World history is a single process that follows objective laws, that is, existing and acting independently of the consciousness and will of people. In this sense, it is an objective and predetermined process. But this is such an objective predetermination, which not only does not exclude, but, on the contrary, presupposes accidents. The historical process is predetermined only in the main and fundamental, but not in the details. That which cannot not be manifests itself in what may or may not be. Necessity always manifests itself and exists only in accidents. Therefore, in history there have always been and there are different possibilities for future development. But if the future in history is always alternative, polyfurcative (within certain objective boundaries, of course), then the past is unalternative and irreversible. In order to understand history, one must abstract oneself from the particulars, reveal objective necessity, predestination, which makes its way through all accidents.

World history is such a single process, which is an ascent from the lowest to the highest. Therefore, there are stages in the progressive development of mankind, and consequently, world-historical epochs. This understanding of history is called unitary-stage. Of all the conceptions of history of this kind that have existed and still exist, I consider the Marxist theory of socio-economic formations to be the best. Formations are stadial types of society, singled out on the basis of socio-economic structure.

Marxism, as is well known, believes that the development of society is based on the development of production. The productive forces of society are growing, which leads to a change in the systems of socio-economic relations, the types of social production are changing - the methods of production, which entails a change in the types of society: one socio-economic formation is replaced by another, more progressive one. But the formations are not counted from the very beginning of human history.

Its entire history is quite distinctly subdivided into two qualitatively different periods, to the first of which the concept of a socio-economic formation is inapplicable. It represents the period of transformation of human animal ancestors into humans and zoological unification into human society, the period of anthroposociogenesis. The basis of this process was the formation of social production. The emergence of a completely new social quality necessarily presupposed and made necessary the curbing of animal individualism, the suppression and introduction of zoological instincts into the social framework. The most important means of curbing animal egoism were the first norms of human behavior - taboos. On the basis of taboo, morality subsequently arose. Unlike an animal, whose actions are determined by biological instincts, a person is guided by feelings of duty, honor and conscience.

The food instinct was curbed first. Distribution relations arose as a social framework for him - the initial and most important form of socio-economic relations. The first socio-economic ties were communist. Animal egoism could only be curbed by human collectivism. With the advent of the first form of marriage - dual-tribal, group marriage - the sexual instinct was curbed. With the introduction into the social framework, first of the food, and then of the sexual instincts, the process of the formation of man and society was completed. Forming people have turned into people already formed, ready. The period of the formation of society ended, and the history of a ready-made, truly human society began. This happened quite recently, literally "the other day". The period of anthroposociogenesis that began 1.9–1.8 million years ago ended about 40 thousand years ago. And socio-economic formations are the stages of development of a ready-made, formed society.

It is customary to call the first form of existence of a ready-made society in our country a primitive society, in Western literature- a primitive, or egalitarian, society. It was the only one that existed in the era from 40 thousand to 5 thousand years ago. This time is the era of primitive society. At the earliest stage of its development, it was communist (primitive communist). At the stage when the entire social product was life-supporting, no other form of distribution could exist than distribution according to needs.

With the development of productive forces and the appearance of a regular surplus product, communist relations became an obstacle to the development of society. As a result, distribution according to work began to arise, and with it the property of individuals, exchange and property inequality. All this prepared and made inevitable the emergence of private property, the exploitation of man by man, thereby splitting society into social classes and the emergence of the state.

The first class, or, as they are usually called, civilized societies arose in the XXXI century. BC e., that is, about 5 thousand years ago. At that time, one of the features of the world-historical process was more than clearly manifested - the uneven development of human society as a whole. Some specific individual societies - sociohistorical organisms (shortly - sociors) - went ahead, others lagged behind them in their development. With the advent of such unevenness, human society as a whole began to consist of several historical worlds. One such historical world was made up of the most advanced sociohistorical organisms for a given era, which can be called superior (from lat. super- over, over), another or other worlds - lagging behind in development - inferior (from lat. infra- under).

The first class societies arose as solitary islands in a sea of ​​primitive society. One such class historical nest appeared in the interfluve of the Tigris and Euphrates, the other - in the Nile Valley. The Egyptian civilization at its origin was a single sociohistorical organism, the Sumerian civilization was a system of small sociohistorical organisms, city-states.

Further development followed two paths. The first is the emergence of new historical nests that existed as islands in the sea of ​​primitive society. One of them appeared in the Indus Valley - the civilization of Harappa, the other - in the Huang He Valley - the civilization of Yin, or Shang. The second way is the emergence of many class sociohistorical organisms in the space between Egypt and Mesopotamia and in their neighborhood. All of them, together with Egypt and Mesopotamia, formed a huge system of class sociohistorical organisms that covered the entire Middle East. This Middle Eastern historical arena, having arisen, became the center of world-historical development and, in this sense, a world system.

All sociohistorical organisms that found themselves outside the historical center constituted the world periphery. Some of these sociors were class, others were primitive. With the advent of the first class sociors, and especially with the emergence of the Middle Eastern world system, the second era of the development of a ready-made human and the first era of the history of a civilized society began - the era of the Ancient East.

The basis of the original class societies was that antagonistic mode of production, which most often, following K. Marx, is called Asian. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that it was based on general class private property and on the means of production, and on the personality of the producers of material goods. In this case, only the exploiting class as a whole, and not one of its members taken separately, was a private owner. General class private property acted in the form of state property, which led to the coincidence of the ruling class with the composition of the state apparatus. Therefore, this method of production is best called polytar (from the Greek. polity- state). All politarists constituted a corporation - a political system headed by a politarch, who was both the supreme manager of the surplus product and the ruler of the state. The politarch had the right to life and death of all his subjects, including the politarists.

