Distribution and violence

While still in a state of primitive savagery, as an individual separated from a primitive herd community, a person already showed increased interest in the result of someone else’s work, looking enviously at the most successful foragers. When for some envious the result of the collection was very insignificant, or even null, the interest in the result of the work of others increased to the point of seizing the loot of others, which could only be snatched.

To achieve this unseemly goal, violence was always used in the process of disorganized interaction between the strong and the weak, after which, as a rule, the result of the work of the weak was redistributed in the form of unceremonious appropriation by the of the strong. In such a primitive and unattractive way, which was a cruel subordination of the weak to the strong, there was a satisfaction of an irresistible interest in the result of someone else’s work. Such a primitive and unattractive spectacle was presented by the first economic relations in human society, which were episodic and random in nature.

The distribution that resulted from economic relations between strong and weak subsequently continued in various directions. In one direction, in the form of a single distribution of the results of joint production activities. In the other direction, in the form of a centralized distribution of a part of the total result of social production. In the third direction – in the form of distribution between the winners and losers. In the fourth direction, in the form of distribution among the participants of a large-scale spontaneous uncontrolled process. And in the fifth direction, in the form of distribution between criminals and their victims.

With the emergence of collective production activity, it became necessary to distribute its results. Such a distribution could only be carried out in two ways, one of which was a large-scale spontaneous uncontrolled process, the unacceptability of which seems more than obvious, and the other way was the only possible one at that time: individual distribution. The question of the right to exercise individual distribution has always been clarified through violence in the process of unorganized interaction between the strongest participants, after which the strongest of them was at the top of the hierarchy pyramid social, according to which the attitude of each to the results of joint production activities was determined.Anyone who made a single distribution possessed a huge advantage over all others in the form of exclusive power over them and always tried to maintain his privileged position as long as possible, using all means and methods, including the cruelest violence. That is, the individual distribution of the results of joint production activities is always based on relations of domination and subordination, which develop in the process of using violence and persist for a long time with the help of various methods of oppression, whose insufficiency is always compensated with the same violence.

In fact. The many exhausting hours of work of a slave were not possible because he was fully satisfied with the conditions of joint production activities with the slave owner, but only as a result of the use of the most severe oppression against him, which often became live. violence against him. The hard work of a serf was possible not because he was completely satisfied with the conditions of joint production activities with the feudal lord, but only because of the use of quite severe oppression against him, which often turned into direct violence against him. .The work of the former Soviet worker was not possible because he was completely satisfied with the conditions of joint production activities with the old party nomenclature, but only because of the use of quite sophisticated methods of oppression against him. which, in case of his insufficiency, immediately turned into direct violence against him. This is how the work of the exploited worker is possible not because he is completely satisfied with the conditions of joint productive activity with the capitalist, but only because of the use of all kinds of methods of oppression against him, which, under certain circumstances, become direct violence against him.

If the history of humanity is the history of the continuous and fierce struggle for redistribution.

both the results of joint production activities and the results of social production as a whole, then, at the same time, it is the history of individual distribution.

From its origin, the single distribution of the results of joint production activities was at the same time the single distribution of the total result of social production, which later received its continuation in the form of centralized distribution. The transition to centralized distribution, due to the achievement of the physical impossibility of individual distribution, marked the beginning of the formation of management bodies for social and economic processes and the formation on this basis of the corresponding bureaucratic apparatus. Thus, the preconditions were created for the transition of the most numerous and sufficiently developed human communities to the state form of coexistence. If before the distribution was done with the aim of giving something to each of its participants,that centralized distribution only intended to get something out of each of its participants. The question of the right to exercise centralized distribution has always been clarified through violence in the process of disorganized interaction between the strongest participants, after which the strongest ended up at the top of the pyramid of the social hierarchy. All those who carried out centralized distribution had a great advantage over others in the form of absolute power over them and always sought to maintain their privileged position as long as possible, using all means and methods, including the most cruel violence. Centralized distribution is always based on relations of domination and subordination,formed in the process of using violence and maintained for a long time with the help of various methods of oppression, the insufficiency of which is always compensated by the same violence. It was only the subsequent transition to the inheritance of the right to exercise centralized distribution that made it possible to significantly limit the use of violence in human society as a means of achieving economic domination.

If the history of mankind is the history of a continuous and fierce struggle for the redistribution both of the results of joint production activities and of the results of social production as a whole, then it is at the same time the history of the distribution centralized.

