1. The pre-state period in the history of the tribal system is called “military democracy” by Marx and Engels. This term was introduced by the American historian L. Morgan to characterize ancient Greek society during the period of its transition from the tribal community to the so-called neighborhood community and was accepted without much criticism by Marx and Engels. “In short, the word basileia,” wrote Marx, “which Greek writers use to designate Homeric, so-called royal power (because its main distinguishing feature is military leadership), with the presence along with it of a council of leaders and a popular assembly, means only military democracy.” ".
In accordance with this, Engels rightly combines three indispensable elements of military democracy: the military leader (still endowed with judicial powers, but completely deprived of administrative powers), the council of leaders and the people's assembly.
The People's Assembly, each participant of which is at the same time a warrior, a militia member, is as important and as indispensable a body of power as the other two. Whatever policy the assembly pursued, whether it was (according to Homer) an obedient instrument in the hands of the nobility and the basileus or, as happened more than once, it came out of this power - neither the military leader nor the council had any means of violence against him, no means of coercion, except those created by tradition, influence, reliance on relatives, personal authority.
Military democracy, as one might assume, occurs at that period of history when we see the ancient clan organization still in full force, but at the same time, when property inequality already appeared with the inheritance of property by children (as opposed to the clan), the nobility and royal power arose, turning prisoners of war into slaves is common.
The leaders of the Achaean tribes (according to Homer’s story) repeatedly boast of their wealth (especially herds), and their origin, and their prowess; They have already learned to count money and accordingly estimate how many oxen and talents a foal mare, a tripod, a young slave correspond to.
They are reluctant to talk about the people or speak about them with contempt, but here are the words spoken by Odysseus himself: “When the menacingly thundering Zeus established a path that was menacing for the Achaeans... I was chosen from the Cretans to go with ships to Illion: and it was impossible for us to renounce : We were bound by the power of the people.
The system of military democracy has a wide variety of forms. In some cases, it is dependent on the polis structure, as was the case everywhere in Greece, Mesopotamia, West and North-West India, etc. In other cases, military democracy arises in conditions of a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle, as was the case among the Slavs and Germans.

This term was first introduced by the outstanding American scientist - historian and ethnographer Lewis Morgan in his work “Ancient Society” to characterize ancient Greek society in the transition period from the primitive communal system to the state, and was adopted by K. Marx and F. Engels. Marx believed that what Greek writers call Homeric or royal power, since its main distinguishing feature is military leadership, can be called military democracy, if we add to it a council of leaders and a popular assembly.

Military democracy, as F. Engels believed quite correctly, in our opinion, must unite together three obligatory elements - a military leader, who can also be endowed with judicial powers, but should not have administrative powers, a people's assembly and a council of leaders. The views of F. Engels are close to modern ideas about the democratic structure of society and the separation of powers. These are, as we would now say, three independent branches of government that constitute the essence of the concept of democracy.

The People's Assembly, each participant of which was also a warrior or militia member, was as important and necessary a body of power as the council of leaders and, in fact, the leader himself. Regardless of what political line the assembly adhered to, whether it was simply an instrument in the hands of the nobility or, as happened more than once, out of the control of the authorities, no one (neither the military leader nor the council of leaders) had any means violence or coercion in relation to him, except for traditions, customs, personal authority among the common people.

Thus, we found out that military democracy - This is the social structure of the transition period from the primitive communal system to the state.

It can be assumed that it occurs at that period of history when the ancient clan organization is still in sufficient strength, but at the same time, property stratification is already appearing, the nobility and royal power are emerging, and the transformation of prisoners of war into slaves is becoming commonplace.

The leaders of the Achaean tribes, as shown in one of Homer's stories, repeatedly boasted of both their wealth, especially herds of domesticated animals, and their origin. They are reluctant to talk about the people, and if they do, it is with contempt, but the words of Odysseus that he was chosen by the Cretans to go to Illion with ships, and that it was impossible to refuse, since they were elected by the power of the people, speak of that the people's assembly had sufficient strength and power.

Military democracy is distinguished by the presence of a wide variety of types and forms of its manifestation. In one case, it is somewhat dependent on the policy structure, as was the case in Greece and in some other countries. Otherwise, it may arise in conditions of a nomadic (fully or partially) lifestyle, as was the case among the Slavs or Germans.

Almost all nations had military democracy and was the last stage of the pre-state evolution of society. This includes the Roman community of the period of the kings, as well as the Greek city policies of the “era of Homer.” If we consider this phenomenon from the point of view of archaeology, then the era of military democracy will correspond to the period when the use of metals began, which led to changes in the economic and political structure of societies.

In the eighth century and the first half of the ninth, the Eastern Slavs began to form a social system, which historians would later call the term “military democracy.” This is a transitional period from the primitive system with tribal assemblies, leaders who were elected by everyone, tribal militia to the initial state formation with a strong power of the center, uniting all the inhabitants of the country, who are already beginning to differ greatly in their material, legal status and role in society.