An indicator of the level of development of productive forces is the volume of product created in society, per capita of its population. This indicator - the productivity of social production - can be increased in different ways.

In a political society, the growth of the productivity of social production and thus of the productive forces was achieved mainly by increasing working time - the number of working days in a year and working hours per day. This temporal (from lat. tempus- time) the way to increase the productivity of social production was limited. Sooner or later, a limit was reached, beyond which an increase in working time led to the physical degradation of the main productive force - the human worker. There was a rollback. All this has been repeated many times in the history of political sociohistorical organisms.

First of all, the cyclical nature of the development of the societies of the Ancient East is connected with this: they arose, flourished, and then entered an era of decline and even death. The political, socio-economic formation was a dead end. She was not able to turn into another, more progressive one.

The way out of the impasse became possible because, in addition to political societies, primitive ones continued to exist, including the latest of them - pre-class ones, and of various socio-economic types. The pre-class societies that were in the neighborhood of the Middle Eastern world system were subjected to powerful cultural, political and economic influence from its side. As a result, they learned all the main achievements of political societies, which significantly affected their entire development.

It became other than the evolution of the proto-political (emerging political) pre-class societies from which the first political societies arose. The pre-class societies, exposed to the influence of the world political system, eventually also turned into class societies, but only of a completely different type than the ancient Eastern ones. Ultimately, they established not a political, but a qualitatively different mode of production, namely the one that is usually called the slave-owning, or ancient.

In the 8th century BC e. a Greek historical nest arose, then the Etruscan, Latin, Carthaginian nests joined it. All of them, taken together, formed a new historical arena - the Mediterranean, which has since become the center of world historical development. Thus, on the scale of mankind, in the form of a change in the world systems of sociologists of two different socio-economic types, there was a change in the political formation by the ancient formation. The handover of the historic baton from the political Middle East to the ancient Mediterranean has taken place. With the shift of the historical center to the emerging new ancient arena, the Middle Eastern political historical arena ceased to be a world system. It has become part of the world periphery. With the transformation of the Mediterranean historical arena into a world system, the second era of world history, the era of the Ancient East, ended, and the third, the era of antiquity, began.

If in the era of the Ancient East, outside the world system, there were only many primitive socio-historical organisms and a few isolated political historical nests, then in ancient times the class historical periphery began to consist of many political historical arenas. They filled most of the Old World, and by the 1st millennium BC. e. two political historical arenas - Mesoamerican and Andean - arose in the New World.

It is generally accepted that the ancient world was based on slavery. But slavery is different from slavery. Slavery in itself is not yet a mode of production. It is an economic and legal state in which one person is the complete property of another. But a slave does not necessarily have to be used in the production of material wealth. He may be a valet, a nanny, a teacher, an official, and so on. Even when a slave is used in production, his labor may play a purely auxiliary role. In this case, one speaks of domestic, or patriarchal, slavery.

The labor of slaves becomes the basis of society only when special economic cells of production arise, in which the main force is slaves. And this necessarily presupposes the systematic importation of slaves from outside society. This is what ancient slavery was like. Slavery also existed in ancient Eastern society. But only in the ancient world did a special mode of production arise, based on the labor of slaves - servar (from lat. servus slave) mode of production.

An increase in the productivity of social production was based in the ancient world on an increase in the share of workers in the population of society due to the import of additional labor from outside the sociohistorical organism. And this meant tearing out this labor force from the surrounding sociologists. The main source of slaves was the historical periphery, primarily the late primitive - pre-class, or barbarian, periphery.

Thus, the ancient world lived largely at the expense of the barbarian periphery. The method of increasing the productivity of social production, characteristic of ancient society, can be called demographic. Its possibilities, as well as those of the temporal mode, were limited.

The normal functioning of ancient society assumed continuous external expansion. But this attack on the historical periphery was bound to bog down sooner or later. When this happened, there was a general decline, the degradation of the ancient world. The ancient (servar) socio-economic formation, like the political one, turned out to be a dead end. It, like the political one, could not turn into a more progressive formation.

With the decline of the ancient world, the barbarian periphery went on the counteroffensive. At the end of the 5th century already n. e. the ancient world system came to an end. ancient world collapsed under the blows of the barbarians. The entire territory of the last great ancient power - the Western Roman Empire - was conquered by the Germanic tribes. And this opened up the possibility of a way out of the historical impasse in which humanity found itself again.

On the territory of Western Europe (the former Western Roman Empire), an organic merger took place, a combination of Roman (class) and German (pre-class) socio-economic structures (Romano-Germanic synthesis), as a result of which socio-economic relations of a qualitatively new type arose - feudal.

Feudal sociohistorical organisms, taken together, formed a new historical arena, which became the center of world-historical development and thus the world system. The ancient socio-economic formation was replaced by the feudal one. The change of the ancient formation to the feudal one took place, as earlier the change of the political formation of the ancient one, within the framework of not individual sociohistorical organisms, but of human society as a whole, and had the character of a historical relay race. It, like the change of the political formation of the ancient one, took place in the form of a change in the world systems of sociohistorical organisms of different types and was accompanied by a territorial displacement of the center of world-historical development. With the beginning of the formation of the feudal Western European world system, the ancient era was replaced by the fourth era of world history - the era of the Middle Ages.

