THE SECOND, SLAVE-HOLDING, SOCIAL REVOLUTION.
1. Economic laws and economic contradictions.
At the usurious phase of primitive-communal society, the economic contradictions, the reason of which being the action of economic laws of social development, appeared and became more and more strained.
First of all, there appeared a deep contradiction between usurious capital and labour, between usurers and debtors. This contradiction was a consequence of violation of the law of correspondence of market value (price) of labour products (commodities) to the amount of labour embodied in them, i.e. the law of value. Before the origin of usury, all the labour products, no matter how they were exchanged – on natural-commodity or money-commodity basis – were exchanged on the basis of equivalent exchange, i.e. according, more or less, to the amount of labour spent for their production (measured by means of labour time). The exchange between usurer and debtor, for the first time in the history of developed, formed society, was non-equivalent one. Usurer always gains more, than he gives. The economic basis of such non-equivalent exchange was the concentration of means of subsistence: agricultural products, cattle, money, etc. in the hands of minority.
One more contradiction – between the increase of needs and the level of labour productivity fallen behind them – also developed in the primitive-communal society. In the course of development of society, its productive forces, commodity production, commodity exchange, commerce (especially foreign trade), communication lines, ties between countries and nations, people became acquainted with the achievements of other tribes and nations in material sphere and spiritual life. And having seen one or another material or spiritual value people began to want them for themselves. But the increase of labour productivity being slower than the growth of needs did not enable to satisfy them in full. To satisfy ever growing needs, it is necessary to increase labour productivity more rapidly, the latter, in turn, depends upon the development of technical means, first of all – production technics, production technology, economy, division of labour, its management, etc.
As we have already seen, one of the results of the action of the law of correspondence of the labour productivity level to the level of people’s needs was the hunting-technical revolution. The origin of agriculture and cattle-breeding, as well as the agrarian-technical revolution also were the consequences of this very law. As a result of the agrarian-technical revolution, the level of labour productivity increased sharply and was brought, more or less, into the line with the level of people’s needs.
The agrarian-technical revolution, however, gave birth to other economic contradictions. First of all, the sharp increase of social division of labour in its highest form – the form of branch division of labour took place.
“The level of development of nation’s productive forces can be seen most clearly from the level of division of labour. The origin of any new productive force … results in further development of division of labour.
Division of labour within one or another nation leads, first of all, to separation of industrial and commercial labour from agricultural labour, and, thus, to separation of city from country and to opposition of their interests. Further development of division of labour leads to isolation of commerce labour from industrial one. At the same time, owing to the division of labour, various subdivisions of individuals cooperating in one or another branch of labour develop inside these branches” (K.Marx, F.Engels. Selected works, M., 1979, vol.1, p.9).
The agrarian-technical revolution led to the sharp increase of the level of social division of labour, mainly owing to mechanisation of transport on the basis of draught technics in the land transport and the wide use of large one-two-three-deck rowing boats, as well as sailing and rowing-sailing vessels, as a result of which the labour productivity during transportation of commodities increased sharply and cost of transportation decreased that promoted the growth of the level of social division of labour to a great extent. All the progress in the field of social division of labour, commodity production and commerce could be, in a certain way, regarded as a consequence of development of transportation technics and communication lines.
During the agrarian-technical revolution, and especially after its completion, a number of old and new-born branches of social production isolated themselves. The specialization of single enterprises took place. It resulted in rapid development of commodity production, commodity exchange – first, natural-commodity, then, money-commodity. The external commodity market, consolidating dozens and hundreds of tribes, was formed. Commercial and economic associations appeared. Amalgamation of tribes into tribe unions took place, somewhere - on a voluntary basis, in other places – under compulsion, by means of armed conquests and annexations. These tribe unions were gradually transformed to nationalities, at that states appeared.
In the countries where the agriculture was based on irrigation, nationalities and states appeared (as it was the case in the countries of Ancient East) within the framework of the primitive-communal society, before the slave-holding social revolution. In the countries where there was no need in irrigation, the contradiction between the size of commodity market and the level of branch division of labour was resolved only during and even after the slave-holding social revolution, at the first, trade phase of slave-holding society.
