Historical types of the state. Types of state and law

There are about 200 independent states in the world. There is a theory that many of them can be combined into categories characterized by commonality and uniformity in key aspects of development. There are thus several types of states. There are many scientific approaches to their definition. Which of them are most popular in Russian science?

Nuances of typology

Let's talk first of all about the concept of state type. According to a common interpretation, this term reflects the belonging of a political entity to a certain class (or group), characterized by a set of certain criteria. The state and law, researchers believe, developed in stages. Therefore, their belonging to a particular type can be fully traced both in the aspect of correlating with some historical period, and also in the study of their properties outside the time reference, but in a comparative context. In the vision of some researchers, the notion of the type of state is associated with the features of the system of political management functioning in it, legal institutions, etc. In this case the term in question can be used as a synonym for the word combinations "form of government" or, for example, "political regime".

In modern Russian political science, types of state and law are often understood as classes whose characteristics make it possible to attribute to them certain sovereign political entities in the context of their formational or civilizational affiliation. In this case, terms such as "form of government" or "political regime" can be regarded as more narrow. In this regard, domestic researchers identify the historical types of state, the emergence of which can be traced in relation to the development of certain formations or civilizations. The first and second criteria, meanwhile, define two different theoretical approaches to the classification of political entities. Consider these two concepts - the formational and the civilizational.

Formational approach

Among the most widely used approaches in Russian science is the formational one. The type of state in it corresponds to one of the following classes: primitive (or communal), slave-owning, feudal, capitalist (or bourgeois), communist. The basic criteria for each are defined in the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in which the materialistic theory of the development of society is examined. The key aspects of the corresponding concept are the formation determined by the economy (which creates the basis), as well as the relations in society, law, ideology (which predetermine the superstructure).

The above-mentioned historical types of the state, according to the theory of Marx and Engels, are classified based on the following main components: the modes of production, the prevailing forms of ownership of them, the degree of class division of society and the characteristics of its individual social groups. Let us study some of their features.

The main types of formations

According to the theory under consideration, the slave states were characterized by a basis in the form of an agricultural economy, the predominance of state ownership of the means of production, a high degree of class division of society, where the dependent population was a majority, and the slave-owners a minority. Examples of such states can be found by studying the history of the Ancient East, ancient Rome, Greece.

Sovereign political associations of the feudal type were characterized, in their turn, by a basis in the form of an agricultural, handicraft and manufacturing economy and the predominance of feudal property. Regarding classes in society - the bulk of the population of states was represented by a peasant class, dependent on feudal lords, above which the suzerain stood on the social level. The historical types of the state of the category under consideration are Russia of the serfs, some European countries: Germany, Italy, France.

In capitalist or bourgeois countries, there are different forms of ownership, but the predominant private, economic basis is based on factory production and the market nature of relationships and competition. Classes of society are divided into higher, middle, lower, the social role of the workers and the bourgeoisie is very noticeable.

In accordance with the concepts of Marx and Engels, in the states of the communist type the means of production must be dominated by the state, and the regulation of the economy takes place in a planned order. The main social classes are workers, peasants, and also the intelligentsia.

The historical types of the state, according to the formational approach, must change as the social revolution that occurs as a result of the crisis and mutual relations within the framework of socio-economic processes is carried out. As a rule, this is expressed in the fact that subordinate classes cease to feel satisfied within the current management and policy management methods of the leading social groups, the "upper classes".

What is the modern formation?

The main types of state within the framework of the formational approach we have named. However, to which of them are we entitled to classify modern sovereign political units? And by what criteria? According to the concept of Marx and Engels, after the bourgeois formation a communist system should appear. Russia had experience in its construction, and now within the framework of this model, at least in accordance with some criteria, China and, probably, North Korea are developing. But what about the other countries? According to the theory of Marx and Engels, the capitalist formation arose long ago: about 300 years ago. The states that began to develop within the framework of the corresponding model began to operate on the basis, as we have already said, of private property in the aspect of the means of production. Among other characteristics of this formation, noted by researchers, are the legal independence of the class of workers from the bourgeoisie. Regarding these two signs, most of the developed countries, some scholars believe, can in one way or another be classed as bourgeois according to the classification of Marx and Engels.

There are, however, experts who consider it legitimate to single out the so-called transition model from capitalism to a fundamentally different formation adapted to the needs of a society that is dissatisfied with the current system. In the environment of researchers there is no uniform interpretation regarding clear criteria for the belonging of a country to this formation. It is characterized by the multiplicity of production relations, in some cases - the presence of some feudal elements. Specific mechanisms by which appropriate transit can be made from one formation to another may, as some researchers believe, be based on integration processes. That is, the unification of economic systems of different countries, and in some cases - the creation of political alliances in which as such statehood may not be of decisive importance. Some experts call the European Union among the possible prototypes of such political units. As is known, most EU countries do not have passport control, a single currency operates, the principles of foreign policy for Europeans are also more or less consolidated.

Although there is a point of view that the EU is to some extent a return to what was once in Europe. The history of the state of the Romans is known to all. In the past, it was an empire of enormous proportions, which included a large part of the modern EU territorially. And so the modern consolidation of Europeans, the researchers believe, is probably not so much the formation of a fundamentally new formation, but rather the reproduction of the model of the organization of continental political sovereignty that existed in the past.

