General characteristics of the political ideology of the revival 15 16. State legal doctrines of the Renaissance and Reformation
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
NOU VPO INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS AND LAW
EP "JURISTRUDENCE"
TEST
Discipline: "History of legal and political doctrines"
Topic 6. Political and legal thought of the Renaissance
Completed by student gr. YuZ-301
No. 12936 Goncharova V.S.
checked by the teacher:
Ph.D., Associate Professor Bylchenko O.I.
Rostov-on-Don 2010
1. The main directions of development of political and legal thought in Western Europe in the 10th centuryVI - XV2nd century
The Renaissance is the largest and most significant event of the late Western European Middle Ages. Despite the chronological belonging to the era of feudalism, in its socio-historical essence it represented anti-feudal, early bourgeois phenomena that undermined the foundations of the old medieval world. A break with the dominant, but already turning into anachronism, feudal way of life, the establishment of fundamentally new standards of human existence - this was the main content of the Renaissance and Reformation. Naturally, this content changed and developed, acquiring specific features and national and cultural coloring in each of the countries of Western Europe. When they talk about the Renaissance, they mean the period of crisis of the Roman Catholic Church and the orthodox religion it defends, the formation of an anti-scholastic type of thinking, humanistic culture, art and worldview.
The Renaissance is characterized by such moments as the breakdown of feudal and the emergence of early capitalist relations, the strengthening of the authority of the bourgeois layers of society, a critical revision (in some cases, denial) of religious teachings, a serious shift towards secularization, the “secularization” of public consciousness. Being anti-feudal, pro-bourgeois phenomena in its socio-historical meaning, the Renaissance in its highest results surpassed the spirit of bourgeoisism and went beyond its limits. Thanks to this, such examples of socio-culture came to life that became organic and eternally relevant components of all subsequent progressive development of civilized humanity. A number of such remarkable examples also includes a well-known set of political and legal values and ideas.
In the process of developing the latter, Renaissance figures constantly turned to the spiritual heritage of antiquity and used it intensively. Of course, the Western European Middle Ages also knew this kind of appeal. However, the very fragments of ancient culture that were selected and transferred to the contemporary context of the feudal Middle Ages, and most importantly, the methods, motives and purposes of their use were significantly different than in the practice of the Renaissance.
The ideology of the Renaissance did not simply draw the ideas it required about the state, law, politics, law, etc. from the treasury of the spiritual culture of ancient civilization. Their demonstrative appeal to the era of antiquity was, first of all, an expression of rejection and denial of the political and legal orders and doctrines of feudal society that were dominant and sanctioned by Catholicism. It was this attitude that ultimately determined the direction of the search in the ancient heritage for state studies ideas, theoretical and legal structures needed to solve new historical problems that faced the people of the Renaissance and Reformation. This attitude also determined the nature of the interpretations of the corresponding political and legal views and influenced the choice of forms of practical application of them. In the struggle against the medieval conservative-protective ideology, a system of qualitatively different social and philosophical views arose. Its core was the idea of the need to affirm the self-esteem of the individual, recognize the dignity and autonomy of every individual, provide conditions for the free development of man, and provide everyone with the opportunity to achieve their own happiness on their own. Such a humanistic mood of the emerging system of socio-philosophical views encouraged us to find prototypes in the ancient worldview that were in tune with the mentioned mood and “worked” for it.
In the worldview of the Renaissance, it was believed that the fate of a person should be predetermined not by his nobility, origin, rank, confessional status, but exclusively by his personal valor, demonstrated by activity, nobility in deeds and thoughts. The thesis that one of the main components of an individual’s dignity is citizenship, selfless, proactive service to the common good, has become relevant. In turn, the concept of the common good began to include the idea of a state with a republican structure, based on the principles of equality and justice. Guarantees of equality and justice, a guarantee of personal freedom, were seen in the issuance and observance of laws, the content of which is consistent with human nature. As part of the Renaissance worldview, the ancient concept of a social contract was updated. With its help, both the reasons for the emergence of the state and the legitimacy of state power were explained. Moreover, the emphasis was placed on the meaning of the free expression of their will by all people organized into a state, usually good by nature.
2. Political views of N. Machiavelli
In the history of the concepts of state and law, there are few that would cause such fierce debate among their adherents and opponents, well-wishers and radical critics, as the political ideas of the famous Italian thinker Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). A great connoisseur of ancient literature, a diplomat and politician (in particular, he served as secretary of the Florentine Republic for 14 years), he went down in the history of political and legal thought as the author of a number of remarkable works: “The Prince” (1513), “Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livy” (1519), “History of Florence” (first edition - 1532), etc. Researchers agree that Machiavelli’s creative heritage is very contradictory in its spiritual content. An explanation for this is sought in the nature of the writer’s personality, in the influence on him of the dramatically complex era of which he was a contemporary and thoughtful analyst. They note his ardent love for his fatherland, which suffered greatly from internal strife, the fury of petty tyrants, the intervention of the church in secular affairs, and invasions of foreign powers. It is also not without reason that they emphasize his sympathies for the republican system and individual democratic institutions.
Ironically, it turned out that the now noted (and other similar) features of Machiavelli as a practical figure and political writer were imprinted mainly in the “Discourses...”, “History of Florence” and in some of his other works. However, it was, of course, not they who left the greatest mark on the development of world political thought, but Machiavellian “The Prince.” But in it, republican democratic motives, civic-humanistic notes sound as muffled as possible (if they sound at all). There is nothing surprising here. Machiavelli wrote it not at all for the glorification of democratic and republican values, not for the apology of law and humanism. “The Prince,” upon first acquaintance with it, appears as a treatise (modest in volume) on the role, place and significance of the ruler, head of state in Italy and Europe in the 16th century. A closer study of it shows: in the human qualities and behavior of the sovereign, Machiavelli in his own way reveals the features and patterns of political activity of the state itself personified in him (i.e., in the ruler). This focus on identifying the nature of the state, and not on drawing up a portrait of the ruler the country needs and giving him advice adapted to the topic of the day, lies the deep conceptual meaning of the book. Further conversation will be mainly about her.
Machiavelli's ideological position when considering issues of politics and the state is based on religious indifference. The author practically excludes the religious point of view from his arsenal of explanatory means, and the main authority for him is the experience of history. The interpretation of politics is thus separated from theology, religious argumentation is eliminated from the state. Machiavelli postulates a new law, essentially unknown to either ancient writers or thinkers of the Middle Ages: political events, changes in the state, changes in its forms do not occur according to the will of God, not according to the whim or imagination of people, but are carried out objectively, under the influence of “the actual course of things.” , not imaginary." The postulate of an independent interpretation of politics, adopted by Machiavelli, prompted him to separate the state of knowledge not only from theology. He does the same in relation to ethics. From his point of view, it is inappropriate and unrealistic to comprehend and solve political problems while being in the circle of moral
criteria and judgments, because power, politics, the technology of political domination (the “Sovereign” is primarily devoted to them) are initially phenomena outside the moral plane. The author of “The Prince” is little concerned about resolving ethical issues. The main thing for him is to find out: “in what ways sovereigns can govern states and maintain power over them.” First of all, Machiavelli believes, by creating a solid foundation of power. The power of the sovereign “must rest on a strong foundation, otherwise it will collapse. The basis of power in all states... are good laws and a good army. But there are no good laws where there is no good army, and, conversely, where there is a good army, there are good laws.” It is logical that for Machiavelli the support of laws (as well as the support of state power) is the army, the armed force. There is no talk about law, justice, etc. There are a number of political techniques with the help of which the sovereign is able to achieve his highest goal. The sovereign, “if he wants to maintain power, must acquire the ability to deviate from good.” In order to stay in power, a prudent sovereign will not neglect those vices that actually ensure his well-being and security. It is not a sin for the sovereign to go against his own word “for the sake of preserving the state.” Since the actions of all men are judged by their results, “let princes strive to maintain power and gain victory.” We must borrow from history everything that is best and most worthy for preserving the state. State power must be firm and decisive; What is called upon to facilitate this - in addition to all other measures - is her glorification and exaltation. For Machiavelli, self-preservation and consolidation of political power at almost any cost is the dominant interest of statehood. The state (the introduction of the very term stato, i.e. “state”, into modern political science is associated with Machiavelli) acts as a monopolist of public power prerogatives. It is interpreted in “The Sovereign” primarily in the sense of an apparatus that governs subjects, people, and society. Such a state apparatus includes the sovereign and his ministers, officials, advisers, and other officials; in other words, what in modern language could be called central administration. To this apparatus, or rather, of course, to the sovereign who disposes of it, belongs public power - the right to command the state, the country at his own discretion. The sovereign should not allow political power in the country to be in someone else’s hands; he is obliged to concentrate it all only in himself. Machiavelli gives his sympathies to those individually governed states, “where the sovereign rules surrounded by servants who, by his mercy and permission, are placed in the highest positions and help him govern the state.” By ruling with the help of servants, the sovereign “has greater power, since subjects throughout the country know only one ruler; if they obey his servants, then only as officials and officials, without having any affection for them.” The sovereign simply entrusts his officials and officials with the practical implementation of his (and only his) will. Machiavelli has a negative attitude towards the fact that the sovereign, when making decisions, is limited by someone else's will and experiences pressure from outside interests. The essence of power, the autocracy of the sovereign lies in the fact that everything in the state is determined only by his own discretion. Hence the Italian thinker’s objections to the presence of power not only among officials and officials who received their posts from the hands of the sovereign, but also among barons and magistrates.
Completely alien to Machiavelli (let us remember that we are talking about the “Sovereign”) is the idea of the people as the bearer, the source of supreme power. There is not a word about the rights of the people to govern the state, even to their minimal involvement in the independent administration of state affairs. In the political sphere, the people should be a passive mass, transformed by all kinds of manipulations on the part of sovereigns into a convenient and obedient object of state power. The “Sovereign” says little about the activities of the ruler, addressed directly to the needs and interests of the governed themselves (the people, the nobility, the army, etc.). In relation to the governed, Machiavelli advises the sovereign to act mainly in the guise of a guardian of the people. At the same time, the ruler should be convinced that the nobility are ambitious, and the people are an unbridled mass. He should remember well that there is nothing in the world but the mob, which is seduced by external effects and success. A skillful sovereign is engaged in establishing order in the country (city), excluding the commission of crimes by officials and private individuals. He protects his subjects from the robbery of officials, and provides the offended with the opportunity to appeal to his (the sovereign’s) court. A bad ruler is one who does not so much look after his subjects as rob them, who does not look for ways to pacify them. By ensuring peace in the country, the sovereign thereby increases the authority of the supreme (i.e., his) power.
The range of benefits coming from the state to its subjects is narrow: military and police security measures (ensuring external security, eliminating internal disorder), patronage of crafts, agriculture and trade - that’s almost all. In this set, for example, there is no place for such a benefit as providing subjects with guaranteed rights and freedoms, especially political ones. “The Sovereign” generally takes a position of silence on this matter. It is not accidental.
Where people's lives are directed by order, where they are commanded, there is only trouble with the rights and freedoms of those under their control. In addition, Machiavelli himself is inclined to believe that subjects are not very interested in possessing such rights and freedoms. People are not concerned about their absence, but primarily about the ability to keep their property intact. They are able, Machiavelli thinks, to come to terms with the loss of freedom, prestige, power (influence), but they will never forgive anyone for the loss of property.
While taking care of his subjects, refraining (in the absence of extraordinary circumstances) from “oppressing” the people, the sovereign simultaneously needs to perform all his actions addressed to his subjects and designed for their perception precisely as a benefit. Usually people do not hope to receive anything useful or good for themselves from the state. Therefore, when they see “good from those from whom they expected evil, they become especially attached to the benefactors.” Unlike insults, which, according to Machiavelli, must be inflicted at once, it is reasonable to provide a benefit in small portions so that it lasts longer and so that the subjects feel it as fully and better as possible.
Machiavelli is well aware that an indispensable condition for the exercise of political power in forms pleasing to the sovereign is the consent of his subjects. He literally implores the ruler not to incur their antipathy under any circumstances: “the contempt and hatred of his subjects is the very thing that the sovereign should fear most.” To win the favor of the people is his task. He must “take measures to ensure that citizens always and under all circumstances have a need for it. If people are alienated from it, then in this case the people also turn out to be doomed - they are plunged into the abyss of anarchy and disorder.
How can we get our subjects to act in accordance with the will of the sovereign and so that his power in the country (city) is exercised normally? According to Machiavelli, such power is exercised normally if the subjects completely obey the sovereign. There are two ways to achieve obedience. The first is love for the sovereign. The second is fear of him. What is more effective and reliable? From Machiavelli’s point of view, it is best, of course, “when they are afraid and love at the same time, but love does not get along well with fear, so if you have to choose, then it is safer to choose “fear” and support it with “the threat of punishment, which cannot be neglected.”
Making a choice in favor of fear as a state that most likely guarantees the state (sovereign) the obedience of his subjects, Machiavelli is guided by one of the main axioms of his political philosophy - the axiom about the primordial, from their asocial, antisocial nature, the depravity of people - selfish and evil. About people in general, the author of “The Prince” is convinced, “one can say that they are ungrateful and fickle, prone to hypocrisy and deception, that they are scared away by danger and attracted by profit.” A century later, the Machiavellian idea of the asocial essence of man would be adopted and developed by T. Hobbes.
In “The Prince”, from the threat of punishment, which maintains people’s fear of the state, to the punishment itself, the distance is almost imperceptible. The ruler, in order to force his subjects to meekly obey him, must not neglect the most severe, merciless punishments. Cruelty is acceptable not only in war, but also in peacetime.
The humanistic spirit of the Renaissance, as inherited by the European 16th century, barely touched the “Sovereign”. This work is dominated, as we already know, by no means by extolling the high dignity of the human person, who creates and creates himself. There is no apology in it for free will directed towards goodness and the common good; there is no discussion about an individual’s calling to civil and moral activity in the field of politics. The focus of this Machiavellian work is the ideal ruler and the technology of his rule. The prototype of such a ruler is Caesar Borgia (Cesare Borgia) - a truly satanic villain, in whom the author wanted to see a great statesman, the unifier of Italy.
The noted discord between Machiavelli and humanism does not stem from the peculiar personal likes and dislikes of the Florentine. The deep sources of this dissonance lie in the tragic discrepancy (and often in open conflict) of two qualitatively different dimensions, two different ways of social being: ethical and political. Each of them has its own criteria: “good” - “evil” for the first, “benefit” - “harm” (“win” - “loss”) for the second. Machiavelli's merit is that he sharpened to the limit and fearlessly expressed this objectively existing relationship between politics and morality.
3. Political and legal doctrines of the Reformation.M. Luther, J. Calvin
In the first half of the 16th century. In Western and Central Europe, a broad social movement developed, anti-feudal in its socio-economic and political essence, religious (anti-Catholic) in its ideological form. Since the immediate goals of this movement were to “correct” the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, transform the church organization, and restructure the relationship between church and state, it came to be called the Reformation. The main center of the European Reformation was Germany.
