It appeared in the era of slavery in order to justify the existing system and its basis - the division of the population by virtue of innate qualities into two breeds of people - slave owners and slaves. The racial theory is based on the thesis of the division of people into higher and lower races. The first are called to dominate society and the state, the second - subhumans - blindly obey the first. The founder of the racial theory, the Frenchman J. Gobineau (1816-1882) declared the Aryans a superior race, given to dominate the lower ones, which included the Jews, etc. blood ”, the story was presented as the story of the struggle of the highest Aryan race with other lower races. The racial theory considered war as the most important means of solving all state, legal, social and international problems, which, according to another representative of this theory, the German philosopher F. Nietzsche, was a vital necessity for the state. Hitler used racial theory to substantiate the legal right of the highest Aryan race to destroy entire peoples and national minorities.)

Demographic theory

The essence of this theory is that practically all social processes, including the formation of the state, are always conditioned by the growth of the population living in a certain territory, which needs to be controlled.

Crisis theory

In this concept, new knowledge is used, the main emphasis is on the organizational functions of the primary city-states, on the relationship between the origin of the state and the formation of a producing economy. At the same time, special importance is attached to a major, ecological crisis at the turn of the Neolithic revolution, the transition at this stage to a producing economy and, above all, breeding activity. The theory takes into account both large, generally significant crises and local crises, for example, those that underlie revolutions (French, October, etc.)

Marxist (materialist, class) theory

The Marxist theory of the origin of the state is based on the historical-materialist doctrine of society and social development, on the class interpretation of the state and law.

The state, according to Marxism, arises as a result of the natural-historical process of development of the primitive communal system, which occurs according to the following scheme: improvement of the tools of labor - division of labor - increase in labor productivity - the emergence of surplus product - the process of property and social differentiation of society - the emergence of private property - the split of society into classes of exploiters and exploited - the emergence of the state as an apparatus of coercive power of the economically dominant, exploiting class over the poor, exploited class.

The main provisions of the Marxist concept are set forth in the works of Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), and then in the works of Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1856–1918), Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870–1924).

The problem of the emergence of the state is specially investigated in the work of F. Engels "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (1884). This work is based on the historical-materialistic teachings of Marx and Engels and the work of the American ethnographer, archaeologist and historian of primitive society Lewis Henry Morgan "Ancient Society" (1877), which highlights the main directions of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization.

Engels emphasizes that the clan system was destroyed and replaced by the state by the action of economic and production factors, the division of labor and its consequences - the split of society into opposite classes. The state is a product of society at a certain stage of its development; the state is the recognition that society is entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, split into irreconcilable opposites, which it is powerless to get rid of. New strength is needed to resolve these contradictions. And this force, originating from society, but placing itself above it, increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state. It is the state of the exclusively ruling class and in all cases remains essentially a machine for suppressing the oppressed, exploited class.

The essence of the Marxist, materialist interpretation of the origin of the state is, therefore, that the state arises as a result of the split of society into classes. Hence the conclusion is drawn: the state is a historically transient, temporary phenomenon - it arose together with the emergence of classes and must also inevitably die out with the disappearance of classes.

Marxist-Leninist social theory, including the concept of the origin and essence of the state, in the Soviet period of our history had an official character and was considered the only correct one. By now, it has lost this status, but it remains among the social theories that have a scientific character and deserve attention.

Modern views of scientists on the origin of the state (crisis, or potestary, theory)

Supporters of the crisis theory of the origin of the state indicate that they rely on the modern achievements of anthropology, history, political science, and state studies. In their opinion, the most radical changes that influenced the formation of states are associated with the heme period of human history, which is called the Neolithic ("Neolithic" - the new Stone Age). It is from the late Neolithic era, according to many experts, that the Neolithic revolution began.

The term "Neolithic Revolution" was coined in 1925 by the young British archaeologist Vir Gordon Child (1892-1957) in his book "At the Dawn of European Civilization."

The Neolithic revolution itself, according to scientists, was engendered by a complex of planetary causes, primarily by the ecological crisis that hit the Earth 10–12 thousand years ago. The Neolithic revolution is a qualitative revolution that took place in all spheres of human society during the transition in the Neolithic from an appropriating economy to a producing one, i.e. from hunting, fishing and gathering to agriculture, cattle breeding, metallurgy and metalworking, ceramic production. The Neolithic Revolution took several millennia (approximately from the seventh to the third millennium BC).

