On the historical origins of democracy and "democracy"

It is well known that at the earliest stages of the formation of statehood among different peoples, the form of organization of state power was largely determined by the form of organization of their community.


Where the state-forming ethnos lived in the traditional for most ancient ethnic groups bloodline community with an extremely rigid hierarchy of all members of the community in relation to its elder head, there the state institutions were built in exactly the same rigid vertical and hierarchy in relation to the head of state of all other public institutions authorities and officials.


Athenian Acropolis. Reconstruction

Similar examples in stories humanity is more than enough. For example, according to this principle, power was built in ancient Egypt, in all the Eastern Despotisms of Between-rivers, the Mongol Empire, etc. Where the state-forming ethnos lived in the conditions of a territorial or neighboring community (“brand community”), where the need to harmonize the various interests of all equal members of the community inevitably arose, power was initially based on the principles of true democracy, that is, its periodic election, accountability and turnover naturally, without any noisy campaigning campaigns and election shows, but essentially.

In the early history of mankind, examples of the second kind of organization of power, that is, the coordination of the interests of the “Earth” (society) and “Power”, were not many, but they still existed. The most typical example of such an organization of power is the ancient Greek polis - small in size and in number city-state, which included the city itself and its rural district. However, it should be noted that the ancient Greeks did not immediately come to this form of organization of power, but through the crucible of “royal power” in the Mycenaean period (XVI – XI century BC) and the era of “dark ages” (XI – IX century .e.), when the same blood-related community prevailed. The formation and flourishing of the ancient Greek polis fell on the archaic (VIII – VI century BC) and classical (V – IV century BC) periods of the history of Ancient Hellas, when the hereditary relations of the ancient Greeks faded into the background.


Novgorod veche. Hood Sergey Rubtsov

Contrary to the endless wailing of overseas and home-grown "liberals" and "democrats" about the ancient and centuries-old slavery of the Russian people, a similar type of power organization existed in Ancient Russia, especially in the pre-Mongolian period. Moreover, it is important to note the fact that the overwhelming majority of Soviet and modern Russian historians, being in the “captivity” of Friedrich Engels' well-known provisions about the German bloodline community and its further transformation into the neighboring community, or “brand-community”, absolutized this process and spread the position similar phasic community on all the most ancient peoples of Europe.

However, by the time of the collapse of the single Slavic ethnos, the Eastern Slavs had long since passed the stage of “wildness” and, unlike the neighboring Germans and steppe inhabitants, lived within the framework of a neighboring (territorial) community, which was based not on a large but on a small family. This fundamentally different view of the Slavic community is confirmed by a number of reliable historical facts, in particular: 1) the existence of at least two anthropological types within the East Slavic ethnos; 2) the small size of dwellings in all known and accurately established Slavic archaeological cultures; 3) by the long absence of generic Slavic genealogies, characteristic, for example, for the same Germans who lived for a rather long time in a consanguineous community; 4) Slavic polygamy in the pre-Christian era, etc.

It is well known that all the ancient Russian chronicles are full of rich information that the “Kyans”, “No-townspeople”, “Galicians”, “Rostovites” and other townspeople “pointed the way” to one or another prince who violated “a number of "(Contract) with the city community. For example, in 1136, the Novgorodians “pointed the way” to the coward prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, in 1146, a similar incident happened to the great Prince of Kiev, Igor Olgovich, and in 1188, the Galicians drove out their lecherous Prince Vladimir Yaroslavich. Moreover, we note that such a practice of expelling Russian princes by the decision of city councils was a widespread phenomenon not only in Novgorod or Pskov, which everyone probably knows about, even in all ancient Russian volosts, and then in the lands (principalities) of the Ancient Rus, where princely tables existed.

Moreover, this tradition of veche democracy has been preserved in the Russian lands during the post-Mongolian period, since it is well known that, for example, only Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy (1359 – 1389) managed to crush the “Earth” in the person of Moscow’s actual owners, thousands of Moscow the boyars of the Velyaminovs, who from the time of his great-grandfather, the first Moscow-specific Prince Daniil Alexandrovich (1283 – 1303), held the elective office of the thousand and were the real counterweight to the Vlasti in the face of the Moscow princes in Moscow itself.


