3 social system social organization military democracy. Military democracy

This term was first introduced by the outstanding American scientist - historian and ethnographer Lewis Morgan in the work "Ancient Society" to characterize the ancient Greek society in the transition period from the primitive communal system to the state, and was adopted by K. Marx and F. Engels. Marx believed that what the Greek writers call Homeric or royal power, since its main distinguishing feature is military leadership, can be called military democracy if we add to it the council of leaders and the popular assembly.

Military democracy, as F. Engels also quite correctly believed, in our opinion, should unite together three mandatory elements - a military leader, who can also be endowed with judicial powers, but should not have administrative powers, a people's assembly and a council of leaders. The views of F. Engels are close to modern ideas about the democratic structure of society and the separation of powers. These are, as we would now say, three independent branches of government, which are the essence of the concept of democracy.

The popular assembly, each participant of which, along with this, was also a warrior, a militia, was just as important and necessary an organ of power as the council of leaders and, in fact, the leader himself. Regardless of what political line the assembly adhered to, whether it was just an instrument in the hands of the nobility or, as it happened more than once, got out of control of the authorities, no one (neither the military leader, nor the council of leaders) had any means violence or coercion in relation to him, except for traditions, customs, personal authority among the common people.

Thus, we found out that military democracy - it is the social structure of the transitional period from the primitive communal system to the state.

It can be assumed that it falls on that period of history when the ancient tribal organization is still in sufficient strength, but, at the same time, property stratification is already appearing, royal power is also emerging, and turning prisoners of war into slaves becomes commonplace.

The leaders of the Achaean tribes, as shown in one of the stories of Homer, repeatedly boasted of both their wealth, especially herds of domesticated animals, and their origin. They are reluctant to talk about the people, and if they do, then with contempt, but the words of Odysseus that he was chosen from the Cretans to go to Illion with ships, and that it was impossible to refuse, since they were chosen by the power of the people, they speak of that the popular assembly had sufficient power and authority.

Military democracy is distinguished by the presence of a wide variety of types and forms of its manifestation. In one case, it is in a certain dependence on the polis structure, as it was in Greece and in some other countries. Otherwise, it may arise in the conditions of a nomadic (in whole or in part) way of life, as was the case with the Slavs or Germans.

Almost all peoples had military democracy and was the last stage in the pre-state evolution of society. It can be attributed to the Roman community of the period of the kings, as well as the Greek policies of the “Homer era”. If we consider this phenomenon from the point of view of archeology, then the period of the beginning of the use of metals will correspond to the era of military democracy, which led to changes in the economic and political structure of societies.

Among the Eastern Slavs in the eighth century and the first half of the ninth, a social structure began to form, which historians would later call the term "military democracy." This is a transitional period from the primitive system with tribal assemblies, leaders who were elected by everyone, tribal militias to the original state formation with a strong center power, uniting all the inhabitants of the country, who are already beginning to differ greatly in material, legal status and role in society.

1. Marx and Engels call the pre-state period in the history of the tribal system "military democracy." This term was introduced by the American historian L. Morgan to characterize ancient Greek society during its transition from a tribal community to the so-called neighbor community and was accepted without much criticism by Marx and Engels. “In short, the word basileia,” Marx wrote, “which Greek writers use to denote Homeric, the so-called royal power (because its main distinguishing feature is military leadership), when there is a council of leaders and a popular assembly along with it, means only military democracy” ".
In agreement with this, Engels rightly combines three indispensable elements of military democracy: the military leader (still endowed with judicial, but completely deprived of administrative powers), the council of leaders and the people's assembly.
The popular assembly, each participant of which is at the same time a warrior, a militia, is just as important and just as indispensable an organ of power as the other two. Whatever policy the assembly pursued, whether it was (according to Homer) an obedient instrument in the hands of the nobility and basileus, or, as happened more than once, got out of this power, neither the military leader nor the council had any means of coercion in relation to him, no means of coercion, except those that were created by tradition, influence, reliance on relatives, personal authority.
Military democracy, as one might assume, falls on that period of history when we see the ancient tribal organization still in full force, but at the same time, when property inequality already appeared with the inheritance of property by children (as opposed to the clan), royal power was born, and royal power became the usual transformation of prisoners of war into slaves.
The leaders of the Achaean tribes (according to the story of Homer) repeatedly boast of their wealth (especially herds), and their origin, and their prowess; they have already learned to keep track of money and, accordingly, to estimate how many oxen and talents correspond to a foal mare, a tripod, a young slave.
They are reluctant to talk about the people or talk about it with contempt, but here are the words spoken by Odysseus himself: “When the menacingly thundering Zeus established a path formidable for the Achaeans ... I was chosen from the Cretans with ships to go to Illion: and it was impossible for us to renounce : we were bound by the power of the people.
The structure of military democracy is distinguished by a great variety of forms. In some cases, it depends on the polis structure, as it was everywhere in Greece, in Mesopotamia, in the West and North-West of India, etc. In other cases, military democracy arises under conditions of a nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life, as was the case among the Slavs and Germans.