The form of social organization at that time was the clan (family) community - clan. A clan community (clan) is a group of blood relatives, leading their origin along the same line (maternal or paternal), who recognize themselves as descendants of a common ancestor and bear a common clan name. The tribal community was a personal, not a territorial union of people. Family communities could unite into larger formations - unions of clans, tribes, tribal unions.

Power in primitive society was built on the basis of natural self-government. The organs of power in the primitive community were: a) the leader, the leader; b) the council of elders; c) a meeting of all adult members of the genus.

Power in primitive society, in contrast to state power, is called potestary in modern science (lat. potestas - "power, power").

In the process of the Neolithic revolution, the productive economy led to property and social differentiation (social stratification) of primitive society, and later - to the emergence of the state. Primary state formations, early class city-states begin to appear, in connection with which the Neolithic revolution is sometimes called the "urban revolution".

The first city-states were formed in the IV-III millennia BC. in Mesopotamia, Mountain Peru and other regions at different times and independently of each other. The city-state was a settlement (village) in which the population was organized not by kinship, but by the territorial principle. There was a clear social differentiation, property stratification, division of labor, the initial administrative apparatus was formed in it.

In the city-state, three control centers are organized, which correspond to the three centers of administrative and ideological leadership: the urban community, the palace, and the temple. In the future, the city begins to perform the functions of state administration in relation to the adjacent territories.

Thus, in accordance with the crisis theory, the state as a new organizational form of social life arises as a result of the Neolithic revolution, i.e. in the process of a person's transition to a productive economy, changes in the material conditions of society, the formation of new organizational and labor forms of this life.

Professor A.B. Vengerov notes that the materialistic, class approach is preserved in the potestary theory. But the main emphasis in explaining the origin of the state is placed not on the emergence of institutions of private property and class formation, but on the organizational functions of primary states, on the relationship between the origin of the state and the formation of a producing economy. At the same time, particular importance in this theory is attached to a major ecological crisis at the turn of the Neolithic revolution, the transition at this border to a producing economy.

As for the relationship between the processes of class formation and the emergence of the state, then, according to the authors of the crisis theory, they cannot be understood in a simplified way: as if classes first arose, and then their antagonism led to the emergence of the state. These processes run in parallel, independently, interacting with each other. The class nature of the primary states was clearly defined only in the course of time, when the stratification of society, class formation led to the capture of the state by one class or another and its adaptation to its interests and needs.

Thus, according to the potestarny theory, in concrete historical reality, the early class state did not arise as a result of the activities of only the ruling class. It is a consequence of the development of society at the stage of the formation of a producing economy, the final development of agricultural crops. But, of course, this or that class, having seized the state, could become with the help of the state and the ruling class.

In its further development, the early class state grew into a state of the so-called Asian mode of production.

• Cm.: A. B. Vengerov Theory of Government and Rights. S. 34–36.

Modern theories of the origin of the state include crisis theory, dualistic theory, specialization theory.

Crisis theory of the origin of the state was developed by prof. A.B. Vengerov, who believes that the reason for the emergence of statehood is environmental disasters (about 12,000 years ago, the onset of the ice age and the associated sharp cooling of the climate, the disappearance of megafauna representatives, the freezing of rivers and lakes rich in fish, a decrease in the number of fruit resources, etc.), which led humanity to a crisis and the need for further survival. In primitive society, the so-called "Neolithic revolution" is taking place, the transition of a person from an appropriating economy (hunting, fishing, gathering) to a producing economy (slash-and-burn, irrigated agriculture, pasture and nomadic cattle breeding). The development of agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts in the community leads to the creation of food reserves that allow it to survive the difficult times of the year and, in turn, to the development of economic relations between clans (tribes), social stratification of society occurs, the emergence of classes and political institutions, and then the state.

The dualistic theory of the origin of the state was nominated by prof. A. I Malygin and prof. V.S. Afanasyev. The origin of states, according to the theory, followed two paths: the eastern path of the emergence of the state (the universal path) and the western state (the unique path).