Chapter 4. Military democracy as a form of organization of society during the period of decomposition of the tribal system and the transition to the state §1. The concept of “military democracy”, features of its organization

The period of disintegration of the primitive communal system is characterized by significant changes in the forms of social organization. Property inequality gave rise to social inequality. From the total mass of clan members, a separate group of leaders, military leaders, and priests stands out.

The emergence of wars as a permanent industry contributed to the development of military equipment and military organization. Under these conditions, the military leader becomes of great importance. At first it was an ordinary elder, but later, as a rule, a special military leader of a tribe or tribal union appeared, pushing other elders into the background. A specific organization of power arose, which Marx and Engels, following Morgan, called military democracy. It was still a democracy, because all the primitive democratic institutions were still preserved: the people's assembly, the council of elders, the tribal leader. But, on the other hand, it was already a different, military democracy, because the national assembly was a meeting of only armed warriors, and the military leader, surrounded and supported by his squad, acquired more and more influence and power at the expense of other elders. The system of military democracy still assumed the equality of all soldiers: each participant in the predatory campaign had the right to his share of the spoils. But, on the other hand, she no longer knew actual equality: not only the military leader, but also his associates and warriors took for themselves the largest and best part of the loot. These individuals, using their social position, took over the best plots of land, acquired more livestock, and took most of the military booty for themselves. They used their power to protect personal interests, to keep slaves and poor fellow tribesmen in obedience. The filling of clan positions from certain families, which has become a custom, turns into an almost indisputable right of these families to occupy them. The power of leaders and military commanders becomes hereditary and strengthens as a result of constant wars. Around the leader his associates are grouped, forming a military squad, which over time stands out as a special privileged social group. This is the embryo of a standing army.

The old tribal democracy is increasingly giving way to a new form of public power - military democracy, after which the era of the collapse of the tribal system received the conventional name of the era of military democracy. It was democracy, because, despite the property and social stratification, the tribal elite was forced to take into account the opinion of ordinary members of the tribe. Along with the squad, all adult, combat-ready men of the tribe, who form the national assembly, play a certain role in governing society. Other clan institutions are also preserved: leaders, council of elders. But the nature of these institutions is changing significantly. Leaders and elders, representing wealthy patriarchal families and supported by an armed squad, actually decided all matters. The People's Assembly, as a rule, only listened to their decisions. Thus, the organs of public power are increasingly disconnected from the people and turn into organs of domination and oppression, into organs of violence in relation to both their own people and other tribes. “The military leader, the council, the people’s assembly,” wrote Engels, “form the organs of clan society, developing into a military democracy. Military because war and organization for war are now becoming regular functions of people’s life” 77.

In turn, the organs of the clan system, as the primitive communal system decomposes and the social differentiation of primitive society as a result of the further division of labor, transforms either into organs of “military democracy” or into organs of political power, already characteristic of early class society. According to the tradition coming from L. G. Morgan, the genesis of the institutions of military democracy is associated with that stage in the evolution of clan society, at which command of the army became the most important form of government, and the communal organization outgrew the boundaries of the clan, phratry and became tribal. In some cases (as, for example, among the Iroquois) this organization grew to the scale of a confederation of tribes. Morgan does not have a single definition of military democracy; he identifies certain of its features in their specific historical manifestations among different peoples. True, he made an attempt to generalize these features: “It was a special organization that has no parallel in modern society, and it cannot be described in terms accepted for monarchical institutions. Military democracy with a Senate, a people's assembly and an appointed and elected commander - this is an approximate, although not entirely accurate, definition of this very unique form of government, belonging exclusively to ancient society and resting on purely democratic institutions” 78.

Military democracy is usually associated with a period when the peaceful state of patriarchal communities came to an end and the conduct of war became increasingly important. To replenish the number of slaves, whose labor began to be used already in the era of patriarchy (domestic or family slavery), military raids were required. War booty played a special role in the economy of the community, being an additional (and sometimes the main) source of subsistence.

The military organization of the tribe left its mark on the institutions of tribal democracy: “Predatory wars strengthen the power of the supreme military leader, as well as the military leaders subordinate to him; the election of their successors from the same families, established by custom, little by little, especially since the establishment of paternal law, passes into hereditary power, which is first tolerated, then demanded and finally usurped...” 79 The separation of military and civilian functions of government has arrived not immediately, it probably happened already during the period of the creation of confederations of tribes, organized for defense purposes or for military raids and the seizure of booty and slaves.

However, it would be wrong to see wars as the only reason for restructuring the organization of social power in communities. One of these reasons should be the complication of the structure of production caused by the improvement of productive forces. This made it possible to improve both plow farming tools and weapons and military equipment. The deepening of property inequality, the differentiation of economic activity and property relations, and the exploitation of the labor of captives led to the stratification of society, and with it to a clash of group and personal interests. There was a need to give greater flexibility to the internal organization of the community, without weakening the discipline of the “state of siege.” The role of external contacts of the tribe also increased, forced to enter into military alliances with other tribes, i.e. the function of “external relations” appeared.

