Social Philosophy

Society as a Developing System

First and foremost, it is essential to clarify the meaning of the term "social." In scholarly and journalistic literature, two interpretations of this concept can be found. In one instance, "social" is equated with "societal." This broad interpretation encompasses all that pertains to human society—economic life, social stratification, political processes, spiritual relations, and so forth.

Conversely, "social" may be used in a narrower sense, referring specifically to the social sphere of societal life. The social structure is a relatively stable system of relationships that has historically formed among the various elements of society as a whole: individual persons, social communities (clans, tribes, ethnic groups, nations, families), classes, social groups, and so on. According to Aristotle, a person outside of society (tribe, community, state) is either a god or a beast; a person is a zoon politikon (a social being).

Each historical mode of production corresponds to a specific type of social structure. The social structure is a form of organization, or the so-called crystallization of social relations. Thus, social relations serve, on the one hand, as the mechanism that binds all components of the social structure together, while on the other hand, they ensure the dynamics of its development.

Social philosophy must always begin with an analysis of the landscape (that is, the history of the soil, the vegetation, and the climate) amidst which the historical drama of humanity has unfolded over the last five millennia. Human activity is difficult to separate from its landscape; they remain so tightly interwoven by thousands of threads that comprehending economic life, social stratification, political organization, soul, and thought without the latter is utterly impossible.

The overarching problem concerns the significance of the geographical environment for the development of society, its history, and the state, as well as culture and civilization. If we consider nature as the foundation upon which the development of spirit occurs, then it stands as an indispensable basis. In the system of interaction:

Spirit — Nature

we take as our starting point Hegel's assertion that in universal history, the idea of spirit appears as a series of external forms, each manifesting as a real people.

Aristotle already noted that when the most vital needs are met, humanity seeks the general and the high. However, in hot and cold climates, oppressive needs can never be fully satisfied; a person must constantly reckon with nature, with the scorching rays of the sun or the bitter cold.

There are three characteristic geographical distinctions:

1. Waterless Plateaus with vast steppes and plains.
2. Lowlands (or divisions) that are traversed by rivers that irrigate them.
3. Coastal Countries situated along the shores of seas and oceans.

Plateaus (such as Central Asia) are predominantly barren lands (or only fertile for a short time). Traditionally, the wealth of the local population is not derived from the land itself but from what moves upon it—namely, livestock (sheep, goats, etc.) that wander with them. Here, a patriarchal way of life prevails; legal relations are absent, and hospitality and banditry are organically intertwined.

Lowlands are plains through which large rivers flow; their fertility depends solely on these rivers. For instance, the Huang He (Yellow River) and Yangtze (Long River) are the most significant rivers in the history of the Chinese people, their culture, and economy, while in India, the Indus and Ganges serve similar roles; the Tigris and Euphrates are pivotal in Mesopotamia, and Egypt is nourished by the Nile. It is in these regions that great states arise, along with land ownership and legal relations that organically emerge from the institution of property itself, forming the foundation of society.

Coastal countries are united by water in a way that no other element can achieve, as countries are essentially nothing more than basins of rivers. The same can be said for the sea. Only mountains separate and demarcate peoples. The activities that arise from the internal dynamism inspired by the sea are unique, and thus coastal countries are distinguished from landlocked ones, even while connected through rivers. Consequently, as a result of this internal dynamism, Holland separates from Germany, and Portugal from Spain. Therefore:

1. Pastoralism characterizes the inhabitants of plateaus, which aligns with a patriarchal societal structure.
2. Agriculture and industry prevail in the lowlands, where property relations dictate dynamics of domination and subjugation.
3. Trade and navigation are typical of those nations living by the sea, ultimately shaping their civil rights and freedoms.

Nature itself has united the three parts of the world into a cohesive whole through the Mediterranean Sea. A distinguishing feature is that they are located around this sea, which literally lies among lands, providing convenient pathways for communication between them. Without it, one cannot conceive of universal history, cultural influences, or economic development, just as one cannot envision ancient Rome without the Forum or Athens without the Parthenon, to which everything converged.