the form of government at the stage of decomposition of the primitive communal system, when the power of the hereditary prince arises, relying on the military strength of his squad. But this power was limited to the remnants of tribal relations - veche.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MILITARY DEMOCRACY

term introduced in the scientific. turn by L. G. Morgan to denote the organization of power in other Greek. society at the stage of decomposition of the primitive communal system (the collapse of the tribal community and its replacement by the neighboring community). Having adopted the term "V. D.", K. Marx and F. Engels gave it a universal historical. meaning. Later, in the works of owls. historians, this term began to denote not only the definition. form of organization of power, but also the corresponding stage in the development of primitive society. V. d. is concluded. stage of decomposition of primitive society and its transformation into a class. (slave-owning or feudal) society. Archaeologically, it corresponds to the early period of metals (bronze, early iron), the introduction of which led to the widespread development of plow farming, cattle breeding, crafts, exchange, and at the same time the appearance of an excess product, private property and patriarchy. slavery. Under these conditions, one of the major factors in the process of class formation and the formation of a state separated from the people. the authorities came to plunder. wars in order to capture other people's wealth and slaves, enriching and strengthening the military. leaders and warriors united around them. Relying on the latter, the military leaders, especially the leaders of the tribal unions that arose everywhere at that time, gradually seized power in the still remaining bodies of primitive democracy - tribal councils. The value of adv. meetings fell, and tribal councils turned into specific ones. organs of V. d., to-rye with finished. the disintegration of society into classes became the organs of the class. dictatorships. In the conditions of V. D. "... the organs of the tribal system are gradually torn off from their roots in the people, in the clan, in the phratry, in the tribe, and the entire tribal system turns into its opposite: from the organization of tribes for the free regulation of their own affairs, it turns into an organization for the robbery and oppression of neighbors, and accordingly, its organs are transformed from instruments of the people's will into independent organs of domination and oppression directed against their own people "(Engels F., Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1953, p. 170). Classic examples of societies at the stage of V. d. are the Greeks of the Homeric era, the Romans of the so-called. tsarist period, Celts, ancient Germans, Normans, Aztecs, etc. Lit .: Marx K., Synopsis of Lewis G. Morgan's book "Ancient Society", in the book: Marx and Engels Archive, vol. IX, (M.), 1941; Morgan L. G., Ancient society, or a study on the lines of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization, trans. from English, 2nd ed., L., 1935; Tolstov S. P., Military democracy and the problem of "genetic revolution", "Problems of the history of pre-capitalist societies", 1935, No 7-8; Kosven M. O., Essays on the history of primitive culture, 2nd ed., M., 1957. A. I. Pershits. Moscow.

Lyubashits V.Ya., Mordovtsev A.Yu., Mamychev A.Yu.

THEORY OF GOVERNMENT AND RIGHTS

Chapter 4. Military democracy as a form of organization of society during the period of decomposition of the tribal system and the transition to the state §1. The concept of "military democracy", features of its organization

The period of decomposition of the primitive communal system is characterized by significant changes in the forms of social organization. Property inequality gave rise to social inequality. From the total mass of members of the clan, a separate group of leaders, military leaders, and priests stands out.

