Modifications of the structure of power-property - History of the East

17.1. Modifications of power-ownership structure

In the introductory part of the textbook, where the basic principles of the author's concept of the history of the East were laid down and, if the problem was broadened, which was necessary, the whole historical process, attention was drawn primarily to the general outlines of this concept. In particular, emphasis was placed on the most basic. Such a basis should be considered the author's project, in the center of which is the principle of the omnipotence of power in the absence of the protected by law private property of the ancient bourgeois type and in general any rights and freedoms recognized and respected by the authorities standing above the society. Calling such a structure power-ownership, should be distinguished in it two different modifications.

• Historically, the first modification is rooted in deep primitive antiquity. It was gradually formed over thousands of years and at the same time was always characterized by strict centralization, because it was the result of the gradual rise of only one unanimously recognized by the collective of the subject of power. First, they were the leader of a group of stray hunters and gatherers, then the patriarchal father -clan cells of early farmers and nomadic pastoralists, even later, on the basis of the agricultural community, the elected elder, and then - from the farmers and pastoralists - the leader of the tribe and the tribal proto-state tva.

At this stage, the spontaneously-natural, generally valid process of evolution, characteristic of the vast majority of primitive collectives, was most often suspended. It is difficult to say whether all the designated stages of elevation of the subject of power over the collective he headed are always precisely spontaneous, i.e. not dependent on the impact of the advanced in this evolutionary movement on the backward. Probably not. But imitation of other people's experience was inevitably reinforced by the vital need to somehow organize themselves within the framework of a society that allows everyone to provide everything necessary. After all, no society, instinctively or consciously willing to do just that, without good or even satisfactory guidance, could not do without. So the evolutionary process ultimately necessarily boiled down to finding the optimal solution to the problem mentioned.

It can be said that this was one of the earliest and most significant challenges sent by Nature to Man: if you want to survive, act in accordance with a definite need. At the stage in question, an adequate response to the call solved the problem, i.e. provided survival, and this meant that the achievement of the level of a tribal proto-state was at that time sufficient for a more or less satisfactory existence. Nature did not require more. It is quite reasonable to assume that it was based on the fact that a very still inhabited planet is able to feed all those who exist within the framework of the said protostates. And the planet was gradually populated, and the further, the more intense. If we consider this process from the standpoint of a theory that amounts to the fact that life is movement, and the cessation of movement leads to inevitable entropy, then the beginning of the first stage of intensive socio- and politicalogenesis can be regarded as a movement of qualitative associated with the need to give an adequate response to the challenge and thereby make the path of qualitative changes leading to the acquisition of some positive experience. After that, the same stage of the evolutionary process became different, quantitative, which amounted to the fact that the overwhelming majority of collectives who aspired to give an adequate response to a challenge and thereby survive in the difficult struggle for existence were on the way of the advanced and at a successful confluence of favorable circumstances, reached the level of tribal proto-states.

A much more complicated stage of evolution was reduced to the transition of the most advanced collectives to the next stage, the level of which was determined by the fact of the addition of the focus of urban civilization. Here the evolutionary process was somewhat different. It was neither a qualitative nor a quantitative change, accessible to virtually every collective. It was selective, suitable for a few who found themselves in exceptionally favorable circumstances, and these few also gave their answer to the challenge. Those who have done this work adequately have benefited. There was a city-state with the prospect of a fairly rapid subsequent evolution (an early and developed state, or even an empire). And although not every city-state passed from one step to another, even one could say that none of them achieved this, because the combination of such cities was replaced by their unification, the main principle was the main one. It consisted in that the supreme subject of power was only one ruler , the sacralization of the position and personality of which sometimes led to his deification (son of the Sun, son of Heaven).