The agrarian-technical revolution caused one more contradiction – between the degree of centralization (size of enterprises, production units) and the level of operational division of labour. The latter reduced sharply as a result of transition from hunting to agriculture. One can even say – it disappeared at all. As a result, small individual households became more effective, advantageous. This contradiction was resolved by transition from collective production based on joint labour to small, individual households based on the labour of family members. In hunting and fishing business (especially in the latter, with the use of fishing net (seine)), collective labour is based on operational division of labour, though of low level and in lower form. As a consequence, the joint economy is here more efficient, and the labour – more productive.
Agriculture has a peculiarity – a number of works of different kind is to be done, but they should be done in different time, dependent upon seasons. First, all the farmers plough, then – sow, then – weed, water, gather in the harvest, etc., i.e. all kinds of work are to be done not simultaneously, like in hunting, fishing, handicraft, etc., but in certain time sequence. Therefore, operational division of labour cannot be used here, at least – on a large scale. And so, there is no need in collective labour, joint economy. All this caused mass transition from collective economy to small, individual households, i.e. decentralization of production took place in that way resolving the contradiction between the grade of centralization of economy, production and the level of operational division of labour.
Finally, the agrarian-technical revolution caused one more economic contradiction: contradiction between socio-productive relations and the nature of labour of the majority of labourers. The labour of ancient farmers that constituted the majority of population after the agrarian-technical revolution differs drastically from that of hunter and fisher by its very nature, its content. Unlike the labour of hunter and fisher, this labour is not creative, it is very hard and rough, it cripples a man morally. It should be stressed here, that the matter does not concern agricultural labour as such, even more so - the modern machinized, electrified, and partly automated agriculture, but only that primitive ancient agriculture based on mattock, wooden plow, crude plough, on draught force of bulls, mules and imperfect harness. We speak here about agriculture that existed several thousand years ago, after the agrarian-technical revolution.
Moreover, ancient peasants worked, as a rule, under the scorching sunlight, that made their labour still harder, more exhausting, cheerless and back-breaking. The work of peasants of that time, especially in the hot countries of Ancient East and Mediterranean countries, did not bring them any satisfaction.
Even today, people prefer, in their spare time, to go in for hunting and fishing, not agriculture. Spending his time in hunting of fishing, man, for the most part, gets joy and satisfaction; he works, but it is work and leisure simultaneously.
Interconnection between socio-productive (labour) relations and the nature of labour of workers is such that the more creative is the labour so that it, by the very content, becomes human need, and not just means of subsistence, the more humane and fair socio-productive relations are needed for people occupied with this labour.
The labour of hunters and fishers is creative to a great extent; and so it is most effective, if it is free not compulsory. Socio-productive relations of hunters and fishers should be based on co-operation, fellowship, mutual aid, unselfishness, etc. Only in such a case this work would be most effective, most productive. Being founded on private ownership and hired work, their labour would be less effective, less productive, because in this case socio-productive relations would be less humane, unjust, based on the exploitation of man by man. Still less effective, less productive it would be, being based on private ownership and slave labour.
For the creative labour to be the most effective, it needs moral stimulus. Such labour, being combined with coercion, economic or non-economic, i.e. physical, would be less productive, less effective.
On the contrary, the labour of a peasant based on hand and draught primitive technics, would be more effective, if it is grounded not on moral stimulus, communal ownership and free collective labour, but on coercion, economic or non-economic, i.e. if the labour of peasant is based on private ownership of the main means of production and individual, hired or slave, labour. Obviously, the efficiency of agricultural labour, based on non-economic coercion, is achieved at the expense of excessive labour intensity and duration of working day that is not acceptable for other forms of socio-productive relations.
Farmers, whose labour is based on primitive technics and technology and, thus, is hard and cheerless, are enslaved by their production process, their productive forces. And when they, in addition to this, are enslaved by social forces, by another people, they get used to it quicker. They are prepared to this subjection by their very labour that cripples them both physically and morally, by their production, by their productive forces. They submit to slavery and physical, non-economic coercion easier. And their labour, though being founded on non-economic coercion, is effective labour.
Hunter, whose labour became his need, from which he has not only foodstuff, but moral satisfaction as well, is not enslaved by his labour, his economy and his productive forces. His labour, thereby, is incompatible with coercion.
Of course, agricultural labour can be effective not only being based on non-economic coercion, on private ownership of the main means of production, but also on communal ownership and free labour, as the long history of primitive-communal Ancient East testifies. But history also proved that its efficiency does not decrease when economic coercion is combined with non-economic coercion (slave labour).