The emergence of wars as a permanent industry contributed to the development of military technology and military organization. Under these conditions, the military leader acquires great importance. At first, this was an ordinary elder, but later, as a rule, a special military leader of a tribe or an alliance of tribes appeared, pushing other elders into the background. A specific organization of power arose, which Marx and Engels, following Morgan, called military democracy. It was still a democracy, because all the primitive democratic institutions were still preserved: the people's assembly, the council of elders, the tribal leader. But, on the other hand, it was already a different, military democracy, because the people's assembly was only an assembly of armed soldiers, and the military leader, surrounded and supported by his retinue, gained more and more influence and power at the expense of other elders. The system of military democracy still assumed the equality of all warriors: each participant in the predatory campaign had the right to his share of the booty. But, on the other hand, she no longer knew the actual equality: not only the military leader, but also his entourage and combatants took away the largest and best part of the loot. These persons, using their social position, converted the best plots of land into their own property, acquired a greater number of livestock, and took for themselves a large part of the spoils of war. They used their power to protect personal interests, to keep slaves and poor fellow tribesmen in obedience. The customary filling of tribal positions from certain families turns into an almost indisputable right of these families to occupy them. The power of leaders and commanders becomes hereditary and is strengthened by constant wars. Around the leader, his confidants are grouped, forming a military squad, which over time stands out as a special privileged social group. This is the germ of a permanent army.

The old tribal democracy is increasingly giving way to a new form of social power - military democracy, after which the era of the disintegration of the tribal system received the conditional name of the era of military democracy. It was a democracy, because, despite the property and social stratification, the tribal elite was forced to reckon with the opinion of ordinary members of the tribe. Along with the retinue, all adult combat-ready men of the tribe, who form the national assembly, play a certain role in the management of society. Other tribal institutions are also preserved: leaders, council of elders. But the nature of these institutions is changing significantly. The leaders and elders, representing wealthy patriarchal families and relying on an armed squad, actually decided all matters. The People's Assembly, as a rule, only listened to their decisions. Thus, the organs of public power are more and more separated from the people and become organs of domination and oppression, organs of violence against both their own people and other tribes. “The military leader, the council, the people's assembly,” wrote Engels, “form the organs of a tribal society that is developing into a military democracy. Military because war and organization for war are now becoming regular functions of people's life.

In turn, the organs of the tribal system, as the primitive communal system decomposes, the social differentiation of primitive society, as a result of the further division of labor, are transformed either into organs of "military democracy" or into organs of political power, already characteristic of an early class society. According to the tradition dating back to L. G. Morgan, the genesis of the institutions of military democracy is associated with that stage in the evolution of tribal society, at which the command of the army became the most important form of government, and the communal organization outgrew the boundaries of the clan, phratry and becomes tribal. In a number of cases (as, for example, among the Iroquois), this organization has grown to the scale of a confederation of tribes. Morgan does not have a single definition of military democracy; he singles out one or another of its features in their concrete historical manifestations among different peoples. True, he made an attempt to generalize these features: “It was a special organization that has no parallel in modern society, and it cannot be described in terms accepted for monarchical institutions. A military democracy with a senate, a popular assembly, and an appointed and elected general - such is the approximate, although not entirely accurate, definition of this so peculiar form of government, which belongs exclusively to an ancient society and rested on purely democratic institutions.

Military democracy is usually associated with a period when the peaceful state of the patriarchal communities was coming to an end, and the waging of wars was becoming increasingly important. To replenish the number of slaves, whose labor begins to be used already in the era of patriarchy (domestic or family slavery), military raids were required. Military booty played a special role in the economy of the community, being an additional (and sometimes the main) source of livelihood.

The military organization of the tribe left its mark on the institutions of tribal democracy: “Predatory wars strengthen the power of the supreme commander, as well as the commanders subordinate to him; the customary selection of their successors from the same families little by little, especially since the establishment of paternal right, passes into hereditary power, which is first tolerated, then demanded and, finally, usurped ... 79 not immediately, it probably happened already during the creation of confederations of tribes, organized for defense purposes or for military raids and the capture of booty and slaves.

