has a president, and instead of a House of Lords, a quasi-aristocratic chamber is the Senate. The US Senate is an unconditional stabilizer, if only because a senator is elected for 6 years, that is, for a longer term than the president, and the Senate is renewed every 2 years by only 1/3, that is, the majority of those who has already entered into the Senate tradition.
The special dignity of the aristocracy and, more broadly, the nobility - aristocratic upbringing. Thus, in Rus' in the 17th century, a young man of a noble family was prepared from infancy to the fact that by the age of 15 he, for example, would become a rynda (an honorary bodyguard for the sovereign), and therefore would be present at the most important state ceremonies, ambassadorial negotiations and etc. By the age of 17, he will enter real service and become a junior officer of the army or a junior member of the embassy and will train in this capacity for a number of years. Then he will receive the functions of a government official - the crown representative on the ground, that is, the city governor. Later, he will begin to command a regiment on his own or will go as a second ambassador, then become an ambassador or commander-in-chief. And the crown of his career was a meeting in the State Duma.
In families involved in the aristocracy, they are brought up inaccessible to other families. responsibility of each family member. It is no coincidence that in many countries and among many peoples that retained the aristocracy, it was customary to raise a child of a noble family in someone else's family. There they did not fawn on him, because no one was interested in him (after all, he would not be a noble person there), and they did not coo with him. As a result, he received a courageous upbringing. The heirs to the throne were also often raised at someone else's court (there will be maximum respect, but there will be no seeking - he will be someone else's king).
Even in those societies that are not governed by aristocracies (I repeat: aristocracy is a fairly common phenomenon, but frequent precisely in composite political systems), they strive to maintain a certain range of aristocratic positions. In Athens, with the full triumph of democracy, the first archon, after whom the year was named, was always eupatride. In the Theban system, which was more aristocratic, only aristocrats were stratigi (commanders-in-chief) and boeotarchs (representatives of the cities of the Boeotian League). The great, if not the greatest, commander of the Hellenic world, Epaminondas, was a Theban aristocrat and, by the way, very poor, as his biography reports. In Great Britain, until relatively recently, most of the officers of the Royal Navy belonged to noble families, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to this day is mainly staffed by representatives of the aristocracy, which is what our diplomatic service so lacks.
It has already been said that the aristocracy is highly compatible. Aristocracies and democracies were not uncommon in medieval city-states. Novgorod and Pskov were ruled jointly by the aristocracy and democracy until the inclusion of these cities into a united Russia at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries. The aristocracy is very often tolerant of the rights of both the democratic element of power and the monarchical one. The whole point is that the aristocracy never doubts its right to rule. And the aristocracy, more than all other citizens, all other tribesmen, considers the state to be theirs, and therefore their fellow tribesmen as theirs. But despite its high compatibility with other forms of power, it is the aristocracy among them that is most resistant to deviations.
The aristocracy will never allow tyranny, and if a tyrant does come to power as a result of certain circumstances (for example, a crowd uprising), he will first begin to exterminate the aristocracy. There is such a historical anecdote: the tyrant of Corinth Periander (VI century BC) sent his trusted servant to the tyrant of Miletus Thrasybulus with a request to teach him how to best manage the policy; Thrasybulus led the servant into the field and silently began to knock down the tall ears of corn. This is what they did in Hellas. In Russia, the tyrant Ivan IV physically destroyed the aristocracy and destroyed it as much as he had the strength. And the tyrant Peter I destroyed the aristocracy socially, extremely bureaucratizing the system; with his “Table of Ranks” he reduced the boyar aristocracy to the position of the lower-ranking service nobility. This is nothing more than a manifestation of the fear of the aristocracy and the tyrant’s hatred of it. Likewise, the English aristocracy suffered many losses under the tyranny of Henry VIII. And many such examples can be given.
The ochlocracy hates the aristocracy and, if it comes to power (which is rare), strives to eliminate it immediately in accordance with its main principle: “And I’m no worse than you!” But democracy often tolerates aristocracy. I have already given examples of the preservation of aristocratic traditions in Hellas, and as for Russian history, the same Novgorodian, a freedom-loving man, could talk to anyone about the merits of his mayor, could criticize him and even declare that he should be driven out. However, he understood perfectly well that he, a little bastard, could not rule Mr. Veliky Novgorod, that posadnichestvo was a boyar’s business. This is a very strong tradition.