Outside the world system, many primitive sociohistorical organisms and a large number of political historical arenas continued to exist. In Northern, Central and Eastern Europe there was a process of transformation of pre-class societies into class societies. But neither ancient socio-economic structures, nor their fragments were there. Therefore, the Romano-barbarian synthesis could not take place there, and, accordingly, feudalism could not arise there.

But these societies were in the zone of powerful influence of existing class societies - Western European, on the one hand, Byzantine, on the other. As a result, they took a step forward and at the same time to the side, sideways. There arose class societies of several special socio-economic types, different from the political, and from the ancient, and from the feudal. These minor socio-economic types can be called socio-economic paraformations.

Thus, along with the main line of human history, several side historical paths arose. One historical world was formed in Northern Europe, the other - in Central and Eastern Europe. From the latter, in the further development, another new historical world separated - the Russian one.

A characteristic feature of the late Middle Ages was the closest symbiosis of feudal and commercial-burgher modes of production. It was the development of cities with their commercial and burgher system of economy that prepared and made possible, and then necessary, the appearance in the 16th century. new mode of production - capitalist. Capitalism independently, spontaneously arose in only one place on the globe - in Western Europe. With the transformation of feudal-burgher sociohistorical organisms into capitalist sociors, the world Western European feudal system was replaced by a Western European, but already a capitalist system. It immediately became the center of world-historical development and thus the world system. With the change of world systems, there was a transition from the era of the Middle Ages to the fifth era of world history - the era of the New Age.

The development of capitalism took place in two directions: in depth and in breadth. Development in depth is the formation and maturation of capitalism in the countries of Western Europe. Bourgeois revolutions thundered there, as a result of which power passed into the hands of the capitalist class, an industrial revolution unfolded - the replacement of manual production by machine. With the advent of machines, an adequate technical base was brought under capitalism, and as a result, the steady progress of the productive forces of society began. The technical method of increasing the productivity of social production, which came to the fore under capitalism, in contrast to the temporal and demographic methods, seemed to have no limits.

Along with the development of capitalism, it also developed in depth and in breadth. In the course of the evolution of class society, the world systems that existed in certain epochs have always had a great impact on the historical periphery. But this influence in previous epochs affected only a greater or lesser part of the peripheral sociors, which formed the nearest, or inner, periphery. These sociohistorical organisms fell into dependence on the center, in particular, they were exploited by it. The outer periphery continued to lead a completely independent existence.

With the advent of the world Western European capitalist system, the situation changed. For several centuries, the world capitalist system has drawn almost the entire periphery into its sphere of influence. For the first time, all existing the globe sociohistorical organisms formed one system. The world historical space that emerged as a result of the unfolding process of internationalization was clearly divided into two main parts.

The first part is the world capitalist system, which has been the center of historical development. She didn't stay the same. If initially it included only the states of Western Europe, then later it included the countries of Northern Europe and sociohistorical organisms that arose in other parts of the world by spinning off from Western European societies (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). The Western European world system then became simply a Western one.

The second part is all other socio-historical organisms that continued to constitute the historical periphery, which in the end, with the rarest exception, became, firstly, internal, and secondly, dependent on the historical center. The dependence of the periphery on the center meant the dominance of the center over the periphery. This dependence of the societies of the periphery on the countries of the center (and, accordingly, the dominance of the latter over the former) was expressed in the fact that the center exploited the periphery in various forms, appropriated, free of charge, part of the product created in the societies of the periphery. This exploitation is not intra-socior (endo-socior), but extra-socior (exo-socior), inter-socior (inter-socior). There is no term for this type of exploitation. I will call it international slave bondage, international slavery.

There are two main forms of this exploitation. One assumes the transformation of the country into a subjugated colony. This is colonial exploitation, colonial slavery. Another form is exploitation of a country that formally remains a sovereign and, in this sense, politically independent state. Such sociohistorical organisms can be called dependetions (from lat. dependetio- dependence), and the form of their exploitation - dependent slavery.

The involvement of peripheral countries in the sphere of dependence on the center entailed the penetration and development of capitalist relations in them. The countries of the periphery, which were previously dominated by various kinds of pre-capitalist socio-economic relations, including ancient political ones, began to transform and eventually turned into capitalist socio-historical organisms.

Here one of the important features world-historical development. As can be seen from all that has been said above, world history is not a process of the simultaneous rise of all sociohistorical organisms from one stage to another, higher one. There have never been and never could be socio-historical organisms that would pass through the stages of historical development. One of the reasons is that there have never been sociohistorical organisms that would have existed throughout the history of mankind. In history, not only stages changed, but also sociohistorical organisms. They appeared and then disappeared. They were replaced by others.

Therefore, socio-economic formations have always been primarily stages in the development of human society as a whole. Only human society as a whole could go through all the formations without exception, but in no case not any one sociohistorical organism, taken separately. Formations could be stages in the development of individual societies, but this was not at all necessary. Some socio-economic formations could be embodied in some sociohistorical organisms, others in completely different ones. Only such an interpretation of the theory of socio-economic formations, which has been called global-stage, global-formational, corresponds to historical reality.

As we have already seen, starting from the emergence of the first class societies, the change in socio-economic formations took the form of a change in world systems of superior sociohistorical organisms, which entailed a change in world-historical epochs. Each such world system of superior sociohistorical organisms prepared and made possible the emergence of another, more advanced one. The replacement of the Middle Eastern political world system by the Mediterranean ancient world system, the ancient - Western European feudal, and the last - Western capitalist world system - this is the highway of world history.

With the advent of each new world system, the nature of the historical development of inferior sociohistorical organisms that found themselves in the zone of its influence changed. They could no longer develop in the same way as organisms that had become superior developed, pass through those stages that the last passed through. The stages traversed by superior sociohistorical organisms often became traversed by inferior sociors, who never reached them.

