Whether the bribe is economic category?
In article “The formational theory of Marx: as far as it is comprehensive?“ I offered the reader a little expanded version of the formational theory of Marx, and the whole falls of criticism, and, with elements of offensive attacks fell upon me. Opponents accused me of a complete ignorance concerning existence of tax systems and not only of feudalism, not to mention a form of their collection. I had a natural desire a little to expand the point of view. Perhaps, opponents not only thirst of own public relations, but also aspiration to truth moved, and only lack of mutual understanding with the author pushed away them from Bol of profound penetration into material.
So, we will continue. Somehow, came across the telecast about Byzantium. The guest developed thought meaning that in Byzantium there were laws forbidding to rich people to invest means in production of goods therefore monopolists could not arise essentially. The free competition of mass of small producers led to saturation of the market cheap goods. Alas, the modern person, even the man of science, sees an economic component of society only in the form of expanded production. If in the rich country (about poor and there is no speech, the continuous primitive seems there) the expected expansion is not observed, a conclusion follows that there are prohibitive measures. In consciousness of the modern person the additional product is end in itself of conscious activity of the person. And when see that even the feudal lord does not seek for continuous and continuous enrichment, i.e. the additional product appropriated by the feudal lord serves for satisfaction of vital needs of this feudal lord, his family and servants, the modern person only makes a helpless gesture, defining such way of managing as parasitic, forgetting at the same time that the purpose of the feudal lord consists not in production expansion, and in expansion of possession.
Having addressed a feudal way of production, K. Marx comes to a conclusion that the feudal land rent, and already by analogy with capitalist production as the law, is proclaimed is characteristic of feudalism: the purpose of feudal production was receiving by the feudal lord an additional product, feudal rent. It is considered to be that Marx`s opening consisted not only in establishment of new scientific category - a feudal land rent, but stretched much more deeply, explaining all way of feudal life. It`s not true. Certainly, economic factor played a part in life of feudal society, but was not decisive as it occurs under capitalism. If for the capitalist an additional product - it is valid end in itself of production, then for the feudal lord - only means for implementation of that purpose which he sets before himself. And the purpose which implementation is put before himself by the feudal lord is expansion of own possession, i.e. the purpose of the feudal lord - war. From here and originality collection of this most feudal rent.
The feudal lord prepares for war. It needs even not means, and soldiers. The feudal lord urges the vassals to get up under the gun or under a spear. Directly after explosion of ethnogenesis of a lack of persons interested to do some fighting is not present. But there passes time and with falling of a passionarity in ethnos at one, at other vassal the desire to be at war vanishes. And here then - that the feudal lord, in the person of the king or the duke, agrees with coward (all the same at the critical moment will betray and will run) the vassal to take a feudal rent.
For example, in England at William the Conqueror this rent received the name of “panel board money“. Having become the king of England, Wilhelm (however, as well as all other kings) provided to the feudal lords land possession under a condition of their military service in favor of the monarch. However difficulties in formation of a militia led to practice of replacement of knightly service with a monetary rent.
In conditions when war was daily, everyone needed colleagues and wanted to be sure that it will not be betrayed. This condition also roused feudal lords to collection of a rent instead of service. And as people, not persons interested to be at war, among peasants always was much more, than among knights, the feudal rent was created much earlier, than knights began to refuse royal service.
Thus, the feudal rent is not a so additional product, and only a payoff of the knight or peasant from war, some kind of bribe to the higher vassal, in particular, to the king. Naturally, the size of this bribe was appointed by the king. And if the vassal refused to pay it, then the king took it by force, i.e. behaved in the same way as in case of military operations with the opponent. Whether it is possible to consider a bribe, and appointed by a forcible way, economic category? It is represented that it is impossible.
By the way, our universal vzyatnichestvo has to demonstrate that liberals strongly put our society on the way to feudalism. Each official is fed at the expense of subordinate vassals and supplies with a feudal rent of the higher vassal.
And when my opponents, in particular, Evgenia Komarova does not see distinction between collection of a tax under capitalism and feudalism, dragging in even Egypt here, it becomes sad.
needs to be acquired well that only at a capitalist way of managing for the first time (pay attention) for the first time taxes become objectively necessary and stable form of redistribution of the income of the population in the state treasury for the purpose of financing of functions of the government. Taxes are formed in a steady subsystem in the general scheme of capitalist reproduction. Nothing similar ever in the world was.
In conclusion there is a wish to call: people, do not cling for, become obsolete, dogmas, live not only feelings, but also reason.