And oligarchy, which is the most corrosive and manages to hide behind the backs of both monarchy and democracy (trying to turn the latter into ochlocracy), is generally impossible under aristocracy, even in a composite system, because aristocracy - the public power of the few - will not tolerate the secret power of the few.
Disadvantages of the Aristocracy
The aristocracy, like the monarchy, has one serious drawback - accident of birth. However, for a monarchy this is a one-time phenomenon (an unworthy or incapable monarch is simply born). In the aristocracy, the number of unworthy people can accumulate (that is, the process of degeneration of the nobility can occur). This main drawback of the aristocracy can be combated by replenishing it. The best method for this has been used by Great Britain for a number of centuries. Since ancient times, outstanding Englishmen annobled, that is, elevated to the dignity of nobility (they are given the rank of knighthood with the title "sir"). Honored Englishmen who already have the rank of knighthood can later be elevated to the baronial dignity and become lords, and therefore members of the House of Lords. Moreover, in English society, the title “sir” is awarded not only to officers, which is natural all over the world, but also to prominent entrepreneurs (like Sir Basil Zakharov, of Russian origin), prominent writers (like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), prominent scientists (like Sir Ernest Rutherford ), even prominent sportsmen (like footballer Sir Stanley Matthews and racing driver Sir Nigel Mansel).
However, to form the nobility in English, it is necessary to have an already established democratic elite of society in order to successfully draw from its composition the replenishment of the aristocracy, as well as the institution of the monarchy, because the assignment of a rank (knight or baron) by parliamentary vote can only cause laughter. In other words, it is necessary to have a real democracy and a real monarchy. Let us note that annoblement, of course, affects society, but it also affects something else - the model of a gentleman has become an immutable model of behavior in English society. First the bourgeoisie, and then gradually all the English, “catch up” to this model.
It must be said that in Russia there was also an annoblation system. Nobility in Russia was acquired through service, most often and most easily through military service. Officers - nobles from among the soldiers were not uncommon, and there were also generals. There was even one ordinary peasant soldier who rose to the rank of full general (he was only one step away from field marshal) - First General I. N. Skobelev, grandfather of the famous “White General” M. D. Skobelev (who was nicknamed “Ak Pasha” - "White General" when he led a campaign in Central Asia in the 80s of the 19th century). The founder of the Skobelev family served for four reigns - having begun serving under Catherine II, he retired and soon died under Nicholas I.
Actually, he was Kobelev from the village of Kobeli and served as a soldier under this surname, but when the time came to annoble him, the Department of Heraldry decided that it was inconvenient for a new citizen and the founder of the clan to have such a surname and added the letter “s”, which is where the surname came from Skobelev.
Oligarchy
The “distortion” of aristocracy is oligarchy (in Greek, the power of the few, or the power of the gang). In history, this “distortion” occurs most often. Aristotle describes only one kind of it - the power of the rich (probably characteristic of his era) and treats it disgustingly, while there are many varieties of oligarchy.
An aristocracy can degenerate into an oligarchy, which happens rarely, but does happen. To do this, the aristocracy must completely withdraw, become inaccessible. Thus, in Russia, the Supreme Privy Council, created by Empress Catherine I and Prince, gradually turned into an oligarchy. A D. Menshikov. By the way, if access to the aristocracy is too easy, it also ceases to be an aristocracy. Oligarchies sit quietly in the shadow of the monarchy and even manage to survive tyrannies, although they become very quiet, maintaining some minimal influence and preparing to seize power after the death of the tyrant (see, for example, A. Avtorkhanov “The Mystery of Stalin’s Death”). The oligarchy feels great under ochlocracy - what better way to come up with than to pull the crowd’s strings?! And, finally, democracy is also not absolutely oligarch-resistant (A. Kolyev “The Rebellion of the Nomenklatura”).
Bureaucracy and oligarchy. Note that the term “bureaucratization” is abusive, not the term “bureaucracy”. Presence of bureaucracy - it's just availability of a category of professional administrators. In many societies, and in modern societies, there is necessarily (they cannot live without it) a category of professional administrators, and this is completely normal. Representatives of the bureaucracy in the original sense of the word, that is, officialdom, can join the ranks of the democratic elite (say, to be elected somewhere), and the ranks of the aristocracy, if there is one, but, of course, not in a crowd, but individually, for special merit. Here it is appropriate to remember that addressing a Russian officer “Your Honor” meant for everyone that the officer came from a good family, and when a soldier became an officer, everyone understood that from that moment he was founding a good family. However, the exceptional danger of bureaucracy lies in the fact that, constituting itself as power, it can only turn into oligarchic power and no other. Moreover, this is possible in both monarchical and democratic systems.