We begin our analysis of social structure with the East, specifically India, as it presents a typical and developed form of Eastern culture, a completely autonomous and coherent philosophy, and the first clear system of social stratification, meaning the differentiation of society into social classes and strata based on wealth and power. In India, more than in other Eastern countries, the individual personality was absorbed by the external environment. It was a land of slavery and inequality. Here, various castes (more accurately, varnas, meaning quality, color, category in Sanskrit) are rigidly fixed and acquire, through religion, "natural" distinctions, as if nature itself had divided them into:

Varnas	Castes	Instrument	Legend	Action	Color
Brahmins	Priests	Word	From the mouth	Laws	White
Kshatriyas	Warriors	Sword	From the hands	Defense	Red
Vaishyas	Farmers	Implements	From the thighs	Provision	Yellow
Shudras	Outcasts		From the feet	Oppressed	Black

While the Brahmins excel in wielding the instrument of speech, the warriors command the sword, artisans master their implements—such as plows and pottery wheels—whereas the "untouchables" possess nothing at all, save for the capacity for reproduction.

According to legend, the caste of Brahmins emerged from the mouth of Brahma; thus, their words are their primary tool. From Brahma's hands arose the power of the sword, while the thighs bear the heaviest material burden, representing the entirety of the organism. In contrast, the feet symbolize "the lowest," denoting the most degraded social standing, embodying the eternal "tread," "uprootedness," and wandering. The Shudras are not quite a caste; a caste occupies a specific place, while they merely serve particular individuals and labor for others in exchange for reward. Every society, at any stage of its development, possesses its own Shudras—those whom society casts aside as superfluous. However, each society designates them differently: "vagrants," "the homeless," "proletarians," "outcasts," "rabble," or "the common folk."

The symbolism of color is as follows: — white represents the divine principle of high spirituality, those who create laws and moral norms constitute the absolute minority of society; — red, the color of blood and utmost tension, symbolizes the expression of subjective will and courage; these are the ones who never make the most crucial decisions but rather execute and embody the laws and norms, defending the way of life and its future; — yellow signifies the sun, warmth, agriculture, and craftsmanship: all desire sustenance, shelter, and clothing, representing the future image of the third estate or the middle class; they materially sustain society, quite literally "bearing" it; — black stands at the opposite pole, representing absolute social opposition; history knows no society devoid of this opposite pole. The issue is not merely their existence (for they will always be), but rather their weight within society, how many they are, the energy charge they carry, and whether they can take vengeance on the society that has rejected them for their pitiable condition.

Why does this society not disintegrate? Why does it endure for millennia? What unites and "cements" it? Only three things:

The Law of Karma—“cause and effect, retribution for each according to their deeds”—is a universal law of action, one of the central concepts in Indian culture, a cosmic law of causation according to which an individual’s good or bad deeds determine their fate, suffering, or pleasure. Initially, it was only associated with questions of life and death, irrespective of the ethical laws of the Universe: the human soul is no different from God, just as tongues of flame are indistinguishable from the entire pyre, yet our desires and emotions prevent us from uniting with the divine.

If a person can liberate themselves from these desires, then the Wheel of Samsara (the chain of endless reincarnations) shall cease to spin, and the soul will dissolve forever in Nirvana—an eternal state of harmony and peace, where nothing disturbs our dharmas (rules).

The Akashic Records (akasha—literally "visibility," "space") in Sanskrit refer to an all-pervasive spiritual essence, the Universal Soul, the Matrix of the Universe, Mysterium Magicum (Latin for "The Great Mystery")—from which all existence is born through division or differentiation. It records everything: actions, words, and thoughts, akin to the Internet, from which nothing can be extracted.

If India is a caste society, with its isolated castes organically reproducing a singular soul, then China traditionally espoused the equality of all individuals. Therefore, governance is primarily centralized in the empire's heart—the capital.

The patriarchal principle dictates particular relationships between the emperor and the people, between father and children, older and younger brothers, husband and wife. All of a son's merits are attributed not to him, but to his father. The primary aspiration of the Chinese is to have many children who can honor them with a proper burial, cherish their memory after death, and tend to their graves. The Chinese emperor is the head of both religion and science, akin to the General Secretary in the Soviet Union, who was a spiritual leader and a patron of all sciences. In China, absolute equality reigns, but there is no freedom, hence the inevitability of despotism as a mode of governance. A defining feature of this state is the absence of autonomous classes or estates, as everything is dictated from above.

At the apex of the social pyramid stands the emperor—the Son of Heaven, the father of all Chinese (the state is a vast family). He serves Heaven, and beneath him, an army of officials and military personnel (one-third) serves. The foundation of the pyramid (two-thirds) consists of the industrious populace. If all are equal, then a complex system of "social elevators" exists, which elevates capable, hardworking, and ambitious young individuals.