This regularity became especially obvious with the advent of the world capitalist system, in whose sphere of influence the entire historical periphery was drawn. Since then, for all societies, at whatever stage of historical development they may be, the transition to capitalism and only capitalism has become inevitable. Historians sometimes say that certain societies can and do pass by, skip one or another stage of historical development. In fact, under the conditions that had been created, they could not avoid them. When the advanced part of mankind reached the stage of capitalism, then for all inferior societies, without exception, all the stages of development that they themselves did not go through, turned out to be already passed for them.

From this, it would seem, the conclusion followed that as soon as all inferior sociohistorical organisms become capitalist, the division of human society as a whole into historical worlds and, thereby, into the historical center and historical periphery will disappear. But real historical development turned out to be more difficult.

The capitalism that arose in the peripheral countries, due to their dependence on the world center, turned out to be qualitatively different from what existed in the states of the latter. In science, he received the name dependent, or peripheral, capitalism. For brevity, I will call it paracapitalism (from the Greek. rara- near, about), and the capitalism of the center - ortho-capitalism (from the Greek. orthos- straight, correct).

If the countries of the center belonged to the capitalist socio-economic formation and thus to one historical world, then the societies of the periphery belonged to the para-capitalist socio-economic paraformation and thus to another historical world. At the end of the XIX century. tsarist Russia also entered the number of dependent para-capitalist countries.

The capitalist world system was not politically unified for a long time. Between the states that were part of it, there was rivalry over colonies, over spheres of influence. The split of the center into groups that fought for the division and redivision of the peripheral world led to two world wars (1914-1915 and 1939-1945).

Peripheral capitalism, born of dependence on the West, doomed these countries to backwardness, and their populations to utter poverty. Therefore, revolutions began to ripen in them, with the goal of eliminating paracapitalism and liberating the country from exploitation by the West - socio-liberation (national liberation) revolutions.

The first wave of these revolutions unfolded in the first two decades of the 20th century: Russia, Persia, Turkey, China, Mexico, and again Russia. One of these revolutions, the Great October Workers' and Peasants' Revolution of 1917 in Russia, ended in victory. It marched under the banner of socialism, but it did not and could not lead to a classless society. The productive forces of Russia are not ripe for this.

Therefore, the revival of private property and class society in the country was inevitable. And it was revived, but in a new form. In Russia arose newest look politarism - neopolitarism. But the liberation of the country from semi-colonial dependence on the West made possible its powerful leap forward. From a backward, mostly agrarian country, Russia, becoming the Soviet Union, in a matter of years turned into the world's second industrial power, and then became one of the two superpowers.

The October Revolution, having pulled Russia out of the peripheral world, laid the foundation for a new world system - a neo-political one, which finally took shape after the second wave of socio-liberation revolutions that swept in the 1940s and 1950s. 20th century for the countries of Central Europe and East and Southeast Asia. As a result, the territory of the paracapitalist periphery was sharply reduced and two world systems, two world centers emerged on the globe. This configuration of the world historical space was expressed in the public consciousness in the thesis of the existence of three worlds: the first, which was understood as the ortho-capitalist center, the second, the world neo-political system, which was commonly called socialist, and the third, which continued to depend on the ortho-capitalist center of the para-capitalist periphery.

But by the end of the 20th century neopolitarism in the USSR and the countries of Central Europe has exhausted its progressive possibilities. A new, this time really socialist, revolution was needed, but in reality a counter-revolution took place. In the new states that emerged after the collapse of the USSR, including its largest “stump” - the Russian Federation, but excluding Belarus, and in most neo-political countries of Europe, there was a restoration of peripheral capitalism. They again became the dependencies of the West.

As a result, there was a change in the configuration of the world historical space. All countries of the world were divided into four groups: (1) the ortho-capitalist world center; (2) old dependent periphery; (3) new dependent periphery and (4) independent periphery ( North Korea, China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Belarus, Cuba).

This configuration was superimposed by a new process that began in the last quarter of the 20th century - globalization. If it began at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. internationalization consisted in the connection of all sociors into a single world system, while globalization consisted in the unification of all sociors into one world (global) sociohistorical organism.

The world system by this time included two large groups of sociors, one of which exploited the other. As a result, the global socior began to take shape as a class socior, as split into two global classes. The world ortho-capitalist system began to turn into a global exploiting class, the countries of the dependent para-capitalist periphery into a global exploited class. And where there are classes, the class struggle is inevitable. Humanity has entered an era of global class struggle.

The attacking side was the ortho-capitalist center. The most favorable conditions were created for him. If in the past it was split into warring factions, after the end of the Second World War it became basically united. He had one leader - the United States. He rallied organizationally: a significant part of his sociologists joined the common military union - NATO and the common economic union - the EU. Imperialism has grown into ultra-imperialism.

However, until the early 1990s the possibilities of action of the ortho-capitalist center were very limited. The ultra-imperialist beast was muzzled in the face of a powerful neo-political world system. The ortho-capitalist center had to come to terms with the loss of a large number of countries from the paracapitalist periphery, and with the disappearance of the colonial system, after which all the surviving paracapitalist sociors became dependetions.

With the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the world neo-political system, it seemed that the time had come for revenge.

More earlier countries the center, it became clear that the dependencies were more difficult to exploit than the colonies. Therefore, the Western center was faced with the task of once again establishing its complete and undivided dominance over the peripheral world, colonizing it again.