Marfa Posadnitsa. The destruction of the Novgorod veche. Hood Claudius Lebedev

With the development of the feudal mode of production and the emergence of the institution of feudal land tenure, the institution-estate, and then the absolute monarchy, with its extremely rigid class hierarchy and the absence of so-called social elevators for all other estates except feudal aristocracy and ancestral nobles, was established in almost all European countries. . In the heyday of absolute monarchies in Europe, when the path to state power was “ordered” to all representatives of the “mean” estates, the “best minds” of Europe, such as: Denis Diderot, Charles Montesquieu, Francois Voltaire, and other “titans of thought” of the Enlightenment, who were generously financed by the most unscrupulous representatives of these “meanest estates”, who were inexpressibly enriched at the “bank interest”, but who did not receive the coveted entrance ticket to power, painfully sought a way out of this vicious circle and finally found it! It is through the efforts of these “lights” of the then European thought that modern “Western democracy” was born with its ideas of “social contract”, “separation of powers”, “freedom of speech” and everything else that covers the true essence of this very “democracy”: “Who has the money , that and power! ".

At the same time, at the end of the 18th century, relying on these ideas of the Enlightenment, which had already mastered the masses of European intellectuals, the founding fathers of "experimental" public education called the North American United States (1776) and the world's first Constitution (1787), based on the idea of ​​a “social contract”. By the way, when the “uninitiated” American revolutionaries proposed putting the royal crown on the head of the first US President George Washington and calling him Washington I, their “dedicated” colleagues quickly explained to them that they should not do this.

Meanwhile their French associates, in particular, Camille Desmoulins, Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyes, Nicolas Condorcet Bernard Laseped Jean Bailly and Sylvain Dominique Gar continued their experimentation and soon "cooked" French Revolution (1789-1799), yavivshuyusya guiding light for “fiery revolutionaries” of all ranks and stripes, and their “brother” Joseph Guillotin became the inventor of the famous guillotine!
I am sure that every more or less educated person, of course, heard about the Union of the Russian People (NRC) and the notorious “Black Hundred”, which all small years of the Soviet government and Yeltsin hard times frightened even small children. Many historians and political scientists have long been haunted by the sacramental question of why the collapse of the NRC and other patriotic parties.

To some, our answer may seem paradoxical, but the Russian Black Hundreds was the first real attempt to build in the Russian Empire what is now called “civil society.” But it was precisely this that was absolutely not needed by either the imperial bureaucracy, neither the radical revolutionaries, nor the liberals-Westerners of all stripes. The Black Hundred should be stopped immediately, and it was stopped.

On the historical origins of democracy and "democracy"


After all, it was not by chance that the most astute politician of that time, Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), wrote with a great deal of apprehension, but with amazing frankness: “In our Black Hundreds there is one extremely original and extremely important feature that has not received enough attention. This is the dark peasant democracy, the roughest, but also the deepest. ” The Black Hundreds had to be stopped because it was they: 1) who considered their main enemy to be not the Jews, but the corrupt Russian bureaucracy; 2) confessing “peasant democracy”, believed that the primary unit of local self-government was to make all-tribal parishes, not liberal zemstvos, where the dominance of high-ranking nobles and raznochintsy liberals was glaring; 3) the Black Hundreds believed that the ruling classes of the Russian Empire artificially created an impassable wall between the majority of the people and the monarch, therefore they dreamed of destroying this wall and creating an all-tribal state, without privileges for the oligarchic aristocracy and the bourgeoisie; 4) finally, the Black Hundreds sincerely defended precisely Russian national culture, and for the European-educated elite stratum of the Russian Empire, this was a question, to put it mildly, dubious.

In April 1918, the leader of the world proletariat and the head of the world's first working-class peasant state, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who had been tormented for over a year searching for the answer to the question “what should this state be like?”, Broke out with another theoretical masterpiece “Proletarian revolution and renegade Kautsky”. This Leninist volume is remarkable by the fact that it was here, extremely hard arguing with the leader of European revisionists Karl Kautsky, that he put all the points on “i” and absolutely correctly wrote: “If you don’t mock common sense and history, then it’s clear that you can’t say about "pure democracy", while there are different classes, but you can only talk about CLASS DEMOCRACY. "Pure democracy" is not only an ignorant phrase that reveals a lack of understanding of both the class struggle and the essence of the state, but also a thrice empty phrase ... "pure democracy" is a false phrase of every liberal ... and under capitalism it cannot but remain narrow, truncated, fake , the hypocritical form of the dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie ".