Oligarchies of secret societies. These, apparently, already existed in Antiquity, but became quite noticeable in the Middle Ages. An anti-system that comes to power always forms an oligarchy. The classic example is the Fatimid rule in Egypt, which was essentially not a monarchical rule, but an oligarchic rule.
The press of our time is like an oligarchy. Glasnost and publicity are the natural environment for the existence of any correct form of power - monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Glasnost itself can significantly contribute to the failure of the genesis of an oligarchy, since it is easiest for the latter to develop in a dark corner, and not in bright light. However, relatively recently, the press in the United States began to be called the “fourth estate” (we are talking about a democratic society where the principle of separation of three powers operates, and the press is called the fourth). Then this approach was introduced here too. But if the process of formation of three branches of government in democratic societies is described by law and can be carried out publicly, then no one chooses an editor or journalist except those who give him the opportunity to publish in one or another publication. Therefore, the press should be considered as one of the types of services provided to citizens. And when the press becomes power, citizens are threatened by oligarchy.
Police regimes. The most disgusting of all states that you can imagine are also oligarchic - police regimes (a special case of bureaucratic systems). In such states, the police are formed into a caste, and as a result, instead of the master, it is the guard who takes the stage. Naturally, police mode, like any bureaucratic system, will be constituted like an oligarchy with all its characteristic features: lack of publicity, oppression of private life and the desire to turn citizens into a crowd.
So, none of the three correct forms of power is completely resistant to oligarchy. The aristocracy is most resistant to it, but it is impossible in its pure form in large states. In reality, the best defense against oligarchy (and in particular against police regimes) is composed of composite political systems.
Oligarchy(Greek ὀλιγαρχία(oligarchia), from other Greek ὀλίγον(oligon), “a little” and other Greek ἀρχή(arche), “power”) - a form of government in which power is concentrated in the hands of a narrow circle persons (oligarchs) and corresponds to their personal interests, and not to the common good.
Oligarchy in ancient politics
The term was originally used in Ancient Greece by the philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle used the term “oligarchy” to mean “the power of the rich,” contrasting oligarchy with aristocracy. Aristotle believed that there were three ideal forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and polity and considered oligarchy a deviation from aristocracy:
In essence, tyranny is the same monarchical power, but having in mind the interests of one ruler; the oligarchy looks after the interests of the wealthy classes; democracy - the interests of the disadvantaged classes; None of these deviating forms of government have any general benefit in mind.
Aristotle considered democracy a lesser evil than oligarchy, due to the greater stability of the democratic government (ibid.):
Be that as it may, a democratic system is more secure and less likely to entail internal disturbances than an oligarchic system. In oligarchies lurk the seeds of two kinds of troubles: discord between the oligarchs and, in addition, their disagreements with the people; in democracies there is only one type of indignation - namely, indignation against the oligarchy; The people - and this should be emphasized - will not rebel against themselves.
Aristotle considered any oligarchy imperfect; thus, describing the state structure of Sparta with its “rotational” oligarchy of ephors that limited the power of the kings, he wrote:
Things are bad with euphoria. This power is in charge of the most important branches of government; it is replenished from among the entire civilian population, so that the government often includes very poor people who ... can easily be bribed.
However, Aristotle also rejected the widespread opinion in his time about the need for a property qualification when electing the most worthy - as happened in Carthage - because of the “purchase of power”:
In total, the Carthaginian state system deviates most from the aristocratic system towards oligarchy due to the following belief, shared by the majority: they believe that officials should be elected not only on the basis of noble birth, but also on the basis of wealth, because it is impossible for an unsecured person to govern well and have enough leisure for this. But if the election of officials on the basis of wealth is characteristic of the oligarchy, and on the basis of virtue - by the aristocracy, then we could therefore consider as a third the type of state system in the spirit of which the Carthaginians organized state systems; after all, they elect officials, and the most important ones at that - kings and generals, taking into account precisely these two conditions. But such a deviation from the aristocratic system should be seen as a mistake of the legislator. ... Although it must be taken into account that wealth contributes to leisure, it is bad when the highest of positions, namely royal dignity and strategy, can be bought for money. ...
