Частная собственность вторжение статья
Statistics Abstract The principle of proportionality is one of the fundamental legal principles defining the limits of state authority. The principle of proportionality, among other things, is the basis of legal responsibility and ensures the justice of the punishment being imposed. The roots of the requirement of proportionali-ty of punishment to the committed offense goes to the early history of mankind, the first institutions for responding to crimes - blood feud and talion - were based on the idea of proportionality. The univer-sality of these institutions in the history of mankind also attests to the universality of the principle of proportionality. Gradually, in the process of developing social relations, a transition was made from di-rect physical punishment, which was supposed to be blood vengeance and talion, to material compensa-tion for damage.
Дорогие читатели! Наши статьи рассказывают о типовых способах решения юридических вопросов, но каждый случай носит уникальный характер.
Если вы хотите узнать, как решить именно Вашу проблему - обращайтесь в форму онлайн-консультанта справа или звоните по телефонам, представленным на сайте. Это быстро и бесплатно!
Sociogenesis vs. Marx Evolutionary Determinism: The Anthropic Mechanism of Social Dynamics
The Soviet Marxist tradition considered evolution as a path through a sequence of social formations: Those implementations have different quality at different levels of material development but also at different levels of cognition and consciousness' sophistication and thus they depend on different understanding of each individual's place in society.
During their lifecycles, societies move to the maximum possible size, limited by these evolutionary factors and at a certain point they collapse being unable to integrate such complex social diversity.
One moves from society toward individual and the other goes from individual toward society. In the first case, the theories consider society as a whole; they find objectivity and determinism of social and historic processes, systemic and organismic features of society.
Durkheim and is developed in variety of systemic theories Parsons ; Luhmann including the world-system approach Wallerstein The second tradition goes from M. Weber's consideration of individual actions and reveals the individual agency, role of ideas, the uniqueness of social changes and historic process.
That paradigm is developed in symbolic interactionism Mead , phenomenology Schutz and comes to a postmodernist complete denial of historic laws, social progress, etc. These two theoretical extremes never eliminate each other; on the contrary, by adopting the opponents' discoveries, they become more adequate to reality and less contradictory, they are transformed into neo-conceptions e.
Traditionally the first approach is called objectivist and the other is denoted as subjectivist. One may say that nothing exists besides individuals but, on the other hand, a whole has properties that are not reducible to individual.
This is because subjective interpretations are not entirely arbitrary in each mind; they are typical and exist in other minds, too. To that extent, they are external objective for a separate individual and are conditioned by others' minds in fact, by a society.
Despite the polarization of systemic and agential paradigms, a real human naturally lives in system's environment. In fact, her or his own nature is contradictory; therefore we may derive both conceptual extremes from the same human being: The organisms' aggression is balanced by their kindness, courage - by cowardice, perseverance - by laziness.
Specifically social instinctive propensities are also balanced: A human being acquires her or his social skills and necessities in the process of socialization but they are also balanced: Ultimately, the society itself is possible only because a human being is not absolutely unique typical as well as not fully free dependent.
That is why all radically determinist and nominalist approaches are always inconsistent. Let us begin the consideration of human freedom and dependence, uniqueness and typicality from Marx's understanding of human being since it is a good sample of deterministic inconsistency.
As an evolutionist, he founded the dynamics of his social scheme on the opposite premises. He stated a direct causal chain: The primary cause is the level of material development that determines the mode of production and the mode of social organization.
Consciousness in this chain is the last and passive outcome of social practice and has no active influence on society and consequently, on material production. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence and the existence of men is their actual life-process Phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises.
Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence.
They have no his- tory, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking Marx and Engels .
Such rigid determinism becomes a source of a number of theoretical problems. One problem is that the content of consciousness cannot be fully reduced to previous practice, and another problem is that content, in fact, has its own evolution and history.
Although a thought is actually a chain of electrochemical reactions in nerve cells, these reactions are not the cause of the content of a thought: Creativity of consciousness was evolutionarily developed from the ability of the first living cell for arbitrary action.
Conversely, arbitrariness is the ability to ignore these circumstances. Consciousness, in its turn, obtains ability to create arbitrary concepts detached from perception of reality. It is this creative ability that allows a human being to produce abstractions and complicate knowledge.