Supporters of the Reformation were divided into two camps. In one, the propertied elements of the opposition gathered - the mass of the lower nobility, the burghers, part of the secular princes, who hoped to enrich themselves through the confiscation of church property and sought to use the opportunity to win greater independence from the empire. All these elements, among which the burghers set the tone, wanted the implementation of fairly modest, moderate reforms. In another camp, the masses united: peasants and plebeians. They put forward far-reaching demands and fought for a revolutionary reorganization of the world on the basis of social justice.
The participation of such diverse social forces in the reform movement naturally determined the presence in it of very different political programs, ideas about the state, law, and law. However, these programs also contained general ideas characteristic of the entire Reformation. For example, all supporters of the Reformation recognized the Holy Scripture as the only source of religious truth and rejected the Catholic Holy Tradition. They agreed that the laity should be “justified by faith alone” without the mediating role of the clergy in the “salvation” of the believer. They all wanted a radical simplification and democratization of the church structure, condemned the church’s pursuit of earthly riches, were against its dependence on the Roman Curia, etc.
The German theologian Martin Luther (1483-1546) stood at the origins of the Reformation and was the largest ideologist of its burgher wing. It was he who formulated those religious and political slogans that initially inspired and united almost all the champions of the Reformation in Germany.
In order to correctly understand the system of Luther’s political and legal views, it is necessary, firstly, to take into account that by the mid-20s. XVI century he sharply opposed the peasant-plebeian, revolutionary camp of the Reformation; secondly, to distinguish what in Luther’s judgments is directly related to the topic of the day from what contains a deep theoretical meaning; thirdly, to distinguish between the goals subjectively pursued by Luther himself and the historical role that the ideas he expressed objectively played.
One of the starting points of Luther's teaching is the thesis that salvation is achieved solely by faith. Each believer is justified by it personally before God, becoming here, as it were, his own priest and, as a result, no longer needing the services of the Catholic Church (the idea of “everyone is the priesthood”). Only to God - the most perfect being - are people obliged (from popes and princes to the last peasant and plebeian) to obey slavishly, to serve loyally. Compared to God, absolutely all mortals are insignificant. None of the people has superiority over their own kind: the clergy is no different from the laity, all classes are the same. This interpretation by Luther of the fundamental principles of Christianity in the conditions of the Reformation was in fact perhaps the first early bourgeois version of the principle of equality.
The opportunity for believers to be internally religious and to lead a truly Christian lifestyle is ensured, according to Luther, by the worldly order. The effectiveness of this order is ensured by the support of the institutions of secular power (state, laws) on natural rather than divine law. Being ultimately derived from the will of God, natural law, nevertheless, represents a qualitatively different phenomenon than divine law. Natural law allows secular power, which relies on it, to control only the external behavior of people, property, and things. The freedom of the soul, the area of faith, the inner world of man are, according to Luther, outside the jurisdiction of the state, outside the scope of its laws.
In his concept of the state, Luther provided - and this is very important for understanding its theoretical significance - that in the sphere of natural law, within the boundaries of the worldly relations of secular power, one should be guided by practical expediency, real interests determined by human reason." Rules expediently, controls wisely is the prince (monarch) who uses power not as
privilege, but sends it off as a burden laid upon him by God. In general, a Christian “governor should consider himself a servant, and not the master of the people.” Luther, however, was extremely far from preaching the need for a democratic reorganization of the then German statehood. He instructed his subjects to be obedient to the monarchs, not to rebel against the authorities and humbly to endure the injustices caused by them.
Luther's system of political and legal views is riddled with contradictions. The idea of strengthening the role of secular power, its independence from the papacy, which was a cosmopolitan institution, “worked” to establish regional princely absolutism. Thoughts about the monarch as the highest leader of the national church, about the clergy as a special class called to serve the state, the sanctification of secular power by religious authority - all this contributed to the implantation of the cult of the state; superstitious faith in the state for a long time became a characteristic feature of the dominant political consciousness in Germany. The internal religiosity that Luther advocated did not imply any serious change in the socio-political system of that time: there was no need to abolish the exploitation of peasants by feudal lords, eliminate absolutist regimes, eliminate the spiritual enslavement of believers, etc.
In general, the evolution of Luther’s activities and teachings occurred in such a way that elements of burgher narrow-mindedness, narrow-class political utilitarianism, and religious fanaticism grew in them, which significantly hampered the further development of the Reformation.
Among the most prominent ideologists and influential figures of the Reformation was John Calvin (1509-1564). Having settled in Switzerland, he published there the theological treatise “Instruction in the Christian Faith” (1536). The core of Calvin's work is the dogma of divine predestination. According to Calvin, God firmly determined in advance some people to salvation and bliss, others to destruction. People are powerless to change the will of God, but they can guess about it by how their life on earth develops. If their professional activity (predetermined by God) is successful, if they are pious and virtuous, hardworking and obedient to the authorities (established by God), then God favors them.
From the dogma of absolute divine predestination, for a true Calvinist, stemmed, first of all, the duty to devote himself entirely to his profession, to be the most thrifty and zealous owner, to despise pleasures and wastefulness. From this dogma it also followed that the nobility of origin and class privileges of feudal lords are not at all so important, since they do not determine the chosenness and salvation of a person. Thus, Calvin was able to give, through specific religious means, a powerful impetus to the process of formation of bourgeois socio-economic practice and spiritual atmosphere in Western Europe.
Calvin's radical reform of the structure of the church also bore a bourgeois character. Church communities began to be headed by elders (presbyters), usually elected from the richest laymen, and preachers who did not have a special priestly rank, who performed religious functions as official duties. The elders, together with the preachers, formed a consistory that was in charge of the entire religious life of the community. The idea of such a reorganization of the church, perceived in the teachings of politics, in its further development became the conceptual basis for the development of republican and even republican-democratic programs.
Calvin himself, however, was very circumspect in matters of state. Condemning the feudal-monarchical circles for the violence, arbitrariness, and lawlessness they committed and predicting God's punishment for the rulers for this, the instrument of which could be their own subjects, he at the same time declared all power to be divine. Calvin recognized the right to resist tyranny only for government bodies subordinate to the sovereign, the church, and representative institutions. Open disobedience and the overthrow of the tyrant are permissible, in his opinion, only when all methods of passive resistance have been used and all legal forms of struggle have been exhausted. For Calvin, the “worst form of government” was democracy. He gave preference to the oligarchic organization of government.
A distinctive feature of the Calvinist doctrine is its religious intolerance towards any other views and attitudes, especially towards peasant-plebeian heresies. The ominous severity of the doctrine was complemented and completed by the no less ferocious political practice of Calvin, who in 1541 - 1564. led the Geneva Consistory. This consistory actually subjugated the city magistrate. The townspeople were under surveillance, almost all aspects of public life were subject to comprehensive regulation, severe punishments were imposed for the slightest violation of prescribed norms, and executions of those considered heretics became common.
The conquest of political and legal thought, which realistically comprehends the world of state and law, was the conclusion formulated in the era of the Reformation that freedom of thought and conscience is a prerequisite and an obligatory feature of an anti-despotic, democratically organized human community. M. Luther said: “Neither the pope, nor the bishop, nor any person has the right to establish even a single letter over a Christian, unless there is his own consent.” This idea of the unconditional necessity of an individual’s “own agreement” with the way of thinking prescribed to him “from above” in its social implications has gone far beyond the sphere of religious and moral relations. Applied to the analysis and assessment of political reality, it played a beneficial, revolutionary role both in social history itself and in the science of state and law.
List of used literature
1. History of political and legal doctrines: Textbook / Ed. V.G. Grafsky. - M.: TK Velby, 2005.
2. History of political and legal doctrines: a textbook for universities / Ed. O.E. Leista. - M.: ICD “Zertsalo-M”, 2004.
3. History of political and legal doctrines / Ed. M.N. Marchenko and I.F. Machina. - M.: Higher Education, 2005.
4. History of political and legal doctrines. A manual for universities / Ed. A.N. Khoroshilova. - M.: Unity-Dana, 2004
Similar documents
Political thought of the East, Ancient Greece and Rome. Political thought of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Political teachings of the New Time. Development of political ideas at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The main directions of development of Russian political thought.
abstract, added 01/08/2006
Understanding the nature of power and control during the Renaissance and Reformation. "The Prince" by Nicolo Machiavelli - the beginning of a new political science. Political and legal ideas of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Sociological theories of Thomas More and Tomaso Companella.
test, added 10/19/2010
Political thought of the East, Ancient Greece and Rome. Political thought of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, New Time. Development of political ideas at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Directions of development of Russian political thought. development of Russian politics
abstract, added 08/21/2006
Political and legal ideas of antiquity. Political thought of modern times and the Renaissance. Marxist concept of social development. Radical revolutionary concept of Jean Jacques Rousseau. The contribution of Weber and Pareto to the development of modern Western political science.
test, added 12/26/2010
The genesis of political thought in the Ancient World. The thinker of Ancient China Confucius. Political ideas of Plato of Athens. Political thought of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. N. Machiavelli. Dutch thinker G. Grotius. Political teachings of the New Time.
abstract, added 06/05/2008
Political ideas of the Reformation and Renaissance. Origins and ideology of the Reformation, its founders and development. The significance of Calvinist ideology in history. The New Science of Politics N. Machiavelli. Ideas of European socialism of the 16th-17th centuries, the meaning of the Enlightenment.
test, added 10/20/2009
The main directions of development of political science in the 14th-16th centuries. Political and legal thought of the Ancient East, European Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation. Proponents of biopolitics who studied the relationship between the political sphere and human instincts.
abstract, added 01/21/2011
Brief biography of N. Machiavelli and general ideas. His contribution to the history of social thought. Niccolo Machiavelli as one of the outstanding Italian philosophers. The essence of the principle of relativity of control. Features of Machiavelli's teaching on state power.
abstract, added 10/16/2013
Political ideas of the ancient world and the Middle Ages. Political thought of the Renaissance and the period of bourgeois revolutions. The main directions of modern political science, their development. Development of political thought in Russia in the 9th-20th centuries. Political thought of Belarus.
test, added 01/14/2009
Political thought of the East. Political ideas of Ancient Greece and Rome. Political thought of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Political teachings of the New Age. Sociology of political thought. The essence and content of the policy. The concept of "political elite".
The Renaissance period (XIV-XVI centuries) was characterized by the decomposition of feudalism and the emergence of capitalism in Europe, which led to the development of technology, secular (humanities) sciences, cities, and art trade. In contrast to the ideology of medieval asceticism (renunciation of earthly joys in the name of heavenly life in the afterlife), the ideologists of the emerging bourgeois class defended humanistic (human) values: the desire for earthly well-being, the human right to free development and manifestation of creative abilities, etc. Humanism revived interest in ancient antiquity, when human nature was not interpreted as the focus of sinfulness, as it seemed to the religious scholastics of the Middle Ages.
The birthplace of the Renaissance, or Renaissance, was Italy. Here, along with the development of secular literature and art, political thought was also formed, defending the interests of the bourgeoisie and the new social system. One of the first representatives of the emerging bourgeois political science was Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). In the essay “The Prince” and other books, he contrasted the theological (religious) concept with the theory of a secular (non-religious) state, the emergence of which was determined by the need to curb the egoistic nature of man, his inherent desire for power and property, hatred, malice and deceit. One of the main functions of the state is to protect private property. The ruler must avoid encroaching on the property of his subjects, for this will inevitably arouse their hatred. Machiavelli first draws attention to the political subjectivity of the people, i.e. on his ability to influence the authorities, considering him more honest and reasonable than the sovereign. In his opinion, people are often mistaken in general matters, but much less often in private ones.
The thinker considered a republic to be the best form of government. It is in it that order and freedom, a combination of general and private interests, can be ensured. But if the people are not ready for such a form of government, then a state with a strong government must instill in them a republican spirit.
To achieve this goal, he considered all methods suitable, including immoral ones: bribery, violence, deception, murder. A ruler will always be justified if the results of his policies turn out to be good. Using immoral methods of government, the sovereign must strive to do good, hiding behind moral and religious virtues. According to Machiavelli, a ruler pursuing the goal of creating a strong centralized state must combine the qualities of a lion and a fox. The lion is afraid of traps, and the fox is afraid of wolves. Consequently, the sovereign must be like a lion in order to scare away wolves, and like a fox in order to be able to avoid traps. Subsequently, immoral politics began to be called “Machiavellianism.” Many statesmen and politicians in various countries used Machiavelli's recommendations in their political activities.
Simultaneously with political teachings defending private property and the state, which guards the interests of the exploiting classes, publications began to appear in Western Europe condemning this property and the exploitation of man by man that it generated, criticizing the emerging capitalist system. The first such work was the work of the Englishman Thomas More (1478 - 1535) "Utopia". Published in 1516, it essentially marked the beginning of a new ideological and political movement - utopian socialism.
The book attempts to establish a connection between the state and the interests of the exploiting classes, who use it for their own personal gain. The author contrasted the then existing state with the government structure of the fictional island of Utopia, which was democratic in nature, implying the election of officials. The main functions of the state constructed by More were the management of the national economy and education, the organization of production and distribution, T. More and other representatives of the early period of utopian socialism (XVI-XVIII centuries), in particular T. Campanella, J. Meslier, Morelli, G. Mably proposed to replace private property, in which they saw the source of all ills, with public property and to form a society with rough egalitarianism, asceticism and regulation of the social and even family life of people.
In the first half of the 16th century. In Western and Central Europe, a broad social movement developed, anti-feudal in its socio-economic and political essence, religious (anti-Catholic) in its ideological form. Since the immediate goals of this movement were the “correction” of the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the transformation of church organization, and the restructuring of the relationship between church and state, it came to be called the Reformation. The main center of the European Reformation was Germany.
Supporters of the Reformation were divided into two camps. In one, the propertied elements of the opposition gathered - the mass of the lower nobility, the burghers, part of the secular princes, who hoped to enrich themselves through the confiscation of church property and sought to use the opportunity to win greater independence from the empire. All these elements, among which the burghers set the tone, wanted the implementation of fairly modest, moderate reforms. In another camp, the masses united: peasants and plebeians. They put forward far-reaching demands and fought for a revolutionary reorganization of the world on the basis of social justice.
The participation of such diverse social forces in the reform movement naturally determined the presence in it of very different political programs, ideas about the state, law, and law. Nevertheless, these programs also contained general ideas characteristic of the entire Reformation. For example, all supporters of the Reformation recognized the Holy Scripture as the only source of religious truth and rejected the Catholic Holy Tradition. They agreed that the laity should be “justified by faith alone” without the mediating role of the clergy in the “salvation” of the believer. All of them wanted a radical simplification and democratization of the church structure, condemned the church’s pursuit of earthly riches, were against its dependence on the Roman Curia, etc. The German theologian Martin Luther (1483-1546) stood at the origins of the Reformation and was the largest ideologist of its burgher wing. . It was he who formulated those religious and political slogans that initially inspired and united almost all the champions of the Reformation in Germany.