It is quite natural that those who buy power for money get used to making a profit from it, since, having received a position, they will spend money; It is incredible that a poor and decent person would want to benefit, but a worse person, having spent too much, would not want to do so.
A special form of oligarchy is plutocracy.
Examples of oligarchy
“The types of oligarchy are as follows. The first type is when property, not too large, but moderate, is in the hands of the majority; owners therefore have the opportunity to take part in public administration; and since the number of such people is large, the supreme power is inevitably in the hands not of people, but of the law. Indeed, to the extent that they are far from the monarchy - if their property is not so significant that they can enjoy leisure without worries, and not so insignificant that they need support from the state - they will inevitably demand, so that the law reigns among them, and not themselves. The second type of oligarchy: the number of people with property is less than the number of people in the first type of oligarchy, but the actual size of the property is larger; having greater power, these owners make more demands; therefore, they themselves elect from among the rest of the citizens those who are allowed to govern; but due to the fact that they are not yet strong enough to rule without law, they establish a law suitable for them. If the situation becomes more tense in the sense that the number of owners becomes smaller, and the property itself becomes larger, then the third type of oligarchy is obtained - all positions are concentrated in the hands of the owners, and the law commands that after their death their sons succeed them in positions. When their property grows to enormous proportions and they acquire a mass of supporters, then they get a DYNASTY, close to a MONARCHY, and then people become rulers, not the law - this is the fourth type of OLIGARCY, corresponding to the extreme type of DEMOCRACY.”
Oligarchy and monarchy
Modern definitions
In 1911, the prominent sociologist Robert Michels formulated the “iron law of oligarchy,” according to which democracy is in principle impossible in large communities, and any regime inevitably degenerates into an oligarchy (for example, the power of the nomenklatura). In the USSR, political economic literature designated “oligarchy” as a regime in which political power belongs to a narrow group of the richest individuals.
Russian oligarchs
In Russia, since the second half of the 1990s, the term “oligarch” began to be widely used to designate a narrow circle of politically influential entrepreneurs. They included the heads of the country's largest financial and industrial groups.
“In our country, oligarchs became those big businessmen who strived for power, introduced their people to various government posts, and created and supported corrupt practices among officials. Having become monstrously rich as a result of the predatory conditions of privatization, this group during Yeltsin’s presidency, merging with the state apparatus, occupied a special position in the country” (From the speech of the President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, Evgeny Primakov, at a meeting of the Mercury Club on January 14, 2008).
In the late 1990s, the term took on the character of a colloquial word, usually with a strong negative connotation; The ironic term “seven bankers” also became widespread in the media as the name of a group of seven major representatives of the Russian financial business, who played a significant political and economic role, owned the media and, it is assumed, informally united, despite internal disagreements, in order to ensure the re-election of B.N. . Yeltsin for the next term in the 1996 presidential elections. This group included the following persons:
Roman Abramovich - Millhouse Capital (Sibneft)
Boris Berezovsky - LogoVaz
Mikhail Khodorkovsky - Rosprom Group (Menatep)
Pugachev, Sergey Viktorovich - International Industrial Bank
Mikhail Fridman - Alfa Group
Vladimir Gusinsky - Most Group
Vladimir Potanin - Oneximbank
Alexander Smolensky - SBS-Agro (Bank Stolichny)
Vladimir Vinogradov - Inkombank
American professor Marshall Goldman, author of the book Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia (2008), coined the term “silogarh” (from “silovik”), referring to the economic model of Putinism, where significant resources are controlled by people from the Soviet and Russian intelligence services .
At the end of February 2009, political scientist Dmitry Oreshkin said: “Oligarchic capitalism, nomenclature capitalism, if you like, is by definition ineffective. It is good when you have a huge flow of petroleum oil, which is produced by wells, and you need to divide it<…>Sooner or later, this mechanism, based on the division of ready-made resources, is exhausting itself - we need to come up with some new types of resources, create some new types of added value. And for this you need to not just chop off, divide pieces, which the security forces are very good at doing. and generate. And here comes the time when suddenly these, in general, intelligent, gifted, brave people, whom we call “oligarchs,” find themselves not fitting into the rigid system of the environment: they die out like mammoths - the climate has changed and they are needed smaller mammals that are better able to find food for themselves. And they begin to starve, roughly speaking, and very quickly.”
