Philosophy of Society

Philosophy of History

Stage-Based Concepts of History

The concept of historical progress was developed by the French scholar Nicolas de Condorcet (1743-1794). His life experiences significantly influenced his views; initially studying theology, he later embarked on a career in public service. Condorcet maintained connections with numerous European scholars and was an active participant in several academies and scientific societies. He is remembered in the history of science as a mathematician and economist who was closely associated with Turgot. One of the subjects Condorcet explored was the philosophy of history, which he addressed in his work, "Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind." In this work, Condorcet reflected the principal ideas of his time while drawing his own original conclusions. Living during the Enlightenment, Condorcet was influenced by the belief that human reason had boundless potential and would drive human progress. He also witnessed the French Revolution, perceived by his contemporaries as a breakthrough for free thought. Inspired by these ideas, Condorcet formulated his own views on history. He saw history as a continuous progression through various stages, each characterized by higher levels of culture, morality, economy, and political organization than its predecessor. Condorcet identified ten such stages, with the tenth stage, marking the highest level of human development, beginning with the French Revolution of 1789 and continuing to the present. According to Condorcet, the French Revolution represented the pinnacle of human progress. Given that human history is a unified process governed by consistent laws, it can be studied as a whole. Due to these ideas, Condorcet is often regarded as a founding figure in the philosophy of history. His theory of historical progress differs from linear historical progress in that it delineates stages of historical advancement. This doctrine inspired positivists and Marxists, who also believed that history passes through various stages towards the realization of its positive potential. For Marxists, this ideal state is communism, while for positivists, it is the era of positive science.

Another concept interpreting history as a transition through different stages is positivism. Its founder, French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857), expounded his views in his six-volume work "Course of Positive Philosophy" (1830-1842). Comte is credited with founding sociology, which he divided into two main areas of study: social statics, focusing on the state of society, and social dynamics, examining societal changes. Social dynamics, closely tied to history, concerns the temporal changes in society. Comte argued that the entire history of humanity is a progression from lower to higher stages of knowledge. He referred to the first stage of human development as the era of mythology, where explanations were solely mythological and no other means of knowledge were employed. At a certain point, humanity transitioned to the second stage—the metaphysical stage—where people began to understand reality through reason, though this knowledge remained imperfect and consisted only of mental constructs. Eventually, humanity reached the third stage—the positive stage—where science, based on empirical data, became the primary source of knowledge. Thus, history is seen as humanity's progression through three stages: mythology, metaphysics, and positive science.

Comte believed that the fundamental structure of human society is the family, as it transmits traditions and values from one generation to the next. With economic development, large social entities—cooperatives—began to form and engage in competitive struggle. To ensure that this competition remains civilized and within moral bounds, institutions are needed to regulate it. Comte identified two types of such institutions: the Church, which fosters high morality, and the state, which enforces legal norms through coercion. Both institutions are equally important and necessary.

A significant thinker furthering positivist philosophy was the Englishman Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who presented his views in his multi-volume work "System of Synthetic Philosophy." Spencer regarded evolution as the universal law governing all existence. Unlike Charles Robert Darwin, who viewed evolution as the law of biological development, Spencer argued that evolution encompasses everything: matter, culture, society, and living organisms. Evolution implies that everything undergoes changes; these changes are constant and gradual, occurring in one direction and according to one law. Evolution progresses from uniformity to diversity, from weakness to strength, and from chaos to order. When progress reaches its full realization—that is, when it reaches its ultimate limit—regression begins.

Marxist views on history are based on the research and ideas of German philosophers Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). They and their followers argued that early human societies lacked private property. However, with the emergence of the first capital, classes began to form—those with greater wealth and those with less—leading to a domination of the wealthier over the poorer. This led to the establishment of societal rules and norms—productive relations. These relations regulated who should own the means of production and who should work, who should govern and who should obey. Marxists referred to participants in productive relations as productive forces. Productive forces are characterized by constant development, whereas productive relations remain stable. Eventually, the development of productive forces leads to discomfort within existing productive relations. Since productive relations cannot be reformed but only destroyed, the progress of productive forces and their dissatisfaction with these relations leads to a social revolution, resulting in the destruction of existing relations and the creation of new ones where the productive forces feel comfortable. However, these new relations also stabilize, and the productive forces continue to develop, leading to a new period of discomfort and revolution.

