Archaic and Modern World

Many of the humanities you will encounter are, in one way or another, concerned with profound differences and oppositions between archaism and the "modern world" (alternatively: between "pre-industrial" and "industrial" / "post-industrial" / "information society" or "traditional society" and "technological civilization" – the general meaning is approximately the same in all cases, only the diagrams of the periodization differ slightly). It is useful to trace and explain the most significant and important of these differences. In this context, it turns out that the Marxists (in this case) were right: most of the social and political characteristics of "archaic" and "modern" societies are determined by their technical-economic specificities.

Technological and Economic Foundations

The technological basis of archaic society is manual labor. Its skills are determined by custom, do not change much, and are very unspecialized. The technological basis of modern society is mechanized labor, which requires a high level of skill from the worker and enormous scientific "support" from the developers of the machines.

The economy of the archaic era is based on agriculture. Products intended mainly for direct consumption are produced (food, clothing, weapons, supplies, construction). The majority of the population is employed in this production. In modern times, the economy is based on knowledge-intensive industry. The majority of raw materials, costs and labor resources are not directed towards the production of truly necessary goods, but towards the manufacture of intermediate products necessary for this production. Thus, the structural efficiency of the modern economy is lower than that of the archaic economy, but at the same time the range and quantity of goods for direct consumption per capita is immeasurably greater today.

As we see, technological progress is a paradoxical thing: it forces us to spend most of our efforts on what no one actually needs, but precisely because of this, the final harvest is much greater.

Economic Exchange Systems

The nature of the archaic economy is natural – most of the production is not intended for sale. Each village is able to provide for itself with everything it needs, but its inhabitants cannot afford anything more. The rest of the population consists mainly of a ruling elite who do not trade but collect taxes.

The modern economy is based on the exchange of goods and money, if only because, as mentioned, most of the goods produced in each place are not needed by anyone in themselves. Therefore, they have to be passed from hand to hand through complex chains, so that at the end of the next segment of the chain the next producer could finally produce something directly consumable. Imagine, for example, how many individual producers are needed to get bread to your table (this also includes those who make plows, those who cast metal for them, and those who make fertilizers, and those who make asphalt for the roads on which the grain is transported, or paint for the trucks on which it is transported - and so on... endlessly).

Such cooperation can theoretically be tried to be organized from above, but it is simply impossible due to its incredible complexity. It did not work even for the early Bolsheviks, who after a few years of "war communism" had to introduce exchange as the only way to move the necessary intermediate products in the chain of producers. Moreover, the modern economy, thanks to its technical power, simply produces a huge amount of everything. This "everything" remains only to be exchanged.

If the economy is based on exchange, its leaders are interested in improving productivity and labor productivity, expanding choice, and the mutual growth of demand and supply—in other words, technological progress, economic growth, and the growth of the purchasing power of the population.

Thus, from a certain point on, the exchange principle of the economy inevitably works in the interests of technological development and the growth of general well-being. The imbalance in the growth of demand and supply can cause very serious crises, but these crises occur against a background of general and overall stable growth.

Progress and Stagnation

In the natural economy, nothing of the sort happens. Therefore, the Archaic period is an era of stagnation in technical and economic development (in Egypt in 1800 BC the level of agricultural development was approximately the same as in 1800 AD), while the modern period is an era of rapid and cumulatively accelerating technical and economic growth. In the last two hundred years, the life of the average inhabitant of the Earth has changed more than in the previous six thousand years.

In archaic production, the greatest organizational difficulties are not connected with the work itself, but with the organization of the workers' coexistence and the redistribution of resources and products - that is, with those areas of social life that the state regulates within the framework of its political power. It may not be necessary to organize sowing and harvesting from above - the village itself knows how to do that - but considerable organizational efforts are indeed required to keep the village apart from its neighbors and to collect taxes from it. This is precisely the reason for the so-called "primacy of politics over economics" (i.e., the primacy of political factors over economic factors) during the archaic period.

In contrast, the modern economic process is so complex that it must be organized primarily, whether through private management or state regulation. For comparison: a feudal lord does not have to supervise the economic process on his land every day, let alone carry out economic maneuvers; the factory owner is forced to manage production and maneuvers every day (himself or through managers). Hence the modern "primacy of the economy over politics."