Within any state, and even more so huge as Russia, state power can and should be built solely on the principles of a different “democracy”, and the question of what kind of democracy this will be should be the subject of the most serious public debate. Otherwise, we will never find a real balance of interests between “Earth” and “Power”. This is a question of the future development of civilization, whose roots are in the historical past.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. yuriy55 8 November 2015 06: 57 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    How nevertheless the coils of the historical spiral fit tightly together ... what

    Within any state, and even less so huge as Russia, state power can and should be built solely on the principles of a different “democracy”, and the question of what this democracy will be like should the subject of the most serious public debate.


    Serious and sensible application. So far we have been content and continue to be content with the "class" ... only the classes have changed ... lol
  2. Igor39 8 November 2015 07: 02 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Yeah, the article is presented as if Russia was an ancient lamp of democracy, but there was a time when they were free landowners, personal and public, but then the so-called elite drove their people into slavery.
    "The objective picture of the development of serfdom in Russia from ancient times to the middle of the XVII century is as follows: princely and boyar tenure, combined with a strengthened bureaucratic apparatus, attacked personal and communal land ownership. Formerly free farmers, communal peasants, or even "The private owners of the land - the" native people "of the Old Russian legal acts - gradually became tenants of plots belonging to the clan aristocracy or to the serving nobility."
    1. washi 8 November 2015 11: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Igor39
      Yeah, the article is presented as if Russia was an ancient lamp of democracy, but there was a time when they were free landowners, personal and public, but then the so-called elite drove their people into slavery.
      "The objective picture of the development of serfdom in Russia from ancient times to the middle of the XVII century is as follows: princely and boyar tenure, combined with a strengthened bureaucratic apparatus, attacked personal and communal land ownership. Formerly free farmers, communal peasants, or even "The private owners of the land - the" native people "of the Old Russian legal acts - gradually became tenants of plots belonging to the clan aristocracy or to the serving nobility."

      Do you know the concept of "St. George's Day"?
      This is when the land tenant (peasant) could leave the land owner, if he had one, and go to other lands, paying off his debts.
      St. George’s Day temporarily, due to a hunger strike, abolished Godunov, obliging landlords to feed both their slaves and their tenants.
      The final enslavement of the peasants occurred already under the Romanov-Koshkin
  3. Monster_Fat 8 November 2015 07: 56 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    "Democracy" ... Um. Personally, I do not like this word, I can not stand it. Since the "democracy" can not be in principle. The same Lenin wrote that "... there will always be in power a group of people connected by common interests, namely: their" reproduction "and enrichment ... and this is due to the peculiarity of the human character seeking profit and the desire to manage ... only in the distant future, by creating a person of the "future" who will be alien to any concept of personal wealth .... one can hope for some semblance of "democracy" in management ... however this is a matter of the future, a world that has not yet been created anywhere .. . "
    By the way, ISIS says that they have "Islamic democracy:" all decisions are made at collective gatherings, by voting, everyone can proclaim himself a murid or sheikh if ​​he has authority and support, all "income" goes to the "common pot" and is evenly distributed regardless of position, etc., etc., only now, slavery is legalized there. It is the slaves who will have to ensure the further "prosperity" of the Islamic State, if it is created "...
    1. Aljavad 8 November 2015 16: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      ISIS says that they have "Islamic democracy:"


      Like the Strugatsky, welfare society, where even the last poor have at least three slaves ....
    2. Down House 8 November 2015 19: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Since the "democracy" can not be in principle.

      And it never happened, the authors of such heartbreaking stories about democratic Greece-Novgorod for some reason always "forget" that they were not "democracies", but aristocracy-oligarchies with their own and smerds and slaves.
      And the fact that "democracies" have always been opposed to "absolutism" absolutely does not mean anything for the "common people" - he had a "bar" here and there.
  4. Concealer 8 November 2015 08: 01 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    within any state, and even less so huge as Russia, state power can and should be built solely on the principles of a different “democracy”, and the question of what this democracy will be should be the subject of the most serious public discussion. Otherwise, we will never find a real balance of interests of the “Earth” and “Power”. This is a question of the future development of civilization, whose roots are in the historical past.