The tendency to pay special attention is not accidental. Again and again we emphasize the main thing: the society as a collective was in great need of a leader who not only ensured, but also symbolized its integrity and power, and he aspired to the exaltation of this symbol, the proof of which should be considered, in particular, the ancient Egyptian pyramids. The natural consequence of this process was the modification of the structure of power-property, which was characterized by centralized redistribution. The meaning of this redistribution is the same as that always in the described process should be considered a desirable norm: one developing and growing collective, a unified system of socio-political organization and management, one magnified and sacralized ruler and a harmonious centralized pyramidal centralized redistribution system, the top of which is this ruler. Such a modification of the structure is not only historically the first, but also the most important, basic, surviving to the present day.

• The second modification, not the main and not the main one, has been in history since ancient times and again until recently. Unlike the first, it is not slowly forming, passing in the process of evolution from one stage to another. Quite the contrary, this modification is not only secondary and short-term, but in a certain sense - although not in all respects - is of the same type. In addition, it is, importantly, not just transitory, but also transitional, i.e. which is the result of the forced transformation of the first, the main and the main. The second modification arose when there were no conditions for the addition or existence of a single and strong state with centralized redistribution. Its essence boils down to the fact that the central government for any reasons is weak and unable to provide the unity desired by the collective and thereby demonstrate its power. The result of this inability and therefore inadequacy of the power of the center with its centralized redistribution, the top of which ascended to the sacralized ruler, is the vassal-suzerain feudal-specific modification of the same power-ownership structure that is coming to replace it, but now with a decentralized redistribution. This model could appear under different circumstances, which in different conditions in different ways accompanied the weakening of the central power, if it already existed, or replaced this power, if she did not have the opportunity to actually manage her vast territory, especially with a heterogeneous, heterogeneous population.


This kind of variant was hardly demonstrated for the first time in ancient Egyptian history with its transitional periods, when the power of the center fell into decay, and the real power, coupled with pronounced separatist tendencies, passed to the level of nomas. It is not so important whether the government took the form of specific government. Much more significant is that redistribution became a function of the rulers of the nomas. Transitional periods in ancient Egyptian history were comparatively short and disappeared as one of the nomadic rulers grew so strong that it was able to unite around the rest of the nomas, restore central authority and, along with it, centralized redistribution.

In China, the Zhou era feudalism with all its classic forms and signs was longer, but the essence of it from this did not change. It was that the real power and with it the redistribution function left the price and became part of the vassals and subvassals - and this, with the formal preservation of the sacralized Vsechonsky, i.e. all-Chinese son of Heaven.

But the most specific situation was in India, where both modifications, due to the weakness of the power there, existed almost simultaneously, which was already being addressed with special attention. It should be taken into account that the parallel coexistence of two zones, one of which was managed by the center through the governors-governors, and the other was under the authority of vassal rajas, was just that within one of these zones centralized and, in the other, decentralized redistribution . The fact that these zones were flexible and the rajas could at times turn out to be governors, and governors to become vassal rajas, did not change much in the matter.

Something of the same kind persisted even later, when empires began to emerge, the highest manifestation of the form of organization of which was Achaemenid Persia . After the reforms of Darius, who laid the foundations of the imperial form of power, satrapies were created, which turned out to be something middle between governorships and major vassal principalities. This is an average that greatly facilitated the tasks of governing a giant empire and meant, to a certain extent, a confusion of the centralized and decentralized-specific forms of redistribution, turned out to be optimal for societies headed by the will of fate, fortunate foreigners who could not manage what had been won otherwise.

It is important to pay attention to the fact that this form of organization of power during the European Middle Ages was typical for those countries where power was weak, from the same pre-Islamic India to the Tropical - including Islamic - Africa. But something similar, with a much greater emphasis on classical feudalism, was in Kievan Rus or Japan, not to mention the barbarian kingdoms of Western Europe, which, although typologically ascending to the primitive-eastern standard, quickly turned into European ones that did not have nothing to do with the traditional East. As for the states characteristic of the Islamic civilization, it is necessary to speak about them specifically.

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)