The American newspaper New York Times wrote on March 7, 2009 that Russian oligarchs could soon lose their huge fortunes: the global financial and economic crisis threatens to throw them into the dustbin of history
As it turned out in 2010. March: “The number of billionaires in Russia has almost doubled: 62 versus last year’s 32. The richest Russian, Vladimir Lisin, ranks 32nd in the overall table of ranks, his fortune is estimated at $15.8 billion. Of the notable Russians who are no longer billionaires , the most famous is Boris Berezovsky." According to Forbes.
Timocracy(ancient Greek τῑμοκρᾰτία, from τῑμή, “price, honor” and κράτος, “power, strength”) - a form of government in which state power is vested in a privileged minority with a high property qualification. It is a form of oligarchy.
The term “timocracy” is found in Plato (“Republic”, VIII, 545) and Aristotle (“Ethics”, VIII, XII). Also mentioned in the writings of Xenophon.
According to Plato, who outlined the ideas of Socrates, timocracy - the rule of ambitious people, usually belonging to the military class, is a negative form of government, along with oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Timocracy according to Plato tends to transition into oligarchy as the ruling class accumulates wealth.
According to Aristotle, timocracy is a positive form of power, which tends to transform into a negative form - democracy, because these types of government have a common facet: timocracy also wants to be the power of a large number of people, and under it everyone belonging to the same category is equal.
An example of timocracy is considered to be the political system in Athens, established in the 6th century BC as a result of the reforms of Solon, and in Rome - after the reforms attributed to Servius Tullius.
Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστεύς “most noble, of noblest birth” and κράτος, “power, state, might”) - a form of government in which power belongs to the nobility (as opposed to the sole hereditary rule of a monarch, the sole elected rule of a tyrant or democracy). Features of this form of government can be seen in some city-states of antiquity (Ancient Rome, Sparta, etc.) and in some medieval republics of Europe. It is contrasted with early democracy, in which sovereign power is recognized as belonging to the entire population or majority of citizens. The basis of Aristocracy is the idea that the state should be governed only by selected, best minds. But in reality, the question of this election finds different solutions; in some Aristocracies, the determining principle is nobility of origin, in others military valor, higher mental development, religious or moral superiority, and finally, also the size and type of property. However, in most aristocracies several of these factors, or all of them, are combined to determine the right to state power. In addition to the state form, the highest aristocratic classes are also called Aristocrats. Belonging to them can be determined by the birth and inheritance of certain properties (family aristocracy, to know in the narrow sense), or it is associated with the acquisition of special conditions that presuppose it (monetary and official aristocracy, noblesse financiere, noblesse de la robe), or, finally, achieved by election. The popular aristocracy of ancient Rome belonged to the latter family. The clan and landed aristocracy reached its full development in the feudal organization of the new European society that emerged in the wake of ancient civilization; In the struggle against this medieval Aristocracy, the principle of modern monarchy grew and strengthened. The great French Revolution dealt a decisive, mortal blow to it, laying the foundation for the dominance of the monetary Aristocracy, which has now established its rule in all European states. The essence of the aristocratic principle was that dominance should belong to the best people and led to three important consequences. The first is that even in non-republican states, that is, in monarchies, aristocratic elements participate, if not directly in the possession of supreme power, then in its administration, and, moreover, virtually everywhere, but by virtue of state-legal powers in the so-called representative monarchies. The latter is carried out mainly in the form of upper chambers; but the lower houses, or houses of representatives, as well as any popular representation in general, in turn, also rest on the aristocratic principle. The second consequence is that the broadest democracy not only tolerates aristocratic elements, but in reality is nothing more than an expanded Aristocracy, so that both of them are relative concepts and represent only different degrees of development of the same state form of the same thing. the same beginning that defines it. Finally, the third consequence is that in all public unions formed within the state, political, social and even church, as well as in international unions of states, the aristocratic principle appears everywhere. The term was introduced into use by ancient idealist philosophers (Plato, Aristotle).
Plato created a model of an ideal state - aristocracy.
The main features of the aristocracy according to Plato:
The basis is slave labor;
the state is ruled by “philosophers”;
the country is guarded by warriors and aristocrats;
below are the “artisans”;
the entire population is divided into 3 estates;
philosophers and warriors should not have private property;
there is no closed family.