Thus, it is not occasional fact that in all places where agriculture appears and, especially, where it turns to the main branch of social production, slavery appears as well and the very slave not hired labour becomes the first form of exploited labour. The more crude is this labour by its content, the more crude form of coercion it generates.
First, labourers are enslaved by their very labour, their production process, their productive forces created by themselves, and, as a consequence, they then become enslaved by man, society (class), state.
2. The origin of conflict between society’s productive forces and socio-productive relations.
Economic contradictions in the primitive-communal society after the agrarian-technical revolution became strained to the extent that the absolute necessity appeared to change the existent primitive-communal socio-productive relations to new socio-productive relations that could give way to further development of productive forces. The old socio-productive relations hampered the development of productive forces, were an obstacle to them.
The agrarian-technical revolution allowed to increase the level of labour productivity, production of material values and spiritual wealth, living standards of population. But not all of these possibilities could be used. And the cause of it was the existent, outdated socio-productive relations.
Productive forces outgrew the primitive-communal socio-productive relations; the latter hampered the former in all directions, in all spheres of social life.
If the branch division of labour could develop in full measure, it would cause sharp increase of labour productivity, commodity production, commerce, and they, in turn, would promote further development of social division of labour. But there were insurmountable obstacles to their development: state monopoly of foreign trade, concentration of wholesale and considerable part of retail trade in the hands of state, existence of shop communities in craft and trade with their petty regulation of production and commerce, domination of usurers that appropriated the major part of aggregate surplus product of society, so that traders were satisfied with miserable remains.
As a result, considerable part of opportunities of social division of labour was not incarnated. For them to be realized in full measure, another socio-productive relations, based on private ownership of the main means of production and forced slave labour, were necessary.
Absence of operational division of labour in agricultural production pressed for decentralization of economy, however, owing to historical traditions, collective economy for a long time remained as a remnant of old society (the first, production phase of primitive-communal society) in agricultural production. Radical transformation of production, its full decentralization was prevented by the state ownership (with communal use) of the main means of production. To use the benefits of decentralized, small household, it was necessary to substitute the state ownership of the main means of production for private ownership. State ownership of land, especially periodical redistribution of the latter, did not contribute to proper care of it. Community members were not interested in fertilization of land, in constructing buildings on their land plots, as at the regular redistribution (casting lots) they lost old plots and got new ones in their use. To increase fertility of land, it was necessary to assign land plots to community members for a long time.
The agrarian-technical revolution revealed great opportunities for satisfaction of growing needs of people by means of sharp increase of labour productivity, however, within the frameworks of old society it was impossible to increase the labour productivity sharply, and, thus, to satisfy grown needs in material values and spiritual welfare. For more full satisfaction of needs, another, new form of socio-productive relations was necessary.
The usurious exploitation with its appalling cruelty, undisguised cynicism and parasitism of usurers-exploiters restricted the initiative of exploited masses in the development of technics, technology and economy. Because the working masses understood very soon that, in spite of their endeavour to disentangle from the nets of insidious usurers, they could not do this. After all, as soon as harvest became richer, the usurers automatically raised their interest, and all surplus product again fell into their hands. In the end, all the benefits of economic progress passed into the possession of usurers (and aristocracy).
And, finally, the change of the nature of labour of the main part of labourers led to the fact that agricultural production: by its scale, by the growth of size of cultivated land, by the raise of labour productivity, by the amount of agricultural production, grew very slowly. Agricultural production existed in the same framework, in one and the same size and volume for many centuries. Only mass application of slave labour could allow to expand the limits of agricultural production, but wide use of slaves was impossible in the primitive-communal state with its state ownership of the main means of production.
Thus, after the agrarian-technical revolution, the productive forces of society turned out to be limited by the outdated productive relations. The contradiction between new productive forces and old productive relations became strained to an extent that they developed into the conflict that could be resolved only be means of throwing “old shell” off, substitution of old form of productive relations for new one, that could open broad lands to further development of productive forces, further technical, technological, and economic progress.
And such a substitution had been done. It took the form of slave-holding social revolution that replaced old primitive-communal socio-productive relations by new slave-holding – serfdom socio-productive relations.
This social revolution took place in two main forms. In the countries with non-irrigated agriculture, it occurred in relatively short historical period, by means of one or several political revolutions. In the countries with irrigated agriculture (Ancient East), the slave-holding social revolution continued for a long period, during some centuries. We shall discuss this question in the final chapter.