The resolution of internal disputes and claims was transferred to the council of clan elders. The leader became the supreme arbiter of the tribe, although the role of the assembly in deciding common affairs did not decrease at all, but even increased. But we were already talking about the level of a tribe or a confederation of tribes, i.e. First of all, about the level of military organization. Moreover, the people's assembly, like the council of elders, turned into a permanent governing body with its own procedure. This is a collection of "panku" according to the ancestral characteristics of the Hittites 80; a meeting of combat-ready warriors in Ancient Sumer, a meeting of ordinary free citizens “Gozhen”, which is known from Chinese ancient sources; the people's assemblies "sabha" or "samiti", mentioned by Indian chronicles, the people's assemblies of the ancient Germans from the era of the early feudal (barbarian) state, the Scandinavian Things, and the ancient Russian veche were, obviously, successors to the long-standing traditions of tribal and military democracy 81. This continuity is especially clearly visible in the classical example of Ancient Greece.

The Achaean people's assembly differed from the gathering of its relatives during the times of tribal democracy not only in the more complex procedure for its conduct, but also in the expansion of its terms of reference. It decided on issues of war and reconciliation with neighbors, division of booty, resettlement, expulsion or execution of traitors, public works, and finally, it discussed a candidate and elected a leader. We can say that if earlier community members, young and old, crowded around the sitting council of elders, shouting their agreement or disagreement with its decisions, now the meeting has turned into a working body, to which only adult male warriors were admitted and in which every warrior had the right to speak .

In the initial period of military democracy, there was widespread participation of ordinary community members in all spheres of community life. The people's assembly, council and military leader were permanent governing bodies. “This was the most developed management organization that could have developed under the clan system; for the highest level of barbarism it was exemplary,” wrote F. Engels 82.

At first glance, the democratic features of “late” military democracy still in many ways resembled the social order of tribal democracy. At the same time, despite the increased role of the meeting, it was no longer a meeting of the entire adult population of the community, but a meeting of only soldiers. In peacetime, it was a meeting of free community owners, and women, aliens and slaves were excluded from the circle of its participants. In other words, the meeting of the era of military democracy and its decisions no longer coincided with the interests of the entire adult population belonging to a given clan or tribe. The appropriation of a larger and better part of the military booty, tribute or surplus product of the community by the tribal elite could not but lead to the gradual removal of ordinary community members from the day-to-day management of community affairs, to the strengthening of the position of the tribal aristocracy in management, which showed the greater aggressiveness and desire to strengthen its position as more, war became a natural state of social life.

If in the era of tribal democracy restrictions on participation in public authorities were most often of a gender and age nature, then among the Indian tribes of North America in the era of military democracy, restrictions on participation in government were already associated with other criteria: “The democratic foundations of political governance of these tribes gradually narrowed, and power was increasingly concentrated in the tribal council, in whose meetings four classes of officials took part: 1) peaceful leaders; 2) military leaders; 3) priests - guardians of tribal shrines; 4) honored warriors who replaced the participation of the armed people” 83.

No matter how great the role of the people's assembly was in the life of the tribe, the main role was played by the tribal nobility and the leader. Previously, their strength lay in moral authority, now - in wealth, birth, influence on ordinary members of the community, and the leader - in military services to the tribe. The rise of the military commander-leader was facilitated by the group of warriors that formed around him, who lived mainly by military activity (combatants). The strengthening of the role of the tribal aristocracy as an independent social force in managing the life of the tribe also occurred as the tribal organization gained dominance over the clan and the consanguineous unity of the collective was destroyed. The influence of the tribal nobility also increased as a result of the combination of the management of an individual clan with the management of the entire community as a socially integral unit.

The tribal aristocracy and the leader sought to pass on their economic and social privileges by inheritance. In general, there was a struggle between democratic and oligarchic principles in governance. One of the tools of this struggle was the gradual sacralization of the power of the leader, in which the tribal nobility saw an important factor in strengthening their positions, since they were protected by the authority of this power.

It should be noted that scientists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. the majority overestimated the “paternalistic” elements in community life. In fact, the principle of seniority in the clan and pedigree served only as an additional justification for the claims of the tribal elite to strengthen its economic and social positions at a time when its attempts to usurp power encountered resistance from ordinary community members. Priestly functions were used for the same purposes. The variety of means used by the clan nobility to strengthen their power is evidenced by ethnographic research: this includes paying a ransom for wives for young community members, so-called prestigious feasts, and clearing communal lands at their own expense, etc. But behind all this was hidden the appropriation of the total surplus product of the community and the use of the labor of community members in a variety of forms: offerings from the harvest or a successful hunt; right of first access to military spoils; “voluntary” work of community members on the lands of elders. Among the means mentioned were unions of the nobility (male unions).

