General View of the Historical Development of Human Societies. Monograph. Mamanov Abdurahim

Скачать книгу

from the latter half of the 19th century and particularly the early 20th century, Western scholars dedicated significant efforts to studying social behavior – namely, the mentality of diverse peoples. This raises a pertinent question: was this oversight intentional on the part of Marxists, or simply a disregard for the matter?

      Historical evidence and logical analysis suggest that the first possibility holds more credibility: after all, Karl Marx himself may have manipulated the theory of Asian mode of production (AMP) he developed for political ends.6 Thus, what political motivations might have compelled Marxists to ignore reality? To answer this question, a deeper understanding of the content of the Marxist worldview is necessary.

      As per the Marxist worldview, the history of human society is delineated by class struggle. «The history of human society is the history of class struggle,» as asserted by Karl Marx.

      The formative approach to history effectively illustrates the history of each society as a narrative of class struggle unfolding before us.

      In accordance with this approach, the names assigned to the stages of human societal history – excluding the primitive collective system and communism, namely slavery, feudalism, and capitalism – themselves signify that these stages are defined by class struggle. However, one might wonder: what if Marx and his contemporaries had acknowledged that social character serves as the intermediary between the economic base and the ideological superstructure?

      If we consider that social character is shaped by the economic foundation, it would be imperative to establish a connection between the attributes of the Western social character and the modes of production of slavery or feudalism as posited by the formative theory. Indeed, such an investigation would raise doubts regarding the validity of the formative approach as outlined.

      Further evidence supporting our aforementioned perspective is found in Karl Marx’s theory of the Asian mode of production (AMP), introduced in 1857. In this theory, Marx suggests that irrigated agriculture, necessitating a dry and warm climate prevalent in Eastern regions, serves as the economic foundation of Eastern despotism – the enduring communal life and overall advancement of the East. However, scholars widely acknowledge that Marx began to distort the theory of the AMP when it became apparent that it did not align with the political objectives pursued by Marxists.

      However, there is another aspect of this issue that has largely escaped the attention of scholars: while Marx and his contemporaries acknowledged irrigated agriculture as the economic foundation of Eastern development, they failed to recognize that rainfed agriculture served as the opposite pole – the economic basis of Western development. This oversight seems incredulous. If Marxists had indeed acknowledged irrigated agriculture as the economic basis of Eastern development and rainfed agriculture as the economic basis of Western development, one of the fundamental tenets of Marxist doctrine – the notion that history is driven by class struggle – would have sustained a significant blow.

      The Marxists aimed to empower the global proletariat to challenge the capitalists and bourgeoisie, ultimately constructing communism through a global revolution. To accomplish this objective, they sought a pristine historical narrative – a chronicle defined by class conflict: slaves opposing slavers, serfs resisting feudal lords, and the working class confronting capitalists.

      It’s conceivable that Marx and his associates made these alterations with benevolent intentions. Their aim was to expedite the realization of a utopian communist society on Earth. If they deviated from scientific rigor for this cause – guided by their political interests – then it might be more fitting to liken them to shepherds rather than politicians; just as shepherds affix a bell to the lead sheep to prevent the flock from scattering.

      Like a herd of sheep conditioned to respond to the sound of a bell, Marx and his colleagues envisioned the formative approach to history as the guiding call. Humanity was expected to heed this call – embodied by the formative approach to history – and march toward the radiant dawn of communism. However, one might ponder: is humanity akin to a herd of unquestioning sheep that obediently follows the ringer?

      In contemporary times, there is a growing skepticism among scholars regarding the conclusions drawn from the formative approach to history.

      1. The cultural approach, typical of those who view history through a cultural lens, entails a rejection of the overarching laws of human history.

      Adherents of the cultural approach perceive the history of human society as a succession of civilizations that emerge and vanish sequentially.

      The cultural approach places significant emphasis on examining specific facets of the history of individual societies, countries, and peoples that have wielded considerable influence in the progress of humanity. It prioritizes the exploration of material aspects of societal development over spiritual factors.

      Overall, within the realm of the cultural approach, there exists no uniform consensus or singular perspective on historical development. This diversity is evidenced by the existence of over 200 definitions of the concept of civilization in scholarly discourse. According to the cultural approach, which represents a somewhat broader and acknowledged perspective, human society progresses through the following stages of civilization:

      – Neolithic civilization

      – First class civilization

      – Ancient civilization

      – Medieval civilization

      – Pre-industrial civilization

      – Industrial civilization

      – Post-industrial civilization

      While adherents of the cultural approach delineate human society into various stages, there exists no unanimous consensus among them regarding how these stages, namely civilizations, differ from each other. Nonetheless, a widely embraced criterion is that each civilization exhibits a degree of cultural advancement surpassing its predecessor.

      One of the most significant contributions of proponents of the cultural approach to scholarship is the identification of the «period-cycle» phenomenon. Researchers who subscribe to the notion that the history of human society unfolds in periods that emerge and vanish sequentially have observed that this phenomenon adheres to a certain law: each «period» comprises several stages. The majority of scholars conceive of the «cycle» as encompassing four primary stages.

      – Birth

      – Growth.

      – Stagnation.

      – Crisis-disruption.

      There’s no necessity to delve into the concept of «periods» at this juncture, as the analysis of the mechanism behind the occurrence of this phenomenon will be addressed later, specifically in the section related to irrigated agriculture. It suffices to mention here that although scholars of the cultural approach have meticulously scrutinized the notion of «periods,» they have yet to fully elucidate the mechanism underlying its occurrence – the laws governing it. For instance, O. Spengler, a prominent figure in the cultural approach, in his renowned work «The Decline of the West,» characterizes the «period» as a universal phenomenon and anticipates its spread to Europe.

      However, research has demonstrated that the «period» is not a universal phenomenon but rather

Скачать книгу