One of the starting points of Luther's teaching is the thesis that salvation is achieved solely by faith. The opportunity for believers to be internally religious and to lead a truly Christian lifestyle is ensured, according to M. Luther, by the worldly order. The effectiveness of this order is ensured by the support of the institutions of secular power (state, laws) on natural rather than divine law.
In his concept of the state, M. Luther provided that in the sphere of natural law, within the boundaries of worldly relations, secular power should be guided by practical expediency, real interests determined by the human mind. The prince (monarch) who rules expediently, rules wisely, does not use power as a privilege, but sends it as a burden placed on him by God.
In general, the evolution of M. Luther’s activities and teachings occurred in such a way that elements of burgher narrow-mindedness, narrow-class political utilitarianism and religious fanaticism grew in them, which significantly hampered the further development of the Reformation.
The peasant-plebeian camp, which was led by Thomas Münzer (c. 1490-1525), turned the reformation movement into an open, uncompromising struggle against all exploitative orders, social inequality, the power of princes, and the dominance of the church. The peak of this revolutionary struggle was the Peasant War in Germany (1524-1526).
T. Münzer was a realistically thinking revolutionary leader and did not predetermine in detail the forms of government, principles of governance, etc. in a society where ordinary working people would indeed be the source and subject of political power. In the views of T. Münzer there are the beginnings of republican ideas; to a certain extent, these ideas go back to the corresponding ideas of the Taborites. He clearly formulated the requirement to ensure the protection of the foundations of the state, the determination of the directions of state policy and constant control over it exclusively by the masses themselves. This clearly expressed the democratism of Münzer’s program.
Among the most prominent ideologists and influential figures of the Reformation was John Calvin (1509-1564).
The radical reform of the structure of the church carried out by J. Calvin was pro-bourgeois in nature. Church communities began to be headed by elders (presbyters), usually elected from the richest laymen, and preachers who did not have a special priestly rank, who performed religious functions as official duties. The elders, together with the preachers, formed a consistory that was in charge of the entire religious life of the community. The idea of such a reorganization of the church, perceived in the teachings of politics, in its further development became the conceptual basis for the development of republican and even republican-democratic programs.
Calvinist ideology played a significant role in history. She significantly contributed to the accomplishment of the first bourgeois revolution in Western Europe - the revolution in the Netherlands and the establishment of a republic in this country. On its basis, republican parties arose in England, and primarily in Scotland. Together with other ideological trends of the Reformation, Calvinism prepared the “mental material” on the basis of which in the 17th-18th centuries. a classic political and legal worldview of the bourgeoisie emerged.
Plan
- Revival: concept and characteristic features
- Political and legal views of Nicolo Machiavelli
- Reformation: concept and characteristic features
- Lutheranism. Ideas of Martin Luther
- Calvinism. John Calvin
- Thomas Munzer and his views
- Current of Monarchomachus, or Tyrannoclasts
- J. Bodin's doctrine of the state
- Utopianism of T. More and T. Campanella
- Revival: concept and characteristic features
Renaissance, Renaissance (14-16 centuries) - a period of spiritual, cultural and political-legal transformation of Western Europe. Chronologically, it crowned the dark years of the late Middle Ages, and in the political and legal sense it was the forerunner of the New Age. This was a period of great achievements in science and art, great geographical discoveries. Europe is rediscovering antiquity with its cult of man, thirst and glorification of life. The man seemed to be awakening and being reborn. The figures of Renaissance culture saw their immediate task in turning to the spiritual heritage of pagan and Christian antiquity: increasing attention to the problems of politics, state and law. Strong monarchies are beginning to emerge in a number of countries. In the process of overcoming feudal fragmentation, large feudal lords are deprived of their former power, and the political authority of the Catholic Church, which until then was the real and only unifying force of Western Europe, is falling. At the same time, the actions of social forces fighting against feudalism and the church continue to be largely determined by the religious worldview.
1. Political and legal views of Nicolo Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli(1469-1527). Born into a lawyer's family, he received a good education and knew Latin and Greek. As a resident of Florence, he also experienced its fate: first the power of the Medici merchant family, then their expulsion and the proclamation of a republican constitution led by the Dominican monk Savonarola, then the period of an enlightened secular republic. In 1498-1512 Machiavelli served as secretary of the Council of Ten and carried out diplomatic assignments. In 1512, after the restoration of the tyranny of the Medici family in Florence, he was imprisoned as an employee of the previous regime, then released and sent to the village, where he died in 1527. The last period of Machiavelli’s life was engaged in literary activities. He wrote his most famous work, The Prince, around 1514.
Main works:“Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livy”, “The Prince”, “History of Florence”, “On the art of war”. He also wrote sonnets, short stories, carnival songs, and the comedy “Mandrake.”
State. Machiavelli distinguishes between the concepts of “state” and “society”. The state is a political state of society, expressing the relationship between rulers and subjects, based on the love and fear of the latter. At the same time, fear should not develop into hatred. The purpose of the state and the basis of its strength is the security of the individual and the inviolability of property.
Origin of the state. Reproduces the ideas of ancient authors about the emergence of the state. People lived, multiplied, then united, chose the bravest and began to obey him. Living together, they realized what was good and bad, in accordance with this, laws were established, justice appeared, i.e. we can talk about the emergence of contract theory.
Forms of government. The thinker identifies six forms of state, traditionally dividing them into correct (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) and incorrect (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy). According to N. Machiavelli, having reached the limit of perfection, the form of the state tends to decline, turning into its opposite. Monarchy is replaced by tyranny, tyranny by aristocracy, aristocracy gives way to oligarchy, and is replaced by democracy, which develops into ochlocracy. He considers the best form to be a mixed one, a moderate republic - a combination of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.
The relationship between politics and morality. N. Machiavelli is considered the founder of political science. It was he who determined the subject, method and laws of politics. He saw the task of politics as identifying: patterns of development of various forms of state; factors of their sustainability; their connection with the balance of political forces; conditionality of policy by economic, military, geographical, psychological factors. Machiavelli separates politics and law from morality on the basis that if morality operates with such concepts as good and evil, then politics is benefit and harm, morality is the sphere of the eternal, and politics and law are the sphere of everyday interests. Policy should not be based on moral principles, but should be based on expediency and a specific situation. It is subordinated to the achievement of certain goals, the choice of which depends on circumstances, and not on morality. Therefore, the actions of rulers must be assessed not from a moral point of view, but only by their results, in relation to the good of the state. Later, the policy based on the cult of violence and immorality was called « Machiavellianism» .
Right. N. Machiavelli attached great importance to law and legislation, repeatedly emphasizing that thanks to the laws created by Lycurgus, Sparta existed for 800 years. He connected the inviolability of laws with ensuring public safety. Law is force, it is a way and means of domination of one group of people over another, it is an instrument of power, which is served by “good laws and a good army.”
Religion. Considers religion as one of the means of controlling people, considering it an important means of politics. That is why, N. Machiavelli believed, all the founders of states and wise legislators referred to the will of the gods. However, he did not approve of contemporary Christianity, condemned the Catholic Church and the clergy, and considered it necessary to return to ancient religion, which was entirely subordinate to political goals. Note that the Roman Catholic Church in 1559 introduced the works of Machiavelli into « Banned Books Index» .
The works of N. Machiavelli had a huge influence not only on the subsequent development of political and legal theory (his provisions were adopted by Spinoza and Rousseau), but also on the real policies of a number of statesmen (Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin).
3. Reformation: concept and characteristic features
Reformation (from Latin perestroika) is a complex religious and social movement, a struggle against the comprehensive dominance of the Catholic Church in the spiritual, political and economic fields. In a narrower sense, the Reformation is a religious transformation aimed at freeing believers from the daily tutelage of the church. The ideologists of the Reformation, with all their differences, agreed on one thing: a person does not need the mediation of the church to save his soul, that the guarantee of salvation is not in the external manifestation of religiosity, but in faith. The reformers proclaimed the Holy Scripture to be the only source of faith. During the Reformation, new Christian denominations arose that still exist today. Reformation and its trends - Lutheranism, Calvinism (by the names of ideological leaders) prepared the moral and legal ground for bourgeois revolutions and significantly influenced political and legal doctrines. The beginning of the Reformation is associated with the speech of M. Luther in Wittenberg (Germany): on October 31, 1517, he nailed his “95 Theses” to the church doors, in which he spoke out against the existing abuses of the Catholic Church, in particular, against the sale of indulgences. On the basis of his teachings, a powerful reform social movement was formed, which was not limited to Germany, but spread to other countries of Western and Central Europe. The end of the Reformation can be considered the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which marked the end of the Thirty Years' War, and as a result of which the religious factor ceased to play an important role in European politics.
4. Lutheranism. Ideas of Martin Luther
Martin Luther(1483-1546) was born in Saxony, graduated from the university, and received a master's degree in theology in 1512. In 1517 Luther published the previously mentioned 95 theses on indulgences. By 1519, he radically disagreed with the Catholic Church and formulated his position in programmatic works, which, thanks to the development of printing, became widely known. In 1521, he rejected demands to renounce his teachings, for which he was condemned by the emperor as a heretic, and a year earlier the pope excommunicated him from the church. During the Peasants' War (1524-1526), Luther not only did not support the uprising, but also sharply condemned it, calling on the authorities to suppress it. In the last years of his life he was seriously ill and died in 1546.
Main works:“Towards the Christian nobility of the German nation”, “On secular power”, “On the slave will”, “On the Babylonian captivity of the church”, “On the freedom of a Christian”.
The relationship between spiritual and secular power. In his main religious and political work “On Secular Power. To what extent should it be obeyed? (1523) Luther developed the doctrine of “two orders” - spiritual and secular and, accordingly, of two systems of law - divine and natural. This concept itself was not new; it was formulated in the work of A. Aurelius “On the City of God.” Distinguishing between the religious and secular spheres, Luther believed that the religious sphere is outside the jurisdiction of the state, and secular power is engaged in economics, politics, and education of the people, and has no right to impose any worldview on a person.
State. M. Luther believed that the state is a creation of reason, and the activities of the Christian state cannot diverge from the interests of the Christian church. The need for the state is due to the sinful nature of man. If human society consisted exclusively of true Christians, this would mean there was no need for a state, laws, or punishments. But since the Christian world is far from this, the need for a state arises. At the same time, the institutions of state power are sanctified by divine authority, therefore subjects do not have the right to resist the authorities.
Right. Divides law into divine and natural. Secular order is achieved through the reliance of the institutions of secular power on natural rather than divine law (although natural is ultimately derived from the will of God). Officials are obliged to be guided in their activities by the norms of natural law. With this statement, M. Luther not only freed secular power from the church, but also secular (civil) law from the tutelage of canon law. However, he warned that secular law cannot take into account the whole variety of social conflicts, and therefore should not be elevated to an absolute. Natural law allows secular power to control only the external behavior of people, property and things.
5. Calvinism. John Calvin
In the 40s of the 16th century. In Geneva, a new radical Protestant movement is born - Calvinism. Calvinism - one of the main trends Protestantism , named after its founder J. Calvin. The most important dogmatic position of Calvinism is the doctrine of absolute predestination, according to which God initially, even before the Fall of man and even before the creation of the world, predestined some people to salvation, others to eternal torment in hell. At the same time, faith and a pious life are not the basis for salvation, but are only a sign of a person’s chosenness. A person’s chosenness is manifested in successful worldly, professional activities. The Protestant ethic is clearly expressed: the cult of hard work, enterprise, business honesty, personal asceticism. Calvinism became widespread in France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, a number of regions of Germany, Scotland, England, Hungary, etc.
John Calvin (Jean Coven)(1509-1564) was born in France into the family of a bishop's secretary. He studied at college in Paris, initially preparing for a career as a clergyman; later, at the insistence of his father, he received a law degree at the university. In 1531, having completed his studies, he received the degree of licentiate in law. Under the influence of the ideas of M. Luther, in 1533 he renounced Catholicism and created a community of his followers. Persecuted by the church, he left France in 1534 and moved to Basel and then Geneva. It was Geneva that became the place where Calvin's reformist views found practical application. Since 1541 he has been virtually the dictator of Geneva. Although Calvin never wielded secular power, the city gradually became subject to a harsh regime of dominance by the reformed church, beginning a theocratic dictatorship. Calvin also held a professorship in theology (from 1559) at the Academy founded on his initiative (now the University of Geneva). At the end of 1562 his health deteriorated sharply, and in 1564 he died.
Main works: " Instructions in the Christian Faith", "Church Establishments", etc.
The relationship between state and church. Calvin develops Luther's ideas about the "two orders." The two powers are united into a single whole under the dominance of the church. Calvin believed that cooperation between ecclesiastical and secular authorities was necessary. The state was established by God, therefore a protest against power, even the toughest, is “insolence against God’s will.” But still, he recognized the right of his subjects to passively resist authorities that violate God’s regulations.
State form . According to Calvin, the state can have any form if it is established by God. Of the political regimes, he considered the democratic to be the worst, and the aristocratic or oligarchic to be the best. The reformer considered the optimal form of organization of political power to be an aristocratic republic, which is in many ways similar to the model of a self-governing religious community, which was the basis for the structure of the Protestant community in Geneva.
Implementation of the ideas of J. Calvin. Calvin began to implement his ideas after coming to power in Geneva, giving religious institutions the force of state law. The city was divided into quarters. Believers were united into communities led by presbyters (elders) of laymen and preachers who received appropriate training, but did not have rank. They formed a consistory that governed the religious life of the community. The elders were charged with the duty of monitoring compliance with moral standards and strictly punishing violators. The punishment was expulsion from the city and execution. Church sacraments, except baptism and communion, and church holidays were abolished, and decorations and utensils were removed from churches.
6. Thomas Munzer and his views
Thomas Munzer(c. 1493-1525) German revolutionary. He belonged to the most educated people of his time. Münzer became a pastor in Uteborg at the insistence of Martin Luther and was distinguished by brilliant oratorical abilities, but at the same time he relied too much on personal revelation, which he always accepted as the voice of the Holy Spirit. Later, as a pastor in the city of Zwickau, Münzer and three prophets from that city, two of whom were weavers, insisted on more drastic reforms, that is, the removal of icons, the abandonment of the old Eucharist, and even the abandonment of the baptism of children.
In 1523, Münzer became a pastor in Alstedt (Thuringia), and then in Mühlhausen, after which, because of his convictions, he left the pulpit and led an uprising known in Marxist and Soviet historiography as the Peasants' War in Germany. He believed that he was in direct communication with God, and God was speaking His word into the interior of his soul. The Peasants' War, which engulfed most of Austria and Central and Southern Germany, resulted in numerous casualties and, having seriously undermined the authority of Protestantism, ended in complete defeat. Münzer himself was captured in 1525, tortured and then executed.
Main works:"Prague Manifesto", "Exposing the false faith of a godless world."