Since consciousness is a creative entity, the content of consciousness cannot be completely defined by previous practice. Of course, people apprehend their existence and ideas existing in their minds. However, consciousness allows human being not only to passively reproduce existing ideas and practice but also to create new ones, and that eventually allows altering productive forces and production relations, which, Marx believed, themselves were the material basis of mental content.
Note, that cognitive notions have a hierarchy, since each notion is based on other notions. This fact is predetermined by the method of human as well as non-human cognition.
Nervous system perceives signals by associating external environment with classifiers identifiers, constructs, maps, cells ensembles, etc. The more complex hierarchical identifiers nervous system has, the more informative signals it can recognize and operate within the environment.
Getting more complex representations is possible only by means of abstraction lifting hierarchy of such classifiers.
The abstraction process is internal and creative; it comes not from the external environment, vice versa, the results of this process are adapting to the environment. Therefore, consciousness must first create heuristically, intuitively, and accidentally or borrow a more abstract idea and only after that, associate this idea with the reality verifying or falsifying idea by experience.
We can find this mechanism in Piaget's theory of cognition as preconstructing of viable applicable concepts in consciousness, and in Popper's idea of inability of logical induction of theoretical concepts from the empirical facts.
Consciousness potentially may endlessly create abstractions detached from perception of reality. The only reason why people do not outrun their concepts far away from experience is that in this case they lose practical and cognitive value for them.
Here is the distinction between agency and freedom. Agency is the ability to make arbitrary free choice, but options of that choice are always determined and therefore are limited. Freedom is the description of the choice and in contrast with agency is meaningful.
All living organisms have the agency in an equal degree, while freedom depends upon the complexity of their understanding and description of reality. Freedom is limited by unawareness or knowledge of options and by mental addictions or preferences of options. Since cognitive concepts have hierarchy and adjust to objective reality in practice, knowledge has objective levels of complexity and the growth of knowledge is possible only alongside with the extension of the foundation of this hierarchy.
The new concepts become more complex hierarchical if they are based on a wider range of empirical facts and theoretical notions from a wider range of neighboring fields of knowledge. The achieved level in one area becomes an objective foundation for further complication of concepts in other areas.
People have a potential ability to have knowledge of any complexity; nevertheless, they get it consistently both, through studying and in the process of evolution and could not skip objective levels of complexity. As much as the content has hierarchy, to the same extend consciousness has its own evolution and its own history, contrary to Marx's ideas.
One may notice that Marx's development scheme is quite static. Where is the source of development? In order to justify active role of material production in relation to human consciousness Marx doubtfully juggles with the definition of human being. In fact, Marx implicitly separates scientific knowledge from ideology by their origin.
He accented on the fact that religion, morality, and other types of ideological concepts are related to material conditions of human life but ignored that people create all concepts scientific and ideological and the development of a concept has its internal logic.
He granted human being with creativity in knowledge and deprives of creativity in ideology. But in fact there is no fundamental difference between how scientific and ideological concepts have appeared in human mind for the first time. In both cases, it is a heuristic result which is only validated and saved in practice.
For example, when members of a tribe worship gods and perform rituals they also find confirmation of religious ideas validity in their own practice. Meanwhile, Marx argues that a new idea might reflect only the already existing practice. That opinion looks sound when we observe the slow development of prehistoric societies.
If primitive people did not modify stone knife or ritual for millennia, we may not see any active role of ideas over their practice. However, when we observe the development of modern science and societies, the active role of ideas becomes more evident.
Human creativity does not deny that knowledge or social forms may have objective levels of development and complexity. Some societies as well as scientists lift up in this hierarchy faster, some do not at all; while each individual action and social change is al- ways open.
Objectivity of physical reality cannot produce any scientific knowledge by itself, the same way as social inevitability cannot create new social practices. It is people themselves but not the objective conditions that must gradually do it. Since consciousness is an active subject with respect to material conditions, the consciousness is not a passive consequence of practice; it is only tightly connected with practice.
However, it is consciousness that pulls practice to development. If it were not so, people would never get out of primitive life, because without creative attitude to material and social practice, they would only endlessly repeat the same practice.
Human being is not only a creative generator of new ideas and practices, but also a passive repeater of already existing ones. Every repeatable practice religious, cultural, social and even scientific reproduces a dogmatic consciousness associated with it.