For Eastern (Asian) state characterized by the predominance of irrigated agriculture, which required huge irrigation work, and determined the need to unite communities under a single leadership and centralized management. In the community, administrators, treasurers, controllers and other officials appear to manage various funds and resources, which gradually turn into a separate social group (caste, estate, class) with their own interests. Power is centralized in the form of despotism, where the personality of the ruler is deified and has a sacred character ("Power from God", the ruler is the son of God, the deputy of God on earth). The established state mechanism is a pyramid: at the top - an unlimited monarch, despot; below - his closest advisers, viziers; further - officials of a lower rank, etc., and at the base of the pyramid - agricultural communities, gradually losing their generic character.

The economy is based on state and public forms of ownership, private property exists (the state nobility had palaces, jewelry, slaves; merchants and artisans also owned their property), but does not have a significant impact on economic processes. The main means of production - the land is in the royal, temple and communal property. Land plots were allocated to officials for service, but only on the basis of the right of use and for the period of public service. The officials received money and food from the state treasury and from the tsar's warehouses.

The main reasons for the emergence of the eastern state were:

1) the need for large-scale irrigation work in connection with the development of irrigated agriculture;

2) the need to unite for this purpose significant masses of people and large territories;

3) the need for a unified, centralized leadership of these masses.

The eastern (Asian) way of the emergence of the state has become universal, since found its application in almost all ancient states of Asia, Africa, America (Egypt, Babylon, India, China, etc.). A feature of the eastern state is its stagnant nature, over the centuries society practically does not develop, and only the dynasties of rulers (emperors, pharaohs, kings, etc.) change.

In contrast to the eastern path, the western path of the emergence of the state was of a universal nature and found its application in Europe (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome). The leading state-forming factor here also became the class division of society, but on the basis of private ownership of land, as well as the means of production - livestock, slaves. The wealthy nobility (for example, the Eupatrides in Greece or the patricians in Rome) initially occupied a dominant position in the community, and then in the state apparatus (basileus, archons, strategists - Greece; Rexes, consuls, senators, praetors - Rome).

Unlike Eastern despotism, the position of a ruler in a Western state does not have an absolutely limitless and sacred character (for example, in the Greek states-policies, all the highest positions were elective, and in Rome the power of the emperor relied more on the power of military legions than on religion and priesthood, which led to frequent military coups and a violent change of emperors).

However, the western path is more progressive in nature, the need to protect private property, keep a huge number of slaves and large territories in subjection required the creation of an effective and ramified bureaucratic apparatus. In turn, trade and monetary relations were not restrained, but even supported by the state (the construction of roads, fortresses, cities, warehouses, ships that were used by merchants and artisans; military protection of trade caravans; in addition, the state nobility, officials themselves were engaged in entrepreneurship to increase their income, the acquisition of land, palaces, villas, latifundia, etc.), which was a powerful incentive in the development of crafts, technology, science, art. Further development of economic processes in Europe laid the foundations for the emergence of a feudal state and society.

It was the emergence of the Western type of state that gave the world various forms of democracy, local government and the famous Roman law.

Specialization theory (origin of the state)

It was developed by prof. T.V. Kashanina, according to this theory, the state is the result of the emergence, along with specialization in the production sphere (economic specialization), specialization in the sphere of management (political specialization).

Initially, a specialization of labor in the economic sphere takes place in society: the separation of cattle breeding from agriculture, the separation of handicrafts, the emergence of trade.

This gave a powerful impetus to the development of both production itself and society as a whole. First, the intellectual baggage of society increased: the specialized development of types of production took place at a qualitatively new level. Second, as a result of increased productivity, a social product began to accumulate in excess of what was needed for consumption by the producers themselves. Third, the relationship between members of society has become more complicated or the social volume has increased immeasurably.

All this made it possible to move on to further specialization of labor, which has already gone beyond the scope of production. There was a need for managerial or organizational work (political specialization). The political specialization that led to the emergence of the state represents the performance of activities to manage the affairs of society in exchange for other social benefits.

In the political sphere of society, there was a division of labor into legislative, executive, law enforcement (judicial) and military activities. Officials and civil servants who carry out these activities are isolated social groups with their own interests, which often run counter to the interests of the people.

According to T.V. Kashanina's theory is universal, since the law of specialization is the general law of the development of the surrounding world , and in the social world the law of specialization also operates.