The relationship between state and church: T. Munzer formulated a bold radical program. Giving his teaching a religious, theological form, he essentially criticized not only the Roman Church, but also the dogmas of the Christian faith. He considered it wrong to contrast faith and reason, believing that faith is nothing more than the awakening of reason in a person. He refused to acknowledge belief in the other world, in hell, in the devil, in the magical meaning of communion, in the condemnation of sinners. Christ, in his opinion, was a man, not a god, he was simply a prophet and teacher.
T. Müntzer considered man as a part of the divine universe and preached the most complete possible unity of him with the divine whole. For this, he demanded the suppression of all personal inclinations of a person and the subordination of the individual to the interests of society.
State: T. Müntzer demanded the immediate establishment of the kingdom of God on earth by returning the church to its original state and eliminating all institutions that were in conflict with this early Christian, in reality a completely new church. But by the kingdom of God, T. Müntzer understood nothing more than a social system in which there would no longer exist any class differences, no private property, no separate state power opposing members of society and alien to them. All existing authorities, if they do not submit to the revolution and do not join it, must be overthrown; all trades and property become common, the most complete equality is established.
To implement this program, T. Munzer considered it necessary to found an alliance and believed that princes and gentlemen should be invited to join this alliance. If they do not want this, he called for them to attack them with weapons in their hands and kill them all.
7. Current of Monarchomachus, or Tyrannoclasts
In France they are deployed in the 16th century. “religious” (Huguenot) wars between Catholics and Huguenots (Calvinists) - the noble opposition to the king.
The political thought of the Calvinists, justifying open action against the crown, developed the doctrine of the right to resist tyrants. There is a current of so-called Monarchomachs, or tyrant fighters.
Among the followers of J. Calvin, the idea of resistance to the king grows into a whole theory, passionately and persistently developed in a number of pamphlets and treatises, most of which were written in France during the years of the “religious” wars of the 16th century. In these works, the authors, trying to justify the right to resist tyrants, most often put forward the ideas of popular sovereignty and the contractual origin of power.
From these ideas, the “tyrant fighters” draw a conclusion about the right of resistance to the king, which they attribute, however, not to the masses, but to officials - representatives of the estates. Their teaching represents the theory of the “third estate” and to a certain extent is an anticipation of the later natural law ideology, although it mainly still reflects the theory and practice of an estate-representative monarchy.
The very doctrine of the contractual origin of state power reflects medieval ideas about the feudal agreement between lords and vassals.
The theories of the Monarchomachians also resurrect the distinction between monarch and tyrant put forward by Aristotle.
One of the French jurists of the 16th century is one of the writers of this trend. Francis Gottman.
In his essay “Franco-Gaul,” F. Gottman, relying on historical data, tries to prove that royal power in France has been limited since ancient times and the people have always elected and deposed their kings. He concludes that supremacy belongs to the people in France and that there is no basis for unlimited royal power, and therefore speaks out in favor of maintaining the Estates General, which from the end of the 15th century. in the conditions of emerging absolutism, they were rarely convened.
Thus, when speaking about the people, F. Gottman does not mean the true people, but only those relatively limited circles of society that were represented in the Estates General.
Not content with historical arguments, F. Gottman defends the estate monarchy as the embodiment of a mixed form of government, which combines three principles - monarchical, aristocratic and democratic - and tries to substantiate the advantages of this form, following in this regard Aristotle, Polybius, Thomas Aquinas. Having a negative attitude towards royal absolutism, he opposes such a state form in which everything depends on the arbitrariness of one person and where, as he puts it, the people do not have the right to form assemblies and through them participate in government.
F. Gottman's book was a great success among his contemporaries and retained its influence on minds until the very beginning of the 18th century.
The pamphlet also belongs to the literature of the “tyrant fighters” Etienne de La Boesi(1530-1563) “Discourse on voluntary slavery,” containing a protest against the despotism of royal power.
In this work, the author brands the monarchy as tyranny, incompatible with the natural freedom and natural equality of people. He complains that the people have forgotten about their freedom, and speaks with indignation about the voluntary submission of an endless number of people to the tyranny that enslaves and oppresses them. E. de La Boesie states that if people really wanted freedom, they would acquire it.
It was a bold, fiery protest of the ideologist of the bourgeoisie against the feudal absolutist monarchy.
It is characteristic that the ideas of the contractual origin of the state and popular supremacy can also be found in some of the teachings of the Jesuits, the closest opponents of the Reformation.
8. J. Bodin’s doctrine of the state
Protestantism appeared in France in the first half of the 16th century. But this movement became widespread only in the 50s. French Protestants were Calvinists and were called Huguenots. The peculiarity of the French reform movement was that it covered mainly the nobility and townspeople. The religious struggle here acquired the character of resistance to royal absolutism. At the end of the 16th century. In France, there was already a fierce religious confrontation between Calvinists (Huguenots) and Catholics, which eventually took the form of a civil war. A threat to the existence of the state arose. In this situation, the idea that peace could only be ensured by strong royal power became increasingly stronger in the public consciousness. The theoretical justification for this idea was made by Jean Bodin.
Jean Bodin(1530-1596) was born in Angers into a wealthy family. A lawyer by training, from 1559 he was a professor at the university in Toulouse, from 1561 he held judicial positions in Paris, and in 1571 he entered the service of the king's brother, the Duke of Alençon. He was a deputy to the provincials, then in 1576-77 - to the deputies of the Estates General. Since 1584 - Prosecutor General of Lana (a city in northeastern France). Bodin took a compromise position between Catholics and Huguenots, for which he almost paid with his life on St. Bartholomew’s Night. Died of the plague in Lana.
Main works:“The Method of Easy Knowledge of History”, a manual for the Inquisition “Demonomania of Sorcerers”, which replaced the outdated “Moloch of the Witches”, “Six Books on the Republic” - the main work in which he outlined his views on the origin of the state, its functions, and forms of government.
State.
Origin of the state. The state arises independently of the will of God or people, and their forms are influenced by the natural environment - climate, soil, etc. Regarding the origin of the state, Bodin points to three possible ways:
- ordinary(the family gradually turns into a clan, then the elders gain power according to unwritten laws, and later this event is recorded “on paper”);
- social contract(the ideal way when powerful empires are formed from weak clans);
- collapse of large states.
According to Bodin's definition, a state is "the exercise by a sovereign power of the just government of many families and that which is in their common possession."
The main feature of a state is sovereignty. Sovereignty - it is the permanent and absolute power of the state. Sovereignty has five properties:
- Sovereignty is one and indivisible. This means that it cannot be divided, for example, between the king and the people.
- Sovereign power is permanent, i.e. it cannot be transferred temporarily or on other terms to any person.
- Sovereign power is unlimited and above the law, i.e. the sovereign can change any laws at his discretion, but only human ones.
- Sovereign power is subject only to divine and natural laws, not to religious dogma.
- Sovereignty can belong either to one person, or to a minority of the country's population, or to all capable persons.
Form of state. Depending on whose hands sovereignty is concentrated, Boden identifies the following forms of state: democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. Democracy is the worst way to exercise sovereignty, because... people are not able to come to the right decisions. Aristocracy and limited monarchy are unstable forms. The most rational and economical form is the absolute monarchy, which can restore order and unite the country even in times of turmoil.
Right. The obstacle to the transformation of absolute power into arbitrariness is the laws common to all peoples: divine, natural and human. Positive law established by sovereign power must not contradict these laws. His task is to prevent the monarchy from degenerating into tyranny. Law, as an expression of reason, includes norms that determine what is good and fair in the state. By “expression of reason” or “reasonable principle”, or “immutable requirements in law” Boden understood the protection of the right to private property, the right to an individual family, private family life. The “reasonable principle” is embodied in divine and natural law, international law, and the laws of the country, reflecting its historical development.
9. Utopianism of T. More and T. Campanella
The revival of interest in the ancient heritage has increased interest in Plato's work "The Republic". The development of Plato’s ideas about social justice led to the emergence in Europe of a new direction in political and legal thought - utopian socialism . Prominent representatives of the ideas of socialism in that period were Thomas More, who gave this movement its name, and Tommaso Campanella, who developed the ancient ideas of universal equality and adapted them to the realities of their time.
Thomas More(1478-1535). He came from a noble family and was educated at Oxford. At the age of 18 he settled in a monastery, but did not take vows, got married and began practicing law. Soon More, relying on connections with the London merchants, was elected to parliament and appointed Lord Chancellor. He disagreed with Henry VIII when the king, with the consent of parliament and the council of clergy, began the “apex reformation”, declaring himself the head of the Anglican Church. More was removed from office in 1532 and executed in June 1535 on charges of treason. Unlike the humanists of Italy and France, who sharply criticized the papal throne, T. More was a zealous Christian Catholic. Moreover, the Catholic Church canonized him as a saint in the 20th century.
Main work:"The Golden Book, as useful as it is amusing, about the best structure of the state and about the new island of Utopia" better known as "Utopia" (from two Greek words - no and place) was written in 1516 and many ideas in it were borrowed from Plato. “Utopia” was created in the era of great geographical discoveries and in form is a story about the wanderings of Raphael Hythlodeus (translated as “chatter”), who discovered the island of Utopia. The book is divided into two parts: in the first, More criticizes modern society, analyzes the order existing in England, the causes of social injustice and crime. In the second part, More depicts in every detail the social and political system of Utopia.
Utopia is presented as a federation of 54 cities. Control each of them is based on elective principles. Every 30 families are elected for a year Philarcha. At the head of the 10 phylarchs stands protophylarch. The protophylarchs form a senate, headed by a prince, elected by the phylarchs by secret ballot from 4 candidates proposed by the people. All officials are elected for 1 year, with the exception of the prince, who holds his position for life unless suspected of tyranny. Functions of officials: monitoring compliance with laws, organizing and supervising public works. Thus, the executive and judicial powers are combined.
The most important issues - the length of the working day, the quantity of products necessary for society, their distribution - are decided by the people's assembly. It also elects most of the officials and hears their reports.
Form of government is of a mixed nature: the head of state is the prince, and there is also a senate and a people's assembly.
Religion. In Utopia, complete religious tolerance reigns: several cults exist at the same time, there are no restrictions associated with belonging to one religion or another, but atheism is not allowed. And yet, since More himself was a Catholic, the main religion on the island still exists - Catholicism, but rationalized and freed from everything that More considered unnecessary (for example, priests are elected by the people).
Right. Mohr was one of the first to emphasize that the complexity and complexity of modern legislation favors the interests of the rich and is directed against working people. Therefore, in Utopia there are few laws, their wording is so clear that there is no need for lawyers. There is no need for complex legislation also because disputes between residents are rare, because there is no private property and crimes are few.
Punishments. Criminals are not executed, but sentenced to community service. According to More, forced labor is a more humane punishment than the death penalty, which was widespread in his time. Utopians who have committed serious crimes are converted into slavery.
What difficulties lie in the way of building a new society? T. More saw the main obstacle in the greed and pride of the rich. He relied on the power of reason and historical incident.
Tommaso Campanella(1568-1639) was born in Calabria (Southern Italy) in the family of a shoemaker. Before becoming a monk of the Dominican Order (1583), he bore the name Giovanni Domenico. He was first arrested by the Inquisition on charges of heresy in 1594, endured four trials, accompanied by torture, and was released in 1598. In the same year, he took an active part in a conspiracy (he was discovered as a result of denunciation), the purpose of which was the liberation of his homeland of Calabria, from Spanish yoke, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment and spent 27 years in prison. While in captivity, he wrote many books on philosophy, theology, medicine, astrology, mathematics, and politics. Released in 1629, thanks to the intervention of Pope Urban VIII, he left for Paris in 1634, where he lived in poverty in recent years.
Main work:“City of the Sun” was written in prison in 1602, i.e. 100 years after T. More’s “Utopia” and one year with F. Bacon’s “new Atlantis”. Apparently, Campanella was familiar with More’s work - his influence on the author of “City of the Sun” is very noticeable. The story is told on behalf of a traveler who visited this city, located on an island somewhere near the equator.
The City of the Sun is a city-state whose inhabitants lead a “philosophical community lifestyle.” They are characterized by community of property, including wives, and compulsory work (the hardest work is considered the most honorable). Only the scientist-priests who are involved in organizing production, as well as exercising spiritual and political leadership of society, are spared from physical labor.
City management. The City of the Sun is a theocratic republic organized along the lines of a monastic order. The state is governed by the supreme high priest - the Metaphysician (Sun), elected from among the wisest and most learned citizens. In his hands is secular and spiritual power, which he can refuse if, in his opinion, there is someone smarter. He is assisted by three co-rulers - Power, Wisdom and Love, who respectively manage the affairs of war and peace, art and sciences, childbirth, medicine, education and everything that concerns personal life and everyday life. These four are the only ones in the city whose decisions the people do not may have an influence. The remaining officials are elected. Officials are persons in charge of narrow specializations: Supreme Blacksmith, Potter, Cattle Breeder, Agronomist, Educator, etc., who form a board of senior officials. This is the so-called rule of the “knowing”.
Every two weeks, the Grand Council is convened - a meeting of citizens, which is attended by adults who have reached the age of 20. Everyone is given the right to speak out about the shortcomings existing in the state, to participate in the discussion of important issues, including candidates for senior positions.
Right. Having a negative attitude towards the confusing legislation of Italy, Campanella writes that among the solariums the laws are few, brief and clear, their texts are carved at the doors of the temple. Legal proceedings have also been simplified: the process is public, oral, and quick. Punishment comes for cowardice, pride, and negligence. For intentional crimes, the principle of talion applies. Punishments are death, corporal punishment, exile. Since Campanella was subjected to torture and imprisonment, torture is unacceptable in tanning salons and there are no prisons.
Let us note that the societies of Utopians and Solarians are essentially totalitarian police states, where the lives of citizens are strictly regulated and any deviation from the “norm” is strictly persecuted. The population is rationed, food is distributed, there is no private property and money, everyone must dress the same, productive work is required.
Thus, in the projects of ideal states proposed by T. More and T. Campanella, we are not talking about a free society, but about forced equality of citizens.
Educational and methodological literature
- Anthology of world political thought. - M., 1997. T. 1-5.
- Anthology of world legal thought. - M., 1999. T. 1-5.
- History of political and legal doctrines. Middle Ages and Renaissance. M. 1986.
- History of political and legal doctrines. Ed. V. S. Nersesyants. - M., 2003 (any edition).
- History of state legal doctrines. Textbook. Rep. ed. V. V. Lazarev. - M. 2006.
- History of political and legal doctrines. Ed. O. V. Martyshina. - M., 2004 (any edition).
- History of political and legal doctrines. Ed. O.E. Leista. - M., 1999 (any edition).
- History of political and legal doctrines: Reader. - M., 1996.
- History of political and legal doctrines. Ed. V. P. Malakhova, N. V. Mikhailova. - M., 2007.
- Rassolov M. M. History of political and legal doctrines. - M., 2010.
- Chicherin B. N. History of political doctrines. - M., 1887-1889. T. 1-5.
- Alekseev A. S. Machiavelli as a political thinker. M. 1980.