    Well, at least someone began to think about the roots of "democracy." But the world has changed again. And today, a change in social production has again returned us to the crossroads of history. The emergence of a post-industrial production model (not to be confused with the liberal concept of a "post-industrial service society") has led to the need to again address the issue of organizing the "Earth" and "Power." And here our story will help us a lot.
    The financial "absolutism" is over. Maybe it's time to collect the Veche and conclude an agreement with the Authority? I remember in history there are excellent traditions of agreements with the Merchants (financial elite), I remember before they had direct and specific obligations to the Earth.
    It feels like the times of Ivan the Terrible are back, and you need to make the right choice.
    1. Down House 8 November 2015 19: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Concealer
      I remember in history there are excellent traditions of agreements with the Merchants

      And leave these stories of history, because the law of those years is not relevant right now, just like the science and medicine of those years.
      1. Concealer 9 November 2015 07: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Down House
        because the law of those years is not relevant right now, just like the science and medicine of those years.

        And here is right ??? We are talking about the fundamental principles, the very basis of "law". Since that time, humanity has not changed. The history and laws of social development are one for all, both then and today.
        And today is the time to find out whose "right" is now and why. So that everyone would understand where the law of the "Earth", and where the law of "Power".
        1. stopkran 9 November 2015 08: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          “Law is the will of the ruling class, elevated to the law.” (C.Marx)

          Protocol No. 1
          "... Our right is in force. The word" right "is abstract and in no way
          proven thought. The word does not mean more than: Give me what
          I want me to get proof that I'm stronger than you.
          Where does the right start? Where does it end? "
          http://lib.ru/POLITOLOG/AE/protokoly.txt_with-big-pictures.html
          1. Concealer 9 November 2015 17: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I will not argue with Karl Marx. :))))
            As for "law," it begins where there is "consent", and ends where there is "resistance."
            But the main thing is that the whole sequence of changes in historical formations is based on a simple fact - with the change in the model of social production, “right” (strong coercion) ceases to work.
            The truth is that with each level the development of social production, methods of coercion lose their effectiveness. The last form was capitalism, and forcing it was necessary to create a whole virtual reality of "private enterprise" and the "consumer market".
            And today again, the method of financial coercion has stopped working. The reason is simple, the development of social production has set a new demand - a creative approach. But it is impossible to make creating for money. “For money”, the output will also be only money. But they are not edible and do not burn well.
  5. Turkir 8 November 2015 09: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Denis Didro, Charles Montesquieu, Francois Voltaire and other "titans of thought" of the Enlightenment

    Apparently, the author of the article does not know anything about them, so he writes so scornfully about them. But their thoughts are still relevant, unless of course they are read.
    Following the author’s logic, the word "enlightenment" must be taken in quotation marks. This turns out to be disgusting, it is "enlightenment" and the Greeks let us down, they came up with "democracy", apparently, they had nothing to do.
    But the topic of the article is interesting, it was possible to show that democracy in "Greek" and democracy "in American" are completely different things, it’s enough to understand the US election system.
    When you read such opinions, you recall a fairy tale about a brave tailor: "In one fell swoop seven beatings."
    The experience of mankind cannot be reduced to a conspiracy of "Masons" and "liberals", which, as we know in Ancient Greece, was not. If the government calls itself "democratic" - this does not mean at all that this is so in fact.
  6. Dart2027 8 November 2015 10: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Turkir
    Following the author’s logic, the word "enlightenment" must be taken in quotation marks. This turns out to be disgusting this "enlightenment"

    About the enlightenment, it was the ancient Greeks who said:
    "Mnogoznanie not teach the mind"
    Enlightenment can instill secular manners, but does not change the essence of man. It was enlightened Europe that became a horror for millions and millions of less educated people, just when all these philosophers talked about a just society.
    Quote: Turkir
    it could be shown that democracy in Greek and democracy in American are completely different things