However, it would be wrong to see in wars the only reason for the restructuring of the organization of public power in the communities. Among these reasons, one should name the complication of the structure of production, caused by the improvement of the productive forces. This made it possible to improve both plow farming tools and weapons and military equipment. The deepening of property inequality, the differentiation of economic activity and property relations, the exploitation of the labor of captives led to the stratification of society, and with it to a clash of group and personal interests. There was a need to give the internal organization of the community greater flexibility, while not weakening the discipline of the "state of siege". The role of external contacts of the tribe also increased, forced to enter into military alliances with other tribes, i.e. the function of "external relations" appeared.

The solution of internal disputes and claims was transferred to the council of elders of the clans. The leader became the supreme arbiter of the tribe, although the role of the assembly in solving common affairs did not fall at all, but even increased. But it was already about the level of a tribe or a confederation of tribes, i.e. primarily about the level of military organization. Moreover, the people's assembly, like the council of elders, turned into a permanent governing body with its own procedure. This is a collection of "panku" on a generic basis among the Hittites 80; a collection of combat-ready warriors in Ancient Sumer, meetings of ordinary free citizens "gozhen", which are known from Chinese ancient sources; the “sabkha” or “samiti” popular assemblies mentioned in Indian chronicles, the ancient Germanic people's meetings of the era of the early feudal (barbarian) state, Scandinavian Things, Old Russian veche were, obviously, the successors of the old traditions of tribal and military democracy 81. Such continuity is especially clearly seen in the classical example of Ancient Greece.

From the gathering of relatives of the times of tribal democracy, the Achaean people's assembly differed not only in the more complex procedure for its holding, but also in the expansion of its powers. It resolved the issues of war and reconciliation with neighbors, the division of booty, resettlement, expulsion or execution of traitors, public works, and finally, it discussed the candidacy and chose the leader. It can be said that if earlier community members, young and old, crowded around the sitting council of elders, shouting agreement or disagreement with its decisions, now the meeting has turned into a working body, to which only adult male warriors were allowed and at which every warrior had the right to speak .

In the initial period of military democracy, there was a wide participation of ordinary community members in all spheres of community life. The people's assembly, the council and the leader-commander were permanent governing bodies. “It was the most developed, twisted organization of management, which could have generally developed under the tribal system; for the highest stage of barbarism, it was exemplary,” wrote F. Engels 82 .

At first glance, the democratic features of "late" military democracy still in many respects resembled the social order of tribal democracy. At the same time, despite the increasing role of the assembly, it was no longer a meeting of the entire adult population of the community, but a meeting of only warriors. In peacetime, it was a meeting of free communal property owners, and women, aliens and slaves were excluded from the circle of its participants. In other words, the meeting of the era of military democracy, its decisions no longer coincided with the interests of the entire adult population belonging to a given genus, tribe. The appropriation of a larger and better part of the military booty, tribute or surplus product of the community by the tribal elite could not but lead to the gradual removal of ordinary community members from the daily management of community affairs, to the strengthening of the positions of the tribal aristocracy in management, which showed the greater aggressiveness and desire to strengthen its position than more, war became a natural state of social life.

If in the era of tribal democracy, restrictions on participation in public authorities were most often gender and age in nature, then among the tribes of Indians of North America in the era of military democracy, restrictions on participation in government were already associated with other criteria: “The democratic foundations of the political administration of these tribes gradually narrowed, and power was increasingly concentrated in the tribal council, in whose meetings four classes of officials took part: 1) peaceful leaders; 2) military leaders; 3) priests - keepers of tribal shrines; 4) honored warriors who replaced the participation of the armed people” 83 .