For the same reason, no archaic economy was based on a relationship between sectors that was more or less stable everywhere and could not be maneuvered, but on the following relationship: the public sector, the private communal sector, with small entrepreneurs; and finally, the sector of large private or semi-private holdings, formed by the resources (granted from above or expropriated from below) of the first two sectors.

Today, the structure of the economy can be very different, and these differences are fatal (primarily due to the formation of a global exchange system and the resulting possibility of economic specialization of different economies).

The decisive factor in the competitive activity of barter is the possibility of accumulating funds in the right place and at the right time (provided by banks) and credit (which is also absolutely necessary for the functioning of the bank itself). Therefore, the modern economy in its private form operates "on credit" and is much more susceptible to the negative effects of all kinds of psychological (including irrational) factors than the archaic economy. In the modern economy, maintained by the state, this danger does not exist (but it is also less efficient).

Military Potential

The military potential of modern society depends more or less directly on its economic potential. In archaic times, this dependence does not exist. The reason for this is clear: the armament of the archaic period is so primitive that, starting from a certain level accessible to everyone, it can be produced by practically everyone, regardless of their subsequent economic successes or failures. Moreover, when tens of thousands of people meet, the decisive factor is not so much numbers as skill and luck, and the means of communication and communication still do not allow the use of armies of millions by anyone, including those who, judging by the amount of reserves and the potential of the population, would be capable of it. Therefore, these numbers and potentials have no special military significance.

The defeat, astonishing to the modern imagination but completely banal from an archaic perspective, suffered by the vast and by the standards of its time incredibly rich Persian Empire at the hands of ten poor Hellenistic cities, makes this point clear. On the other hand, the application of strategic thinking derived from archaic thinking to the modern world leads to collapse - Germany, which in this century had the best (and clearly superior) field army in the world and which relied on it recklessly, suffered two consecutive defeats precisely because of the military and economic superiority of its enemies.

Social Structure and Hierarchy

The archaic economy is technically primitive and therefore poor. The total output produced is barely enough to keep the majority of the population, relatively speaking, alive. This means that social contrasts and exploitation are experienced much more intensely than in the rich and prosperous modern world. It is easier for a millionaire to pay a 50% tax – he will not go hungry – than for an archaic peasant, who already lives poorly, to pay "a tenth of nothing".

Similarly, the levels of conflict in society differ. A hungry person is much more likely to raise his hand against his neighbor for a handful of grain (he has little to lose) than a well-fed person (he may lose his position as a breadwinner, and he is lazy). Therefore, in order to maintain social order, an archaic society needs a much stricter, more stable, and more powerful – and thus more authoritarian and hierarchical – social and political organization than modern society.

As we recall, for various economic reasons archaic society is forced to focus on non-economic, violent coercion, where the exploited are forced to work, while modern economy is forced to rely on economic factors. The effect of this factor is the same as the previous one, but much stronger... archaic society is forced to develop harsh forms of exploitation and, accordingly, to give enormous power and strength to the ruling class, while modern society needs a certain - sufficiently high - level of social emancipation.

For all the reasons mentioned above, the hierarchical structure of archaic society is clear, the upper class of society is vastly superior to the lower class in social and economic power, society is divided into clear strata, formulated as a class system (this strengthens the separation of the ruling class from the majority of the population, divides the population and thus gives the social order and the rule of the upper class the necessary stability and power).

Modern societies categorically reject the system of nobility, consist of a group of citizens with equal basic rights, and are distinguished by immeasurably greater vertical mobility (the possibilities for a member of society to rise from its "underclass" to its "upper class").

For the reasons presented above, it becomes clear that in a normal situation, that is, in a state of "correct" and more efficient activity, without crises and exceptional situations, archaic society represents the state isotope of a corresponding formation, while modern society, in turn, represents the private one.

Ultimately, the key figure in archaic society is a member of the power hierarchy, a civil servant and/or a soldier. His power is closely linked to and in relation to wealth. It is precisely such people who form the quantitative and qualitative core of the ruling class, which gives the whole society a kind of military romantic, "fantasy" tone.

In modern society, the key figure is not the organizer of power, but the organizer of production. And because modern society encourages private forms of exploitation, power (not influence, but formal state power) has largely become divorced from wealth - high-ranking officials are usually nowhere near the richest. The corresponding transfer of influence has been somewhat delayed (as is the case with social phenomena) in relation to the economic change that caused it. In Germany, which had already become fully industrialized by the end of the 19th century, in 1914 power was still exercised by civil and especially military bureaucrats; in 1939 by the party (civilian) bureaucracy and industrialists, in 1999 simply by industrialists.