- Whipper R. Yu. The influence of Calvin and Calvinism on the political doctrines and movements of the 16th century. - M., 1894.
- Weber M. Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism // Izbr. works. - M., 1990.
- Henry Meeter H. Basic ideas of Calvinism. - St. Petersburg, 1995.
- Dolgov K. Humanism, Renaissance and political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli // Machiavelli. Selected works. - M. 1997.
- Jean Bodin is the founder of the concept of state sovereignty. - M., 1990.
- Calvin J. Instructions in the Christian Faith (in 3 volumes). - M., 1997-1999.
- Calvin J. Instructions in the Christian Faith. - M. 1997-1999. In 3 volumes.
- Kautsky K. Thomas More and his utopia. - M., 1924.
- Lafargue P. Thomas Campanella. - M.-L., 1926.
- Luther M. The time of silence has passed: Selected works of 1520-1526. - Kharkov, 1994.
- Machiavelli N. Sovereign. Discussions about the first decade of Titus Livy. About the art of war. - M., 1996.
- Mor G. Utopia. - M., 1976.
- Osinovsky N. N. Thomas More. - M. 1974.
- Rakitskaya I. F.. Political thought of the Italian Renaissance: Humanism of the late 14th and early 15th centuries. - L., 1984.
- Smirin M. M. The People's Reformation and the Great Peasant War. - M., 1955.
- Temnov E. I. Machiavelli. - M., 1979.
- Thomas More. 1478-1978. Communist ideals and cultural history. - M., 1981.
- Shtekli A. E. Thomas Munzer. - M., 1961.
- Shatsky E. Utopia and tradition. - M., 1990.
- Elfond I. Ya. Political teachings of the Renaissance and Reformation. (France). - Saratov, 1991.
- Elfond I. Ya. Tyranny fighters: From the history of French political thought of the 16th century. - Saratov, 1991.
- Eric G. Erickson. Young Luther. Psychoanalytic historical research. - M., 1996.
Questions for self-control and preparation for testing:
- What is the concept and characteristic features of the Renaissance?
- What is the relationship between politics and morality according to Machiavelli?
- What is Machiavellianism?
- What are the concept and main features of the Reformation?
- What is the essence of M. Luther’s teaching about “two orders”?
- How does the teaching of J. Calvin differ from the views of M. Luther?
- What are the methods of origin of the state according to J. Bodin?
- What is sovereignty according to Boden?
- How do the ideal states of Plato, T. More and T. Campanella differ?
- What are the features of law in the “city of the sun”?
Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498) - Italian Catholic preacher, theologian, and public figure. He opposed the tyranny of the Medici, denounced the papacy, called on the church to asceticism, condemned humanistic culture (organized the burning of works of art). After the expulsion of the Medici from Florence in 1494, he contributed to the establishment of a republican system. In 1497 he was excommunicated and executed.
Index of prohibited books - a list of books recognized by the Catholic Church as harmful to faith and morals and, as a result, prohibited for distribution and reading by believers.
Peace of Westphalia - peace treaties that ended the Thirty Years' War of 1618-1648 and concluded between the Holy Roman Emperor, Sweden, France and their allies. The provisions of these treaties dealt with three issues: territorial changes, the political structure of the empire and religious relations. In the religious field, the Peace of Westphalia equalized the rights of Calvinists with Catholics and Lutherans in Germany, legalized the secularization of church lands carried out before 1624, but deprived the German princes of the right to determine the religious affiliation of their subjects.
Political doctrines of the Renaissance
- Part 1
Leading thinkers of this period: N. Machiavelli, Martin Luther, Thomas More,Tomaso Companella,Jean Bodin, T. Gobbe, G. Grotius, J. Locke,B. Spinoza.
Features and characteristics of this period:
E development of humanistic principles in political theory;
E liberation of political thought from theology;
E analysis of the problem of human rights and freedoms;
E analysis of law and state, democratic structure of public life.
The largest representative and founder of the political thought of the Renaissance can rightfully be called an Italian thinker, statesman, writer and historian Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). He came from an ancient but impoverished patrician family. During Republic Machiavelli was actively involved in political activities, for 14 years he permanently occupied the position of secretary of the Council of Ten, and carried out important diplomatic assignments. After the political coup that returned power to the Medici family, Machiavelli was suspected of participating in an anti-government conspiracy, removed from business and then exiled to his estate (near Florence), where he wrote most of his works.
His main theoretical works - “The Prince”, “Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy”, “The Art of War” - were written by him after the fall of the Florentine Republic, when Machiavelli was removed from political activity. Machiavelli was the first to view politics as an autonomous sphere of human activity, in which there are “natural causes” and “useful rules” that allow one to “take into account one’s capabilities” in order to “foresee in advance” the course of events and take the necessary measures.
According to Machiavelli, the highest rule of politics and its main problem is to find the course of action that corresponds to the nature of the time and the specific circumstances at the time of decision-making. That is why politics does not come down to the simple assimilation of general instructions, “here one cannot speak in the abstract, because everything changes depending on the circumstances.” People tend to act according to the natural inclination of their character and temperament; one achieves the goal with “caution and patience,” the other with “pressure and surprise,” but both invariably fail when conditions require a change in behavior, and the person remains with the same method of action that previously brought success.
Preparation of a political figure requires not only the study of history, primarily of antiquity (Machiavelli was a man of the Renaissance who idolized ancient culture), but also knowledge of modern life, constant observation and reflection on events and characters on the “proscenium” of history.
Machiavelli did not consider any of the forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) to be perfect and suitable in all circumstances.
Reflecting on the actions of statesmen, Machiavelli put forward the thesis that a politician must combine the traits of a lion and a fox: a fox - in order to avoid set traps; lion - to crush the enemy in open battle.
Machiavelli was not a supporter of fundamental immoralism in politics; he believed that in emergency circumstances, when “the people are corrupt,” emergency measures are needed. “Sovereign” is only one of the factors in the political situation, which also includes “people”, “nobility” and “army”.
Machiavelli believes that the main condition for political success is “valor,” and not the baseness of the soul.
The driving forces of politics, according to Machiavelli, are fortune and the personal energy of the individual (by fortune he understood objective historical necessity).
The Italian thinker puts forward the thesis “the end justifies the means.” He wrote that, as experience shows, grandiose deeds were accomplished by those princes who did not take into account their promises, but acted with cunning and deceit. In the literature, adherents of this thesis are often called supporters of “Machiavellian politics”, “Machiavellianism”. At the same time, Machiavelli condemned those who use violence to destroy rather than correct.
Believing that the desire for conquest is the natural state of people and states, Machiavelli understood politics, first of all, as the politics of force. He considered good laws and a strong army to be the main pillars of state policy. Advocating for the creation of a permanent army based on conscription, he condemned mercenarism. In his writings, Machiavelli gives priority to political leadership over military leadership. He argued that the sovereign must personally lead the army in campaigns and battles.
Machiavelli based his classification of wars on real social relations, freeing it from religious layers. Machiavelli, for example, singled out one of the types of wars, which are excited by the ambition of sovereigns and republics seeking to strengthen and expand their dominion. During these wars, significant damage is caused to the state, but the inhabitants are not expelled from their region. A different kind of war he considered those associated with the eviction of an entire people from the country. The main goal of such wars is not to conquer a country, but to take possession of it, expel or exterminate its inhabitants.
Machiavelli's merit was also the study of military organization and its structure. In his treatise “On the Art of War,” he developed the principles of military art, methods of military action, and requirements for military leaders.
During the period of formation of bourgeois social relations, a whole galaxy of outstanding thinkers appeared (XVII - first third of the XIX centuries).
Among them it is necessary to highlight Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), English philosopher, representative of mechanistic materialism. He was born into a priest's family; After graduating from Oxford University (1608), he became a tutor to the aristocratic family of the Duke of Devonshire, with which he was associated until the end of his life. Since 1640, Hobbes was in exile in France; returned to his homeland in 1651 after consolidating the dictatorship of Cromwell, whose policies he tried to justify ideologically. Hobbes's philosophical and political views are summarized in his book “Leviathan, or the matter, form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil” (1651).
The world, according to Hobbes, is a collection of material substances - bodies. Among them he highlights natural And artificial bodies. So artificial the body is the state. Man occupies an intermediate position between natural and artificial bodies: he is a natural body, but, as a citizen, he participates in the creation of an artificial body - the state. In the natural (pre-state) state, people are equal to each other physically and mentally. Equal ability to lust and seize the same things leads to constant struggle. Therefore, the natural state is a war of “all against all.” There is a natural right at work here, which Hobbes interprets as the freedom to do everything for self-preservation, including encroaching on someone else’s life. But natural law does not provide superiority at all and does not give anyone a guarantee of security. This can be done, according to Hobbes, only state, which establishes and controls the implementation of a set of natural laws (which allows for the establishment of universal peace to reasonably accept the mutual restriction of the rights of all people). According to T. Hobbes, the state arose on the basis social contract, and was established to ensure universal peace and security. As a result of the social contract, the rights of individual citizens who voluntarily limited their freedom were transferred to the sovereign (or state bodies). The sovereign was entrusted with the function of protecting peace and prosperity. The good of the people, Hobbes believed, is the highest law of the state. Hobbes in every possible way extolled the role of the state, which he recognized absolute sovereign. Hobbes' exaltation of a powerful state was one of the first theories of bourgeois dictatorship, the main task of which the thinker saw in ending the civil war.
The emerging state (democratic, aristocratic or monarchical) is thus valuable in itself. Of all types of government, Hobbes gives preference to the monarchy, which, in his opinion, ensures the continuity of the will of the sovereign, the internal unity of will in the state and its unity with the executive bodies.
Another representative of this period is John Locke (1632-1704), English philosopher-educator, founder of socio-political doctrine liberalism. J. Locke was born into a Puritan family of a small landowner, graduated from Westminster School and College in Oxford, where he then taught. In 1668 he was elected to the Royal Society of London. Having become a family physician in 1667, and then secretary of Lord Ashley (a prominent public figure of the Restoration), Locke became involved in active political life.
Locke's political theory, set out in “Two Treatises on Government,” is directed against patriarchal absolutism and views the socio-political process as the development of human society from a state of nature to civil society and self-government.
The fundamental purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of the citizens to life, liberty and property, and in order to secure natural rights, equality and freedom, the people agree to establish a state. But whoever has specific power in the state is charged with the duty of governing according to established permanent laws, and not through improvised decrees.
In contrast to Hobbes's absolutist theory of the state, the government, according to Locke, is transferred only a certain part of the “natural rights” (the administration of justice, foreign relations, etc.) for the sake of effectively protecting all the rest - freedom of speech, faith and, above all, property.
Each person transfers part of his rights to the state and government. A person’s attitude to the state and government is determined by a person’s attitude to property: the more property, the more political rights, but the more responsibilities to the state that protects this property. The people remain the unconditional sovereign. The government's failure to comply with the rules of the “social contract” (mainly the inviolability of property, which guarantees individual freedom) makes it illegal and gives its subjects the right to resist. However, resistance is also limited to reasonable limits and ends with the establishment of a strong political balance.
Locke formulates an idea rule of law, arguing that in the state absolutely no one, no body can be excluded from subordination to the laws. In his opinion, the legislative power in the state must be separated from the executive (including the judicial) and “federal” (external relations), and the government itself must also strictly obey the law.
Studying this period involves becoming familiar with the life and works of Benedicta(Baruch) Spinoza (1632-1677), Dutch materialist philosopher. Spinoza was born into the family of a merchant who belonged to the Jewish community. Having headed his business after the death of his father (1654), he simultaneously established scientific and friendly connections among people opposed to the Calvinist church that dominated the Netherlands. The leaders of the Jewish community in Amsterdam subjected Spinoza to the “great excommunication.” Fleeing from his pursuers, Spinoza lived in the village, forced to earn his livelihood by grinding lenses, then in Rijnsburg, a suburb of The Hague, where he created philosophical works.
Spinoza expressed his socio-political views in his work “Political Treatise” and in a number of others. He was an anti-clerical, a supporter of republican rule and an opponent of the monarchy. Spinoza's anti-clericalism was associated with his awareness of the political role of the church as the closest ally of monarchical rule.
Like other representatives of the theory natural law And social contract Spinoza deduced the laws of society from the characteristics of unchanging human nature and considered it possible to harmoniously combine the private selfish interests of citizens with the interests of the whole society.
8. Political and legal ideology during the period
English bourgeois revolution
The English bourgeois revolution had a wider resonance in society than the Dutch one. Its participants were various political forces: the urban bourgeoisie, the gentry, the peasantry, the old nobility and the top of the English church. Naturally, their programs and theoretical constructs were different, but what they had in common was religion - Calvinism. One of the demands of the revolution was the “cleansing” (English, pure or Latin purus - pure) of the English Church from the remnants of Catholicism, so the king’s opponents were called Puritans. But along with religious motives, the theories of G. Grotius of natural law and the contractual state were used.
Independents
(independent)
The leading party was independents(English independence - independent). Their religious and political slogans were as follows: complete independence and self-government for each community of believers, the elimination of the centralized and subordinate to the king of the English Church, absolute religious tolerance and the inalienability of freedom
J. Milton
conscience. The actual political demands were moderate: recognizing the advantages of a republic, they were ready to be content with a constitutional monarchy.
The most prominent exponent of the ideology of the Independents was the great English poet and politician John Milton(1608 - 1674). In his treatises ("On the Power of Kings and Officials", "Defense of the English People" etc.) he substantiated the freedom of people by nature; the people, who created the state by “social consent” in order to protect the common good, are the only source and bearer of power. The people appointed rulers, kings, dignitaries and subjected them to the law. And if they evade this, then they have the right (through a meeting of their representatives) to be called to account. Therefore, the trial of the people over the king is a manifestation of meekness and mercy (a direct justification for the revolution and the execution of Charles I).
From Milton's point of view, a republic with qualified suffrage is preferable to other political forms. With it, the rights of freedom of conscience, thought, and speech are most ensured, and the opportunities to influence the government of the state are more fully used.
Levellers
(levelers)
If the Independents actually sought power for the bourgeoisie and the new nobility, liberation from the shackles of feudalism, then levelers(from English, level - level) advocated the continuation of the revolution, a democratic constitution and the establishment of a republic. They relied on the soldiers’ demands to continue the revolution, democratize the state, and ensure rights and freedoms.
Leveller ideologist was John Lilburn(1614 - 1657). The cornerstone of his teaching is the principle of primacy, supremacy and sovereignty of the power of the people:
All power initially and in its essence comes from the people, and their consent, expressed through their representatives, is the only basis of all just government.
Levellers highlight English birthrights, identifying them with natural law: freedom of speech, conscience, press, petition, trade, from military service, equality before the law and
court. He also considered private property to be natural law, but sharply opposed class differences and privileges. Thus, Lilburne's comrade-in-arms, Richard Rambold, stated that he did not believe that "God created most of the human race with a saddle on their back and a bridle in their teeth, and a smaller part with boots and spurs to ride the first."