Conservative role of practice stems from the way in which consciousness and all other acquired abilities are formed. Nervous system even recognizes the practice that was carried out successfully only once and starts motivating organism to continue the same practice in order to acquire it as a skill.
All abilities are formed in repeatable practice via the formation of dependence affections, addiction upon that practice. Therefore, abilities are in fact needs and require satisfaction. Such needs are motor skills, habits, rituals, values, etc.
A person is potentially able to create any unique moral and social idea, but only through practice it becomes necessary valuable for her or him. Values are addictions obtained in the previous practice, therefore values direct further practice, which in its turn serves to satisfy the previously obtained needs.
Moreover, consciousness is obtained in practice of interactions with other consciousnesses by acceptance of ideas and practices already existing in other minds. As a result, consciousness becomes stereotypic within a social framework. An insulated individual action even thought may be arbitrary or unique in general case, but when it is a part of communication between different con- sciousnesses it should be mutually understandable and therefore, cannot not be unique but should be typical; communication requires common codes, symbols, and notions.
This leads to standardization of language, knowledge, values, etc. The interaction contains, in addition to informative component, an active procedural component, which being combined with standard content of communication, becomes standard as well.
That leads to the emergence of common rituals, cultural and religious traditions, and social standards. If a person does that independently and uniquely, he or she can really create a new social practice.
However, in most cases an individual only uncritically adopts interpretations and even adjustments to society in the process of socialization. These interpretations and adjustments become automatic solutions of standard situations. Such bodily automatic i.
Precursor of the state or its analogue? Precursor of the State or Its Analogue? Leonid Grinin Volgograd Centre for Social Research ABSTRACT It is often noted in the academic literature that chiefdoms frequently prove to be troublesome for scholars because of the disagreement as to whether to categorize this or that polity as a complex chiefdom or as an early state. This is no wonder, because complex chiefdoms, early states, as well as different other types of sociopolitical systems large confederations, large self-governed civil and temple communities etc.
He expanded his territory to the southern neighboring countries and colonized them. According to the historical facts, compared to other colonial conquests the Abyssinian colonization was the most brutal occupation in terms of number of people killed and sold in slavery. After the occupation, the land and the peoples of the new territory were divided among the Abyssinians. That is why the people struggled to regain their stolen land for decades. Horowitz wrote about the Revolution "in Ethiopia, a major effect of a land reform was to take land from Amhara and distribute it to the Galla, and for a time the revolution is suspected of being a Galla plot" [
The author outlines the historiography of the topic and provides a review of his research in this field in the context of the modern historiographic situation. We argue that there are well-grounded reasons for the convergence of different concepts which exist in modern Russian historiography of medieval Novgorod. Ianin and the scholars who share his views dwell on the boyar corporation, which claimed 'sovereign ownership' of the land, and I. Froianov writes about the Novgorod veche in general, the works of this author give an account of the status and historical significance of the 'small commune' inside Novgorod and of other issues, related to it. Novgorod the Great, 'odinachestvo' — like-mindedness, consensus, unanimity; 'usobitsy' — internecine feuds, veche — popular assembly, 'vechevoi uklad' — veche system, 'gorodskie storony' — halves of the city, 'gorodskie kontsy' — city-parts, 'vechevoi gorod-zemlia' — veche cityland, 'volost' — city-state, a city with an adjoining land, a city, headed by the urban community. In accordance with the general view, accepted in the Russian scholarship, the republic of Novgorod represented the stage of state-building, which was more archaic than the Moscow-Vladimir monarchy, as the political centralization of Rus in the 14th and 15th centuries was in the first place apparently caused by peculiarities of internal socio-economic Thus, what is the point in grieving for the 'free rein' of Novgorod? As one outstanding Russian researcher and a talented historical short-story writer states unemotionally: Petersburg State University, , Universitetskaya nab. Petersburg, , Russian Federation; a.
The Soviet Marxist tradition considered evolution as a path through a sequence of social formations: Those implementations have different quality at different levels of material development but also at different levels of cognition and consciousness' sophistication and thus they depend on different understanding of each individual's place in society. During their lifecycles, societies move to the maximum possible size, limited by these evolutionary factors and at a certain point they collapse being unable to integrate such complex social diversity. Contradictory human beings There are two opposite approaches to social phenomena. One moves from society toward individual and the other goes from individual toward society.