No matter how great the role of the people's assembly in the life of the tribe was, the main role was played by the tribal nobility and the leader. Previously, their strength consisted in moral authority, now - in wealth, generosity, influence on ordinary community members, and the leader - in military merits to the tribe. The rise of the military commander-leader was facilitated by the group of warriors that formed around him, who lived mainly by military craft (druzhina). The strengthening of the role of the tribal aristocracy as an independent social force in the management of the life of the tribe also took place as the tribal organization gained predominance over the tribal one and the consanguineous unity of the collective was destroyed. The influence of the tribal nobility also increased as a result of the combination of the management of a separate clan with the management of the entire community as a socially integral unit.

The tribal aristocracy and the leader sought to pass on their economic and social privileges by inheritance. In general, there was a struggle between democratic and oligarchic principles in management. One of the tools of this struggle was the gradual sacralization of the power of the leader, in which the tribal nobility saw an important factor in strengthening their positions as well, since they were protected by the authority of this power.

It should be noted that the scientists of the XIX-beginning of the XX century. for the most part, they overestimated the "paternalistic" elements in communal life. In fact, the principle of seniority in the clan and the genealogy served only as an additional justification for the claims of the tribal elite to strengthen their economic and social positions at a time when their attempts to usurp power ran into resistance from ordinary community members. Priestly functions were used for the same purposes. The variety of means used by the tribal nobility to strengthen their power is evidenced by the studies of ethnographers: this is the payment of a ransom for young community members, and the so-called prestigious feasts, and the clearing of communal lands at their own expense, etc. But behind all this was the appropriation of the total surplus product of the community and the use of the labor of community members in various forms: offerings from the harvest or successful hunting; the right of first access to military booty; "voluntary" work of community members on the lands of the elders. The unions of the nobility (men's unions) were also among the means mentioned.

At the same time, the interests of the tribal aristocracy sometimes came into conflict with the interests of the leader and squad. L.G. Morgan spoke of the conflict between the civil power in the person of the council and the military power in the person of the supreme military leader 84 . The rivalry between these two forces contributed for quite a long time to the preservation of the sovereignty of the popular assembly, since the latter could appeal to it, for example, to use its right to remove leaders. In Herodotus' narrative about the Scythians, the relatively significant role of the people's assembly is shown, despite the far-reaching social stratification and the formation of a hereditary tribal and military aristocracy. In this case, the people's assembly can, in our opinion, be regarded as an important tool for the "balance of power" - tribal and military. In those communities in which tribal and military power were gathered, figuratively speaking, into a single fist and personified by one leader-leader, the hierarchization of the organization of power and its isolation from the rest of the population had already gone far (here, apparently, there was already a “government without states").

The hierarchical principle, clearly expressed in late military democracy, eventually became the basis of the political organization of the emerging class society and statehood. However, it should be clarified that the military hierarchy in places did not develop, for example, in Polynesian societies, where power remained in the hands of the tribal nobility, or in the societies of tropical Africa, where the sacralization and hierarchization of power followed the path of nominating religious leaders of the community or " civilian leader. The alienation of managerial power took on special forms in Eastern societies, which were characterized by great peculiarities in class formation. (Identification of these features, which have become the object of scientific discussion, is the subject of a separate study.) On the contrary, among nomadic tribes and peoples who have been at war for centuries, military democracy often persisted as a stable form of organizing public power 1 .

The study of the process of hierarchization of management to the alienation of the functions of ruling at the late stage of military democracy is often considered by modern science through the prism of the phenomenon of "leadership" as a forerunner of relations of class domination and subordination and the formation of political authorities and statehood.

The period of "leadership" as a transitional period from military democracy to statehood with all its features is distinguished by specialists in the history of antiquity, orientalists, ethnographers among various peoples: among the Maya Indians and Indians of North America, among the peoples of Siberia, Africa, among the inhabitants of the islands of Oceania, among the peoples Far East

Most researchers, relying on the data of historical science, ethnography and archeology, on the analysis of the content of myths and ancient written monuments, believe that the formation of the state was preceded by pre-state power structures. Some authors (primarily L. S. Vasiliev) introduced into scientific circulation a new (and still controversial) concept of a proto-state - chiefdom (from English, chief - leader), which covers the period of formation of the state 86