State arose as a result of a contract, created by an agreement of people “for the benefit and benefit of everyone.” Hence the right of the people to organize such a state so that this benefit is guaranteed. And rulers receive power with the consent of the people. Levellers developed constitution of republican england- "people's agreement".
Their main demands: popular representation, the provision of voting rights to Englishmen from the age of 21, the consolidation of the innate rights of Englishmen to elect sheriffs, judges and other officials. Defending the principle of legality (equal law for all), Lilburne approached the idea of separation of powers: “it is unreasonable, unfair and destructive for the people for legislators to be at the same time executors of the law,” and parliament cannot administer justice.
Diggers
(diggers)
During the revolution, the issue of the relationship between freedom and property was actively discussed. A unique solution was proposed diggers (diggers). Initially, they condemned not only the monarchy, but also the entire social structure of England, based on property inequality and private property. They relied on the power of preaching and example. Why in 1649 on the hill of St. George, they created a commune and began to work together to dig up communal lands (English, digger - digger). The leader of the movement was Gerard Winstanley(1609 - 1652?). He was the first to formulate the concept of “freedom,” which expressed the main difference between socialism and bourgeois ideology:
True republican liberty lies in the free enjoyment of the land. True freedom is where a person receives food and the means to sustain life.
The program of measures carried out by the revolutionary authorities and laws with the aim of creating a system of community of property - socialism, is set out in his work "Law of Freedom"(1652). For the first time in the history of theoretical socialism, Winstanley writes about the need for a transition period from a system of private property to a system of community property and revolutionary power over the rich during this period.
Form of government - republic, formed as a result of elections with restrictions on the voting rights of those in power. The task of the new government is to transfer lands (communities, wastelands, churches, kings) to the people, where they will create communes. Using laws and education, prepare the conditions for the complete eradication of private property, money and the hiring of labor. After this, a “true republican system” will appear and a new constitution England. At the head of the state - parliament, re-elected annually by men over 20 years of age. Laws adopted by parliament are discussed by the people and can be rejected. Officials are elected for one year. The state not only protects public order, but also manages the national economy. The ideas of the Diggers were far ahead of their time: this is the weakness of their movement and the utopianism of their projects.
T. Hobbes: "
share power
states means
destroy it"
The English philosopher and political thinker, who supported absolutism, took a difficult position. Thomas Hobbes(1588 - 16?9). In 1640, Hobbes published his first work, “The Elements of Law natural and political,” in which he defended the prerogatives of the king against parliament. When the parliamentary party won, Hobbes fled to France, where he published the treatise On the Citizen. This book brought him fame. Here he defended the benefits of civil peace and the need for absolute power in the person of the king.
In my main work "Leviathan, or Matter, the form and power of the state, ecclesiastical and civil"(1651) he tried to turn the doctrine of state and law into a science as precise as geometry, “the figures and lines of which no one disputes.”
Hobbes's political and legal doctrine is based on a unique idea of the nature and passions of man. He argues that all men are originally created equal in physical and mental faculties and each has the same “right to all things” as the other. But man is also a selfish, greedy and ambitious creature. He is surrounded by envious people and enemies. Hence the fatal inevitability "war of all against all." And this is "the natural state of the human race." In fact, Hobbes reproduced the picture of the emerging capitalist society, and not the discovery of the essence of man.
But man is inherently afraid, the instinct of self-preservation and reason. They give the first impetus to the process of overcoming the natural state and suggest the conditions for how to implement it.
Thomas Hobbes
These conditions (prescriptions of natural reason) are natural laws. The main natural law says: it is necessary to strive for peace and follow it. The second natural law is the renunciation of each person's rights to the extent that the interests of peace and self-defense require it. Third, people are obliged to fulfill concluded agreements. Here is the source and beginning of justice. In addition to the three, there are 16 more natural (unchangeable and eternal) laws, T. Hobbes among them the ninth law is against pride, the tenth is against arrogance, the eleventh is impartiality, the sixteenth is about submission to arbitration (“in case of a dispute, the parties must subordinate their rights to the decision of the arbitrator "). All these laws are united by a common rule: “do not do to others what you would not want done to you.”
But natural laws are not mandatory. Such laws are the freedom to do or not do something. Only force can transform them into an unconditional imperative of behavior - positive law: an order to do or not do something. The guarantor of peace and the implementation of natural laws is absolute power, the state, through the issuance of civil laws. The purpose of laws is, like a fence, to give the right direction to the actions of people.
In order to end the state of “war of all against all,” people, by mutual agreement, renounce the natural right to “do everything for self-preservation” and transfer it to an individual or an assembly of people. This is how the state arose:
the state is a single person, for whose actions a great multitude of people have made themselves responsible by mutual agreement among themselves, so that that person may use the power and means of all of them as he deems necessary for their peace and common defense.
Initially, Hobbes considered the source of power to be a contract between subjects and the ruler, which could not be terminated without the consent of the parties. However, during the revolution, many facts were cited that the king violated his obligations. And then Hobbes formulated a different concept of a social contract: everyone with everyone, where the ruler does not take part at all, and therefore cannot violate it. And in this way the grounds for
termination of the contract. Having concluded a social contract and having entered the civil state, individuals lose the opportunity to change the chosen form of government and free themselves from the influence of the supreme power. They are prohibited from protesting against the decisions of the sovereign or condemning his actions.
Hobbes distinguishes states depending on the paths of their emergence. He classifies those that emerged as a result of voluntary agreement as those based on establishment or as political states, and those that emerged as a result of physical force - based on acquisition. His sympathies are with the former. He only admits three forms of state: monarchy, democracy, aristocracy, having differences in suitability for the implementation of the purpose for which they were established. Deep sympathies are on the side of an unlimited monarchy: “the right of inheritance gives the state an artificial eternal life.” But the goal of the state (the safety of citizens) is achievable not only under an absolute monarchy:
Where a certain form of government has already been established, there is no need to argue about which of the three forms of government is the best, but one should always ... consider the existing one to be the best.
If the state has collapsed, then the right of the deposed monarch is preserved, but the duty of the people disappears: they have the right to seek a new defender - Hobbes formulated this provision in the form of one of the natural laws and addressed to the soldiers of the deposed king:
the soldier may seek his protection where he most hopes to obtain it, and may legally oblige himself to the allegiance of the new master.
But in any form of state, the power of the sovereign is always absolute, unlimited: as extensive as one can imagine. The sovereign is not bound by anything, including civil law. He himself issues and abolishes them, declares war and makes peace, judges and pardons, appoints officials. His prerogatives are indivisible and intransferable. “To divide the power of the state means to destroy it, since divided powers mutually destroy each other.” The power of the sovereign is in fact his monopoly on the life and death of his subjects.
The freedom of the subjects consists in the freedom to do what is not specified in agreements with the authorities, wrote Hobbes. - ...The sovereign, therefore, has the right to everything with the only limitation that, being himself a subject of God, he is therefore obliged to observe natural laws.
Absolute power belonged, according to Hobbes, to the area of public, political law. The people in relation to the supreme power have only obligations, no rights, and therefore it cannot rightfully be destroyed by the people who agreed to establish it. However, in the field of private law, subjects should be given a broad legal initiative, a system of rights, freedoms and guarantees.
Hobbes interprets the lack of rights of the people to the sovereign as the legal equality of people in their mutual relations, which are guaranteed by the king: the inviolability of the contract, protection in court, equal taxes, ensuring private property. Discussing the relations of subjects among themselves, he substantiated a number of specific requirements in the field of law: trial by jury, the right to defense, proportionality of punishment to the crime, etc.
Civil law is for every subject those rules that the state has prescribed for him orally, in writing or with the help of other sufficiently clear signs of its will, so that he can use them to distinguish between right and wrong, i.e. between what is consistent and what is not consistent with the rule.
Thus, Hobbes substantiated civil society, the “founder” and guarantor of which is the authoritarian unlimited royal power, in fact totalitarianism.
In general, Hobbes's position was realistic. He, in particular, argued that if the government loses the ability to guarantee the safety of its subjects, for which it was created, then it also loses the right to their loyalty. This has nothing to do with the idea of resistance to unjust power, which can never be justified. But his repeated changes in political orientation did not make it noble. According to Leibniz, Hobbes "wrote a monstrous book." After the Stuart Restoration and the death of Hobbes, his works were banned in England, and Leviathan was publicly burned by Oxford University.
Revolutionary events 1642 - 1649 ended with the proclamation of England as a republic and the establishment of Cromwell's protectorate. After his death, the Stuart Restoration took place (1660). But in 1688, as a result of the “Glorious Revolution,” the Stuarts were overthrown, and a constitutional monarchy was formed in England.
J. Locke:
the state is
"any independent
community"
The political and legal results of the revolution were theoretically substantiated by the English philosopher John Locke(1632 - 1704) at work "Two Treatises on Government"(1690). Locke's concept
J. Locke
summed up the previous development of the methodology and content of the theory of natural law, and the program of its doctrine contained the most important state legal principles of civil society.
Before the advent of the state, people were in a state of nature - “a state of complete freedom in relation to actions and disposal of their property and person”, a “state of equality prevails, in which all power and all rights are mutual, no one has more than another.” Everyone has natural rights, which include property: the right to individuality, to one’s actions, to one’s work and its results. Property, according to Locke,
what a person extracted from objects created and provided to him by nature, he merged with his labor, with something that inherently belongs to him and thereby makes it his property.
In the state of nature, all are equal, free and have property, peace and goodwill reign. The laws of nature dictate peace and security. Natural law assumes that everyone protects their own interests. But there are no guarantees, there is no inevitability of punishment. Moreover, there is no uniform interpretation of natural laws, since “the law of nature is not a written law and cannot be found anywhere except in the minds of men.”
And then, to guarantee natural rights and laws, people abandoned their independent provision and concluded social agreement. became the guarantor state- a collection of people who united into one under the auspices of a general law established by themselves and created a judicial authority competent to resolve conflicts and punish criminals. The state is formed to achieve the “great and main goal” of the political community - everyone can realize their civil interests: life, health, freedom and property. It has the right to make laws, use the forces of society to apply them, and manage relations with other states. At the same time, Locke emphasizes the moment of consent: “Every peaceful formation of a state was based on the consent of the people.”
When building a state, people very accurately measure the amount of powers that they transfer to the state. Unlike Hobbes, Locke does not talk about a total rejection of natural rights. The right to life, ownership of property, freedom and equality is not alienated by a person. These inalienable values are final boundaries (limits) of power and actions of the state that he is not allowed to transgress. Otherwise, as well as in the case of tyrannical rule, the people have the right to “reconsider the agreement.”
The main danger to people's freedom lies in privileges of power. Absolute monarchy, according to Locke, is one of the cases of the removal of the bearer of power from the rule of law. An absolute monarchy is always tyranny, since there are no guarantees of natural rights, there are no laws above it. And this violates Locke’s main principle: “No person in civil society can be exempt from the laws of that society.” Guarantee and embodiment of freedom - equal for all, universally binding and permanent law and separation of powers.
Advocating for a regime of legality, Locke insisted on the position that whoever has the supreme power is charged with "government according to the established constant laws proclaimed by the people and known to them, and not by improvised decrees." At the same time, the laws must be followed. This position of Locke anticipated the idea "rule of law state".
The implementation of the “main and great goal” certainly requires, according to Locke, that the public powers of the state be clearly delineated and divided between its various bodies.
Higher(but not absolute) power belongs legislative body representative system, elected and accountable to the people. Locke also attributed the activities of judges to this power (according to English law, one of its sources is judicial practice). The legislative body should not sit for a long time, otherwise there is a great temptation to create laws beneficial to itself (condemnation of the “Long Parliament”). Highlights Locke and federal government:
this includes the law of war and peace, the right to participate in coalitions and alliances, as well as the right to deal with all persons and communities outside a given state.
Executive branch(the government headed by the monarch) does not have legislative power. The monarch can dissolve parliament, impose a veto, has the right of legislative initiative,
but has no right to prevent the convening of parliament, this is the basis for his deposition:
the first and fundamental positive law of all states is the establishment of legislative power; in the same way, the first and fundamental natural law, to which the legislative power itself must obey, is the preservation of society and each member of society.
In the question of state form Locke was categorically against the absolute monarchical structure of power. Any form of power must grow out of a social contract and have a proper “structure of government,” he believed. Locke understood that there are no ideal forms and the emergence of despotic power is always possible. And then popular uprising would be completely legal.
Locke's teaching had a great influence on the subsequent development of political ideology. The theories of natural inalienable human rights, separation of powers, and labor property were especially widespread. Locke is rightfully the founder of liberalism, the first among the theorists of parliamentarism and the rule of law.
It can be stated that political and legal thought during the years of the first bourgeois revolutions was formed through collective efforts. The era gave rise to outstanding thinkers, and yet the first among equals were Thomas Hobbes And John Locke. Their positions are opposite. The first is a supporter of the unlimited power of the state, the second - the establishment of limits to its activities. The main result of the century was the formation of the theory of natural law, the justification of the universal legal equality of people, the introduction into political and legal theory of the idea of the contractual origin of the state, a list of natural rights and freedoms of man, and various ways to overcome political alienation.
9. Western European
Education
Historical and philosophical sciences characterize the Enlightenment as an influential general cultural phenomenon of the era of transition from feudalism to capitalism, boundless faith in human reason, and the ability to rebuild society on reasonable grounds. The term “enlightenment” is found in Voltaire and other educators, but was finally established after I. Kant’s article “What is Enlightenment?” (1784).
The figures of the Enlightenment wanted to establish on earth the “kingdom of reason”, where the harmony of the interests of a free person and a just society would triumph. They believed that the course of history is determined by the views of people - “opinion rules the world” and once you prove the correctness of some principles, everyone will begin to follow them. The ideas of enlightened absolutism (a modification of the idea of the wise enlightener), enriched with considerations about a reasonable state structure, a system of laws that would allow the philosopher on the throne to realize his noble intentions, enjoyed particular success.
8.1. Political and legal views
French educators
Voltaire: freedom
in equality
before the law
Recognized leader of the European Enlightenment - great French thinker Voltaire(1694 - 1778). In 1717, Voltaire was imprisoned in the Bastille for his free-thinking poetry, and after a second imprisonment he was expelled from France. In 1726 - 1729 lived in London. Returning to France in 1733, he published "Philosophical Letters" in which he sharply denounced the order that reigned in France, religious intolerance and obscurantism.
Voltaire
He entered the history of political thought as a passionate denouncer of the Catholic Church and religious fanaticism. For enlightened people, Voltaire argues, Christian revelations are not needed. The Church is needed only for the mob and ignorant rulers, so that they observe a moral way of life. From here he makes the famous conclusion: “If God did not exist, he would have to be invented.”
Voltaire was a supporter of the philosophy of deism: “Christianity and reason cannot exist at the same time.” He puts forward the slogan against the Catholic Church: “Crush the reptile!”