Despite the large number of theories about the origin of the state, none of them can claim universality, since Many states existed and still exist in the world, and many factors (religious, cultural, historical, economic, violent, etc.) played a role in the emergence of each of them separately, which are not covered by any of the concepts discussed above. In turn, none of the theories can explain why some peoples, whose history goes back centuries and even millennia, did not develop statehood (Indians in the Amazon, Indians in North America, Australian aborigines, Bushmen, Berbers, pygmies in Africa, indigenous peoples of the North in the Russian Federation, Aleuts and Eskimos in Canada, the USA, etc.). Why did they choose to remain at the level of the primitive communal system, despite their knowledge, culture, crafts, technology, which fully allow them to create states?

1) Potestary (crisis) theory - asserts that the state was not imposed on society from the outside; it arises objectively, due to the internal needs of organizing the life of communal landowners and the transition of primitive society from an appropriating economy to a producing one, as a result of changes in the material conditions of society.

The formation of the state proceeded gradually, over a long period of time. The formation and development of classes and the state proceeds in parallel, since not only classes caused the emergence of the state, but the state itself stimulated the emergence of classes. Early class society defended the interests of the whole society, all its strata; later, the class nature of the state manifested itself. ^ 2) Theological theory, the name of which comes from the Greek words "theo" - god and "logos" - doctrine, that is, the doctrine of God. She explains the emergence and existence of the state by God's will, the result of God's providence. The state is eternal, like God himself, and the sovereign is endowed by God with the power to command people and implement God's will on earth. People must unquestioningly obey the will of the sovereign. This theory was most widespread in the Middle Ages. Its main focus was the substantiation of the superiority of ecclesiastical authority over secular authority. Since the IX-X centuries. the so-called theory of swords is formed (the sword is a symbol of power), according to which, to protect Christianity, God gave the church two swords - a spiritual one and a secular one. In Russia, a supporter of an independent tsarist government was Joseph Volotsky (1439-1515. In the world Ivan Sanin) - the abbot of the Volokolamsk monastery. He believed that the king was given power by God, so it could not be limited by anything or anyone. In the West, the most prominent representative of theological theory was Thomas Aquinas (Aquinas) (1225-1274). In the essay "On the rule of rulers" he argued that the emergence and development of the state is similar to the creation of the world by God. The ruler is the power over the state. Representatives of theological theory were also Jean Maritain, F. Lebuff, D. Euwe, ideologists of Islam, modern Catholic, Orthodox and other churches. Evaluating the theological theory, it should be borne in mind that it was conditioned by the religious consciousness of people that dominated in the Middle Ages and earlier, as well as by the level of knowledge about society that existed at that time. This theory correctly reflects the fact that the state appears along with the monoreligion. It also reflected the realities that the first states were theocratic, the accession to the throne of the monarch was sanctified by the church and this gave the authorities a special authority. ^ 3) Patriarchal theory, the origins of which were laid by Aristotle (384-322 BC). In particular, he believed that people as collective beings strive for communication and the formation of families, and their development leads to the formation of a state. But in its most complete form, this theory was substantiated in the work of the English scientist Robert Filmer. In general, R. Filmer interpreted the emergence of the state as a result of the growth of families, the union of clans into tribes, tribes into larger communities, up to the state. Later, Filmer's ideas were used by G. Main, E. Westermark, D. Murdoch, and in Russia - by Nikolai Mikhailovsky (1842–1904). In China, the patriarchal theory was developed by Confucius (551–479 BC). The state was interpreted by him as a big family. The power of the emperor ("the son of heaven") was likened to the power of the father, and the relationship between the rulers and the subjects - family relations based on the principles of virtue. The subjects should be loyal to the rulers (elders), respectful and obedient in everything to the elders. The elders are obliged to take care of the younger ones, as is customary in the family. This theory has received a modern sound in the idea of ​​state paternalism, that is, the state's concern for its citizens and subjects in the event of an unfavorable situation - illness, unemployment, disability, etc. life is everything that is immoral, harmful, unreasonable in relation to a person, and this is possible only in a society built according to the type of family relations. The patriarchal theory correctly emphasizes the relationship between the family and the state, which is not lost for a long time after the transition of society to a state state. This theory makes it possible to establish order in society as a result of submission to the "will of the fathers", and also supports people's belief in the inviolability of the world, since there are no quarrels and enmity in good families. The disadvantage of the patriarchal theory is that it cannot explain such a fact: if the state is a single family, then why do people fight among themselves, why do revolutions take place, if the power of the father is initially unshakable?