The main difference between an aristocracy and an oligarchy is the aristocracy's concern for the good of the entire state, and not exclusively for the good of its own class, which is similar to the difference between monarchy and tyranny.
Ethnocracy(from the Greek εθνος - “ethnos” (people) and the Greek κράτος - domination, power) - a social system in which power belongs to an elite formed from representatives of the same nationality based on ethnicity.
The indisputable advantage of the aristocracy - here it is incomparable to anyone - is ability to obey and give orders(related things, because a person who does not know how to follow orders will never learn to give them). For the aristocracy, this skill is traditional and cultivated from infancy. By the way, purely aristocratic virtues (including the one mentioned) are introduced into democratic systems by military service.
Aristocracy - guardian of the national and, more broadly, great culture for he never commits a sharp betrayal of his own tradition. A monarch can change his own culture (you don’t have to look far - Peter I), this can happen to democratic circles, but this will never happen to the aristocracy.
It should be noted that when forming the imperial elite, or the imperial nobility, or the imperial aristocracy (this is not exactly the same thing, but we can also talk about the aristocracy), the creators of the empire always include representatives of the aristocracy of various nations into it and thus cement the empire. This is highly characteristic of Russian history, but not only of it.
However, if the goal is not the creation of an empire, but the enslavement of a particular people, any the enslaver strikes the first blow precisely at the aristocracy, trying to destroy her at any cost. However, the methods of destruction may be different. The aristocracy can be physically exterminated. It can be destroyed socially, pushing it into the lower social classes (the most difficult path, because both the nobility and the people resist). It can also be assimilated, that is, simply stolen. This is how the Western Russian nobility was stolen, Catholicized and Polished during the 15th-17th centuries. As a result, the ancestors of those who are now called Ukrainians and Belarusians entered the New Age without any nobility of their own. In Poland, perhaps, there are more aristocratic surnames of Russian-Lithuanian origin than of native Polish origin. It was not the Lithuanians and Russians who benefited from this, but the Poles. Even the greatest Polish poet Mickiewicz was of Belarusian origin, but he felt himself to be completely Pole.
One should not expect vigorous initiative from the aristocracy, especially in carrying out reforms. Aristocracy conservative. Democracy is proactive, monarchy is proactive, and aristocracy is always a stabilizer. It successfully performs this function in composite systems. The history of the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Times shows: royal power and the democratic chambers of parliaments of Western Europe were proactive components, the aristocracy was always stabilizing.
The extraordinary importance of the role of the aristocracy was understood back in the 19th century, and perhaps even at the beginning of the 20th. That is why they tried to replace the aristocracy, in its absence, with something. Such is the Italian Senate, which includes a certain number of senators for life. So is the US Senate. In general, the political system of the USA is copied from the three-component polity of Great Britain, but instead of a king, a president was established in it, and instead of a House of Lords, a quasi-aristocratic chamber - the Senate (an unconditional stabilizer, if only because a senator is elected for 6 years, i.e. for a longer period than the president, and the Senate is renewed every 2 years by 1/3, i.e. the majority of those who have already entered into the Senate tradition always sit in it).
A special advantage of the aristocracy and, more broadly, the nobility is aristocratic upbringing. Thus, in Rus' in the 17th century, a young man of a noble family was prepared from infancy to the fact that by the age of 15 he, for example, would become a rynda (an honorary bodyguard for the sovereign), and therefore would be present at the most important state ceremonies, ambassadorial negotiations and etc. By the age of 17, he, in fact, will enter the service and become a junior officer in the army or a junior member of the embassy and will train in this capacity for a number of years. Then he will receive the functions of a government official - the crown representative on the ground, that is, the city governor. Later, he will begin to command a regiment on his own or will go as a second ambassador, then become an ambassador or commander-in-chief. And the crown of his career was a meeting in the State Duma.
In families involved in the aristocracy, they are brought up inaccessible to other families. responsibility of each family member. It is no coincidence that in many countries and among many peoples that retained the aristocracy, it was customary to raise a child of a noble family in someone else's family. There they did not fawn on him, because no one was interested in him (after all, he would not be a noble person here), and they did not coo with him. As a result, he received a courageous upbringing. The heirs to the throne were also often brought up at someone else's court (there will be maximum respect, but there will be no seeking - he will be someone else's king)!