At the same time, the interests of the tribal aristocracy sometimes came into conflict with the interests of the leader and squad. L.G. Morgan spoke about the conflict between civil power represented by the council and military power represented by the highest military leader 84. The rivalry between these two forces contributed to the preservation of the sovereignty of the popular assembly for quite a long time, since the latter could appeal to it, for example, to use its right to remove leaders. Herodotus's narrative about the Scythians shows the relatively significant role of the people's assembly, despite the far-reaching social stratification and the formation of a hereditary clan and military aristocracy. In this case, the people's assembly can, in our opinion, be considered as an important instrument of the “balance of powers” ​​- tribal and military. In the same communities in which tribal and military power were gathered, figuratively speaking, into a single fist and personified by one leader, the hierarchization of the organization of power and its isolation from the rest of the population had already gone far (here, apparently, there was already a “government without states").

The hierarchical principle, clearly expressed in late military democracy, became over time the basis of the political organization of the emerging class society and statehood. It should, however, be clarified that the military hierarchy in some places did not develop, for example, in Polynesian societies, where power remained in the hands of the tribal nobility, or in the societies of tropical Africa, where the sacralization and hierarchy of power followed the path of promoting religious leaders of the community or “ civil" leader. The alienation of managerial power took on special forms in eastern societies, which were characterized by great peculiarities of class formation 85 . (Identification of these features, which have become the object of scientific discussion, is the subject of a separate study.) On the contrary, among nomadic tribes and peoples who were at war for centuries, military democracy was often preserved as a stable form of organization of public power 1 .

The study of the process of hierarchization of management to the alienation of functions of power at the late stage of military democracy is often considered by modern science through the prism of the phenomenon of “leaderism” as a forerunner of the relations of class domination and subordination and the formation of bodies of political power and statehood.

The period of “leadership” as a transitional period from military democracy to statehood with all its features is highlighted by specialists in the history of antiquity, orientalists, ethnographers among various peoples: among the Mayan Indians and Indians of North America, among the peoples of Siberia, Africa, among the inhabitants of the islands of Oceania, among the peoples Far East

Most researchers, relying on data from historical science, ethnography and archeology, on analysis of the content of myths and ancient written monuments, believe that the formation of the state was preceded by pre-state power structures. Some authors (primarily L.S. Vasiliev) introduced into scientific circulation a new (and still controversial) concept of a proto-state - chiefdom (from English, chief - leader), which covers the period of state formation 86.

Lyubashits V.Ya., MORDOVTSEV A.YU., MAMYCHEV A.YU.

THEORY OF STATE AND LAW

Chapter 4. Military democracy as a form of organization of society during the period of decomposition of the tribal system and the transition to the state §1. The concept of “military democracy”, features of its organization

The period of disintegration of the primitive communal system is characterized by significant changes in the forms of social organization. Property inequality gave rise to social inequality. From the total mass of clan members, a separate group of leaders, military leaders, and priests stands out.

The emergence of wars as a permanent industry contributed to the development of military equipment and military organization. Under these conditions, the military leader becomes of great importance. At first it was an ordinary elder, but later, as a rule, a special military leader of a tribe or tribal union appeared, pushing other elders into the background. A specific organization of power arose, which Marx and Engels, following Morgan, called military democracy. It was still a democracy, because all the primitive democratic institutions were still preserved: the people's assembly, the council of elders, the tribal leader. But, on the other hand, it was already a different, military democracy, because the national assembly was a meeting of only armed warriors, and the military leader, surrounded and supported by his squad, acquired more and more influence and power at the expense of other elders. The system of military democracy still assumed the equality of all soldiers: each participant in the predatory campaign had the right to his share of the spoils. But, on the other hand, she no longer knew actual equality: not only the military leader, but also his associates and warriors took for themselves the largest and best part of the loot. These individuals, using their social position, took over the best plots of land, acquired more livestock, and took most of the military booty for themselves. They used their power to protect personal interests, to keep slaves and poor fellow tribesmen in obedience. The filling of clan positions from certain families, which has become a custom, turns into an almost indisputable right of these families to occupy them. The power of leaders and military commanders becomes hereditary and strengthens as a result of constant wars. Around the leader his associates are grouped, forming a military squad, which over time stands out as a special privileged social group. This is the embryo of a standing army.

The old tribal democracy is increasingly giving way to a new form of public power - military democracy, after which the era of the collapse of the tribal system received the conventional name of the era of military democracy. It was democracy, because, despite the property and social stratification, the tribal elite was forced to take into account the opinion of ordinary members of the tribe. Along with the squad, all adult, combat-ready men of the tribe, who form the national assembly, play a certain role in governing society. Other clan institutions are also preserved: leaders, council of elders. But the nature of these institutions is changing significantly. Leaders and elders, representing wealthy patriarchal families and supported by an armed squad, actually decided all matters. The People's Assembly, as a rule, only listened to their decisions. Thus, the organs of public power are increasingly disconnected from the people and turn into organs of domination and oppression, into organs of violence in relation to both their own people and other tribes. “The military leader, the council, the people’s assembly,” wrote Engels, “form the organs of clan society, developing into a military democracy. Military because war and organization for war are now becoming regular functions of people’s life” 77.