Egypt is a fertile valley between two deserts: the Libyan and Arabian. Through this natural corridor flows the sacred Nile. The principal characteristic of Egypt is its hot climate. To preserve water year-round, the Egyptians constructed a network of canals stretching several thousand miles, and to avert devastating floods, they built powerful dams and reservoirs.

Egypt is most renowned for its grand engineering feats and colossal structures that still astonish contemporary engineers and technicians. Eastern wisdom aptly encapsulates this state of affairs in the saying: "People fear time, but time fears the pyramids."

Such monumental endeavors, alongside an understanding of the fundamentals of astronomy, boundary-making, and construction, demanded exceptional organization—a particular Asian mode of production. All tasks were conducted simultaneously across vast spaces and had to be completed by a specified date. Hence, the need arose for a permanent labor army, numbering tens of thousands, functioning under a unified plan and leadership. Egypt succeeded in organizing such a workforce and owes its immortal achievements to this feat. This labor army was likely created by the priests—Egyptian sages—who also charted action plans, executed under the directives of the pharaohs. Through this, the Egyptian people, in their time of greatness, were "in form," living in unison with the mighty Nile, where the priests represented thought, the pharaohs embodied will, the people constituted the body, and obedience served as the cement.

Thus, the very nature of Egypt demanded colossal and continuous labor, determining the foundation of the social organization of this land: the people—worked, the pharaohs—governed, the priests—devised plans.

As long as these three forces unanimously strove toward a single goal indicated by Nature itself, the people flourished and created their immortal deeds. The native Egyptians took pride in the copper hue of their skin, regarding the black Ethiopians, yellow Semites, and white Europeans with disdain. Skin color, aiding in distinguishing compatriots from foreigners, fostered national unity more effectively than religion, which could be borrowed, or language, which could be learned.

The pharaoh ruled the state through a standing army and militia, as well as numerous officials, from whom the hereditary aristocracy gradually emerged. Beside the pharaoh, often overshadowing him, stood the priests—the caste of sages who shaped the nation's destiny.

In the history of Egypt, the relationships that existed between the priests and the pharaohs held paramount significance. The pharaoh often submitted to the will of the priests, offering rich tributes to the gods and constructing temples and pyramids. In return, he enjoyed a long life, his name and likeness, enshrined in glory, passed down through the generations. Egypt thrived as long as the unified people, vigorous kings, and wise priests toiled together for the common good. However, as with the waters of the sacred Nile, everything flows and changes.

A time came when the population of Egypt significantly dwindled due to wars, and the state machinery began to crack. Excessive labor, heavy oppression, and exploitation by officials broke the spirit of the people. Foreigners began to infiltrate the land, weakening the cohesion of the populace, fracturing society, and ultimately inundating the country with alien elements, dissolving the native race and shattering its unity. Moreover, when the Asian opulence that penetrated the land consumed the energy of the pharaohs and the wisdom of the priests, these two powers began to clash in a struggle for the monopoly over the plundering of the people—Egypt fell under the rule of foreigners.

Thus, the Asian mode of production becomes a peculiar "matrix" of Eastern life:

1. A communal-irrigation system of agriculture;
2. An urban trade and crafts lifestyle;
3. A nomadic steppe with caravan routes;
4. Eastern despotism.

A state's structure cannot be eternal and transforms when it ceases to be necessary. Moving further west—Greece.

Greece represents a substance where the immersion of spirit into nature dissipates. It increasingly individualizes. Here, the starting point is self-sufficient individuals, no longer united in a patriarchal alliance as observed in the East. All Greeks are united by a common language and spiritual customs. In the ancient world, the idea of the polis found its logical culmination through the embodiment of the state-legal concept of citizenship. From then on, the collective of citizens, Polites, regardless of their social standing, constituted the soma (body) of the city-state. Who belonged to the polis? It is easier to start from the opposite and answer who did not belong. Those excluded from the polis included: slaves, women, youth under the age of twenty-one, and, importantly, citizenship was reserved for autochthons (literally—those with "roots")—those who had "roots," while all newcomers were granted asylum for no more than twenty years. Children born to such families could never become citizens. A citizen had the right and was obliged: to speak and listen to speeches concerning the governance of the state, to participate in athletic exercises, festivals, and banquets. The rights of a citizen (a free person)—to bear arms, the duty—to honor the gods and defend the homeland, with the greatest disgrace for the polis being the conscription of slaves for military endeavors. An important characteristic of the Greeks was competition; not coincidentally, they were the creators of the Olympics. Generally, the Greeks competed in everything, in all forms of art, such as: in poetry—the art of versification, in song, in gymnastics—the art of body mastery, in rhetoric—the art of delivering speeches, in dialectics—the art of conversing, in strategy and tactics—military arts, and so forth. They adored nature and culture but scorned technique.