Even those societies that are not governed by aristocracies (I repeat: aristocracy is a fairly common phenomenon, but frequent precisely in composite political systems) strive to maintain a certain range of aristocratic positions. In Athens, with the full triumph of democracy, the first archon, after whom the year was named, was always eupatride. In the Theban system, which was more aristocratic, only aristocrats were stratigi (commanders-in-chief) and boeotarchs (representatives of the cities of the Boeotian League). The great, if not the greatest, commander of the Hellenic world, Epaminondas, was a Theban aristocrat and, by the way, very poor, as his biography reports. In Great Britain, until relatively recently, most of the officers of the Royal Navy belonged to noble families, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to this day, is mainly staffed by representatives of the aristocracy, which is what our diplomatic service so lacks.
It has already been said that the aristocracy is highly compatible. Aristocracies and democracies were not uncommon in medieval city-states. Novgorod and Pskov were ruled jointly by the aristocracy and democracy until the inclusion of these cities into a united Russia at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries. The aristocracy is very often tolerant of the rights of both the democratic element of power and the monarchical one. The whole point is that the aristocracy never doubts its right to rule. And the aristocracy, more than all other citizens, all other tribesmen, considers the state to be theirs, and therefore their fellow tribesmen as theirs. But despite its high compatibility with other forms of power, it is the aristocracy that is most resistant to deviations among them.
The aristocracy will never allow tyranny, and if a tyrant does come to power as a result of certain circumstances (for example, a crowd uprising), the first thing he does is begin to exterminate the aristocracy. There is such a historical anecdote: the tyrant of Corinth Periander (VI century BC) sent his trusted servant to the tyrant of Miletus Thrasybulus with a request to teach how to best manage the policy, and Thrasybulus took the servant into the field and silently began to knock down tall ears of corn. This is what they did in Hellas. In Russia, the tyrant Ivan IV physically destroyed the aristocracy and destroyed it as much as he had the strength. And the tyrant Peter I destroyed the aristocracy socially, extremely bureaucratizing the system; with his “Table of Ranks” he reduced the boyar aristocracy to the position of the lower-ranking service nobility. This is nothing more than a manifestation of the fear of the aristocracy and the tyrant’s hatred of it. Likewise, the English aristocracy suffered many losses under the tyranny of Henry VIII. And many such examples can be given.
The ochlocracy hates the aristocracy and, if it comes to power (which is rare), strives to eliminate it immediately in accordance with its main principle: “And I’m no worse than you”! But democracy often tolerates aristocracy. I have already given examples of the preservation of aristocratic traditions in Hellas, and as for Russian history, the same Novgorodian, a freedom-loving man, could talk to anyone about the merits of his mayor, could criticize him and even declare that he should be driven out. However, he understood perfectly well that he, a little bastard, could not rule Mr. Veliky Novgorod, that posadnichestvo was a boyar’s business. This is a very strong tradition.
And oligarchy, which is the most corrosive and manages to hide behind the backs of both monarchy and democracy (trying to turn the latter into ochlocracy), is generally impossible under aristocracy, even in a composite system, because aristocracy - the public power of the few - will not tolerate the secret power of the few.
Disadvantages of the Aristocracy
The aristocracy, like the monarchy, has one serious drawback - accident of birth. However, for a monarchy this is a one-time phenomenon (an unworthy or incapable monarch is simply born). In the aristocracy, the number of unworthy people can accumulate (that is, the process of degeneration of the nobility can occur). It is possible to combat this main drawback of the aristocracy by replenishing it. The best method for this has been used by Great Britain for several centuries. Since ancient times, outstanding Englishmen annotated, i.e. elevated to the dignity of nobility(they are given the rank of knighthood with the title "sir"). Honored Englishmen who already have the rank of knighthood can later be elevated to the baronial dignity and become lords, and therefore members of the House of Lords. Moreover, in English society, the title “sir” is awarded not only to officers, which is natural all over the world, but also to prominent entrepreneurs (like Sir Basil Zakharov, of Russian origin), prominent writers (like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), prominent scientists (like Sir Ernest Rutherford ), even prominent sportsmen (like footballer Sir Stanley Matthews and racing driver Sir Nigel Mansel).