3. Agrarian-technical and slave-holding social revolutions.
The slave-holding social revolution is the second social revolution in the development of society. The first social revolution was communal revolution that took place several thousand years before the slave-holding social revolution.
Just as communal social revolution, that is interconnected with the hunting-technical revolution, the slave-holding social revolution is interconnected with agrarian-technical revolution. Just as the first revolution in the development of productive forces, i.e. hunting-technical revolution, that was the prime cause of the first social revolution, the second revolution in the development of productive forces, i.e. agrarian-technical one, was the first cause of the second social (i.e. slave-holding social) revolution. “Together with completed revolution in productive forces that showed itself as technological revolution, the revolution in production relations also took place” (K.Marx. “The Communist”. 1968, No.7, p.27).
The progress of these revolutions has both similarities and differences. Similarity is in the fact that both social revolutions (communal and slave-holding) were preceded by the revolutions in the development of productive forces, so that communal social revolution was preceded by the hunting-technical revolution, and slave-holding social revolution was preceded by the agrarian-technical revolution. At that, the communal social revolution was the consequence of the hunting-technical revolution, and the slave-holding social revolution was the consequence of the agrarian-technical revolution.
However, the content of these revolutions is different. The essence of the communal social revolution was the establishment of social system based on humane, just (by its content, nature, and form) socio-productive relations founded mainly on collective ownership of the main means of production, at that the means of production belong to all community and are used for the sake of all population of this community. Communal ownership of the main means of production is organically supplemented by free, associated labour that is based on harmoniously interconnected material and moral stimuli. The communal production relations are grounded on mutual aid, friendly co-operation, unselfish devotion, fraternity, equality, etc.
The content of the second social revolution (and the second revolution is direct opposition to the first social revolution) is the establishment of social system based on private ownership, at that the main means of production belong mainly to single, private persons and are used in the interests of these persons and not for the sake of all society, moreover, they are used against the interests of the majority of population, and, hence, against the interests of society. Private interests of large private owners are in opposition to the interests of the majority of population. In this social system, the private ownership of the main means of production is supplemented with slave labour based on non-economic, physical, armed coercion (either exclusively on non-economic coercion, or on combination of non-economic and economic coercion).
The slave-holding production relations are grounded on: exploitation of man (labourer) by man (owner of means of production and commerce), opposition of their interests, class struggle, selfishness, craving for enrichment, greediness, cruelty, cynicism, indifference, etc. The latter, of course, concerns the large owners of the means of production who use the slave labour.
If we consider revolutions in the development of society’s productive forces, mentally isolating them from socio-productive relations, as if the latter do not exist at all, then we could find very few differences and very much similarity in the essence of hunting-technical and agrarian-technical revolutions. They almost copy each other. In the course of both these revolutions, the wide application of mechanical tools, new materials, etc. took place; the level of social division of labour increased; the labour productivity grew sharply; the increase of production of surplus product can be observed (or, at least, the opportunity of such increase appeared); together with collective labour, the individual labour was widely used; and, finally, drastic expansion of commodity exchange took place, although, during both these revolutions, the dominant position was occupied by natural economy.
But if we examine the communal and slave-holding social revolutions and compare them with each other, then we would see directly opposed picture; there is almost no similarity and a lot of differences, we have already told about.
If we consider all the revolutions in the development of society’s productive forces: hunting-technical, agrarian-technical, industrial-technical, and scientific and technological revolution, then no one will be surprised by the their succession, since the development of productive forces goes from simple to complex. First, people created and mastered simple mechanical tools – hand mechanisms (during the hunting-technical revolution). Then, in the course of the second revolution in the development of productive forces, they mastered draught mechanisms – more complex technical means. During the third and fourth revolutions in the development of productive forces, machine and automatic technics respectively were created and began to be used. Thus, every subsequent revolution led to the complication of technics. The same relates to materials, methods of impact onto objects of labour, new kinds of energy used. Revolutions in the development of productive forces could take place only in the succession, in which they really took place – it is clear even upon superficial look at them. It’s unlikely that a question may arise, why first the hunting-technical revolution took place, then - agrarian-technical, etc. One hardly ask, why, say, the agrarian-technical revolution followed the hunting-technical and preceded industrial-technical, but did not follow the latter or why the scientific and technological revolution followed the industrial-technical, but did not precede it, etc.