4) Contractual, or natural law, theory in some of its provisions originated in the 5th - 4th centuries. BC NS. in the teachings of the sophists of ancient Greece. They believed that the state is created by people on the basis of a voluntary agreement to ensure the common good. This theory was based on two main principles: 1) before the emergence of the state and law, people lived in the conditions of the so-called natural state; 2) the state arises as a result of the conclusion of a social contract. The authors of this theory include G. Grotius (Holland, 1583-1645), T. Hobbes (England, 1588-1677), J. Locke (England, 1632-1704), J.J. Rousseau (France, 1712-1778), A.N. Radishchev (Russia, 1749-1802). Representatives of natural law theory interpreted the natural state of mankind in different ways before the emergence of the state. So, T. Hobbes believed that people were in the position of "war of all against all" and, in order not to destroy each other in this war, agreed and formed a state. J.J. Rousseau, on the contrary, believed that before the formation of the state, people lived well (the "golden age" of mankind), had innate (natural) rights and freedoms. However, after the emergence of private property, social inequality arose. According to Zh.Zh. Rousseau, the state is an invention of the rich, who tricked the poor into uniting in the state, allegedly in the interests of the entire population, in order to live better. In reality, the rich pursued their own interests. The merit of the contract theory is seen in the following. First, it proclaimed the people the source of state power, the sovereignty of the people. Secondly, it is democratic in nature, since it proceeds from the fact that human rights and freedoms belong to him from birth, people are equal to each other and each of them is valuable to society. Third, for the first time she broke with the religious interpretation of the reasons for the emergence of the state and relied on reliable historical facts. However, this theory is not able to explain the origin of the state among different peoples. ^ 5) The creators of the Marxist (class) theory are K. Marx (1818-1883) and F. Engels (1820-1895), who expressed their views in joint works "German Ideology", "Manifesto of the Communist Party", as well as in the work of F. Engels "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State." Subsequently, this theory was developed in the work of V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) "State and Revolution" and in the lecture "On the State." The main provision of the Marxist theory is the doctrine of the socio-economic formation based on a specific mode of production and the corresponding forms of property. The mode of production determines the political, social, spiritual and other processes in society. Superstructure phenomena - politics, law, legal institutions, etc. depend on the economic structure of society. According to the Marxist theory, the state arose in silhouette-economic reasons - the social division of labor, the emergence of a surplus product, private property, the split of society into opposing classes. These factors caused the decomposition, and then the disappearance of the primitive communal system, and subsequently the emergence of the state as an organization of the economically ruling class. At the same time, the founders of Marxism assessed the fact of the emergence of the state positively and believed that, having fulfilled its mission, the state would gradually wither away along with the disappearance of classes. Moreover, classes and the state will just as inevitably disappear as they inevitably arose in the past. Following K. Marx and F. Engels, V. Lenin argued that the state would gradually wither away. Despite the erroneousness of some provisions and factual data, the Marxist theory is based on materialistic and dialectical approaches to the interpretation of the development of human society. As for the question of the fate of the state, then, according to modern scientists, the state will exist in the foreseeable future, until humanity invents another, more perfect organization of society. ^ 6) The theory of violence explains the emergence of the state as a result of the action of the military-political factor - the conquest of some tribes and peoples by others. With the help of the state, the winners seek to assert their domination and force the defeated into submission to themselves. The representatives of this theory are the German philosopher and economist E. Dühring (1833–1921); the Austrian sociologist and state scientist L. Gumplovich (1838-1909); the German socialist K. Kautsky (1854-1938) and others. This theory was based on specific historical facts and events. Indeed, the Frankish state came into being as a result of wars. But the East Slavic states were formed without violence. It is obvious that the military factor was secondary, concomitant, and not the main one in the emergence of the state organization of society. ^ 7) The basis of the racial theory is the postulate that people, due to their physical and mental inequality, form higher and lower races. The superior race is the creator of civilization, is called upon to rule over the lower races, and since the latter are not able to manage their affairs, the representatives of the superior race rule