In turn, the organs of the clan system, as the primitive communal system decomposes and the social differentiation of primitive society as a result of the further division of labor, transforms either into organs of “military democracy” or into organs of political power, already characteristic of early class society. According to the tradition coming from L. G. Morgan, the genesis of the institutions of military democracy is associated with that stage in the evolution of clan society, at which command of the army became the most important form of government, and the communal organization outgrew the boundaries of the clan, phratry and became tribal. In some cases (as, for example, among the Iroquois) this organization grew to the scale of a confederation of tribes. Morgan does not have a single definition of military democracy; he identifies certain of its features in their specific historical manifestations among different peoples. True, he made an attempt to generalize these features: “It was a special organization that has no parallel in modern society, and it cannot be described in terms accepted for monarchical institutions. Military democracy with a Senate, a people's assembly and an appointed and elected commander - this is an approximate, although not entirely accurate, definition of this very unique form of government, belonging exclusively to ancient society and resting on purely democratic institutions” 78.

Military democracy is usually associated with a period when the peaceful state of patriarchal communities came to an end and the conduct of war became increasingly important. To replenish the number of slaves, whose labor began to be used already in the era of patriarchy (domestic or family slavery), military raids were required. War booty played a special role in the economy of the community, being an additional (and sometimes the main) source of subsistence.

The military organization of the tribe left its mark on the institutions of tribal democracy: “Predatory wars strengthen the power of the supreme military leader, as well as the military leaders subordinate to him; the election of their successors from the same families, established by custom, little by little, especially since the establishment of paternal law, passes into hereditary power, which is first tolerated, then demanded and finally usurped...” 79 The separation of military and civilian functions of government has arrived not immediately, it probably happened already during the period of the creation of confederations of tribes, organized for defense purposes or for military raids and the seizure of booty and slaves.

However, it would be wrong to see wars as the only reason for restructuring the organization of social power in communities. One of these reasons should be the complication of the structure of production caused by the improvement of productive forces. This made it possible to improve both plow farming tools and weapons and military equipment. The deepening of property inequality, the differentiation of economic activity and property relations, and the exploitation of the labor of captives led to the stratification of society, and with it to a clash of group and personal interests. There was a need to give greater flexibility to the internal organization of the community, without weakening the discipline of the “state of siege.” The role of external contacts of the tribe also increased, forced to enter into military alliances with other tribes, i.e. the function of “external relations” appeared.

The resolution of internal disputes and claims was transferred to the council of clan elders. The leader became the supreme arbiter of the tribe, although the role of the assembly in deciding common affairs did not decrease at all, but even increased. But we were already talking about the level of a tribe or a confederation of tribes, i.e. First of all, about the level of military organization. Moreover, the people's assembly, like the council of elders, turned into a permanent governing body with its own procedure. This is a collection of "panku" according to the ancestral characteristics of the Hittites 80; a meeting of combat-ready warriors in Ancient Sumer, a meeting of ordinary free citizens “Gozhen”, which is known from Chinese ancient sources; the people's assemblies "sabha" or "samiti", mentioned by Indian chronicles, the people's assemblies of the ancient Germans from the era of the early feudal (barbarian) state, the Scandinavian Things, and the ancient Russian veche were, obviously, successors to the long-standing traditions of tribal and military democracy 81. This continuity is especially clearly visible in the classical example of Ancient Greece.

The Achaean people's assembly differed from the gathering of its relatives during the times of tribal democracy not only in the more complex procedure for its conduct, but also in the expansion of its terms of reference. It decided on issues of war and reconciliation with neighbors, division of booty, resettlement, expulsion or execution of traitors, public works, and finally, it discussed a candidate and elected a leader. We can say that if earlier community members, young and old, crowded around the sitting council of elders, shouting their agreement or disagreement with its decisions, now the meeting has turned into a working body, to which only adult male warriors were admitted and in which every warrior had the right to speak .

In the initial period of military democracy, there was widespread participation of ordinary community members in all spheres of community life. The people's assembly, council and military leader were permanent governing bodies. “This was the most developed management organization that could have developed under the clan system; for the highest level of barbarism it was exemplary,” wrote F. Engels 82.

At first glance, the democratic features of “late” military democracy still in many ways resembled the social order of tribal democracy. At the same time, despite the increased role of the meeting, it was no longer a meeting of the entire adult population of the community, but a meeting of only soldiers. In peacetime, it was a meeting of free community owners, and women, aliens and slaves were excluded from the circle of its participants. In other words, the meeting of the era of military democracy and its decisions no longer coincided with the interests of the entire adult population belonging to a given clan or tribe. The appropriation of a larger and better part of the military booty, tribute or surplus product of the community by the tribal elite could not but lead to the gradual removal of ordinary community members from the day-to-day management of community affairs, to the strengthening of the position of the tribal aristocracy in management, which showed the greater aggressiveness and desire to strengthen its position as more, war became a natural state of social life.

If in the era of tribal democracy restrictions on participation in public authorities were most often of a gender and age nature, then among the Indian tribes of North America in the era of military democracy, restrictions on participation in government were already associated with other criteria: “The democratic foundations of political governance of these tribes gradually narrowed, and power was increasingly concentrated in the tribal council, in whose meetings four classes of officials took part: 1) peaceful leaders; 2) military leaders; 3) priests - guardians of tribal shrines; 4) honored warriors who replaced the participation of the armed people” 83.