    Democracy is possible only in tiny city-states, where people are at the very least, but know each other. Any large state, in principle, cannot be democratic, why in fact it arose precisely in Greece, and not in Persia or Egypt. It is noteworthy that democracies slaughtered each other no worse than any dukes-princes during feudal fragmentation.
    1. Aljavad 8 November 2015 16: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      About the enlightenment, it was the ancient Greeks who said:
      "Mnogoznanie not teach the mind"


      Sir! You have enlightened enlightenment as a process and Enlightenment as a stream of thought in the 18th century. Two big differences, however!
      1. Dart2027 8 November 2015 19: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        One follows from the other - after getting a good education became widespread, that is, the development of enlightenment as a process, the opinion that people became better educated than they were, that is, a philosophical trend, flowed smoothly from this.
        1. gladcu2 8 November 2015 20: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Dart2027

          Education provides a correct understanding of government processes. And not only in this is its value.

          Take this opportunity to add.

          The author showed the historical sequence of the formation and death of states that everyone who needs to take an active citizenship needs to know.
          1. Dart2027 8 November 2015 23: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: gladcu2
            Education provides a correct understanding of government processes

            In order to understand the processes of government, it is enough to read the "Sovereign" Machiavelli - a short course gives the necessary minimum, universal at all times.
            Quote: gladcu2
            And not only in this is its value.

            Precisely what is not in it. Education makes it possible to develop science and technology, create various material benefits, from medicines that can cure diseases considered incurable, to plain paper. And of course this is good and needs to be developed. But all this has nothing to do with the ability to rule the country.
  7. Basil50 8 November 2015 11: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The Greeks, the very ones from whom the term and principle * democracy * were taken, had a property qualification for the title * democrat *. I don’t remember exactly the numbers, but land and slaves were obligatory. No slaves, no * democrat *. The principle of election and following the decision of the majority in the countries of the regime of Western democracies is nothing more than a form of speech. They are touched by the fiery speeches of homegrown * liberals * and * democrats * about the birthright of all the light in the West. In RUSSIA, the terms * liberal and democrat * have already been equated to the concept of * Trotsky * who pi..dit on any topic and never in the case.
    A case in point is how a democrat is sculpted from Churchill, cited * as the ultimate truth * without explaining that he began his career by robbing and executing rebels, and his whole career was built on treachery and truly sadistic methods of government. Now in England he is the most respected and authoritative politician. The piracy regime not only laundered it from blood and meanness, but also set it on the podium of democracy. This is one of the most illustrative examples of the democratic regime of the West.
    1. Aljavad 8 November 2015 17: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      how they mold a democrat from Churchill, quote him * as the ultimate truth *


      Sir Winston Leonard Spancer-Churchill was never "white and fluffy. However, he was distinguished by an outstanding intellect and extraordinary energy. As a smart person, it is no sin to quote him - the Nobel Prize in Literature is still (at that time they did not give an advance prize). According to the survey 2002 was named the greatest Briton in history.
      By the way, he was NEVER a friend of Russia or the more so of the USSR. But this does not detract from his intelligence and greatness.
      1. Basil50 8 November 2015 23: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The British were unable to find anyone else, which is precisely why Churchill apparently spread his eyes, closing his eyes to his real affairs and editing his * writings *. When I had to read about how Churchill began his career in Africa, there is no difference from the actions of the SSK Sonderkommando. They photographed less and the color of the executed was different, and so very similar. The ideologist of genocide in the colonies. Let the British and * respect * him.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. stopkran 9 November 2015 07: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      By the way, the people, in Greek called ethnos, not demos!
  8. chunga-changa 8 November 2015 13: 00 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Already hesitated to pull the owl on the globe. There is a democracy "power of the people", there is a republic "common cause", there is an aristocracy "power of the nobility", there is an oligarchy "power is not many", there is a monarchy and a host of varieties of power, but they all have common names and characteristics. The author, instead of calling things by their proper names, showing their evolution and possible prospects, dumped everything about the bottom of the bunch. He came up with some kind of "democracy", which, as it were, was not democracy at all, but it didn’t give a definition. In the end, it is not clear what he wanted to say and what he was proposing, in general, he "outlined the problem" in the bushes.
    1. Aljavad 8 November 2015 17: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      generally "outlined a problem" and into the bushes.