over them. The founders of the racial theory are the sociologist J. Gabino (1816–1882) (France) and the German philosopher F. Nietzsche (1844–1900). The racial theory is undemocratic, inhuman, and promotes enmity between peoples. ^ 8) Organic theory was best known in the 19th century. Its leading representative was the English thinker H. Spencer (1820-1903). He found that society, like a living organism, is subject to stages of development, for example, the transition from simple to complex. G. Spencer saw this complication in the unification of people into such social groups as a tribe, a union of tribes, city-states, etc. As for the reasons for the origin of the state, G. Spencer proceeded from the theory of violence. The state is the result of the conquest and enslavement of the weaker ones by strong tribes; with the expansion of the practice of conquest, the structure of society becomes more complicated, various estates arise, and a special ruling stratum stands out. The militarized society achieves unity on the basis of the state, power, hierarchical organization. According to G. Spencer, the state emerges simultaneously with the appearance of people and improves as it develops, like the human body. State power is a means to achieve human goals. The Swiss lawyer I. Blunchley (1808–1881) and the French sociologist R. Worms (1869–1926) also adhered to the organic theory of the origin of the state. ^ 9) The origins of psychological theory were laid back in ancient Rome. As Cicero (106–43 BC) believed, people united into a state due to the innate need to live together. N. Machiavelli (1469-1527) also gave a psychological explanation of the reasons for the emergence of the state. He proceeded from the fact that the formation and structure of the state is "an act of a single, dominating over the state will." But the founder of psychological theory is rightfully considered to be prof. Petersburg University L.I. Petrazhitsky (1867-1931). He explained the emergence of the state by the special properties of the human psyche, including the desire of people to seek authority to obey and to follow in everyday life. Thus, the state and law are generated by the emotions and experiences of people, and not by the material conditions of life. The reasons for the emergence of the state L.I. Petrazhitsky considered a certain state of the psyche of people: the constant dependence of people of primitive society on the authority of leaders, clergymen, fear of the magical power of sorcerers, shamans led to the emergence of state power, to which people submit voluntarily. This theory was shared by the English scientist D. Fraser (1854-1941), the Austrian scientist Z. Freud (1856-1939), in pre-revolutionary Russia - N.M. Korkunov (1853-1904), F.F. Kokoshkin (1871-1918), and in Soviet times - prof. M.A. Reisner (1868-1928). Evaluating this theory, it should be said that certain properties of the psyche of people, in particular, their emotional perception of state and legal reality, of course, is important, but not decisive in the issue of the origin of the state. ^ 10) The creator of the theory of incest (incest) is the French sociologist and ethnographer Claude Levi-Strauss (1908-2009). In his opinion, the initial social factor in the separation of man from the natural world, the structuring of society and the emergence of the state was the prohibition of incest that existed in primitive society, especially at the stage of the developed state of the tribal community, when people began to notice that inferior creatures are born from incest. To implement this prohibition, special bodies were needed within the clan community, which would monitor the observance of the prohibition, apply harsh penalties to those who violated it, and also establish contacts with other communities for the exchange of women. These control bodies became the prototype of the future state organization. The disadvantage of this theory lies in the obviousness of the fact that in primitive society the prohibition of incest was observed voluntarily, and the council of elders and the general meeting of community members could be punished for its violation, therefore there was no need to create special supervisory bodies. ^ 11) Irrigation, or hydraulic, theory of the origin of the state in the most systematized form was presented by the German scientist K. Witfogel. Its essence is that in Ancient Egypt, where people gradually began to move to a settled life on the banks of the Nile, it was necessary to build canals and hydraulic structures for agricultural work. They were performed by people capable of managing irrigation construction. These organizers were subsequently the first civil servants. Consequently, the irrigation factor had a decisive influence on the creation of the state. A similar climate was in the territory of the future Babylonian kingdom. Here, too, extensive hydraulic work was carried out, the construction was kept in order, water was distributed, irrigation devices were repaired, etc. Apparently, K. Witfogel developed an irrigation theory based on real facts. At the same time, this theory cannot claim to be a universal explanation of the process of the origin of the state. The irrigation factor can only explain the origin of the state in regions with a hot climate, but not all over the world.

