- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
This is a very global issue. Worthy not of a short answer, but of a monograph. First of all, the state exists so that there is no war or civil strife on this territory, so that the economy develops and the population grows. The contradiction here is that only once formed, the state always puts its existence at the forefront.
Everything in the world is subject to certain laws : physical, chemical, biological, social, etc. To detect the operation of a particular law, it is necessary to have a form that certain laws affect. In other words, a form is a prerequisite for the existence of anything. The form of existence of human society is the state, which is primarily designed to preserve and support human society. What is meant by the term “save”? Create the most favorable conditions for the reproduction of those properties and qualities in which this form benefits the human community. You can also say this – maintaining a balance between “useful necessary” and “sufficient negative”.
“Useful and necessary” – includes health, education, production, leisure, culture, religion of the population, etc. – all that we mean by the life of society.
“Sufficient negative” is something that has to be put up with in any human society: crime, disregard for public morals, moral and religious principles, diseases, poverty, misery, lack of interest in the public good, i.e. unpatriotic behavior, etc.
The state is primarily aimed at maintaining a balance in society, since it is full of antagonistic contradictions.
The State, represented by its power structures, is called upon to ensure order in the functioning of society. Because chaos leads to the destruction and destruction of the form in which the human world exists.
If by the state we mean the ruling apparatus, then it is as if it was created to maintain order in society. I say “as if”, because almost immediately all those who had even the slightest relation to the authorities began to care about personal well-being, turning it into their main and, very often, the only goal.
What were states created for? To protect the individual from public interests: from gangs, parties, unions, corporations, confessions, clans, and other fascist associations. That is, for the safety of individuals.
Modern states are captured by social parasitic associations that have divided the world among themselves in order to secure and consolidate their privileges to dispose of the resources of territories.
We need a mechanism to remove from power any associations that have determined their interests.
We need a mechanism to remove from power all those who like to rule.
You're confusing something. There is a country, there is a system in the country, the system can be: either on a state basis, or on a sovereign one.
What do you mean by the word “state”: country, system, power, government, board, top?
The goal is that we don't all kill each other to hell:)
Well, the task of the state itself is to resolve conflicts of interests of citizens and social groups and protect the interests of its citizens before other states.
Historically, the state emerged to organize the construction of irrigation channels that provide water supply to fields where it was not enough. This is such a complex and large-scale work that an individual farmer can not do it in principle. And the peasants could not organize themselves spontaneously to carry out this work, because each of them was only interested in supplying water to his own plot. People whose plots were located close to water sources lost interest in joint activities as soon as the canal reached their site. In other words, there was a contradiction between general interests and private ones.
The solution was the state. People realized that it was necessary to create a new level of management that would be higher than individuals, and give it certain powers necessary to force people to work together that is useful for everyone. At first, such a state required land owners to participate directly in construction, devoting some of their time to this work. But after a while it turned out that the construction of canals is not limited. Irrigation canals were the first infrastructure that needed to be protected from enemies. You couldn't just take off and go to a safe place. You can't take channels that are dug in the ground with you. There was a need to maintain the army.
At first, the army was supported in kind. The peasants would hand over some grain, or beer, or wine, or olive oil, or something else to the general warehouse… depending on who was doing what. And then the soldiers who did not work on the ground received their maintenance in this warehouse. But very quickly it turned out that this is not very convenient. First, in the case of a large territory, products need to be transported back and forth. After all, it was not known in advance where the enemies would attack from, and where the army would be located. Therefore, all the products were taken to the center, and then from the center they were once again taken to the place where the army is stationed. Second, different soldiers had different needs. Single people needed more wine and beer, and married people with children preferred to take their allowance on bread. It was difficult to plan the delivery of supplies in the right proportions. And that was the real problem. The soldiers liked to fight over the lack of supplies, both with each other and with those who provided the supply. The situation required a systematic solution.
This solution was money. Farmers working on the land began to pay taxes in cash. This money was then paid to the soldiers as maintenance. And finally, the soldiers could buy any supplies with this money. Moreover, both from local peasants who lived in the area of the current location of the army, and who needed money to pay taxes, and from merchants who brought supplies from other regions, buying them there cheaper, since there was no army in those regions. So the economy was born. And even then it had some modern structural elements – state employees, manufacturers and merchants.
After some more time, a new problem was revealed. It was noted that in those regions that are under the threat of enemy attacks, and in which the army is often stationed, the economy is developing especially rapidly. Soldiers created a good effective demand for goods and services of local producers. And in other regions, the economy has stagnated. Not even the merchants saved them. After all, they bought products from manufacturers much cheaper than they themselves earned for selling them in favorable regions. This unevenness of development in itself does not look like a problem. People in developed regions seem to have to work either harder or better. Either to produce more products, or to compete successfully with merchants selling products from other regions. They seem to have earned their wealth. And it's true. However, the problem is that the army defending such a region does not always win. And when the enemy army wins, the state suddenly loses exactly the territory that it needs most. Only vegetating regions remain on its balance sheet. Merchants are also getting out of control. They continue to buy cheap products from manufacturers, but sell them in other countries where there are rich regions, and therefore it is impossible to collect taxes from merchants. In general, the risks are too great. A situation where so much depends on one lost battle seems unacceptable to the State.