During the consideration of social revolutions, we saw a different picture. One can quite lawfully ask: why did social revolutions happen in exactly such succession (communal, slave-holding, bourgeois, socialist), and not in another? Why did the slave-holding social revolution happen after the communal and before the bourgeois revolution? Why was the slave-holding revolution, and not bourgeois, the second social revolution, etc.?
We have already seen that, during the agrarian-technical revolution, decentralization of economy took place; collective household (community-clan) was displaced by small, individual household. From this, many researchers draw a conclusion that individual labour should correspond to individual, i.e. private (slave-holding) ownership of the main means of production. But why should this private ownership at the origin of class society be slave-holding not bourgeois ownership based on hired labour? Why did the class of slaves, not class of hired workers (agricultural, handicraft, building, transport, commercial) become the first exploited class? Why was the labour of the main working exploited class in the first class social and economic structure based on non-economic coercion, not on economic compulsion?
Unambiguous answers to above questions could be given only with regard to economic law of correspondence of the form of socio-productive (labour) relations to the nature of labour of the main masses of labourers (in class society – main working class). To answer the question, why the communal social revolution took place after the hunting-technical revolution, and the slave-holding – after the agrarian-technical revolution, it is necessary to compare the content, the very nature of labour of hunters and peasants, that were the main masses of labourers after the hunting-technical and agrarian-technical revolutions respectively. As we have already seen, the very nature of the labour of hunters (and fishers) is directly opposite to that of peasants of those times. The labour of hunter is creative; it gives a man good spirits, joy, satisfaction, etc. Hunter’s labour is not only means of subsistence, not only vital necessity, but also his need. But the labour of ancient peasant was not creative; it brought him exhaustion, spiritual bankruptcy, apathy, gave him no satisfaction and joy. The labour of ancient farmer crippled him both physically and morally. It made peasant a slave of his labour, slave of his production process, slave of productive forces that he himself made. The labour of peasant is a severe necessity in labour products and nothing more.
Hence, the labour of hunter is not compatible with compulsion; it is more productive, more effective being based on the unity of moral and material stimuli. But the labour of the ancient peasant could be efficient and productive both if it is based on the unity of moral and material stimuli; and if it is grounded on economic compulsion; and, especially, if it is based on the unity of economic and non-economic coercion; and, finally, even if it is grounded only on non-economic coercion. In the latter case, as we have already noticed, the higher efficiency of the labour was achieved at the expense of excessive intensity of labour and duration of working day, as well as miserable living standards of slaves.
All this stipulated the development and spreading of slavery in the course of the development of agriculture and agrarian-technical revolution. That is why it is not by chance, but quite naturally that, after the agrarian-technical revolution, the very slave-holding and not another social revolution took place. The same way naturally as the fact, that the communal social revolution took place after the hunting-technical revolution.
Thus, the agrarian-technical revolution was the cause of the slave-holding social revolution, while the latter was the consequence of the agrarian-technical revolution.
The point of view, that private slave-holding ownership appeared as a result of origin of individual labour and small agricultural farm because the individual, private ownership corresponds to individual labour, is wrong just because before the agrarian-technical revolution there were neither private ownership of the main means of production, slavery, nor slave-holding or another class state, though, certainly, in some places on the Earth, economy of hunters, fishers and gatherers was based, in view of specific local conditions, not on collective but on individual labour.
The same way, before the agrarian-technical revolution, creation of surplus product did not lead to origin of private ownership of the main means of production, exploitation of man by man, at least in developed form.
Undoubtedly, the systematic production of surplus product (or possibility of such a production); individual labour and individual, small farm; social division of labour and money-commodity exchange took a great part in origin of private ownership of the main means of production, exploitation of man by man, slavery and slave-holding state. The slave-holding society could not appear without surplus product, individual labour and commerce. However, they were not cause but only prerequisite to the slave-holding social revolution. And the cause of this revolution and appearance of slave-holding society was the agrarian-technical revolution.
As a result of the slave-holding social revolution, the class slave-holding society appeared; it was based on exploitation of man by man, class struggle, prosecution of continuous wars (both wars between states and civil wars, both wars of conquest and wars of liberation); this was the society grounded on oppression, suppression, compulsion; and this society is called “civilized” in historical science.
4. Slave-holding social revolution as a consequence of economic (pre-class) struggle of debtors and the poor against usurers and aristocracy.