No matter how great the role of the people's assembly was in the life of the tribe, the main role was played by the tribal nobility and the leader. Previously, their strength lay in moral authority, now - in wealth, birth, influence on ordinary members of the community, and the leader - in military services to the tribe. The rise of the military commander-leader was facilitated by the group of warriors that formed around him, who lived mainly by military activity (combatants). The strengthening of the role of the tribal aristocracy as an independent social force in managing the life of the tribe also occurred as the tribal organization gained dominance over the clan and the consanguineous unity of the collective was destroyed. The influence of the tribal nobility also increased as a result of the combination of the management of an individual clan with the management of the entire community as a socially integral unit.

The tribal aristocracy and the leader sought to pass on their economic and social privileges by inheritance. In general, there was a struggle between democratic and oligarchic principles in governance. One of the tools of this struggle was the gradual sacralization of the power of the leader, in which the tribal nobility saw an important factor in strengthening their positions, since they were protected by the authority of this power.

It should be noted that scientists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. the majority overestimated the “paternalistic” elements in community life. In fact, the principle of seniority in the clan and pedigree served only as an additional justification for the claims of the tribal elite to strengthen its economic and social positions at a time when its attempts to usurp power encountered resistance from ordinary community members. Priestly functions were used for the same purposes. The variety of means used by the clan nobility to strengthen their power is evidenced by ethnographic research: this includes paying a ransom for wives for young community members, so-called prestigious feasts, and clearing communal lands at their own expense, etc. But behind all this was hidden the appropriation of the total surplus product of the community and the use of the labor of community members in a variety of forms: offerings from the harvest or a successful hunt; right of first access to military spoils; “voluntary” work of community members on the lands of elders. Among the means mentioned were unions of the nobility (male unions).

At the same time, the interests of the tribal aristocracy sometimes came into conflict with the interests of the leader and squad. L.G. Morgan spoke about the conflict between civil power represented by the council and military power represented by the highest military leader 84. The rivalry between these two forces contributed to the preservation of the sovereignty of the popular assembly for quite a long time, since the latter could appeal to it, for example, to use its right to remove leaders. Herodotus's narrative about the Scythians shows the relatively significant role of the people's assembly, despite the far-reaching social stratification and the formation of a hereditary clan and military aristocracy. In this case, the people's assembly can, in our opinion, be considered as an important instrument of the “balance of powers” ​​- tribal and military. In the same communities in which tribal and military power were gathered, figuratively speaking, into a single fist and personified by one leader, the hierarchization of the organization of power and its isolation from the rest of the population had already gone far (here, apparently, there was already a “government without states").

The hierarchical principle, clearly expressed in late military democracy, became over time the basis of the political organization of the emerging class society and statehood. It should, however, be clarified that the military hierarchy in some places did not develop, for example, in Polynesian societies, where power remained in the hands of the tribal nobility, or in the societies of tropical Africa, where the sacralization and hierarchy of power followed the path of promoting religious leaders of the community or “ civil" leader. The alienation of managerial power took on special forms in eastern societies, which were characterized by great peculiarities of class formation 85 . (Identification of these features, which have become the object of scientific discussion, is the subject of a separate study.) On the contrary, among nomadic tribes and peoples who were at war for centuries, military democracy was often preserved as a stable form of organization of public power 1 .

The study of the process of hierarchization of management to the alienation of functions of power at the late stage of military democracy is often considered by modern science through the prism of the phenomenon of “leaderism” as a forerunner of the relations of class domination and subordination and the formation of bodies of political power and statehood.

The period of “leadership” as a transitional period from military democracy to statehood with all its features is highlighted by specialists in the history of antiquity, orientalists, ethnographers among various peoples: among the Mayan Indians and Indians of North America, among the peoples of Siberia, Africa, among the inhabitants of the islands of Oceania, among the peoples Far East

Most researchers, relying on data from historical science, ethnography and archeology, on analysis of the content of myths and ancient written monuments, believe that the formation of the state was preceded by pre-state power structures. Some authors (primarily L. S. Vasiliev) introduced into scientific circulation a new (and still controversial) concept of a proto-state - chiefdom (from English, chief - leader), which covers the period of state formation 86

§ 2. “Military democracy” and the process of forming state structures

The scope of our work does not allow us to go into details of the theoretical discussion on this issue. Let us only note that the development of military-democratic management into leader-hierarchical management did not automatically lead to the formation of state structures. Different peoples at different times developed such signs of the formation of the state as the separation from society of public power, which has a special apparatus of coercion, the division of the population along territorial lines (in many African and Asian societies divisions along tribal lines were preserved and there were no large settlements), the emergence of law as a system of norms expressing the will of the ruling classes and secured by the coercive force of public authority. For many peoples, the process of class formation lagged behind the emergence of state structures, which also deserves separate consideration.