But a return to the colonies of the former type under the new conditions was impossible. The way out was found in planting regimes in the peripheral countries under which their governments would forever turn into puppets of the West, primarily the United States. In order to make it easy to keep the leaders of these countries in line and easily change them, these regimes had to be outwardly democratic. A. A. Zinoviev proposed to call such countries “democratic colonies”. I will call them satellites. The US and its allies began to fight for world domination under the slogan of democratization of all countries of the world.

The greatest danger to the West was, of course, the countries of the independent periphery. He started with them. But China was clearly too tough for him. Yugoslavia was the first victim. Parts that "fell away" from it - Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina - immediately turned into satellites. The West carried out a bandit attack on Yugoslavia, which remained part of Serbia and Montenegro. Kosovo was separated from Serbia. As a result of the “color” revolution organized primarily by the United States, Russia itself became a satellite of the West. The final chord is the separation of Montenegro, which even earlier became a satellite.

Under the flag of combating international terrorism, NATO troops entered Afghanistan. The US and UK attacked Iraq. The country was occupied by foreign troops. A "color" revolution was made in Ukraine, an attempt was made of a similar kind of coup d'état in Belarus, which ended in complete failure. Every now and then there is a leak of information about the impending missile and bomb attack on Iran.

Along with the military and political offensive, there is an ideological and cultural expansion of the center. But now the West is spreading outwards not at all great culture, which was created in the Renaissance and the New Age, and the current commercial culture, which has nothing to do with genuine art. A wave of propaganda of violence, cruelty, immorality, debauchery, homosexuality, etc. is pouring from the West in a muddy, stinking stream.

This Western pseudo-culture, of course, is immeasurably lower than the local aboriginal culture of the peoples of the periphery. The majority of the population of peripheral countries meets it with hostility. As a result, in their eyes, resistance to the West appears primarily as a struggle to preserve their traditional cultural values. As a result, a significant number of Western and not only Western political scientists perceived the global class struggle as a clash of civilizations: Western, on the one hand, non-Western, on the other.

The pressure of the West meets not only ideological protest, but also other forms of resistance. A manifestation of the global class struggle is the powerful anti-globalization movement that has unfolded in recent decades, as well as international terrorism under the banner of radical Islamism.

But the main actors in the global class struggle are still not individuals or even large groups of them, but socio-historical organisms. The world that emerged after the disappearance of the world neo-political system is usually characterized as unipolar. This is both true and false. Wrong, because the world is split into two groups of countries with opposing interests. True, because of these two groups of sociohistorical organisms, not only a system, but also a powerful organized economic, political and military force is only the center, which allows it to dominate and trample on all the principles of international law, to act on the principle of a landowner from a well-known Nekrasov's poem:

None of the contradictions

Whom I want– have mercy

Whom I want– execution.

Law– my wish!

Fist– my police!

sparkling blow,

The blow is crushing.

Blow cheekbones!

As for the countries of the periphery, they never formed a single system. They were united only by dependence on common owners. These countries were divided, there were and still are many contradictions between them. Therefore, they did not represent a force. The center took advantage of this disunity. He was always guided by the long-known rule - "divide and rule." To do this, he used both the stick and the carrot. Part of the countries of the periphery, on the one hand, because of fear, on the other hand, out of a desire to receive handouts from the master's table, became satellites of the center. This is how the servile, servile, lackey periphery was formed, which in its attitude towards other peripheral countries surpassed even the owners in terms of arrogance.

Practically all the countries of Central and Southern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc.), as well as Georgia, became such voluntary satellites of the West. For the most part, they were included in organizations that initially united mainly only the countries of the center - NATO and the EU. It is the countries of the center and the countries of the lackey periphery that they usually mean when they talk about the international, or world, community, refer to its opinions, its assessments of current events.

The countries of the rest of the periphery are not taken into account: they do not seem to exist. And it is clear why: in any class society, not excluding the global one, the dominant ideology is always the ideology of the ruling class.

The creation of the Kholuy periphery was largely initiated by the United States. The countries of the center make up one bandit gang. But this does not mean that there is complete unity between them. There are contradictions both between individual ordinary members, and between the latter and the "ataman". The ringleader often puts pressure on the rank and file, trying to turn them from albeit junior, but still partners, into servants. They offer strong resistance.

Sometimes the rank and file will try to rein in the ringleader when he overburdens himself. For example, France and Germany opposed the US-developed plan to attack Iraq. And the United States, having achieved the admission of the countries of the lackey periphery into NATO and the European Union, uses them to put pressure on their not always sufficiently submissive ortho-capitalist partners.

If the Kholuy periphery as a whole agrees to support the existing state of affairs, then the rest of the periphery as a whole is dissatisfied with it. But many of these dissatisfied are forced to put up with the existing order. And even those who are his opponents do not dare to enter into open conflict with the countries of the center.

But now, in addition to the hidden opponents of the "new order", more and more direct and open ones are beginning to appear. These are, first of all, the countries of the independent periphery, in particular Iran and Belarus. The third wave of socio-liberation revolutions is now taking place before our very eyes. They take place in Latin America. The countries in which these revolutions are unfolding rise from their knees and challenge, first of all, the leader of the center - the United States. These are Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua.

The struggle against the West requires the unification of the countries of the periphery for its success. And this objective necessity is increasingly beginning to make its way, often regardless of the subjective intentions of the ruling elites of peripheral countries. In Eurasia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) emerged, which includes Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Mongolia, Iran, India, Pakistan take part in its work as observers. All of them want to join it, Iran even submitted an official application.