Although the agrarian-technical revolution was the prime cause of the slave-holding social revolution, but it could not lead to accomplishment of the latter automatically, by itself, without subjective factor. Even communal social revolution took place as a result of acute collisions, conflicts between people, between primitive groups of people. Thus, though the hunting-technical revolution was the prime cause of the communal social revolution, but the direct cause of its accomplishment was economic struggle between groups of ancient people.
In the same way, the direct cause of the accomplishment of slave-holding social revolution was economic struggle of people. But this was economic struggle of a different kind. If economic struggle that led to the communal social revolution was carried on between single groups, associations, then the struggle that led to slave-holding social revolution was carried on inside associations, inside tribes, unions of tribes, states or semi-states.
Economic struggle at the last, highest phase of primitive-communal society was the reflection of its internal economic contradictions. A social revolution is impossible without this struggle.
The agrarian-technical revolution and economic struggle were two interconnected causes, or, it should be better to say, two factors (objective and subjective) of one cause of the slave-holding social revolution. First, the objective factor – the agrarian-technical revolution – appeared that means the availability of objective conditions for the social revolution. Material productive forces of society had reached such a level that their further progressive development was inconsistent with existent outdated socio-productive relations. There appeared a contradiction between old production relations and new productive forces, that grew to conflict. This contradiction found expression in economic struggle, and the resolution of the conflict between production relations and productive forces was the social revolution.
Neither revolutions in the development of productive forces without economic struggle of wide masses of labourers against ruling clique, against exploiting minority, nor economic struggle without revolution in the development of productive forces, during which this economic struggle increases sharply, could lead to the victory of a social revolution. A social revolution can happen only if both these factors – economic struggle and revolution (accomplished or started) in the development of productive forces – are available.
A revolution in the development of productive forces facilitates economic struggle, and when the latter reaches some level of acuteness, it develops into social revolution. Thus, the revolution in the development of productive forces is the objective condition, material prerequisite for the development of economic struggle of masses. In this sense, one can (with a reservation) consider revolution in the development of productive forces to be not cause but prerequisite for social revolution. Whatever they say, the direct cause of social revolutions, including slave-holding social revolution, is economic struggle of wide masses of people that, developing into political struggle, ended with social revolution.
In the twilight of primitive-communal society after the agrarian-technical revolution, economic contradictions reached their climax. Ever growing exploitation in its most undisguised, rough, cynical usurious form; ever growing tax pressure, political and national lawlessness; ever growing impoverishment of wide masses of labourers and enrichment of usurers and communal (tribal-clan, state-bureaucratic, priest, military) aristocracy, half-starved (and simply hungry in lean years) existence of labourers; deepening of debtor’s servitude; enslavement of debtors – all these, in the end, had led the primitive-communal society to the social and political explosion.
As a result of the social revolution, a number of radical economic and political transformations took place: debts were cancelled; enslavement of debtors was prohibited; citizens, enslaved earlier for debts, were sometimes redeemed; forced labour for debts was prohibited or limited; usurious exploitation was restricted by means of establishment of maximum usurious interest; taxes were decreased; masses got wider political and national rights; omnipotence of authorities was restricted; administrative-territorial system was established in the places where it had not been established earlier. Moreover, land plots and other means of production (though not all) that were in the use of community members before were transferred to their absolute ownership with the power of sale. The individual, private ownership of the main means of production, as well as of circulation, trade was established. The state monopoly of foreign and wholesale trade was eliminated. All these transformations, together with the others, promoted rapid development of productive forces, growth of labour productivity, social division of labour, commodity production, progress of commerce, technics, technology, economy.
The social revolution, however, had not brought long-run relief to the working masses. Very soon, a new group of people appeared, that began to exploit wide masses of population with no less might. This new group was the class of traders – slave-holders. Only form of exploitation had changed. If, before the social revolution, considerable part of population was split to opposite groups – usurers (and aristocracy) and debtors (and the poor), then, after the social revolution, the society (its considerable part) had been divided to another opposite groups (classes): class of traders – slave-holders and, exploited by the former, class of small commodity producers, as well as class of slaves, still not numerous at the first stage of the slave-holding – serfdom society. The usurious form of exploitation was substituted for a new, more disguised, more flexible form of exploitation – exploitation in the trade sphere or, shortly, trade exploitation. Although, of course, usurious exploitation had not disappeared at all, it began to play a secondary role.