Education and Social Participation

Modern society needs a lot of qualified and educated ordinary members and is forced to provide them with extensive education. On the other hand, it has formed hand in hand with a sharp increase in the amount and speed of information transmission, as well as the speed, ease and density of means of communication and communication. Mass media are emerging. From a purely demographic point of view, industry requires the concentration of huge masses of the population in small areas.

As a result, the "lower classes" of society are psychologically quite liberated and increasingly active; it is now much easier for ordinary members of society to agree and show solidarity (also thanks to the media), and their concentration makes violent suppression impossible or extremely difficult if mass movements and unrest nevertheless arise. Thus, the "explosive" potential of the lower strata, as well as their ability and willingness to use it if necessary, is growing sharply. The upper strata of society are forced to retreat and give in, concluding a social compromise on new terms in accordance with the changed balance of power. Ultimately, the ruling class is forced to provide a set of social guarantees to the direct producers, and the masses of the people for the first time permanently enter the forefront of political life.

In particular, there is a disintegration of all kinds of corporations (including estate corporations) that previously structured and disciplined society. From now on, it becomes, so to speak, atomized, and it becomes a conglomerate of individual people – citizens.

The Role of State Power

The main purpose of all power is to intervene by force in emergency situations, if necessary, and correct the internal and external social situation. For this purpose, society establishes power and gives it corresponding power. However, a paradox awaits us here: the stronger the power is, the more fully and effectively it can benefit society in emergency situations. But the greater the harm it can cause to people if it makes erroneous "great decisions" or turns into a shining "object in itself" in the body of society.

It seems that the power of state power is a double-edged sword. What should one ultimately choose? Each era makes its choice here for perfectly rational reasons. The survival of archaic society is constantly at stake, it repeatedly finds itself in exceptional situations, and its main problems are solved in principle only by political force. Therefore, archaic society needs strong corrective measures more than it fears strong negative measures.

In modern societies the situation is the opposite. Their economy is very complex, and by drastic measures from above it can be disrupted much more easily and more often than it can be corrected. Therefore, modern society fears strong power more than it values ​​it. It is forced to leave the state only the functions of regulation, and does not allow it to actively manipulate the economy. But for this the state itself must submit to the control of society. From now on it takes less and less and gives less and less at its own discretion.

Freedom and Democracy

In general, people have always wanted to be less subjugated and more self-determined, in other words, they have striven for freedom. As we have already seen, a poor archaic society is simply not capable of offering people such freedom when it is in danger of disintegration. For even in the modern world, as soon as vital resources for some reason begin to be lacking for everyone, the authorities immediately take exception to their powers and restrict freedoms in order to prevent an uncontrolled struggle for a reduced piece of the pie and distribute it centrally.

The masses of archaic society are fully aware of this situation, although they suffer from a lack of freedom. It is no coincidence that all victorious peasant uprisings immediately led to the establishment of strong tsarist power... the people understand very well that, although it is expensive for them, without it they are doomed to civil wars for pieces of bread and external attacks. On the other hand, the scattered members of archaic society, scattered in small communities over a vast territory, are, with few exceptions, simply incapable of coming to terms with each other and of exerting organized pressure on the authorities in the struggle for their freedom. Modern development brings with it the growth of wealth and the development of means of communication, which completely changes the situation. From now on, the lower classes are less hostile, but stronger; the ruling upper class can, on the one hand, grant them more rights, and on the other hand, it is forced to do so.

From the circumstances described above or earlier, it inevitably follows that archaic society is predominantly hierarchical, with the majority of the population severely restricted in their rights and independence, and modern society is normally a representative democracy, with rights and freedoms at a fairly high level and in which equality of citizens almost always prevails and almost all its members have broad voting rights. Subjects are replaced by citizens.

Political Parties and Modern Democracy

We note that modern democracy is not at all "democratic" in the direct sense, as in ancient Greece. In reality, the direction of society is still determined by the ruling class. However, the new political system creates a "feedback channel" between it and the people, allowing the people to significantly influence the decisions made "at the top" and choose between different options presented by the leadership of society.