One way or another, the characteristic of the historical types of the state from the viewpoint of the formational approach includes provisions allowing a certain classification of modern countries. Most likely, now the world continues to live mainly in the capitalist formation. But this, as we have already noted, is not the only criterion for classifying states. Consider another popular species.

The civilizational approach

The historical types of the state are classified according to this approach, based not so much on the social and economic criteria, but also on the basis of spiritual, cultural, legal principles and norms that prevail in political associations, which in general form the characteristics of civilization. Let us consider examples of such categories.

World Civilizations

Historical types and forms of the state within the framework of the civilizational approach are offered by researchers in a large number of theoretical concepts. For example, Oswald Spengler believed that throughout history, mankind developed within 8 civilizational cultures, Karl Jaspers identified 9 civilizations, in the teachings of Arnold Toynbee, their number was 21. One of the scientific concepts distinguishes, for example, 7 ancient civilizations: Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Cretan, Byzantine, Central American and Andean, and about 8 modern ones: Western, Chinese, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Russian Orthodox, African, Latin American.

Some researchers identify primary and secondary civilizations. The main criterion for their differentiation is the role of the state in social relations. For example, primary civilizations assume full participation in the development of a sovereign political association. The economy, society, state and law are interrelated in this model. In turn, in the secondary civilization the role of the state is somewhat more narrow. It boils down to the superstructure - the spiritual, legal, cultural component of the development of the society. Examples of such civilizations are Latin American, West European.

Typology of law

With the formation of institutions of statehood, processes reflecting the emergence and development of law are closely related. What theories in this direction can be called the most common?

Among those popular in historical science, the concept that law should be classified into two types is natural and positive. The former reflects more largely unwritten norms and principles that are intuitive to the human community. The second is, in turn, laws detailing their norms, as well as acts that adapt them to a specific regulatory environment.

Natural law preceded the positive. But among scientists there is a controversial nuance: at what point in time is a positive law correlative, say, with the emergence of a formation or civilization? There is a version that it is from the moment of its emergence that humanity, in fact, began to develop within the framework of a formational or civilizational path.

The mechanism of state formation as a criterion of typology

Typologization can be carried out, proceeding from the mechanism within which the formation of the state took place. In the research environment there is a large number of concepts in this direction. There are states that can emerge as sovereign territories that previously belonged to other independent political entities. For example, such are many former republics of the USSR. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, only a few of them had a historical experience of independent statehood. The formation of a state can be connected with integration processes between peoples characterized by a single culture, language, ideology. Thus, a large number of modern European states were formed. For example, this is Germany and Italy - for a long time there were independent political units on the territory of these countries. To some extent, the experience of the United States is unique. Some researchers characterize them as an example of a state united not by virtue of cultural and national ties, but on the basis of democratic ideas, freedom and constitutionalism, very progressive for a time when Americans decided to become independent of England in the late 18th century.

Russia

How to determine the type of the state of Russia? Probably, first of all it is necessary to decide what historical period to take into consideration. The fact is that our state is more than a thousand years old. If we relate Russia and the types of modern states, then, proceeding from the concept of Marx and Engels, we probably belong to the capitalist formation. As we know, it did not work with the construction of the communist building. As we noted above, feudalism also took place in Russian history. According to another approach, Russia can be called a state belonging to the Russian Orthodox civilization.

As for the criterion reflecting the factors of the country's formation as a sovereign political association, then, given the centuries-old experience of statehood, we are most likely to be fairly attributed to countries that have emerged as a result of integration processes - at the level of culture, language, and religion.

The history of the Russian state is an association of Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic and other peoples, the key factor of which, according to many researchers, was the imperial status of Russia. Within the relevant historical period, the feudal system, later replaced by capitalism, was based on the theory of Marx and Engels in our country.

Russia is the state of several formations?

After the revolution of 1917, the imperial factor ceased to play its role, after which several independent sovereign political units were formed on a national basis in the territory of the country where there had never been any federal and other type of sovereign entities, with the exception of Poland and Finland having sufficiently large autonomy. However, according to some researchers, the new independent countries, with the exception of just Poland and Finland, were far from being the most optimal social and economic position in order to develop independently. As a result, Moscow soon managed to consolidate them within the framework of the USSR and a new ideology - communism. The corresponding state formation that arose in our country, taking into account the conceptual additions from the teachings of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, was on the whole sufficiently close to the theoretical model of Marx and Engels.

When, in the years of Perestroika, the unifying communist factor ceased to play its role, the political space of the former Russian Empire became the same as we know it today. Just like after the 1917 revolution, our country was divided into several sovereign states. Their association, as in 1922, did not happen. Why? There are many versions on this. According to one of them, at the beginning of the 20th century the new countries had no economic resources to build independent economic and political systems. After Perestroika, in its turn, the majority had a powerful Soviet infrastructural legacy and more or less functioning management institutions. Because of the lack of the desire to continue development on the basis of communist principles, the new states actually returned to capitalism and continued construction within the framework of this formation.