The thinker believed that despotic rule would be replaced by the “kingdom of reason and freedom,” where everyone would be granted natural rights - personal integrity, private property, freedom of the press and conscience. Feudal remnants will be eliminated: fettering creative initiative and private enterprise, arbitrariness, serfdom. “Freedom,” Voltaire believed, “consists of depending only on laws.” “To be free, to have only equals around you, this is true life, the natural life of a person.”
He saw an example of a political organization “the kingdom of reason” in the parliamentary institutions of England and, although theoretically he gave preference to a republic, he considered it to be of little use in practice.
The best laws are in England: justice, absence of arbitrariness, responsibility of officials for violating the freedom of citizens, the right of everyone to express their opinion orally and in writing. Two parties follow each other and dispute the honor of protecting public freedom.
He was a supporter of the rule of law, liberal methods of government, separation of powers, social and political inequality:
In our unhappy world, it is impossible that people living in society would not be divided into two classes: one class of the rich who command, the other of the poor who serve.
However, he considered the situation enviable in which freedom is complemented and reinforced equality. The latter is understood
them strictly in the political-legal sense: the same status as a citizen, the same dependence on the law and the same protection by law.
In 1769 Voltaire wrote a work "On Natural Phenomena" in which he definitely expressed his position regarding the main conditions "true life" human is compliance natural rights the most important of which are freedom, equality before the law and ownership of the products of labor.
Sh.L. Montesquieu:
principle - "soul"
states
Voltaire attached primary importance to the principles implemented by the institutions of power. For him, these principles were freedom, property, legality, humanism. Not only French but also Russian enlighteners were influenced by his ideas. The first person to create a detailed political doctrine in the ideology of the Enlightenment was Charles Louis Montesquieu ( 1689 - 1755) - an outstanding lawyer and political thinker in France. His main works: "Persian Letters"(1721), "Reflections on the causes of the greatness and fall of the Romans"(1734) and "On the Spirit of Laws"(1748). Already the first work ("Persian Letters") is an evil satire on the political regime, on the life and customs of high society in France and at the same time a call for the organization of the state on new "civil" principles.
Montesquieu's contribution to political and legal thought is largely determined by his methods of understanding state and legal phenomena. He rejected the theological picture of the world and actually gave its materialistic interpretation on the basis of laws, understood as “necessary relations arising from the nature of things.” At the same time, speaking about the qualitative differences between social phenomena and natural phenomena, Montesquieu emphasized the more complex organization of the social world compared to the natural world, rejected the fatal nature of the operation of social laws and drew attention to free will in people's actions. The laws of the social world receive concentrated expression in him in the concept of the “general spirit of the people.”
Montesquieu's methodology, where the principle of historicism was supplemented by the historical-comparative method, made it possible to create a political and legal theory in which, for the first time, the vast factual material accumulated in the 18th century was presented in a systematized form. At the same time, all political and legal material was considered as a whole, the components of which are in historical interrelation
Sh.L. Montesquieu
and interaction and where the spheres of political-legal science and theology are consistently delimited. As a result, he concludes that the course of history is determined not by divine will or a random combination of circumstances, but by the action of corresponding laws.
While agreeing with the idea of a state of nature, Montesquieu did not recognize the formation of a state based on the requirements of natural law. He also did not accept the concept of a social contract. The emergence of a state (politically organized
society), he considered laws as a historically natural process - result of the war not a contract.
Law, generally speaking, is human reason, since it governs all the peoples of the earth; and the political and civil laws of every people should be no more than special cases of the application of this reason... It is necessary that the laws correspond to the nature and principles of the established or established government, whether they have for the purpose of organizing it - which is the task of political laws - or only maintaining its existence, which is the task of civil laws.
Analyzing the patterns of social life through the category of “general spirit of the people,” he comes to the conclusion that the spirit of the people (nation) is influenced by physical and moral reasons (mores, laws). At the initial stage, when people emerge from a state of savagery, the determining factors are physical factors: climate, soil, size and position of the country, population. The leading role belongs to the geographical factor (the position of the country). Based on these circumstances, in the south (people are pampered and lazy) “despotism usually reigns”; in the north, where the climate is harsh and the people are hardened and freedom-loving, “moderate forms of government” are characteristic. And “laws are very closely related to the ways in which various peoples obtain their livelihood” - this is a precise and profound definition!
Moral reasons (principles of the political system, religion, morality, customs, way of life, etc.) come into play later than physical ones, with the development of civilization. They displace the physical and determine legislation, "more influence the general spirit, the general character
nations and should be more taken into account when identifying a common spirit in comparison with physical reasons." Among the moral reasons, the main one is the organization of the state (political) system.
Thus, Montesquieu concludes that the historical development of society is the result of a complex interaction of objective and subjective reasons, and the tendency for the role of the subjective factor to increase in history is a pattern.
Reasonable organization states Montesquieu, like other representatives of the ideology of liberalism, associates with the category Liberty. He talks about the political, legal components, and not about the social one, and identifies it with personal security, the independence of the individual from the arbitrariness of the authorities, and civil rights. It is ensured by legality: “the right to do everything that is permitted by law.”
The political freedom of a citizen, he writes, is peace of mind arising from confidence in one’s safety. And in order to acquire this freedom, the government must be so established that one citizen does not fear another.
The ideal of freedom was substantiated by the results of an analysis of existing forms of state. Montesquieu distinguishes two correct forms - a republic (democracy and aristocracy) - and one incorrect one - despotism. Each of them is characterized by certain principles and relationships with citizens. The nature of government is determined by two quantities: the number of people exercising sovereign power, and the manner in which power is exercised. Under principle of government Montesquieu understood those “human passions that move him,” and called the principle “soul,” “spring of the state.”
Republic- power belongs to the people (democracy) or part of it (aristocracy). Its fundamental principle is political virtue(love of the fatherland).
Monarchy- one-man rule based on laws, principle - honor, and its bearer is the nobility.
Despotism- the antipode of a republic and a monarchy, government is implemented on lawlessness and arbitrariness, and rests on fear. In the fight against despotism, climate and morals are powerless, and human nature will constantly rebel against despotic rule. Montesquieu believed (following the ancient tradition) that despotism
applicable for large states, monarchy - medium-sized, republic - small (polis type). The latter is possible over a vast territory, under a federal structure. Thus, the possibility of forming a republic in large states was theoretically predicted.
To achieve freedom and prevent the degeneration of the monarchy into despotism, it is necessary to properly organize the supreme power, to implement separation of powers to legislative, executive, judicial. Moreover, each of them must belong to different government bodies and have special powers to limit and restrain each other, so that “one power stops the other.” He saw the ideal of such a state in England. Montesquieu's triad of power has become a classic formula constitutionalism. He is considered the founder of the geographical school in sociology; representatives of the historical school of law, comparative law, the theory of violence and other areas will turn to his ideas.
Political
radicalism
J.-J. Rousseau
A bright and original thinker in the history of political and legal doctrines was the French thinker and writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau(1712 - 1778). His main works in this area are "Discourse on the origin and foundations of inequality between people"(1754) and "On the Social Contract, or Reasons for Political Law"(1762). The name of Rousseau is associated with radical trends in the political thought of pre-revolutionary France: ideas of equality, social justice, popular sovereignty, the legality of resistance to tyranny. The program he put forward, which met the demands of the radically minded poor, the peasants, was called political radicalism.
Rousseau uses the idea of the state of nature as a hypothesis (hence the name of the approach "hypothetical state of nature") to present their views on the entire process of human life, including political and legal thought.
According to Rousseau, in the state of nature there was no private property, everyone was free and equal, nothing was public, not even language. People lived like animals. The inequality here is only physical.
But as knowledge and experience are accumulated and tools of labor are improved, social ties are formed, social formations are born - families, nationalities. The period begins
J.-J. Рycco
the emergence of a person from a state of savagery into society, remaining free - this was the “happiest era.”
And then the development of civilization was associated with a regression of freedom (the emergence and growth of social inequality). First - wealth inequality. It is associated with the emergence of private ownership of land, contrary to the natural state. The latter was replaced by civil society:
The first one who, having fenced a plot of land, came up with the idea of declaring: “This is mine!” and found people simple-minded enough to believe that he was the true founder of civil society.
In such a society there is a constant struggle between rich and poor.
Society came to a state of the most terrible war: the human race, mired in vices and despair, could neither return back nor abandon the ill-fated acquisitions it had made
Then it appeared political inequality. In order to protect themselves and their property, the rich drew up a “cunning plan”: supposedly to protect against mutual strife, they proposed to establish public authority and laws. This is how a state was formed and people were divided into rulers and ruled. The adopted laws destroyed natural freedom, secured property and, for the benefit of a few, “has since condemned the entire human race to labor, slavery and poverty.” The state arose on a contractual basis through “clever usurpation.” A situation has arisen where “a person is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.”
The last redistribution of inequality comes with the degeneration of the state into despotism. In despotism there are no laws, all people are equal - they are nothing before the tyrant, equal in their lack of rights. People found themselves in a state of nature. The circle is closed.
Rousseau's teaching on the origin of inequality had no analogues. This is a completely new doctrine, where an attempt is made to trace the emergence and development of society, to explain the internal dynamics of this process. The thinker's reasoning about the progressive development of society due to deepening social inequality contains elements of historical dialectics.
According to Rousseau, rights do not exist in the state of nature. People have no rights or morals (animals). Thus, in Rousseau, natural law and natural law are devoid of legal meaning, but act as a natural category for humans, that is, an exclusively moral category. As for the second natural state (despotism), there is no right here either, since everything is determined by force.
In a despotic state, everything rests on force and, therefore, the use of force against a tyrant is natural and legitimate; he cannot complain about violence, since “violence supported him, violence overthrows him: everything goes its natural way.” As long as the people endure and obey, this is good, but if they overthrow the tyrant, they will do even better. This is Rousseau's logic in justifying the justification of the violent revolutionary overthrow of absolutism.
A rebellion against a despot, as Rousseau believes, is legal only according to the laws of the despot, but in itself does not lead to the formation of legitimate power. The basis of rights can only be agreement And agreement- political law (based on agreement).
The original agreement created a situation where in society there is a government and laws, but there is no law, no legal relations between people. Therefore, Rousseau correlates the idea of the contractual origin of power not with the past, but with the future, with a political ideal. The transition to a state of freedom presupposes the conclusion of a genuine social contract, when, instead of imaginary rights based on force, the individual acquires civil rights, including property, protected by society. In this way, individual rights acquire a legal character.
The consequences of the social contract, according to Rousseau, are as follows:
Immediately, instead of individuals entering into a contractual relationship, this act of association creates a conventional collective whole. This Whole receives as a result of such an act its unity, its common self, its life and will. This legal entity, formed, therefore, as a result of the union of all others, was once called the Civil Community, but is now called the Republic, or the Political Organism: its members call this Political Organism the State when it is passive, the Sovereign when it is active, the Power when compared him with others like him. As for the members of the association, they collectively receive the name of the people, and individually are called citizens, as participating in the sovereign power, and subject to the laws of the State.
The concept of social contract substantiated by Rousseau generally expresses his ideal ideas about the state and law.
As a result of an agreement between equals, a republic, where the individual, submitting to society, becomes free, since he is not subject to anyone in particular. “... I call a Republic any State governed by laws, whatever the manner of governing it,” noted Rousseau. Sovereignty belongs to the people: they exercise legislative power, and freedom is when citizens are protected by the law and accept it themselves. The idea of people's sovereignty, the principle of equality and freedom- the core of Rousseau's political system.
Popular sovereignty has two characteristics: it is inalienable and indivisible. Therefore, Rousseau is against the representative body: the decision is made by the entire people (men), since they are not bound by previously adopted laws, they can always change the decisions made, even the terms of the original agreement. In connection with the above arguments against the idea of separation of powers, Rousseau contrasted it with the idea of separation of functions and subordination of the executive power to the sovereign.
Rousseau reveals the mechanism for identifying the interests of the sovereign people with the help of concepts: the will of all(volonte de tous) - the sum of interests and general will(volonte generate) - formed by subtracting mutually exclusive interests. The general will is the point of intersection of the will of citizens.
The idea of these arguments lies in the search for a solution to a political problem - the coordination of the interests of the individual - class - society. With this approach, if laws are an expression of the general will, then there is no need for coordination - the body coordinates everything itself.
Under democracy it is only possible republic, and the form of organization will be determined by the number of persons participating in management - monarchy, aristocracy or democracy. The detailed organization of the social system is the business of a particular republic. Private property is possible in a republic (Rousseau is an ideologist of the peasantry), but it must be small in size and based on individual labor.
Rousseau's doctrine is a turning point in the history of political and legal doctrines of the 18th century, and his authority was so great that there are virtually no subsequent thinkers who would turn to his ideas.
Utopian
socialism
Morelli
In pre-revolutionary France appear theories of state and communal socialism, where a society based on collective property is theoretically justified. The author of the first of them was Morelli(1715 - ?). He outlined his teachings in his work "The Code of Nature, or the True Spirit of Her Laws" And "A model of legislation in accordance with the intentions of nature" and also in a utopian poem "Basiliada".
Starting from the theory of natural law, Morelli depicted the state of nature as golden age, when people were free and obeyed laws of nature(property was common, labor was obligatory, and the fathers of families ruled). There was no social contract. And the exit of people from the natural state (refusal of the laws of nature) was the result of a “pile of mistakes.” At some stage, due to overpopulation, people faced difficulties. And instead of clarifying responsibilities and reconsidering areas of activity, someone divided the property. Private property arose, "a general plague - private interest - this debilitating disease of everyone." And then many “harsh and bloody laws were adopted, against which nature never ceases to be indignant.” And as long as private property exists, the transformation of democracy into aristocracy, and then into monarchy and tyranny, is inevitable. Consequently, political transformations and the search for the correct forms are meaningless.
Since by freedom Morelli understood “the unhindered and fearless use of everything that can satisfy natural (legal) desires,” then first law in his opinion, it will read:
In society, nothing will belong separately or be the property of anyone, except those things that he will actually use for his needs and pleasures or for his daily work
He considered the “fundamental and sacred” laws the right to work, the right to life, and the right to receive food and maintenance.
In addition to the “basic and sacred” laws, the “Code of Nature” also contains other laws (118) that regulate in detail issues of economic activity, everyday life, education, and science. Regulation pursued the goal of preventing mistakes, because there is only one truth, but there are many misconceptions, and besides, the interests of society were placed above the individual.
Form of organization power includes a national structure, where the nation and provinces are headed by rulers, and cities and
tribe - heads. All positions are filled in order of priority. The production structure is represented by city councils, which include foremen and foremen of production.
An original system of punishments was proposed. Thus, for murder or an attempt to destroy sacred laws or introduce private property, life imprisonment was provided for in a special cave in the cemetery.
The path to restoring the laws of nature is through education, so that people understand the harm of private property.