Although the leaders of the SCO countries emphasize in every possible way that this organization was not created with the aim of confronting any other countries, its anti-American and, more broadly, anti-Western orientation is obvious. No wonder the United States was denied the right to participate in its activities as even an observer. Many political scientists see the SCO as a kind of anti-NATO. Within the framework of the SCO, joint Russian-Chinese military exercises were held. Within the framework of the CIS, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was created.

In Latin America, an organization called the Bolivarian Alternative was created to Latin American countries as part of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, characterized by a sharp anti-American orientation. Honduras recently joined. The desire to jointly oppose the United States is connected with the creation in 2008 of the South American Union of Nations (UNASUR) consisting of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela. US military bases are being liquidated in Ecuador and Paraguay. The Caracas-Minsk-Tehran triangle emerged. The abbreviation BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) arose to denote a kind of informal union of four largest countries peripheral world. Thus, the first steps towards the unification of the peripheral world have been taken.

Of great importance for the fate of the peripheral world is the position of Russia, which is the largest power in the world in terms of territory, occupying more than half of Europe and a significant part of Asia. The ruling elite that took shape after the collapse of the USSR as an independent state Russian Federation immediately embarked on the path of all possible pleasing to the West and especially the United States. The leadership of Russia, neglecting the interests of its own country, diligently carried out all the instructions of the "Washington regional committee".

This continued even after B. N. Yeltsin was replaced as president by V. V. Putin. The Americans ordered the Mir to be drowned - drowned, ordered to close the tracking station in Cuba - closed, demanded to leave the base in Cam Ranh (Vietnam) - left, etc. The number of concessions was endless. But in response to them, Russia received demands for more and more concessions and spitting in the face.

Russia was pulled into the periphery of the lackey, but at the same time they were denied handouts that other voluntary lackeys of the West received. In response to the desire of the Russian leadership to please the United States and the West, they diligently engaged in throwing a noose around her neck. The goal is to lead Russia behind him as a slave under the threat of strangulation. This was expressed both in the constant approach of NATO to the borders of Russia, and in the creation of military bases, radars and missile systems on the territory of the new members of this alliance.

Sooner or later, the complete disregard of the Russian leadership for national interests began to threaten the very existence of the country. A change of policy became more and more imperative. And the changes began. But they marched with a constant eye on the West, with constant retreats, endless vacillations and hesitation. Russia spoke out, for example, against tough sanctions against Iran, but, however, not against sanctions in general. On this occasion, one involuntarily recalls the well-known Russian proverb about something dangling in the hole.

But Georgian President M. Saakashvili threw his army, armed to the teeth by the United States and a number of other states and trained by American instructors, against tiny South Ossetia in order to exterminate or expel the Ossetian population. If successful, he was going to do the same with Abkhazia.

M. Saakashvili hoped that Russia, despite all the warnings that had been expressed, would not dare to stand up for the Ossetians, fearing the inevitable sharp condemnation of these actions by the United States and the West in general. But the Russian leadership, knowing full well what would follow, decided on a conflict with the West. The Rubicon has been crossed.

Parts Russian army literally in five days, they utterly defeated the Georgian troops, destroyed the air and naval forces of Georgia and liquidated almost all of its military infrastructure (bases, radar stations, etc.). Georgian soldiers fled in panic, which gave observers reason to caustically note that the Georgian army was apparently being trained by American running instructors. The road to Tbilisi was open, but the Russian troops, having forced Georgia to peace, stopped.

The world community mentioned above burst into a storm of indignation. People who presented themselves as implacable champions of human rights rushed together to protect Saakashvili and his accomplices, in fact, thereby fully approving the genocide they had undertaken. But Russia, despite all these hysterical cries, continued the work it had begun: it recognized and reliably guaranteed the independence of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Of all the Western countries, the United States was especially excited. From the lips of their leaders, after the end of hostilities, threats and urgent demands for the most severe punishment of Russia rained down. The most servile satellites of the West (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) came up with proposals for the introduction of the most severe sanctions against Russia. Some Western European countries were also talking about sanctions. But, having calculated their possible consequences, they fell silent. It became clear that they would turn like a boomerang against themselves.

The US and NATO sent their warships to the shores of Georgia, completely forgetting that the time for "gunboat diplomacy" was over, and it had never been used against countries like Russia. The presence of this fleet in the Black Sea turned out to be completely pointless. This was understood even by the leaders of the European Union, who expressed fear that this would only lead to an aggravation of tension, while it needed to be removed. Convinced that there was no use and would not be from the presence of military ships in the Black Sea, the United States was forced to withdraw them. It all came down to wasting fuel that is so expensive now. It did not bring any benefit to the United States, nor did it add glory. As a result, the US and the West as a whole have been unable to take any real action against Russia. Thus, they clearly demonstrated their impotence.

As a result of these events, a serious blow was dealt to the prestige, primarily of the United States, which was unable to protect its most devoted lackey, which was a harsh lesson for all other American lackeys.

Russia won a huge military and political victory. The main thing was her victory over herself. Russia has become convinced that it can defend its interests without fear of the West and regardless of it. It was a lesson for the whole world: both for the center and for the periphery. It turned out that even one country, however, such as Russia, can successfully resist the West. It became clear that in the event of its unification, the periphery could well completely put an end to its dominance over the world.