      Noting a problem is not enough!

      So the “whole democratic community” needs to democratically understand what democracy is and whether we need it.
      1. chunga-changa 8 November 2015 21: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        What does democracy or "democracy" have to do with what I mean, a "democratic community," I don’t know, maybe you know? And what is democracy known for more than a thousand years, google. We now formally have a Republic, actually a Kleptocracy. So we must clearly state - let's eliminate Kleptocracy and try to live with the Republic, all of a sudden this is not bad. Or let's remove the fig leaf of the Republic and declare Kleptocracy an official form of government, although it is known from history that Kleptocracy is deadly to the countries that practiced it; there have been no exceptions. In general, to call a spade a spade and at least something to offer, then the article would be useful. And so nothing at all, "democracy" in quotation marks is that? Anyone can imagine the extent of their depravity? Then no one will ever agree with anyone. This is apparently the very “democratic community”.
    2. Down House 8 November 2015 19: 38 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: chunga-changa
      There is a democracy "power of the people"

      But even the founders of these ideas somehow did not seek to share power with slaves fellow
    3. stopkran 10 November 2015 08: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Democracy and the republic are one and the same, the difference is only in language. )))

      REPUBLIC - (lat., Public affairs). A country in which the people themselves rule through their intermediaries, chosen for a certain time.

      DEMOCRACY, democracy, wives. (Greek demokratia) (book, polit.).
      1. only units A form of government in which power is exercised by the people themselves, by the masses, directly or through representative institutions.

      The only difference is that the demos are not the whole nation, but "the tough guys from Ryan are real" (slave owners).
      http://via-midgard.info/news/14809-demokratiya-yeto-sovsem-ne-vlast-naroda-chto-
      zhe.html
  9. stopkran 8 November 2015 15: 55 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Democracy is the power of the demos, not okhlos, which is also called the eRectorate. )))

    The word democracy does not come from the word DEMOS - such as people (people in Greek - ethnos), but from the name of the AFIN area in which the richest representatives of the then society lived. By the way, society was divided into three main strata:
    OHLOS - slaves, poor (laborers) - not eligible to vote;
    PLEBOS - free people, small owners, owners of their own houses and lands - can choose, but cannot be elected;
    DEMOS - Large slave owners, residents of Demos - a rich area of ​​the city, passing a certain property qualification. So they could be elected to the governing bodies.
    http://miwim.livejournal.com/61428.html

    Demos is "real cool boys from paradise."
    http://via-midgard.info/news/14809-demokratiya-yeto-sovsem-ne-vlast-naroda-chto-
    zhe.html
    1. Basil50 8 November 2015 23: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Greeks had the goddess Demeter, it was on her behalf that the Democrats (landowners) appeared.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. Aljavad 8 November 2015 16: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thank you for raising such an important topic! Doubly - for a historical excursion. It should be added: in policies, democracy was not a system of "civil rights" at all. And with the CIVIL DEBT system for sending vital duties for the policy (from collecting duties to garbage collection for organizing defense). And it was impossible to evade for a long time. Later money did the trick.

    My humble opinion is that democracy is urgently needed at the lowest level. Especially below municipal. Quarter, HOA, village, village. Perhaps - Land, Region, Autonomy.
    And at the country level - ONLY A STRICT VERTICAL. But - with a human face.
    1. gladcu2 8 November 2015 21: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Aljavad

      You answered your own question.

      Democracy is a state system that should be based on the basis and the CIVIL DEBT SYSTEM.

      And the rights of citizens come from their duties. Then everything will fall into place.

      Nowadays, "democracy" is positioned as a set of freedoms. Allocating to a separate caste of free-looking. Which use their duties in private interests.

      In other words, conquer and humiliate yourself under the cover of decorative statements.
  11. delvin-fil 8 November 2015 19: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    and their "brother" Joseph Guillotin became the inventor of the famous guillotine!

    This machine was invented by the German mechanic Thomas Schmidt, the executioner Sanson finalized and the doctor Guillotin proposed to the national assembly. Learn mat.chast - it may come in handy bully