Communal
socialism
J. Meslier
Priest Jean Meslier ( 1664 - 1729) in progress "Will" outlined theory of communal socialism. At the heart of his teaching is a unique understanding of natural law as the right of the working people, directed against the united monarch and nobility and, with the help of the church, plundering and ruining the people. The modern state was formed as a result of deception, when tyrants, priests, nobles and officials climbed onto the “backs of the working people.” Private property gave rise to greed and at the expense of it the most cunning, evil and unworthy became rich. Therefore, private property, justified by the church, is a delusion.
Based on the logic of reasoning, Meslier’s program honestly indicated against whom the revolution should be directed: the clan nobility, officials, those who do nothing but have fun.
The basis of the projected society is made up of communities (in a village, in a city, in a town), where everyone is engaged in useful work and has everything equally good. About management in such a society, Meslier wrote:
All this should not happen under the leadership of persons who want to tyrannically rule over others, but exclusively under the leadership of the wisest and most well-intentioned persons striving for the development and maintenance of the people's well-being.
The philosophical and religious goals of Mellier's Testament were published in 1762, and the provisions fully containing the entire complex of revolutionary and communist ideas were published only in 1864.
Revolutionary
Jacobin teachings
The political and legal doctrines and programs of the Enlightenment ideologists found their embodiment in the Great French Revolution (1789 - 1794), during which there was a natural demarcation of political forces. The program was most clearly developed by the Jacobins, who represented the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry
David. Death of Marat
and urban lower classes. The leaders of the Jacobins were Maximilian Robespierre(1758 - 1794) and Jean Paul Marat(1743 - 1793). They understood that in order to completely eliminate feudalism in France, protect the gains of the revolution and establish democracy, it was necessary to carry out a series of revolutionary transformations. Based on this, Robespierre expressed the idea of two governments constitutional - to ensure a quiet life of the republic based on laws and revolutionary - to win freedom in the struggle. "Revolution is the war of freedom against its enemies; the Constitution is a regime of victorious and peaceful freedom."
Future constitutional structure France was envisioned by the Jacobins as a democratic republic. The Jacobin Constitution of 1793 (Robespierre's draft) provided, in particular, that acts adopted by the legislative assembly should be submitted to voters for approval.
Initially own was not one of the natural and inalienable human rights, however, in the Declaration of Rights adopted by the Convention, property (along with equality, freedom and security) was classified as a natural and inalienable human right, and a government was established to ensure them.
Robespierre and Marat were supporters of terror, although they emphasized that terror should be used “for the most urgent needs of the fatherland.”
The Renaissance was marked by a significant intensification of human activity in all spheres of life in Western European countries. Along with outstanding achievements in science and art, great geographical discoveries, political life actively developed. It was seething in the Italian city-republics: Genoa, Venice, Florence, in the capitals of England, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and other European countries. Many of them solved the problems of overcoming feudal fragmentation and the formation of strong centralized states. The problem of choosing a form of government in which the majority of the country's citizens could gain freedom and live with dignity became increasingly evident. This need was expressed in new approaches to politics, in new concepts, each of which in its own way denied and overcame the still dominant medieval theological concept of politics and asserted a new view of political life thanks to significant shifts in ideological and methodological nature.
The foundations of the new science of politics were laid by the outstanding political thinker of the Renaissance Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). The science of politics is a cold, instrumental science that teaches how to achieve results, not how to follow values. It is developed by people who do not feel bound by the covenants and codes of a particular society. Machiavelli fights the imagination as his most dangerous enemy. He argues that we must see things as they really are, and not as they should be. The scientific basis of his teaching is “real truth”, given through experience and observation. About the time in which Machiavelli lived, they say that art existed there, but there was no science. Thanks to the works of N. Machiavelli, scholasticism was supplanted and died, but science was born.
Politics, according to Machiavelli, is a relatively autonomous, rational and analytical sphere of human activity. Political changes in it do not occur according to the will of God or the whim of people, but are carried out under the influence of the actual course of things. He separated politics from both morality and religion. Politics is based only on experience and strength. The end in politics justifies the means, but only when the people are corrupt.
The key term of Machiavelli's political science is the term "state", the political state of society. Machiavelli contrasts the theocratic state with an independent independent state. But the state is not content with being independent. It itself deprives everyone and everything of independence, because the state is endowed with rights. The field of activity of the state is the real world, existing in specific conditions of place and time. To govern a state means to understand the forces that move the world and regulate them. A statesman is a person who knows how to measure these forces, operate with them and subordinate them to his goals. The purpose must be legal.
A person, according to Machiavelli, is a political person, active, active, reasonable and at the same time selfish. Machiavelli believes in man, teaches him to be a man who knows nature and history, understands the meaning of his life in creation for the sake of his homeland and professes the principle of equality and freedom. On this basis, a mature era of human life is built, freeing, if possible, from the influence of imagination and passions, setting itself a clear, serious goal, achieved by precise means.
Machiavelli's "The Prince" is destined to become a reference book not only for the Prince, but also for the Citizen for centuries, for the nature of man and the nature of politics as a whole remains unchanged.
Political and legal ideas of the Reformation
In the first half of the 16th century. In Western and Central Europe, an anti-feudal and anti-Catholic social movement developed to “correct” the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
In terms of its social base, this movement was a combination of various social forces, united by a common desire to restructure the relationship between church and state, simplify and democratize the church structure, and overcome the tradition of interpreting the Holy Scriptures as the only source of religious truth. The papist Catholic tradition assumed a monopoly on the interpretation of Holy Scripture and the will of the Lord God himself. The Catholic Church proceeded from the impossibility of direct dialogue between the laity and God, arguing that the laity could not independently develop a “correct” theistic worldview and therefore needed the tireless care of the church. The Church therefore has the right to lead the flock without asking for its consent, since it knows better the highest interests of this flock, and this in turn is associated with the subordination of the church to the Divine will. Only the church has the right to interpret the latter; any free individual discourse about God and God’s will was initially recognized as blasphemous and profane. No personal deeds of humility and holiness lead a person to salvation if they are performed outside of the church. All this meant a special type of inequality among people, and in a matter that truly concerned the most important thing: the salvation of the soul.
The monopoly of the church clergy on spiritual and salvation issues began to cause growing irritation, culminating in the explosion of the Reformation. Reformation - religious and political movement of the 16th century. in Europe, which gave birth to Protestantism. It was marked by the nationalization of religion, freed from the tutelage of the papal throne, and a new, more independent relationship between believers and the clergy.
The main directions of the political and legal ideology of the Reformation were Lutheranism and Calvinism.
The German theologian Martin Luther (1483-1456) stood at the origins of the Reformation and was the ideologist of the burgher wing of this movement. Luther's rebellion against the self-confident doctrinaires of papism and profaned soul-saving practices was based on the following ideas:
1. The fundamental unknowability of the Divine will. All people are equal in their complete ignorance of God's providence.
2. The fundamental loneliness of conscience, the burden of which has no one to shift to. This thesis essentially stated the uselessness of an entire class of professionals who had made their careers on the great doctrine of salvation, whose “knowledge” was devalued.
3. Fundamental this-worldliness and the associated ethics of responsible everyday life. The silence of God, whose will cannot be revealed in any doctrinal revelations, forced the Protestant to seek confirmation of his chosenness solely in the success of his practical everyday endeavors. At the same time, asceticism was not eliminated, but transferred to worldly life. The principle of individual religious experience and individual salvation was affirmed.
The peasant-plebeian opposition to the Catholic Church was led by Thomas Münzer (1490-1525). The peak of this struggle was the Peasants' War in Germany (1524-1526).
T. Münzer, who spoke out against social inequality and the dominance of the church, nevertheless denied Luther’s understanding of a secular state, to which all subjects must be submissive. T. Münzer's political program had a clearly democratic character. He advocated a state of "common benefit", where there are no class or property differences.
J. Calvin (1509-1564) in his treatise “Instructions in the Christian Faith” argued about divine predestination, which meant: the origin and privileges of feudal lords are nothing; It is everyone’s duty to work and be a prudent manager.
Thus, the ideas of the Reformation, which were pro-bourgeois in nature, laid the foundation for the mass consciousness of Western man, where he himself is the highest value and the highest guarantor.
Political ideas of the "tyrant fighters". Etienne de La Boesie
The ideologists of the Reformation, from different sides, both theoretically and practically, undermined the foundations of the feudal system, bringing to life ideas that are still the dominant mass consciousness of the West. The main achievement of political and legal thought of that time was the thesis of freedom of thought and conscience.
A special contribution to the development of political and legal theory was made by the so-called political writers, who expressed the interests of the propertied elements of the opposition and, above all, the nobility. The works of F. Getman, Junius Brutus, T. Bez, J. Buchanan substantiated the idea of the sovereignty of the people (feudal nobility), their supremacy even over the sovereign, sealed by an agreement making the power of the sovereign legal. If the monarch breaks the laws, then the people have the right to resist tyranny. The tyrant fighters, as these writers came to be called, resolutely opposed the institutions of the old estate-representative system of power in favor of a unified national statehood. Etienne de La Boesie (1530-1563) went the furthest in his criticism of the absolute power of monarchs. In his work “Discourse on Voluntary Slavery,” he rejected the monarchical system as inhuman, inhumane, which at one time was imposed by deception. He sees the reason for people’s loss of their natural freedom in the fact that people are cowardly and ready to submit to strong authority, that people are unjustifiably reverent of any authority, including tyrannical ones, that people were instilled with the authority of the authorities, having previously deprived them of their freedom. The main pathos of E. de La Boesie is that people must realize that they live in voluntary slavery.
The ideologists of the Reformation decisively undermined the feudal-church order, democratized political thought, laid the foundation of political and legal theory, introducing such concepts as “sovereignty of the people”, “social contract”, “legitimacy of state power” into scientific use.
J. Bodin on the sovereignty of state power and the forms of state
In the last third of the 16th century. France became the scene of a long religious struggle between Catholics and Protestants, which culminated in the bloody St. Bartholomew's Night of 1572. Fierce religious confrontation, the economic decline of the country, dissatisfaction of the feudal aristocracy with high state taxes, the deteriorating situation of the masses due to feudal and nascent capitalist exploitation created a real threat to existence the state itself.
During this period, the works of Jean Bodin (1530-1596) appeared, in which the author argues that only strong royal power can rise above strife, establish peace and preserve the state. J. Bodin's main work is "Six Books on the Republic", in which he outlined his views on the origin of the state, its functions, forms of government, as well as other problems of the political and legal life of society at that time.
The state is defined by him as the legal administration of families and what they have in common with the supreme power, which must be guided by the eternal principles of goodness and justice. These principles are capable of providing a common good, which should be the goal of government. The state arises independently of the will of God or people under the influence of geography, climate, soil, which affects the form of government of a particular state.
The state is an association of families. The head of the family is the prototype of state power and is endowed with the status of a citizen. The strength of the family institution ensures the strength and stability of the state itself. Since the state is a union of families, it is guided by common interests.
Jean Bodin draws special attention to the fact that public administration is of a legal nature and corresponds to the national system of positive law. The main contribution of J. Bodin to the development of political and legal theory lies in his formulation and solution of the problem of state sovereignty. His merit lies not in operating with this concept, but in the fact that he comprehensively developed the theory of sovereignty.
By sovereignty, Boden understood a certain property of state power - its supreme character. We were talking about the unconditional independence of state power from any other standing above it or next to it. “Sovereignty is the absolute and eternal power of the Republic,” he wrote. At the same time, he characterized the republic as a form of state.
State sovereignty is manifested in the corresponding rights and powers of the state. He includes: the right of legislation, the right to declare war and make peace, the appointment of officials, the right of final decision, the right of pardon, the right to obedience and loyalty of subjects, the right to mint coins, determine weights and measures, the right to levy taxes and duties.
These rights can neither be assigned nor withdrawn, and no statute of limitations can deprive the sovereign of these powers.
Of all forms of government, he preferred the monarchy. He considered democracy and aristocracy as intermediate stages in the movement towards monarchy. The monarchy, like no other power, meets the requirements of sovereignty, which is one, indivisible, continuous and unconditional. The monarch himself is the source of law and law. J. Woden considers the monarch as an absolute sovereign, but the absoluteness of the ruler is limited by divine and natural law, recognition of the right of private property and the principle of religious tolerance. Sovereignty does not mean arbitrariness of power.
The ideal form of state for France, according to Bodin, is a royal monarchy, where sovereignty belongs entirely to the monarch, and government of the country is aristocratic and democratic in nature.
Thus, J. Bodin laid the theoretical foundation for future enlightened constitutional monarchies.
Political and legal ideas of early socialism. Issues of state and law in “Utopia” by T. More and in the book “City of the Sun” by T. Campanella
In the XVI-XVII centuries. European socialism became a noticeable critical trend in political and legal thought. Prominent representatives of this anti-bourgeois teaching were Thomas More (1478-1535) and Tommaso Campanella (1508-1639).
More's treatise "Utopia" (1516) brought him worldwide fame - a small book that gave rise to a new genre of literature and the name of a method of theorizing. More's "Utopia" is a product of the Renaissance, when people in Western Europe were rethinking their relationships not only with the church, but with the state and with each other. Sharply criticizing the existing order and government structure, he instead proposed an ideal society on the fantastic island of Utopia. The society that More describes is authoritarian, patriarchal, hierarchical, recognizing and using the institution of slavery. Everyone in this society works for the common good. There is no money, property is common, there is no exploitation of man by man; everyone obeys the laws. The workers are supervised by officials who also respect the laws and intelligently manage people's lives. The social model of the monastery state is doomed from the very beginning and untenable. For people’s lives cannot be placed in a Procrustean bed of economic equality and spiritual wretchedness. However, despite this, the ideas of establishing public property instead of private property found a wide response among the lower classes, eking out a miserable existence and thirsting for social justice
T. Mora's form of government combined the features of various forms of government, that is, it was of a mixed nature.
In “The City of the Sun” by T. Campanella, much attention is paid to a detailed description of the life structure of the city-state of solariums. Public power consists of three branches, which are headed by three rulers named Power, Wisdom, Love. Subordinate to these rulers are three chiefs, each of whom controls three officials. The entire management pyramid is crowned by the supreme ruler - the Metaphysician, in whose hands secular and spiritual power is concentrated, which he himself can refuse if, in his opinion, a person has appeared in society who is superior to him in the ability to govern the state. The lower levels of power undergo an election procedure and depend on the people. The rest of the life of society is completely scheduled and regulated. There is also no place for private property in it; the principle of universality of labor, equality and justice prevails. A depressing spirit of monotony reigns throughout. A person with his individual interests and needs is lost in such a society.
Dreaming of an ideal state, representatives of European socialism seemed to “forget” about man and directed all the power of their intellect to how to “reasonably” manage this person with the help of the state, and thereby laid the theoretical foundations for the emergence of a new form of general slavery of people.
- Rene Descartes: short biography and contributions to science
- What is knowledge? Types of knowledge. Knowledge is life! It is impossible to survive anywhere without the necessary knowledge. What is useful knowledge definition?
- Books on magic: opening the veil of secrets
- Dream Interpretation: why do you dream of a Puppy, to see a Puppy in a dream, what does Dream Puppy mean?