At this time, three elements of the Greek world crystallized most strongly: — A distinct Greek spirit; — Polytheistic, pagan religion; — A particular form of government.

If in the East we witnessed a brilliant development of despotism as a form corresponding to the Eastern world, similarly, the democratic form is a universal-historical definition of Greece. This signifies that here the state maximally fostered the development of individual freedom. A democratic state is not patriarchal; it requires laws, an understanding of legal and moral principles, and that these laws be recognized as positive for all. Thus, it is clear that the principal aspect of democracy is a moral mode of thinking, precisely that which is lacking in contemporary democracy. "Virtue is the foundation of democracy" (Montesquieu).

Three notable features of Greek republics capture attention:

1. Oracles are an indispensable element of Greek democracy.
2. Slavery is a condition and foundation of their splendid democracy.
3. Splendid Greek democracy is only feasible in small city-states (poleis).

Here, states were equal under the patronage of the Delphic god. State = city-polis, common interest = 1 (all share one): communal life, daily communication, shared culture and pantheon of gods, a viable slave-owning democracy, even though the Greeks well understood it was built on a volcano.

All these small city-states, politically and economically self-contained, merely awaited a convenient moment to engage in conflict for any reason, aiming not to expand their own state but to annihilate others. Cities were destroyed, citizens were slain, or turned into slaves. Similarly, any revolution in modern times ends with the vanquished being destroyed or exiled, their property claimed by the victors.

Rome, or the Roman world, has always been characterized by power, its fundamental calling being: a) to impose shackles on moral individuals; b) to gather all gods and spirits into a pantheon of world domination. Here, royal power did not dissipate, as in Greece, due to the royal houses annihilating themselves, but was obliterated, inciting hatred against itself. Following the expulsion of the kings, the struggle between patricians and plebeians commenced, for the overthrow of royal power was executed solely in the interests of the aristocracy, to which the royal power then transferred, thus the plebeians were deprived of the protection they once enjoyed under the kings.

The power that once belonged to the king as a permanent authority transitioned to two consuls elected annually. Thus, social relations can be overturned, but their essence cannot be altered; when, as a result of revolution, the demos, which throughout all ancient history forms the foundation of all political events, acquires the same significance as all the non-aristocratic, that is, the non-noble.

The conquest of Rome did not bring about, as was the case for the Greeks after the Persian Wars, a flourishing of culture, science, and art. If the existence of the state entails plundering, then conflicts inevitably arise over the distribution of spoils. This leads to a breakdown of the state mechanism and a hostile confrontation between great figures: Pompey with the Senate, which supposedly defended the republic, and, on the other side, Caesar with his legions, who demanded personal power. All sought to restore the moral-political unity of the state, which had ceased to be a concern for citizens. The people had degenerated into a rabble that needed to be fed with grain imported from the provinces. However, the republic was not destroyed by chance, nor by the figure of Caesar, but by necessity. Undoubtedly, he opposed the republic, but in reality, only against its shadow. Even after his death, it became clear to all that only one individual could govern the Roman state. The popular assemblies no longer met the demands of the times and disappeared.

In the history of Egypt, the relationships between priests and pharaohs held paramount significance. Often, the pharaoh bowed to the will of the priests, offering lavish tributes to the gods and erecting temples and pyramids. In return, he would enjoy a long life, his name and image, shrouded in glory, immortalized in monuments passed down through generations. Egypt flourished as long as a unified people, vigorous kings, and wise priests labored together for the common good. But all things flow, like the waters of the sacred Nile.

There came a time when Egypt's population dwindled significantly due to wars, when the state apparatus began to falter, and the excessive toil, heavy oppression, and exploitation by officials shattered the strength of the people. Foreigners began to infiltrate the land, weakening the cohesion of the populace, fracturing society, and ultimately dissolving the native race into foreign elements, thus destroying its unity. Moreover, when Asian luxury invaded the country and consumed the energy of the pharaohs and the wisdom of the priests—setting these two forces against one another in a struggle for the monopolistic plunder of the people—Egypt fell under foreign dominion.

Thus, the Asian mode of production can be seen as a distinct "matrix" of Eastern life:

1. A communal-irrigation system of agriculture;
2. An urban trading and craftsman's way of life;
3. A nomadic steppe with caravan routes;
4. Eastern despotism.