5. Consequences of the slave-holding social revolution.
After the slave-holding social revolution, just like before – after the communal social revolution, there happened radical, revolutionary transformations in the development of society, in all spheres of social relations without exception. There happened the slave-holding cultural revolution in the development of spiritual life: ideology, morality, art, literature, etc. There happened the slave-holding national revolution in the development of national-ethnic relations. And, finally, the slave-holding democratic revolution in the development of political relations took place.
The slave-holding cultural revolution was destined to undermine the intellectual, spiritual might of community bureaucracy and usurers, their ideology, morals, etc. and to approve and ground theoretically the necessity of new social system, private ownership, slavery, new political system or, in short, to ground the necessity of accomplishment and strengthening the revolutions in all spheres of social relations: social revolution – in production relations, national – in ethnic, and democratic – in political relations. In that very time, i.e. after the victory of slave-holding social revolution in one or another country, there happened a rapid development of all the spiritual life of society, that went through the depression or degradation at the last phase of old social system. The new, anti-usurious and anti-aristocratic morality; new ideology, also directed against dethroned bureaucracy and usurers, against the rich and in defence of the poor, powerless, and enslaved, developed rapidly both in width and in depth. Literature, theatre, painting, musical art, architecture, and all the spiritual life as a whole developed rapidly then.
Simultaneously with cultural revolution, the slave-holding national revolution took place. After the slave-holding social revolution, the rapid increase of social (branch) division of labour and, as a result, commodity production and trade exchange occurred. A new international market, uniting a number of neighbouring states or associations, appeared. Their economic integration took place, being a prerequisite to their political and state amalgamation. And, sooner or later, voluntarily or forcedly, they united to a larger federative state, in which all their tribes were assimilated. Tribes and clans were gradually diffused, scattered, mingled into a new national-ethnic commonality – nationality, consisting not of thousands but of hundreds thousand and millions of people. The nationalities, appeared in the course of slave-holding national revolution, speak already not dozens languages and dialects, as it was the case at the beginning of slave-holding national revolution, but only one language (sometimes, as an exception, two or three). The other languages and dialects disappeared, died off in the course of the second national revolution. The one, that was the most widespread, overcame and got the official language of one or another slave-holding state. During the national and cultural revolutions, the common psychology, habits and norms of behaviour were established.
The slave-holding democratic revolution also took place at that time, it happened, sometimes, quite a long period after the completion of the slave-holding social revolution. The point is that, in the situation of wide democracy, it was hard for revolutionary forces to retain their power and new social system in view of their inexperience and poverty. And dethroned bureaucracy and usurers had both the experience of state government and money funds. That is why the necessity appeared to restrict the rights of overthrown functionaries, usurers and the rich. And this led frequently not only to limitation of democracy, but to its total elimination. Though, during the slave-holding social revolution in ancient society in communal states, the democracy, as a rule, did not exist already. Democracy in communal associations were liquidated by bureaucracy and usurers long before the slave-holding social revolution, namely after the transition of communal society from its first phase (production) to the second phase (usurious), since at that time democracy began to pose a threat to the domination of bureaucracy and usurers and it was substituted for oppressive rule – either oligarchic form of state or, as a rule, tyranny was established.
After the victory of social revolution, revolutionary forces, as a rule, do not hurry to establish the democracy and the old tyrannical form of state retains for some time to strengthen a new social system, to secure the gains of social, national and cultural revolutions. But, in the course of time, there appeared an insistent need in new, more humane form of state – democracy with cheaper state machinery – administrative and repressive – and, consequently, less tax pressure.
And, sooner or later, there comes the democratic revolution giving wide political rights and democratic liberties to wide masses. The tyranny (or oligarchy) is substituted for democracy; monarchy – for republic; unitary state – for federation or confederation; monarchical (presidential) legislation – for parliamentary or direct popular legislation.
Thus, the events repeated themselves: after the communal social revolution, as its consequence, the communal-cultural, communal-national and communal-democratic revolutions took place and, as a result, the new forms were established in all spheres of social relations. The same occurred after the slave-holding social revolution. There happened revolutions in all spheres of social relations: spiritual-cultural, national-ethnic and political. All these spheres were revolutionized, changed radically. The society revived, degradation gave place to progress and prosperity.
[Table of contents]