Social Philosophy

“Political Society” or the State: Fundamental Approaches

What is the state? The answer to this question can be found in the history of philosophy.

1. The state is the most perfect and highest union of society (Aristotle).
2. The state arises from a contract among individuals who were previously in a natural state, characterized as one of "war of all against all" (Thomas Hobbes). The central idea of the social contract is the notion of popular sovereignty, where the people are the source and bearers of power within society.
3. The state is a mechanism for maintaining the dominance of one class over another (Lenin).
4. The state is primarily a plan of action, a program of cooperation, a call from one group of people directed toward another (José Ortega y Gasset).

Cicero wrote that the state exists to safeguard each individual’s property and to enhance it.

The republican state represents a common inheritance, encompassing societal structures, laws, customs, and traditions. These societal assets seem to attach themselves to the private property of citizens through the enrichment and complexity of life achieved by uniting individuals within the state.

Max Weber provided a functional understanding of the state's role as the sole institution with the legal right to exercise force within a given territory. The state guarantees the increase of both societal and personal wealth, as well as the preservation of citizens' rights and freedoms.

A significant characteristic of the state is:

1. a) Public authority (exercised in the presence of all, acting on the public), which is distinct from the masses; authority is always recognizable—through attire, stature, symbols, etc.;
2. b) The second characteristic is the division of subjects of the state or territorial division;
3. c) The maintenance of this public authority necessitates contributions from citizens—taxes.

Thus, through the possession of public authority and the right to levy taxes, officials, initially acting as representatives of society, eventually become above it.

The history of societal development allows for the tracing of extraordinarily diverse forms of state power:

1. a) Depending on the number of individuals (one, several, all) endowed with supreme state authority;
2. b) By the manner in which the supreme head governs the populace, regardless of who that head may be.

The first criterion is termed the form of governance, with possible types of power including: democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, monarchic, tyrannical, totalitarian, and so forth.

Democratic power exists when the majority governs the state, enacting laws and appointing officials at their discretion. Here, a distinctive equality prevails, leveling citizens regardless of their wealth or origin.

Aristocratic governance occurs when power resides not with the wealthy or the poor, but with those deemed "noble" within the state, often determined by lineage.

Oligarchy (literally, rule by the few) refers to power held by a small, closed, and tightly-knit group of individuals, characterized by a stringent property qualification (voting rights granted only to citizens possessing a set minimum of property), where the wealthy are always fewer than the poor.

Monarchy—derived from the Greek words mono (one) and arch (rule)—means rule by a single authority. The term "monarchy" was introduced by Aristotle. For instance, royal power could be derived from law or lineage: by law in Carthage, where it was sold at auction, or by lineage in Macedonia and Sparta, where kings were chosen from a single family line. If feudalism represents a system of multiple powers—where personal dependencies operate under the rule of "my vassal's vassal is not my vassal"—then absolute monarchy, conversely, overcomes personal dependencies, curtailing the arbitrariness of individuals to establish a unified structure of authority. The monarch is perceived as primus inter pares (first among equals).

Tyranny is the power of a single ruler attained through cunning or force.

Ochocracy represents the rule of the masses, which always aligns with tyranny.

Totalitarianism (etatism) is the highest form of direct political violence elevated to norm and system, where anonymous masses exert their will on behalf of the state through the means of this anonymous machine. This is a phenomenon of the 20th century.

The ancient Greeks observed that royal power, grounded in the capriciousness of a singular ruler, easily degenerates into tyranny, while the power of the optimates—those considered the best—transforms into the rule of the wealthy and noble. Consequently, the unrestrained power of the people leads to disastrous outcomes, resulting in "the corruption and tyranny of the mob." Such distorted forms of governance no longer qualify as state forms, for in these cases, the very essence of the state—understood as a collective enterprise and inheritance of the people—entirely vanishes.

Thus, depending on the number of individuals endowed with supreme authority, power may rest with one individual, several individuals, or all.

The form of governance, that is, the manner in which the state exercises its complete power, may be either republican or despotic.

Republicanism, as a principle of state authority, entails the separation of legislative power from the government and judiciary. This idea was proposed in the 18th century by Montesquieu.

Despotism, in contrast, manifests as the arbitrary dictate of laws by the state, where public authority is exercised as the private will of the ruler (despot). It is essential to note that for the people, the manner of governance holds immeasurably greater importance than the form of the state.

For instance, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn draws attention to a phenomenon of Soviet power known as "extrajudicial retribution"—a thankless task assumed by the Cheka (the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage), the only punitive body in human history that amalgamated surveillance, arrest, prosecution, judicial process, and execution.

"To the human being," writes Karl Jaspers, "two claims are inherent:

1. the demand for protection from violence;
2. the demand for recognition of the significance of one’s views and will.

The rule of law provides protection, while democracy acknowledges the significance of one’s views and will.

Thus, freedom can only be attained when power is overcome by law; freedom strives for authority that serves the law. Its aim is realized in a state governed by law. Laws must hold equal weight for all. Changes to the laws are executed only through legal means. In democratic states, this is the will of the people, their actions or participation, which is expressed directly or indirectly through their representatives, who are entrusted and periodically elected through free elections.