In the political organization of society, alongside the executive and representative institutions, a new important element appears – permanent political parties. Their task is to unite the ruling class and the majority of the population politically and organizationally through party structures. This stabilizes society, because it mitigates and partially masks both physically and psychologically the "difference of potentials" between the "top" and the "bottom". With the growth of the activity and power of the masses (which, as we recall, is typical of modern society), the establishment of such a connection and cooperation with them becomes necessary for the upper classes of society. In the modern "private" version, parties represent different social trends, and each of them unites a certain part of the ruling class with a part of the population that supports it – the resulting varying blocs compete with each other.

In the "state" version, one ruling party usually stands out, which unites the bureaucratically united ruling class with the entire population. In order for power not to become too strong and to break away from the influence and control of society by cutting off the "feedback" to it, modern society divides power into several "branches" according to the nature of the tasks it solves (the concept of separation of powers). The concentration of different powers in the hands of one party would make such a power structure overwhelming and uncontrolled. This is what is happening in Russia!

Cultural Attitudes and Tradition

The contemporary cultural situation is characterized by a sense of a certain break with tradition (the observance of which is typical of the archaic era) and the perception of constant "changes" as a necessary norm of life in general. Hence the concept of "universal progress" common to contemporary societies. Naturally, this means changes for the better, but in practice the population may be attracted almost exclusively by the word "change" ('reform', "progress"), regardless of its consequences. The reason for this phenomenon is the huge leap that society makes in the transition to modernity, and the associated "high of success".

An archaic society, which has very little control over the forces and laws of the surrounding world, most resembles in this respect a person frozen in the darkness on a mountainside. Every wrong step threatens destruction, and there are no reserves to compensate for possible consequences. In this situation, a rational society is much more afraid of bringing misfortune upon itself with an uncertain step than it is attracted by its possible success. Therefore, a person in an archaic society prefers to repeat the old, centuries-old experiences of his ancestors (i.e., traditions) and, in principle, is wary of deviating from them.

The model of the "state" in modern society (i.e. the so-called "socialism" or "state" or finally "semi-state", i.e. 'Taiwanese' and "Asian" capitalism) is socio-culturally very peculiar. Since the dominance of political power is typical and necessary precisely for archaic societies, but contraindicated for the modern economy, the "state" isotope of many social, political and cultural institutions is inherited directly from the archaic era, and many phenomena of life and especially the economy do not fit into them in the best possible way. This causes many cultural and psychological contradictions – first of all, the conflict between the rules imposed by the authorities and the desire of the population to get rid of such patronage.

Attitudes Toward War

Finally, the attitude towards war is changing fundamentally – due to the famous "growth of the value of human life". Although, contrary to what is written about this, the growth of humanism is not relevant in this matter – over the past ten to fifteen thousand years, people have not become kinder either individually or collectively. The value of human life has increased in a literal, material sense, both for the person himself and for society as a whole.

It can be said, with a slight exaggeration, that the ordinary man of the archaic period is born and lives like grass and, even in a peaceful life, constantly teeters on the brink of death (due to illness, malnutrition, etc.) and suffers many sufferings, above all exhausting work. The danger of war is therefore not so frightening for him, but the opportunity to live at the expense of others and to enrich himself (in a way that he could not have dreamed of in a peaceful life) is almost priceless. For society, his life is worth nothing: it has not invested any resources in him. Is it any wonder that war is, in the eyes of archaic society, "a matter of honor, fame, valor, and heroism"?

Another thing is the modern world: modern man generally lives in prosperity and comfort. War threatens to deprive him of these, but cannot give him anything that he could not get much cheaper at home. That is why the modern hero does not want wars; and in the modern political system, what the majority of citizens do not want, the whole society does not want. Moreover, modern society invests huge sums in each of its members from childhood (state and municipal spending on his education, entertainment, healthcare, etc.). Can it really be that a system so expensive for all of us will be destroyed in war for free?

Finally, the modern economy is such that even the most victorious war has much greater costs than any victory can bring... The Entente was the first to finally understand this (after the First World War and the Paris Peace Conference, it acted as the Supreme Council of the Entente, which tried to create a new post-war order, but was unable to overcome the contradictions between the victorious powers - Great Britain, France, the United States, Italy and Japan). Therefore, modern society has categorically rejected the "great war" as a normal way to solve its political problems.

In summary, the transition from archaic to modern times is a massive liberation of social and political liberalization (the expansion of civil liberties and political rights, including the weakening of state control and restrictions), made possible by the enormous economic growth brought about by technological advances.