The formation of supra-community power structures was associated with the usurpation by the community elite, along with the military leadership functions of public functions, primarily in the organization of economic activities (in one case it was the organization of irrigation infrastructure, in another - the distribution of land plots, in the third - the determination of pasture locations, etc. .) and on the redistribution of excess product.

One of the first to generalize the features of the formation of a political organization at this stage using the example of the Central Australian tribe M.O. Indirect. All power and management decisions in these tribes were made by the participants of the meeting, which consisted of elders of the highest rank and position, heads of local groups or totems, warriors and “doctors”. Only after the meeting made a decision, one of its participants communicated the essence of the latter to another meeting, which was attended by all the elderly men located in a circle (young people could be present at the meeting, but remained outside the circle) 2 . M.O. Kosven noted: “The most significant and significant feature of Australian leadership is that the political head of the group, sometimes being neither the eldest, nor the physically strongest, nor the wisest, nor the military leader, nor personally possessing supernatural power, is only a protege of the economically dominant group of geronts. Coming out of their midst, he remains completely connected with them, subordinate to them, only their representative... Here, at one of the most primitive stages of human culture, power already appears to us as an organization of economic domination” 87 .

Since the level of labor productivity achieved at this stage of development of primitive society was not yet high enough for the ruling elite to appropriate a significant share of the surplus product, the role of war as an external source of enrichment continued not only to persist, but also to increase. At the same time, military activity in conditions of an already far advanced division of labor became, in the words of R. Luxemburg, “a specialty of certain circles of primitive society” 88 . In this connection, it should be taken into account that it was precisely in the warlike pastoralist, nomadic tribes, where ordinary fellow tribesmen were often involved in military operations, that the democracy of their participation in making important decisions was much higher than in agricultural proto-peasant societies. In these latter, the function of protecting society was a monopoly of a special military class, which lost contact with its communities and served as an instrument of violence of the enriching military and tribal aristocracy against its fellow tribesmen.

The hierarchization of the system of military democracy was accompanied by the further removal of ordinary community members from the management of the community, and this process sometimes proceeded faster than the alienation of producers from the means of production, which for the most part was still of a secretive nature. The people's assembly was increasingly replaced by a gathering of military squads. The Council of Elders and secret unions of the clan nobility turned into increasingly important centers for making power decisions, only a part of which was then submitted for formal approval by a meeting of community members. This made it possible to impose new duties on ordinary community members, which (along with the use of the labor of slaves obtained in the war) contributed to the enrichment of the clan aristocracy. The collapse of the tribal organization and the emergence of military and civilian settlements, deprived of tribal ties, accelerated. The institutionalization of customs and rules of behavior began to take shape, their transformation into norms of law, differentiation applied to various social strata and entailing sanctions for their violation from no longer a meeting of fellow tribesmen, but from judges and priests nominated by the nobility.

The subordination of the bodies of community self-government to the leader and his group allowed the tribal elite to appropriate a significant part of the social product produced, which accelerated both the process of class formation and the further alienation of power. But along with the obvious signs of statehood, forms of communal self-government continued to exist - this makes it difficult to fix “ready-made” state forms of government in the history of many societies. Hence the attempts to introduce the concepts of “pre-state”, “early state” or “barbarian state”. All of these efforts are worth considering (provided they are based on knowledge of the facts and scientifically sound methodology). What is especially important for us is that at this stage the institutions of political participation (and in relation to this period it is already permissible to talk about political power) are undergoing a serious breakdown. However, since the organizational and managerial activities of the elite (no matter how far its separation from the people went) required its ideological justification and sanction, new forms of power were combined with old ones. Quite often, the former traditions of tribal and military democracy were transferred as “sanctified” by time to the state. Ancient Greece provides a classic example of such coexistence of traditions and new forms.

Special attention should be paid to this. that the emergence of military democracy is a transitional form from primitive democracy to the democracy of class society 89 . Its external signs are the position of a military leader in combination with the institutions that limit it. Morgan constantly emphasizes that a military leader is a military leader, and not a king, that this is precisely a position, an elected position and with limited power 90, that royal power is incompatible with the clan system 91. The bodies limiting the power of the military leader are the council of elders and the people's assembly. But having both of them is not necessary.

Thus, the essence of military democracy is the combination of militancy permeating the entire life of society with the freedom of the people, which Morgan identifies with democracy. He writes: “Where the military spirit dominates, as it was among the Aztecs, military democracy arises naturally under tribal institutions” 92 .

The history of Europe knows two large eras, to which the term “military democracy” is attached - the period of the formation of class societies of the ancient world (the Greeks of the “heroic” or “Homeric” era, at the beginning of the century dating back to the 11th-9th centuries BC) 93 and the Romans of the “age of kings” during the formation of medieval societies in the 1st millennium AD. e. among peoples who did not know the slave system - the Germans and Slavs 94. Most researchers agree that these two eras of class formation led to the formation of societies that were different in their formational nature: in the first case - slaveholding, in the second - feudal.