However, to form the nobility in English, it is necessary to have an already established democratic elite of society, in order to successfully draw from its composition the replenishment of the aristocracy, as well as the institution of the monarchy, because the assignment of rank by parliamentary vote can only cause laughter. In other words, it is necessary to have a real democracy and a real monarchy. Let us note that annobling, of course, affects society, but it also affects something else - the model of a gentleman has become an immutable model of behavior in English society. First of all, the bourgeoisie, and little by little all the English, are “catching up” to this model.
It must be said that in Russia there was also an annoblation system. The nobility in Russia obtained service, most often and most easily through military service. Officers - nobles from among the soldiers were not uncommon, and there were also generals. There was even one ordinary peasant soldier who rose to the rank of full general (he was only one step away from field marshal) - First General I. N. Skobelev, grandfather of the famous “White General” M. D. Skobelev (who was nicknamed “Ak Pasha” - "White General" when he led a campaign in Central Asia in the 80s of the 19th century). The founder of the Skobelev family served for four reigns - having begun serving under Catherine II, he retired and soon died under Nicholas I.
Actually, he was Kobelev from the village of Kobeli and served as a soldier under this surname, but when the time came to annoint him, the Department of Heraldry decided that it was inconvenient for a new citizen and the founder of the clan to have such a surname and added the letter “s”, which is where the surname came from Skobelev.
Oligarchy
The “distortion” of aristocracy is oligarchy(in Greek, “the power of the few”, or “the power of the gang”). In history, this “distortion” occurs most often. Aristotle describes only one kind of it - the power of the rich (probably characteristic of his era) and treats it disgustingly, while there are many varieties of oligarchy.
An aristocracy can degenerate into an oligarchy, which happens rarely, but does happen. To do this, the aristocracy must completely isolate itself and become inaccessible. Thus, in Russia, the Supreme Privy Council, created by Empress Catherine I and Prince, gradually turned into an oligarchy. A D. Menshikov. By the way, if access to the aristocracy is too easy, it also ceases to be an aristocracy. Oligarchies sit quietly in the shadow of the monarchy and even manage to survive tyrannies, although they become very quiet, maintaining some minimal influence and preparing to seize power after the death of the tyrant (see, for example, A. Avtorkhanov “The Mystery of Stalin’s Death”). Oligarchies feel great under ochlocracy - what better idea than to pull the crowd's strings?! And, finally, democracy is not absolutely oligarch-resistant (A. Kolyev “The Rebellion of the Nomenklatura”).
Bureaucracy and oligarchy. Note that the term “bureaucratization” is abusive, not the term “bureaucracy”. Presence of bureaucracy- it's just availability of a category of professional administrators. In many societies, and in modern societies, there is necessarily (they cannot live without it) a category of professional administrators, and this is completely normal. Representatives of the bureaucracy in the original sense of the word, i.e., bureaucracy, can join the ranks of the democratic elite (say, be elected somewhere), and the ranks of the aristocracy, if there is one, but, of course, not in a crowd, but individually, for special merits. Here it is appropriate to remember that addressing a Russian officer “Your Honor” meant for everyone that the officer came from a good family, and when a soldier became an officer, everyone understood that from that moment he was founding a good family. However, the exceptional danger of bureaucracy lies in the fact that, constituting itself as power, it can only turn into oligarchic power and no other. Moreover, this is possible in both monarchical and democratic systems.
Oligarchies of secret societies. These, apparently, already existed in Antiquity, but became quite noticeable in the Middle Ages. An anti-system that comes to power always forms an oligarchy. The classic example is the Fatimid rule in Egypt, which was, in fact, not a monarchical, but an oligarchic rule.
The press of our time is like an oligarchy. Glasnost and publicity are the natural environment for the existence of any correct form of power - monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Glasnost itself can significantly contribute to the failure of the genesis of an oligarchy, since it is easiest for the latter to develop in a dark corner, and not in bright light. However, relatively recently, the press in the United States began to be called the fourth estate (we are talking about a democratic society where the principle of separation of three powers operates, and the press is called the fourth). Then this approach was introduced here too. But if the process of formation of three branches of government in democratic societies is described by law and can be carried out publicly, then no one chooses an editor or journalist except those who give him the opportunity to publish in one or another publication. Therefore, the press should be considered as one of the types of services provided to citizens. And when the press becomes power, citizens are threatened by oligarchy.