The first form of human life in the history of man, covering the era from the creation of man to the formation of statehood, was a primitive society.

Legal science uses archaeological periodization, highlighting the following main stages in the development of primitive society:

• the stage of the appropriating economy;
• stage of the producing economy.

Between these stages lay the most important line of the Neolithic revolution.

For a long time, mankind lived in the form of a primitive herd, and later, through the formation of a tribal community and its decomposition, proceeded to the formation of a state.

The essence and development of the crisis theory of the origin of the state

During the period of the economy of appropriation, a person was content with what nature gave him, therefore he was mainly engaged in gathering, fishing, hunting, and in the form of tools he used various natural materials, such as stones, sticks.

The form of social organization in a primitive society is a clan community, that is, an association (community) of people based on consanguineous relations and leading a common economy. The clan community united different generations: old parents, young men and women and their children. The family community was headed by more authoritative, wise, experienced food getters, experts in customs, rituals, that is, leaders. The tribal community was a personal, not a territorial union of people. Family communities were united in the largest formations, such as clan associations, tribes, tribal unions. These formations were also based on consanguinity. The purpose of such associations is to protect against external influences (attacks), organize campaigns, group hunting, etc.

Remark 1

A feature of primitive communities is a nomadic way of life and a strictly fixed system of age and sex division of labor, which was expressed by a strict distribution of functions for the life support of community education. Over time, group marriage replaced pair marriage, along with the prohibition of incest, as it led to the birth of inferior people.

The first stage of primitive society was conditioned by management in the community on the basis of natural self-government, that is, such a form that could correspond to the level of development of mankind. Power had a social character, since its source was the community, which independently formed the self-government bodies. The community as a whole was a source of power, and its members independently exercised full power.

The primitive community was conditioned by the existence of the following institutions of power:

• leader (leader, leader);
• council of the wisest and most revered people (elders);
• a general meeting of all adults in the community, which resolved the most important life issues.

The main features of the power of primitive society were:

• election;
• turnover;
• urgency;
• lack of privileges;
• public character.

The power of the tribal system had a consistently democratic character, this seemed possible in the absence of any property difference between members of the communities, the most complete de facto equality, a single system of needs and interests of all members of the community.

In the 12-10th millennium BC, ecologically crisis phenomena gradually arose, such as unfavorable changes in the climatic system, which led to a change in the megafauna: animals and plants that were used by humans for food disappeared. These phenomena, according to scientists, have become a threat to the existence of man as a biological species, which has shown the need for a transition to the emergence of a new way of existence and production - a producing economy.

This transition is called the "Neolithic revolution" in literature (the Neolithic is the new Stone Age). Although this phenomenon is called a revolution, it was not one-time, transient in nature, it took place over a long period, the transition itself spanned tens of millennia. During this period, there was a transition from hunting, fishing, gathering, archaic forms of agriculture and animal husbandry to the most developed forms of agriculture, such as irrigation, slash-and-burn, non-irrigation, etc., and in the cattle-breeding sphere - to pasture, distant-pasture, etc.

The essence of the Neolithic revolution is that in order to satisfy his own vital needs, a person was forced to move from the appropriation of already existing animal and plant forms to real active labor activity, including the independent production of tools. This transition was accompanied by breeding activities in the areas of cattle breeding and agriculture. Over time, a person learned how to make ceramic objects, and later switched to metalworking and metallurgy.

Remark 2

According to various scientists, the manufacturing economy by 4–3 millennia BC was becoming the second and main mode of existence and production of mankind. This transition led to a restructuring of the organization of power relations, including the formation of early state formations - early class city-states.

The emergence, and after the flowering of early agricultural societies led to the formation of the first civilizations on their basis. They arose primarily in the valleys of the largest rivers, such as the Nile, Euphrates, Indus, Tigris, Yangtze, etc., this was due to the most favorable climatic and landscape conditions of these territories. The transition to a productive economy determined the growth of all mankind, which was necessary for the flourishing of civilization. The producing economy led to the complication of the production organization, the formation of new functions of organization and management, the need to regulate agricultural production, rationing and accounting for the labor contribution of each member of the community, the results of his labor, the activities of each in the formation of public funds, the distribution of the share of the created product.

Remark 3

The Neolithic revolution, which led to the transition of all mankind to a productive economy, led primitive society to its stratification, the formation of class and then to the formation of statehood.