§ 2. "Military democracy" and the process of formation of state structures

The scope of our work does not allow us to go into the details of a theoretical discussion on this issue. We will only note that the development of military-democratic administration into a leader-hierarchical one did not automatically lead to the formation of state structures. Different peoples at different times developed such signs of the formation of the state as separation from society of public authority, which has a special apparatus of coercion, the division of the population along territorial lines (in many African and Asian societies, division along tribal lines was preserved and there were no large settlements), the emergence of law as a system of norms expressing the will of the ruling classes and backed by the coercive power of public authority. For many peoples, the process of class formation lagged behind the emergence of state structures, which also deserves separate consideration.

The formation of supra-communal power structures was associated with the usurpation by the communal elite, along with the military leadership of public functions, primarily in the organization of economic activity (in one case it was the organization of irrigation infrastructure, in the other - the distribution of land plots, in the third - the determination of pastures, etc. .) and redistribution of the surplus product.

One of the first to generalize the features of the formation of a political organization at this stage on the example of the tribe of Central Australia, M.O. Indirect. All power and administrative decisions in these tribes were made by the participants of the meeting, which consisted of old people of the highest rank and position, heads of local groups or totems, warriors and "doctors". Only after the meeting had made some decision, one of its participants communicated the essence of the latter to another meeting, which was already attended by all the elderly men, located in a circle (youth could attend the meeting, but remained outside the circle) 2. M. O. Kosven noted: “The most significant and significant feature of the Australian leadership is that the political head of the group, sometimes being neither the oldest, nor the most physically strong, nor the wisest, nor the military leader, nor personally possessing supernatural power, is only a protege of the economically dominant group of geronts. Coming out of their midst, he remains wholly connected with them, subordinate to them, only their representative... Here, at one of the most primitive stages of human culture, power already appears to us as an organization of economic domination.

Since the level of labor productivity achieved at this stage in the development of primitive society was still not high enough for the ruling elite to appropriate a significant share of the surplus product, the role of war as an external source of enrichment continued not only to be preserved, but also to increase. At the same time, military activity in the conditions of an already advanced division of labor became, in the words of R. Luxemburg, "a specialty of certain circles of primitive society" 88 . In this regard, it should be borne in mind that it was in militant pastoral, nomadic tribes, where ordinary tribesmen were often involved in military operations, that the democratism of their participation in making important decisions was much higher than in agricultural proto-peasant societies. In these latter, the function of protecting society was the monopoly of a special military estate, which lost contact with its communities and served as an instrument of violence for the enriching military and tribal aristocracy against their fellow tribesmen.

The hierarchization of the system of military democracy was accompanied by a further removal of ordinary community members from the management of the community, and this process sometimes went faster than the alienation of producers from the means of production, which for the most part was still secretive. The people's assembly was increasingly replaced by a gathering of a military squad. The Council of Elders and secret unions of the tribal nobility turned into more and more important centers for making power decisions, only a part of which was then submitted for formal approval by a meeting of community members. This made it possible to impose new duties on ordinary community members, which (along with the use of the labor of slaves obtained in the war) contributed to the enrichment of the tribal aristocracy. The disintegration of the tribal organization and the emergence of military and civilian settlements, devoid of tribal ties, accelerated. Institutionalization of customs and rules of behavior began to be outlined, their transformation into legal norms, differentiation applied to various social strata and entailing sanctions for their violation from the side of no longer an assembly of fellow tribesmen, but judges and priests nominated by the nobility.

The subordination of the organs of communal self-government to the leader and his group allowed the tribal elite to appropriate a significant part of the already produced social product, which accelerated both the process of class formation and the further alienation of power. But along with the obvious signs of statehood, forms of communal self-government continued to exist - this makes it difficult to fix “ready-made” state forms of power in the history of many societies. Hence the attempts to introduce the concepts of "pre-state", "early state" or "barbarian state". All these attempts are worthy of attention (provided that they are based on knowledge of the facts and scientifically based methodology). For us, it is especially important that at this stage the institutions of political participation (and in relation to this period it is already permissible to speak of political rule) are undergoing a serious breakdown. However, since the organizational and managerial activity of the elite (no matter how far its separation from the people went) required its ideological justification and sanctioning, new forms of power were combined with the old ones. Quite often, the former traditions of tribal and military democracy were transferred as "sanctified" by time to the state. A classic example of this coexistence of traditions and new forms is provided by Ancient Greece.