The solution to this new problem is a system of laws, let's say, at the federal level. There were some simple laws in the previous stages as well. But they were purely local in nature, and their appearance was natural. It is more or less obvious that soldiers should not take supplies from the peasants by force, but should buy them with money. Therefore, laws protecting property appeared much earlier. But they did not solve the problem of uneven development. Its solution required pumping resources from one region to another. And it was not at all obvious to those from whom these resources were taken, why they should give these resources away. They could still understand why it was mainly they who had to pay for the maintenance of the army. After all, this army protected them in the first place. But they did not understand that they should also finance other regions. From what fright? Therefore, the state had to create such a scare. A system of laws has emerged that regulates the economy as a whole and ensures the flow of resources from rich regions to poor ones. And the army in peacetime began to engage in forced withdrawal of resources in accordance with these laws.
And the state still functions in much the same way. Collects taxes, builds infrastructure, and maintains many law enforcement agencies. All these structures perform the same tasks that the army used to perform. Some protect you from external threats. Others enforce local laws (law and order). Still others withdraw resources from regions in order to organize reallocation between regions. Moreover, this redistribution itself is rather complicated and requires a very extensive bureaucratic system. Therefore, there are also purely civilian structures that solve a certain range of tasks. They don't have a power resource, but they do have an administrative one. Within the framework of current legislation, they decide how best to allocate available resources. Sometimes they are motivated by professionalism and a desire to serve the state's interests, and sometimes they are not. That's how we live.
The state appears as a result of the disintegration of the tribal system, the gradual separation of the ruling elite from the community – the leaders and their close associates –and the concentration of managerial functions, material resources and social privileges under the influence of a number of factors. The most significant reasons for the emergence of the state are:
conquest of some peoples by others;
the emergence of private property in the course of the development of production.;
development of the social division of labor, allocation of special managerial labor in order to increase the efficiency;
demographic factors :
population growth and density;
transition from a nomadic to a sedentary lifestyle;
regularization of marital relations between genera;
increasing the needs of communities to regulate the interrelationships of ethnically close people.
You can read about this in any textbook on political science. The state is an apparatus of coercion that was originally designed to serve the interests of a group of people. Which has remained so to this day.
The reasons why States emerged and the reasons why they continue to exist are not exactly the same.
States continue to exist due to the fact that people do not trust each other, seeing each other personally every day, accumulating suppressed aggression on those they see, and prefer to trust an organization that is easy to idealize thanks to competent propaganda-redirecting aggression to the image of the enemy, and not only this technique. The benefit of the organizers is to collect taxes, spend some of them on maintaining the existence of the organization, and live happily ever after on the difference. The people who are collected from are the main resource, and their opinion is formed by propagandists for a salary from money collected from the same people.�
This is due to strong brands that have been known for many centuries. Any state is better known to people than people are to each other. It seems clear what to expect from him. Stability is valuable in itself for many people, and this increases with age. Therefore, state propaganda is aimed primarily at the older generations, and the younger ones are trained through the education system and the army. This ensures continuity of the value of stability and psychological well-being. depending on the leadership between generations.
In fact, everything is simple. Small collectives do not need the state. Nature has provided regulatory mechanisms for small communities. Mechanisms of liking, disliking, attachment, camaraderie, informal control of everyone over everyone and everyone over everyone.
But civilization within one small collective is impossible. And in large groups, the natural mechanisms of maintaining social order no longer work. A huge community cannot be built solely on the natural mechanisms of interpersonal communication.
The state emerged as an apparatus of violence, a real superstructure over the immanent social conflict in the social fabric of societies of inequality (or, as they are called, class societies). The mechanism of the emergence of the state was threefold:
The first and main condition for the emergence of the state was the Neolithic revolution. The Neolithic Revolution (9000-7000 BC), led to the emergence of a productive economy (the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture and cattle breeding). This, in turn, freed up time for social interaction between people (freed up to 60% of previously occupied social time), and also led to the emergence of an excess of the product produced and laid down the features of class stratification.
The second condition that followed immediately after the Neolithic Revolution was the transition from an egalitarian sexual model to a patriarchal community with the authority of the father. (7000-4000 BC) The patriarchal community and masculine model led to a rapid decrease in conflict in already stratified societies and their further concentration on increasing labor productivity.
The third and final condition was the transition from the primitive communal (archaic) formation to the pre-class period (4500-4000 BC). The emergence of a pre-class society (a society that still retains egalitarian tendencies, but in which classes were in a state of active formation) led to the collapse of patriarchal tribal communities and the possibility of forming large integrated communities (tribal unions or proto-states) on their basis. Inheritance and individual features of private property became possible (even according to tradition, with the possibility of its redistribution).