The primitive character of the first working tools, the imperfection of production methods, the inconstancy of favorable natural conditions could not provide the primitive community with the necessary constant supply of food. The almost daily need for it, in many cases very urgent, gave rise to the interest of the members of the community in the results of the productive activities of the closest neighbors. When the lack of food was critical, this interest increased to the point of seizing someone else’s property, which could only be taken away.To achieve this highly immoral goal, violence has always been used in the process of disorganized interaction between the winners and the losers, after which, as a rule, there was redistribution of the results of the industrial activity of the losers in the form of indiscriminate theft by the victors. In such a primitive and unattractive way, that it was brutal theft, there was a collective satisfaction of an irresistible collective interest in the results of another person’s productive activity. Such a primitive and unattractive spectacle was presented by the first economic relations between separate and independent human communities, which had an episodic and random character.

For the power of any state, the part of the total result of social production collected for its needs has always been insufficient, which could only be significantly increased by conquering new territories, especially since the first robbery attacks convincingly demonstrated the possibility of dividing the results . of the productive activities not only of their fellow tribesmen, but also of other human communities. Thus, the organizing power of state power turned the first robbery attacks into planned and carefully prepared wars of prey, the conduct of which was already entrusted to well-trained and equipped regular armies.

In addition to the indispensable robberies of the population, during which the first winners took all the fruit of the productive activity of the vanquished and nothing more, the later ones already captured part of the local population as slaves. As a result of the increased use of forced and virtually free labor, the economic effect of military victory increased significantly. At the same time, the number of wars needed to achieve a given economic outcome was significantly reduced.The next step in increasing the economic efficiency of a military victory was the conclusion of enslaving peace treaties, which were always written under the imperative dictation of the winners, who stipulated for themselves all kinds of post, both at once and at long term. -Economic war benefits. The next step in this direction was the establishment of vassalage between the victors and the vanquished, which allowed the economic benefits of a military victory to be used over a longer and more complete period. The direct annexation of the conquered territories, together with the conquered peoples that inhabited them, achieved the maximum possible practical convenience of using the conquests as a means to satisfy economic interests.Accession made it possible to use the economic benefits of a military victory indefinitely and to its fullest extent, while excluding the need for new wars with a human community that had already been conquered. The maximum practical convenience of using a conquest could only be increased by performing a second, then a third, etc.,

If the history of humanity is the history of a continuous and fierce struggle for redistribution, both of the results of joint production activities and of the results of social production as a whole, then at the same time it is the history of wars.

A large-scale uncontrolled spontaneous process is an independent struggle of all its participants for survival. Each of them tries to capture as much as possible and enters into disorganized interaction with any other participant who interferes with the achievement of their goal. It arises, as a rule, when the authorities distribute very limited, and even manifestly insufficient resources, which can no longer ensure order in social and economic relations with the help of appropriate violence. In one way or another, an uncontrolled spontaneous process is an integral part of social and economic relations. The permissible level of a permanent uncontrolled spontaneous process is provided by law enforcement agencies.

The most significant component of a constant and uncontrolled spontaneous process is crime. Having emerged in the form of economic relations between the strong and the weak, crime was for some time a multitude of individual acts of violence, to which were later added acts of group violence. In the future, organized crime formed in the form of separate long-term organized crime groups (OCGs) and even separate organized crime communities (OPSs). At present, organized crime is gradually becoming highly organized crime by merging individual organized criminal groups or organized criminal groups with various state structures.In addition, in some cases, organized crime comes into direct confrontation with the authorities. It seems obvious that all organizational changes in crime are aimed at expanding its sphere of influence and creating favorable conditions to continue its activities in the long term, and even permanently. The limit of the development of crime is its transformation into power, especially since they are not far from each other, etc.

If the history of mankind is the history of a continuous and fierce struggle for the redistribution both of the results of joint production activities and of the results of social production as a whole, then it is at the same time the history of crime.

All those interested in the origin of violence must understand that it never happened out of the blue, but only safely migrated from prehistoric times into modern human history as a way for one person to subjugate another. The strong subjugate the weak, the sole distributor subjugates the rest of the participants, the authorities subjugate everyone, the victors subjugate the vanquished, the criminals subjugate their victims. And at present, violence is the only way to establish the relations of domination and subordination, from which the criminals, the capitalists and the power carry out the distribution.

If the history of humanity is the history of a continuous and fierce struggle for the redistribution both of the results of joint production activities and of the results of social production as a whole, then it is at the same time a history of violence.

Only the elimination of the individual distribution of the results of joint production activities and a sufficient restriction of the centralized distribution of the total result of social production will make it possible to limit the use of violence in human society to the extent that it is currently widespread. as a means to achieve economic dominance.