Rus Articles Journal

Formational theory of Marx: as far as it is comprehensive?

Before answering the question posed, we will understand in what fundamental difference of the feudal lord both from the slaveholder, and from the capitalist. The feudal lord, unlike the slaveholder and the capitalist, does not take any part in the organization of a workplace neither the peasant, nor handicraftsman. In this regard the feudal lord is not interested also that labor productivity which show him given.

And the taxes collected by the feudal lord were not attached in any way to the income of the specific peasant or handicraftsman. The income gathered in purely forcible way, in process of need of the feudal lord in money. It is known that the feudal lord corrected the economic indicators only by means of war and a robbery. The feudal lord preferred to account books a board and a sword. And the form of collection of taxes from the peasants and handicraftsmen who are in its zone of influence differed from its actions a little during a robbery of people of the neighboring state.

But the robbery under what a corner not to look at it, economic category cannot be. In other words, in a feudal formation the feudal lord, on the one hand, and the peasant with the handicraftsman, on the other hand, were not connected by any economic bonds. And if so, in a feudal formation people united in society not relations of production, and by means of something other. I will not reveal big secret if I tell that the Christianity was the element which created a uniform European community from a different ethnic conglomerate. Not work united people, and belief, faith in Christ. The economy which was a driving wheel of the Roman Empire gave way to ideology. In feudalism of people not the rhythm of work, but idea of God unites.

In the 2nd century insignificant on scales of the Roman Empire and its specific weight in spiritual and public life of the country the sect of Christians became the powerful and real force an only century later. The second half of the 3rd century - an era of the beginning of mass distribution of Christianity. Consider that at the beginning of the 4th century Christians made more than 10% of the population of the empire. At the same time it is necessary to consider that Christians were all these three hundred years persecuted sect.

The emperor Diokletian (284-305) was the last fighter against Christians on all space of the empire. Diokletian saw that the Christianity, despite persecutions and executions, gains the increasing strength, bearing destruction to the existing slaveholding system, and tried to stop this process. Alas, the wheel of history cannot be stopped. The arising ethics bore death to a slaveholding way of production. And it is valid what the slavery in which the slaveholder and the slave - brothers in Christ is? Certainly, the Roman slavery was destroyed by Christianity, but mythical productive forces which not wonderfully increased. Strength of mind of people, but not productive forces of society increased. From where this increased strength of mind undertook?

According to Gumilev`s theory, in the 1st century in Palestine there was an explosion of ethnogenesis which created Christian ethnos. The ethnic field which resulted from explosion of ethnogenesis a plentiful stream poured in a passionarity in the people who appeared in a zone of its action, forcing them to development of a certain ideology and a stereotype of behavior. Purity of thoughts and fidelity to the idea which seized them became more important than a full stomach for people. If to define purity of thoughts as manifestation of ideology, and a full stomach - economies, then we receive historical process in which prevalence in the society of economic factor gives way to prevalence of an ideological factor and vice versa. So, if, following Marxism terminology to define the Roman society as socially - an economic formation , then society which resulted from influence of Christianity should be defined as socially - an ideological formation .

Thus if the slavery and capitalism bear in themselves pronounced economic factor, then feudalism bears in itself a pronounced ideological factor. Proceeding from this postulate, it is possible to write down:

- slavery - an economic formation;
- feudalism - an ideological formation;
- capitalism - an economic formation.

If this tendency to proekstrapolirovat in the past and in the future, then we receive:

- it is primitive - a communal system - an ideological formation;
- slavery - an economic formation;
- feudalism - an ideological formation;
- capitalism - an economic formation;
- socialism - an ideological formation.

Two very important conclusions follow from the aforesaid .

In - the first , the type of Homo sapiens could create human society only after created the first ideology (religion), only after came up God with idea. And if to assume that the anthropogenesis is also mosaic, as well as ethnogenesis, then a conclusion follows that monkeys are representatives of those numerous animal species who, having taken a way of anthropogenesis, could not come up god therefore they could not create human society with idea, and again rolled down in fauna, but now in shape of monkeys. No, not the person occurred from a monkey, and the monkey occurred from the person, more precisely, from the anthropoid who could not come to God, could not create the unique religion.

In - the second , the thesis: matter - is primary, the idea - is secondary, at least, in relation to human society is false. Human society was also created thanks to understanding by the anthropoid of idea of God and creation of religion by it.

In human society the thesis is right: the idea (ideology) - is primary, matter (economy) - is secondary.

A condition under which the anthropoid became a person and stepped from pack in human society - idea of God.