The similarity of the political structure of the two indicated groups of societies (on the one hand, the Greeks of the 11th-9th centuries BC and the Romans of the 8th-6th centuries BC, on the other, the Germans from the beginning of the new era until the formation of their early Middle Eastern states , different times among different ethnic groups, and the Slavs of the VI-VTII centuries AD), which consists in the existence of a national assembly, a council of elders and a military leader. The question is whether we can talk about similarities in the sphere of socio-economic relations.

In early Greek and Rankerim societies, the decomposition of clan relations and the formation of the neighboring community was far from complete during the formation of classes and the state. Ancestral ties remained the defining type of social connections for a long time. Family ownership of land was preserved and continued to exist even during the development of ancient society.

The disintegration of clan ties and the formation of the neighboring community did not precede the formation of the class and state system in ancient times, but coincided with it, since the state itself took the form of a community (polis). On the contrary, among the Germans and Slavs, class society was formed in conditions where the clan community and clan ownership of land were a completed stage of development. The disintegration of clan ties and the formation of a neighboring community here preceded the emergence of classes and the state 95 .

A correct understanding of military democracy first of all presupposes the definition of the historical era to which it is inherent. The era of military democracy is not the last stage of the decomposition of primitive society. It also exists in the era of transition from a primitive society to a class-antagonistic one. This transition period is transitional not only in the development of the base, but also of the superstructure. Just as the society of the transitional period itself represents a transitional form from the primitive communal system to the antagonistic formation, so the organs and norms of governing the society of this transitional period will be transitional forms from the organs and norms of self-government of the primitive society to the organs and norms of management of the antagonistic society, to the state and right.

Thus, the state organization of society arises after military democracy, and military democracy itself is an expression of the process of the emergence of the state. Its essence lies in the fact that it represents a transitional form of bodies and norms for managing society. Military democracy is no longer the organs and norms of public self-government, but it has not yet become the organs and norms of a class-antagonistic society - state and law. Military democracy combines the features and properties of both the bodies and norms of governing primitive society, and the state and law.

Military democracy is inherent in the era of transition from a classless to a class society, when society has ceased to be homogeneous, but has not yet become class-based. The transition period from a primitive communal society to a class-antagonistic society is an era during which “individual ruling individuals rallied into the ruling class.” It was in the interests of these individual ruling individuals, who only gradually united into the ruling class, that military democracy appeared, a transitional form in the development of organs and norms for governing society.

a form of government at the stage of decomposition of the primitive communal system, when the power of a hereditary prince arises, relying on the military strength of his squad. But this power was limited to the remnants of clan relations - the veche.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MILITARY DEMOCRACY

term introduced into scientific turnover by L. G. Morgan to denote the organization of power in ancient Greek. society at the stage of decomposition of the primitive communal system (the collapse of the tribal community and its replacement by a neighboring community). Having adopted the term “V.D.”, K. Marx and F. Engels gave it a universal historical character. meaning. Later, in the works of Sov. historians, this term began to denote not only definitions. form of organization of power, but also the corresponding stage in the development of primitive society. V.D. is the conclusion. stage of the decomposition of primitive society and its transformation into a class. (slave-owning or feudal) society. Archaeologically, it corresponds to the early era of metals (bronze, early iron), the introduction of which led to the widespread development of plow farming, cattle breeding, crafts, exchange, and at the same time the emergence of excess product, private property and patriarchy. slavery. Under these conditions, one of the major factors in the beginning of the process of class formation and the formation of a state separated from the people. the authorities came to rob. wars in order to seize other people's wealth and slaves, enriching and strengthening the military. leaders and the warriors united around them. Relying on the latter, military leaders, especially the leaders of the tribal unions that arose everywhere at that time, gradually seized power in the still surviving bodies of primitive democracy - tribal councils. Meaning of adv. meetings fell, and tribal councils turned into specific ones. organs of V. d., which will be completed. With the disintegration of society into classes, class bodies became organs. dictatorship. In the conditions of V. d. "... the organs of the clan system are gradually torn away from their roots in the people, in the clan, in the phratry, in the tribe, and the entire clan system turns into its opposite: from the organization of tribes for the free regulation of their own affairs, it turns into an organization for the robbery and oppression of neighbors, and accordingly, its organs from instruments of the people's will turn into independent organs of domination and oppression directed against their own people" (Engels F., The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1953, p. 170). Classic examples of societies at the stage of V. d. are the Greeks of the Homeric era, the Romans of the so-called. royal period, Celts, ancient Germans, Normans, Aztecs, etc. Lit.: Marx K., Summary of the book by Lewis G. Morgan “Ancient Society”, in the book: Marx and Engels Archive, vol. IX, (M.), 1941; Morgan L. G., Ancient Society, or an Inquiry into the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization, trans. from English, 2nd ed., Leningrad, 1935; Tolstov S.P., Military democracy and the problem of the “genetic revolution”, “Problems of the history of pre-capitalist societies”, 1935, No. 7-8; Kosven M. O., Essays on the history of primitive culture, 2nd ed., M., 1957. A. I. Pershits. Moscow.