The state system cannot be eternal; it changes when it ceases to be necessary. Further to the West lies Greece. Greece is a substance where the immersion of the spirit into nature diminishes. It increasingly individualizes itself.

The starting point here is autonomous individualities, no longer united in a patriarchal alliance as observed in the East. All Greeks are bound by a common language and spiritual customs. In the ancient world, the idea of the polis found its logical culmination through the embodiment of the state-legal concept of citizenship. From then on, the collective of citizens, Polites, regardless of their social standing, constituted the soma (body) of the city-state. But who belonged to the polis? It is easier to begin from the opposite and answer who did not belong. Excluded from the polis were: slaves, women, youths under twenty-one, and, importantly, only autochthons (literally—those with roots) could be citizens—those who possessed "roots," while all newcomers were granted refuge for no more than twenty years. Children born in such families could never become citizens. A citizen had the right and obligation to speak and listen to speeches regarding the governance of the state, to participate in athletic exercises, festivals, and banquets. The right of a citizen (of a free man) included bearing arms, and the duty was to honor the gods and defend the homeland, while the greatest disgrace for the polis was the conscription of slaves for military campaigns. An important characteristic of the Greeks was competition; it is no coincidence that they were the creators of the Olympics. In general, the Greeks competed in all domains, in every form of art: in poetry—the art of versification; in singing; in gymnastics—the art of body mastery; in rhetoric—the art of speech-making; in dialectics—the art of conversation; in strategy and tactics—the military art, and so forth. They revered nature and culture, yet scorned technique.

At this time, three elements of the Greek world crystallized with great force: — A unique Greek spirit; — A polytheistic, pagan religion; — A distinct state structure.

If in the East we observed the brilliant development of despotism as a form corresponding to the Eastern world, then the democratic form is a universally historical definition of Greece. This signifies that the state here maximally fostered the development of individual freedom. A democratic state is not patriarchal; it requires laws, awareness of legal and moral foundations, and for these laws to be recognized as positive for all. Hence, it is evident that the central moment of democracy is a moral mode of thinking—precisely what is lacking in contemporary democracy. "Virtue is the foundation of democracy" (Montesquieu).

Three remarkable features of Greek republics draw attention:

1. Oracles, an indispensable element of Greek democracy.
2. Slavery, a condition and foundation for their splendid democracy.
3. Remarkable Greek democracy is only possible in small city-states (poleis).

Here, states were equal under the patronage of the Delphic god. The state equals the city-polis; the common interest equals one (all are one): shared life, daily interaction, common culture, and pantheon of gods, a viable slave-owning democracy, even though the Greeks understood well that it was built on a volcano.

All these small city-states, politically and economically insular, awaited a convenient moment to engage in conflict for any reason, aimed not at expanding their state but at the destruction of others. Cities were razed, citizens killed or turned into slaves. Similarly, any revolution in modern times concludes with the destruction or exile of the ousted, their property seized by the victors.

Rome, or the Roman world, has always been characterized by strength, with its primary calling being to: a) impose shackles on moral individuals; b) gather all gods and spirits into a pantheon of world dominion. Here, royal power did not vanish as in Greece due to royal families annihilating one another; instead, it was obliterated, inciting hatred toward itself. Following the expulsion of the kings, a struggle began between the patricians and the plebeians, for the destruction of royal power was executed solely in the interests of the aristocracy, to which the royal authority had passed, thereby leaving the plebeians deprived of the protection they once enjoyed from kings.

The power that once belonged to the king as a constant transitioned to two consuls elected annually.

Thus, social relations can be inverted, yet their essence cannot be altered; when, due to revolution, the demos—which throughout all of ancient history constitutes the foundation of all political events—attains the same significance as all non-noble individuals, that is, the non-aristocrats.

The conquest of Rome did not, as in the case of the Greeks after the Persian wars, give rise to the flourishing of culture, science, and art. If the existence of the state is predicated upon plunder, then inevitable conflicts arise over the distribution of spoils. The state mechanism falters, leading to antagonistic confrontations between prominent individuals: Pompey with the Senate, which ostensibly defended the Republic, and on the other side, Caesar with his legions, who sought personal power. All sought to restore the moral-political unity of the state, a concern already abandoned by the citizens. The people had devolved into a rabble that needed to be fed with grain imported from the provinces. However, the republic was not destroyed by chance, nor by the personality of Caesar, but by necessity. Certainly, he opposed the republic, but in effect, merely against its shadow. Even after his death, it became evident that only one person could govern the Roman state. The popular assemblies no longer met the demands of the time and faded away.