To ensure the smooth development of humanity, it is necessary to align the progress of productive relations with that of productive forces. This goal is obstructed by the dominant class—a small group of individuals who control the means of production (factories, plants, lands) and exploit the poor. Therefore, to make production relations dynamic, class struggle must be abolished. Since the division into classes is determined by differing levels of capital ownership, it must be eradicated. This is why Marxists advocate for the elimination of private property and the nationalization of all means of production. For Marxists, history is characterized by shifts between stages of societal development, each stage lasting from one revolution to the next. Marx distinguished several societal systems, referring to them as formations:

• Primitive Communism, where there was no private property or class struggle.
• Slaveholding Society, where the dominant class owned everything, including slaves.
• Feudalism, where the ruling class did not own people but controlled land and other means of production essential for survival.
• Capitalism, where the ruling class owns enterprises, and the subordinate class is forced to work for the wealthy and exploiters.

Marx called not merely for a revolution aimed at altering production relations, but for the abolition of private capital and class struggle. As a result of this revolution, humanity would transition to Communism—a social order in which everything belongs to the commune (the community). The transitional state between capitalism and communism is known as socialism. Under communism, where there is no private property, this social order is envisioned to last indefinitely. In the 20th century, attempts were made in several countries to build communism, to confiscate private property, and to eliminate class struggle. This experiment led to one of the greatest tragedies in human history, claiming millions of lives. The bloodshed and failure of the communist experiment demonstrate the fallacy of the Marxist concept of history.

In the 20th century, a new understanding of history emerged, gaining popularity among historians and economists. This approach is known as World-Systems Analysis. Its founder was the American sociologist and historian Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (1930-2019). Although many of his followers were influenced by Marxism, equating World-Systems Analysis with Marxism is unwarranted. At the core of this school is the belief, first articulated by Wallerstein, that since the 15th century, when Europeans discovered new continents and unified global markets through world trade, the entire world has become a single economic system. It is now untenable to speak of separate, self-sufficient national economies such as those of Germany, Britain, China, or Ukraine. In this unified global economy, hegemonies have continuously emerged—countries that set the tone for economic and cultural life. The status of hegemon has shifted from the Netherlands to Britain and later to the United States.

The global economic system is not homogeneous. Wallerstein identified three types of roles that countries play within the world economic system: core, semi-periphery, and periphery. The Core countries are those with the principal assets that set the tone for the global economy, possessing efficient bureaucratic structures, complex state institutions, armies, and robust taxation systems. They export finished products and rarely export raw materials, owning advanced technological means of production. Core countries also wield political and economic influence over countries outside the core. Core countries include Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Israel.

In contrast, the Periphery countries, which include Latin America (excluding Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina), Africa (excluding South Africa), Eastern Europe (including Ukraine), and Asia (excluding Japan, China, South Korea, India, and Iran), have poorly developed economies, weak state and social institutions, inadequate taxation systems (leaving ample room for tax evasion), widespread poverty, and low levels of education. These countries lack advanced technological means of production and a developed middle class. They export primarily raw materials and function as raw material appendages to the core countries, remaining economically dependent on them through subsidies (IMF loans, World Bank grants). A striking criterion for distinguishing core from peripheral countries is migration: people migrate from peripheral countries to core countries, but never the other way around. The chasm between core and peripheral countries is so vast that bridging it in the foreseeable future seems improbable.

In addition to the core and periphery, World-Systems Analysis recognizes an intermediate category—the Semi-Periphery (including Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, China, India, Iran, Indonesia, and South Korea). These countries have developed their economies, strengthened their social and state institutions, and freed themselves from financial dependency, yet they have not become dominant over peripheral countries. Peripheral countries continue to orient their economies towards core countries rather than semi-peripheral ones.