Ridiculous were the US and Western threats to put Russia in a position of isolation from the whole world. As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noted on this occasion, NATO and the EU are not the whole world. In the peripheral world, excluding the lackey periphery, Russia's actions have everywhere aroused understanding and approval. The President of Iran immediately said this. The same was said by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Nicaragua announced the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as sovereign states. The SCO, which together with observers represents half of the population of our planet, expressed its approval of Russia's active actions in the Caucasus. They unanimously condemned the aggression of Georgia and expressed their agreement with the actions of Russia and the CSTO countries. But it failed to isolate Russia not only from the whole world, but even from Western Europe. The European Union, while condemning Russia, at the same time several times stressed the need for further close cooperation with it.

In general, the events of August 2008 were a turning point in the history modern world. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy acknowledged, from that moment on, the unipolar world came to an end. It became quite clear that in addition to the world community to which Western politicians and publicists belong and about which they endlessly talk, as well as their henchmen, outside of it partly arises, partly already exists, another, second community, which has more reason to call itself world, because it represents 5/6 of the world's population.

The struggle between the center and the periphery will be long. But its outcome as a whole is already predetermined: the defeat of the West is inevitable. And his economic power will not help him. China, the largest of the independent periphery countries, is becoming a powerful economic force. In 2007, it already controlled 13.2% of world industrial production, catching up with the leader of the center - the United States, whose share was approximately 20%. According to the forecast of the research center "Global Insight", already in 2009 these countries will change places: the share of China will be 17%, the USA - 16%.

But the main thing, of course, is the rallying of the countries of the periphery. By uniting, the periphery will put an end to the dominance of the West, with dependence on it. The abolition of the exploitation of the countries of the periphery by the states of the West will mean the elimination of paracapitalism and thus of capitalism in these countries in general. Having done away with exploitation by the West, the periphery will thereby cease to be a periphery. She will become the center.

As for the ortho-capitalist center, then, having lost the influx of surplus product from outside, it will be doomed to radical changes in its social order. Now in the West there is a mass of literature in which scenarios for the future of mankind are discussed. And in most of these works, there is invariably a statement of the long-begun and steadily continuing decline of the West. Almost all of these works draw an analogy current situation in the West with the last centuries of the existence of the Roman Empire, when it was heading towards its inevitable death as a result of complete internal decay and the pressure of external enemies - the barbarians.

This is written by authors who adhere to a wide variety of beliefs: from extreme left radicals to liberals and even extreme right. In this regard, the title of the book Death of the West (2002) by the American arch-reactionary P.J. Buchanan sounds more than eloquent.

The essence of the matter lies in the fact that by now capitalism has exhausted all its former progressive possibilities. He became a brake on the path of human development. It turned out that the use of the technical method of developing the productive forces so characteristic of capitalism in the conditions of this society was approaching the limit. In the pursuit of profit, capitalism has developed technology to such an extent that it now endangers the nature of the planet and thus the existence of mankind.

Capitalism on a new level and in a new form revives the individualism that dominates the animal world, unbridles zoological instincts, destroys morality, deprives people of their sense of duty, honor and conscience, and thereby turns them into a special kind of animals - animals with thinking and technology. Its preservation dooms humanity to degradation, ostracization and, ultimately, to death. To survive, humanity must end capitalism.

When the countries of the West lose the opportunity to exploit the rest of the world, the only way out for them will be the elimination of capitalism. When it is destroyed throughout the world in both its forms (both paracapitalist and orthocapitalist), the era of transition to a society of a fundamentally different type will begin - a society without private property and exploitation of man by man. The division of human society as a whole into the historical center and the historical periphery will disappear. Humanity will merge into a single society.

But, unfortunately, another development option is not completely excluded. The rulers of the ortho-capitalist West, sensing the approach of imminent defeat, may decide to use nuclear weapons. Then both humanity and its history the end will come. In the third orbit from the Sun, a dead, deserted planet will circle.

The obsolescence of capitalism and the danger posed to humanity by the continued existence of this economic system is more than clearly demonstrated by the grand financial crisis that erupted in 2008, and then a comprehensive economic crisis. It forced many of its hardened defenders to think about the future of capitalism, and the governments of capitalist countries to take measures that run counter to the basic principles of the functioning of the capitalist economy. The head of the American Chamber of Commerce, E. Somers, said that the era of the free market has ended and the era of state regulation economy, not excluding the nationalization of banks and enterprises. Former head of the US Federal Reserve System A. Greenspan spoke directly about the usefulness of the nationalization of the country's banks in a severe crisis. In the US, this process has already begun, which prompted one of our publicists to publish a condemning article entitled "The Socialist States." The German government also plans to nationalize troubled banks. The representative of the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Maria de Belem Rozeira, described as a deep mistake the prevailing opinion that market mechanisms can provide a solution to social problems. In fact, they cannot be solved without infringing on the "free" economy. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the current economic crisis is caused by the "bad" capitalism that has existed so far, it must be abolished and replaced by another capitalism, this time - "good". Existing capitalism really needs to be destroyed. But it can be replaced not by some other - better capitalism, because there is no such thing and cannot be, but only by a society based on public ownership of the means of production - communist.

Strange civilization Tsaplin Vladimir Sergeevich

What is the history of mankind?

What is the history of mankind?

The concept of history, which considers a person as an object carried by the waters of an existing historical river independently of him, remains a persistent myth. But there is no "historical river" that exists independently of man, and the conclusions drawn from the results of a real "historical swim" have not yet taken generally recognized forms. And in the distant past, and less distant, there were people who understood this and therefore were significantly ahead of their time. But one can hardly envy their fate, if only because they were doomed to misunderstanding of their contemporaries and loneliness.