The fourth and final factor was the transition from the pre-class period to the first class society (polytarian, Asian, super-etatist) and the formation of the first states (3500-3000 BC). By this time, private appropriation as well as the patriarchal family probably already existed. It remains to add the final touches to them-private property and the state. At this stage, the state arises as a result of the ruling class's desire to preserve and consolidate ownership over the dominant product, not because of simple tradition, but because of special legal norms, in addition to regulating the inheritance process and resolving conflicts both within the ruling class and between the ruling and exploited classes. This is the specificity of the first formation, that the state bureaucracy here and only here coincides with the ruling class entirely as the elite of society (as class formations develop, the separation of the class elite and management functions will also occur).
Something like that. As for the need for irrigation-yes. But even before that, the needs for irrigation and landscape problems are being addressed by pre-class society, based on the emergence of proto-state entities (already numbering hundreds and hundreds of people working together).
The initial goal of creating a state is to create conditions for the preservation and growth of the well-being of the people who inhabit it. Actually, all modern states have the same goal. But this goal can be achieved in different ways. Historically, there are two types of economic integration of society: 1) based on the withdrawal and redistribution of labor products or labor itself, and 2) based on the market exchange of products or labor. At the same time, or with some delay, there was also the formation of states, which were also of two types. I will immediately make a reservation that in its pure form, market and non-market states have never existed. So the market state itself has a tax system with a coercive apparatus, and even the Communists in the USSR had some semblance of a market. We are talking about the foundations of society, its basis.
The first type is the Asiatic despotism. First of all, they include hydraulic societies – Egypt, Sumer, Ancient China and some others. There was an objective need to carry out large-scale work by the whole society to solve economic problems. And the state has taken on the role of coordinator and instrument of forced labor. For this, the state (the king, officials, army, priests) seized most of the product produced in its favor. A vertical of power was created, and the interaction of subjects took place on the basis of subordination (order-execution). The government was authoritarian and sacred. Money in such states was, as a rule, only an accounting unit and existed in kind (bread, cattle, metals, etc.). The level of income and consumption of members of society was determined by their place in the hierarchical structure of power. At the very least, workers – peasants, artisans-received the minimum, although the forms of their interaction with the state could vary. Somewhere a ration, somewhere an allotment of land and feed yourself. Sometimes the state allowed the existence of a market and exchange. For example, when fulfilling all obligations, a subject could sell (exchange) part of the products of his labor on the market. Often, however, the state forbade such an outrage. Why? So that they are not distracted from their direct duties, and the state will take care of what they need. And if it doesn't take care of it, then it doesn't need to be. People's needs are determined by the state. Almost all the states of the East were of this type. Sometimes societies with a different type of integration emerged there (Babylon, Phoenicia), but soon disappeared into the bowels of successive empires. The development of such states was slow, mostly due to external impulses (changes in natural conditions, external danger, etc.).�
Societies of the second type, integrated on the basis of exchange, for the first time became ancient Greek poleis. They are characterized by voluntary, horizontal integration of individuals based on a balance of rights and obligations and mutual consideration of interests. Here, for the first time, coin circulation appeared, and money began to perform all modern functions. Here, too, democratic institutions have emerged – leadership elections, accountability of leaders to the people, and equality of all citizens before the law. Actually, the very concepts of freedom, citizenship, law, etc. were formulated in this system of relations. The level of income of citizens was determined by their work, talent, and perhaps luck. Economically, such societies developed rapidly, because they had an internal mechanism of development – the personal interest of citizens in the results of work.�
Interaction between these two types of States was not easy. The first direct conflict, the Greco – Persian wars, was left to a market-type society. But in history, perhaps, the Asian-type states have won more often. Athens was defeated by Sparta, Novgorod by Moscow. It seems that Herodotus was not quite right when he wrote that only free citizens can selflessly defend their country. Egyptian Mamluks, Turkish janissaries, Russian serf recruits were considered (and were) the best warriors of their time. It was only in the Modern era, and so in the 19th century, that states with a market economy began to steadily win on the battlefields. Well, the achieved level of well-being of the citizens of these countries was much higher than that of their antagonists. This forced the first type of State to look for opportunities to match them. For most, the task was beyond their abilities, although many people had some success at different historical stages. Sometimes it even seemed that by throwing all resources at the development of Western technologies, states of this type would be able to catch up with the” marketeers ” (n-r USSR of the mid-20th century). But deprived of internal development incentives, such states soon began to lag behind. The reason is a different type of social integration, rejection of the foundations of the market economy with its private property, initiative, primacy of law over power, etc. However, some Asian countries today managed to become one of the Western ones (Japan, Korea). But they had to borrow and organically master all the institutions of the market type of integration. That is, not just to borrow them, but also to adapt them to their own traditional institutions, customs, and the mentality of the people, and most importantly-to make them work effectively. Another dozen or two countries are more or less successfully moving along this path. Maybe someday they will include Russia?
The state is the highest form of development of banal racketeering.
It started with the usual robbery and robbery, then they decided that it was more profitable(more stable) to impose a tribute. So there were subjects. And “concepts” were transformed into laws.