Particular attention should be paid to that. that the emergence of military democracy is a transitional form from primitive democracy to the democracy of a class society. Its external signs are the position of a military leader, combined with the institutions that limit it. Morgan constantly emphasizes that a military leader is a military leader, and not a king, that this is precisely a position, an elective position with limited power 90 , that royal power is incompatible with the tribal system 91 . The bodies limiting the power of the commander are the council of elders and the people's assembly. But both are not required.

Thus, the essence of military democracy is a combination of militancy that permeates the whole life of society with the freedom of the people, which Morgan identifies with democracy. He writes: "Where the military spirit dominates, as was the case with the Aztecs, military democracy arises naturally under tribal institutions" 92 .

The history of Europe knows two great epochs, to which the term “military democracy” is attached - the period of the formation of class societies of the ancient world (the Greeks of the “heroic”, or “Homeric”, era, at the beginning of the century dating back to the 11th-9th centuries BC) 93 and the Romans of the “epoch of kings” during the period of the formation of societies in the Middle Ages in the 1st millennium AD. e. among the peoples who did not know the slave system - the Germans and Slavs 94. Most researchers agree that these two epochs of class formation led to the formation of societies that are different in their formational nature: in the first case - slaveholding, in the second - feudal.

The similarity of the political structure of the two indicated groups of societies (on the one hand, the Greeks of the 11th-9th centuries BC and the Romans of the 8th-6th centuries BC, on the other hand, the Germans from the beginning of the new era until the formation of their early Middle Ages states , different in time among different ethnic groups, and the Slavs of the VI-VTII centuries AD), which consists in the existence of a people's assembly, a council of elders and a military leader, is generally recognized. The question is whether it is possible to speak of similarities in the sphere of socio-economic relations.

In early Greek and Rankerim societies, the disintegration of tribal relations and the formation of a neighboring community were far from being completed during the formation of classes and the state. Family ties have long been the defining type of social ties. Tribal ownership of land was preserved and continued to exist even during the development of ancient society.

The decomposition of tribal ties and the formation of a neighboring community did not precede the formation of the class and state system in ancient times, but coincided with it, since the state itself took the form of a community (polis). On the contrary, among the Germans and Slavs, a class society was formed in conditions when the tribal community and tribal ownership of land were a past stage of development. The disintegration of tribal ties and the formation of a neighboring community here preceded the emergence of classes and the state.

A correct understanding of military democracy first of all presupposes the definition of the historical epoch in which it is inherent. The era of military democracy is not the last stage in the decay of primitive society. It also exists in the era of the transitional period from primitive to class-antagonistic society. This transitional period is transitional not only in the development of the base, but also of the superstructure. Just as the society of the transitional period itself is a transitional form from the primitive communal system to the antagonistic formation, so the organs and norms of governing the society of this transitional period will be transitional forms from the organs and norms of self-government of the primitive society to the organs and norms of governance of the antagonistic society, to the state and law.

Thus, the state organization of society arises after military democracy, and military democracy itself is an expression of the process of the emergence of the state. Its essence lies in the fact that it is a transitional form of organs and norms for managing society. Military democracy is no longer the organs and norms of social self-government, but it has not yet become the organs and norms of a class-antagonistic society - the state and law. Military democracy combines the features and properties of both the organs and norms of governing primitive society and the state and law.

Military democracy is inherent in the era of the transitional period from a classless society to a class society, when society has already ceased to be homogeneous, but has not yet become a class society. The transitional period from a primitive communal society to a class-antagonistic one is an epoch during which "individual ruling persons rallied into a ruling class." It was in the interests of these individual ruling persons, who only gradually united into the ruling class, that military democracy appeared, a transitional form in the development of the organs and norms of governing society.