The lack of programming in the history of the formation of mankind and the abundance of prejudices naturally resulted in random and chaotic actions. The specific motives have always been selfishness and the momentary nature of most considerations, dictated by an indestructible desire to survive and an extremely primitive understanding of the reasons for the development of civilization as a whole. Therefore, the enthusiasm for the supposedly extraordinary knowledge and achievements of our ancestors is clearly exaggerated and even hypocritical. It must be admitted that all their "knowledge and wisdom" is nothing but a later romantic invention, following fantastic ideas or triviality. Therefore, you should not try to give their actions some special meaning, be proud of them as the greatest achievements, if we really consider our ancestors real people. We can hardly imagine that the life of entire generations was spent on the manufacture or movement of some multi-ton ritual slab or statue, but the limitedness of our own ideas does not mean that our predecessors possessed the secret of anti-gravity! “Historical” retrospectives appear, explaining that Tutankhamen either died at a young age from an illness, or as a result of the fact that courtiers-schemers hit him in the head, and Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo, either because he was opposed by a stronger opponent, or because he was tormented by an attack of hemorrhoids and he could not effectively manage the troops! These descriptions end up in articles and history books, becoming either generally accepted or controversial, but creating the illusion of knowledge. historical facts and special character motifs. The surviving evidence allows only a rough and schematic description of some of the events that took place and the details of the life of the ancestors, supplementing most of the missing details with the imagination, being unable to either prove the authenticity of the painted picture or provide additional arguments in favor of their interpretation of what happened. The vast majority of artifacts or handwritten evidence have disappeared forever.

On my bookshelves, "books on history" are represented by a rather random selection of titles: "History of War Losses" by Boris Urlanis, "History of the Crusades" by Bernhard Kugler, "History of the Exodus" by Jacques Deroja, "History of Secret Alliances" by Georg Schuster, "Stages (History ?) the development of sociological thought" by Raymond Aron, "History of the Russian State" by Karamzin and "Russian History" by Kastomarov, followed by Oswald Spengler with his "The Decline of Europe", "Comprehension of History" by Arnold Toynbee, "Do We Understand History Correctly" by Nosovsky and Fomenko , mathematicians of the Moscow University, "The History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, etc., not counting the numerous references to "history" in less specialized sources. Isn't the biographies of people who have made a significant contribution to the development of human civilization a story? There are many “stories” and you come to the conclusion that all these particular stories make up the general HISTORY of human civilization and it would be most appropriate to focus on the general aspects of the formation of mankind, which do not fundamentally differ from the learning and maturation of each individual, characterized, perhaps, by several more utilitarian. History is the biography of mankind. As dynamic as the biography of any individual person at different stages of his growing up, learning, communicating with other people and enriching with experience, and just as random. Norbert Wiener wrote: The learning of an individual is a process that takes place throughout his life, ... the human race as a whole learns to some extent in the same way as the individual does.

One of the main conclusions in studying the process of the formation of civilization is the assertion that nature has doomed people to self-learning and gradual maturation that have been going on for millennia. This is an inevitable consequence of the fact that nature has not endowed the brain capable of thinking with a single byte of information, neither about thinking itself, nor about its "owner" - man, nor about the world around. Therefore, the history of civilization, which began with the realization of the expediency of social relationships, was accompanied by a chaotic accumulation of practical knowledge about nature, fantastic ideas and the search for forms of coexistence. This is a school in which there were no omniscient teachers, there was no program and schedule, but there were countless students succeeding each other, each of whom made his mistakes, learned his lessons, managed to learn something during his life, learn something previously unknown and teach some of this knowledge to your children. Children, thanks to this, were able to start with more and more “higher grades” and, in turn, passed on a slightly larger amount of knowledge to the next generation of “schoolchildren”. Therefore, history resulted in a sequence of events, forms and ideas, born as a result of trial and error, attempts to correct them, i.e. to the emergence of new errors and new attempts to correct them. This chaotic chain of dramatic movements was accompanied by the adjustment of the surrounding world and clashes between individuals and communities, because until now the main problems were solved mainly at the expense of neighbors and neighbors. The search for a solution, in the final analysis, led to more and more sociality, but by no means to a predetermined, natural sequence of actions and events, which, due to a misunderstanding, they are trying to look for in this chaotic process. Remember the parable of Buridan's donkey, which, if he followed the laws of inanimate nature, would surely die of hunger, simply because it is impossible to make a reasonable (legitimate, logical!) choice in favor of one of the same armfuls of hay, being exactly in the middle between them. But neither Buridan's donkey, nor all the other donkeys (in all senses of this word-concept) for the entire time of the existence of life on Earth did not end their existence in hungry cramps, wondering where to start the meal, simply because they are capable of illogical, i.e. . random, not following from a certain law, actions. As a result of irregular “poking” from side to side, the donkey will definitely stumble upon one of the hay bales. Human communities developed in the same way - by the "poke" method. But the chaotic nature of this process has led to the fact that in recent decades the situation in the world has become reminiscent of a powder magazine, where curious children dispel the darkness with a burning torch.

This does not mean that in the history of unrelated human communities there was nothing in common. The general, of course, was and is. But this is not connected with some external factor-history, but with the biological and intellectual similarity of people in general. Naturally, this similarity gave rise to common motives and everyday details, and the randomness and variety of natural conditions - insignificant differences, which were called "national culture" and "history of national development."

Summarizing, we can state that by creating a living being, nature doomed it to evolution, and by creating a mind in a living being, nature doomed it to history.

What is good and what is bad Eurabia On April 19, the Haaretz newspaper stunned its readers with the following message: The European Union will not consider removing Hamaz from the list of terrorist organizations until Hamaz demonstrates