Renowned anthropologist and population geneticist Alan Templeton has made a compelling case against a theory that has been generally accepted for the past 20 years. New genetic data show that the ancient Eurasian mankind was not supplanted by the sapiens that left Africa 80-100 thousand years ago, but mixed with them. In our veins flows the blood of the Eurasian archanthropists, and possibly the Neanderthals.

Facts that everyone agrees on

Africa was the ancestral home of humanity, no one doubts this now. Approximately 1.9 million years ago, our distant ancestors - early archanthropus, carriers of the pebble (Oldovai) culture, first went beyond the borders of their native continent, as evidenced, in particular, by recent finds in Georgia. Archanthropus spread widely across South Asia. 800-600 thousand years ago, the second Eurasian expansion of immigrants from Africa took place, this time carried out by more advanced representatives of the human race ( Homo antecessor and others like him, carriers of the Acheulean culture that developed earlier in Africa).

The European and West Asian populations of these people after several hundred millennia became Neanderthals, and in Africa, meanwhile, their distant relatives evolved into "anatomically modern humans" - Homo sapiens... About 100 thousand years ago, a small group of Sapiens left Africa and gradually settled in Asia, Australia and Europe. All these are quite reliable facts. Experts argue about something else: did the representatives of the "last wave" mingle with the ancient Eurasian mankind or completely supplant it?

Mitochondrial Eve and Igrech-Chromosomal Adam in African Eden

Over the past twenty years, the second point of view has been decisively preponderant. The main argument was the results of the analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of modern people, to a lesser extent - the Y chromosome. Based on the polymorphism of the mtDNA nucleotide sequences, the evolutionary tree of this part of the human genome a was reconstructed, the branches of which, if you move along them from top to bottom (backward in time), converged at one point in time and space: Africa, about 150 thousand years ago. This is how the "mitochondrial Eve" appeared in the scientific press and in the media (mitochondria are transmitted through the maternal line), and after it, "Y-chromosomal Adam" appeared in a similar way (Y-chromosome is only in men and is passed from father to son), who lived at about the same time and in the same place.

These results were received by the public very violently, and, as usual, few people understood their true meaning. In fact, as Alan Templeton rightly notes, there is nothing surprising in either Adam or Eve. Any homologous sections of DNA somewhere in the past inevitably converge at one point, that is, in one ancestral DNA molecule. And this point does not necessarily coincide with the moment of the appearance of the species. Moreover, if we take different homologous DNA regions, each of them will give its own, distinct from the others, "convergence point". The approximate coincidence of the results for mtDNA and the Y chromosome is nothing more than an accident, partly explained by the fact that both of these regions of the a genome have a common property: they are present in each cell in only one copy (unlike most other regions of the a genome, which are present in duplicate). There is also the X chromosome, which occupies an intermediate position: in women it is present in two copies, in men in one.

Templeton showed that the expected time of convergence of the evolutionary tree, built for a single piece of DNA, to one point, depends on how many copies of this site is present in the cells. It is mtDNA and the Y-chromosome that should converge most quickly (as is observed, they converge about 150 thousand years ago). This does not mean that it was then that it appeared H. sapiens, it only means that these regions of the genome are not suitable for the reconstruction of older events. Plots localized on the X chromosome converge in the more distant past (up to 2 million years); all other sites are in even deeper antiquity, some even before the evolutionary lines of humans and chimpanzees were divided.

The history of mtDNA is not yet the history of mankind

How, from mtDNA or other part of the a genome, can we conclude that our ancestors left Africa at a certain time? This is possible if, soon after this event, some of the settlers developed a mutation in the studied DNA region, which then multiplied during the expansion. And then a modern geneticist will see that the frequency of occurrence of this mutation in the non-African population, for example, is 10%, but in Africa it is not. The time of occurrence of a mutation is determined on the basis of other, later onset mutations, using the "molecular clock" method. Well, what if, soon after leaving Africa, no mutation appeared in this region of the genome? Then, of course, nothing will come of it: this section of the genome will simply not retain traces of the expansion we are interested in.

In a word, Templeton convincingly showed (and most biologists, by the way, agree with this) that it is impossible to draw final conclusions about the evolution and history of human dispersal from a single region of the a genome (for example, from mtDNA). Such conclusions require a comprehensive analysis of many different regions of the a genome.

Humanity has always been one

That's what Templeton does. In 2002, he already published his results based on the study of 12 regions of DNA (in addition to mtDNA and the Y chromosome, 10 more regions were included in the analysis). Critics then pointed to insufficient sample size, low accuracy, and other possible methodological flaws. This time Templeton brought the number of analyzed regions of the human genome to 25. The results did not change, on the contrary, they became much clearer and more convincing.

They are as follows. Different sections of DNA have retained traces different events in the history of mankind. The general picture coincides surprisingly exactly with the one reconstructed according to archeological data. Three sections of DNA have preserved traces of the earliest exit wave from Africa about 1.9 million years ago. This means that the blood of ancient Asian archanthropics flows in our veins! Seven pieces of DNA indicate a second exodus from Africa about 0.65 million years ago (the Acheulean expansion). Representatives of this wave are also our direct ancestors. Finally, five more DNA regions (including mtDNA and the Y chromosome) confirm the third exodus from Africa about 100 thousand years ago.

Moreover, Templeton's data show that the exchange of genes between the Eurasian and African populations of our ancestors almost never stopped, although it was greatly hampered by large distances. It turns out that ancient humanity was not at all a collection of isolated populations (races, subspecies, species ...) - it was relatively uniform over the past two million years!

Neanderthal question

Neanderthal mtDNA is very different from ours, and other parts of the a genome have not yet been isolated from fossil bones. However, according to Templeton, this does not at all prove that our ancestors did not interbreed with Neanderthals and that modern humans do not have a fraction of Neanderthal blood. For example, unidirectional hybridization could occur (sapiens women could give birth to children from Neanderthal men) - in this case, mtDNA cannot tell us anything. Similar examples, when the genes of one people were transmitted to another only through men, are known from the later history of mankind.

On the basis of his data, Templeton calculated the probability that the theory of complete displacement by sapiens of all the ancient inhabitants of Eurasia is nevertheless correct. The probability was found to be 10 –17. There is never less. The researcher believes that this theory is not just refuted by him - it is destroyed.

It remains to wait for the counter-arguments of the opposite side.

How often educated and cultured people like to talk about human history or certain historical events. Many of these conversations make you think, and some allow you to consider the events of the past years from a completely new perspective. Indeed, the people who do not remember their past have no future either. And will the future have a whole look, and what should everyone remember?

Man is the only creature on the planet capable of consciously thinking, whatever that means, operating with complex structures and even inventing new worlds and planning his activities for whole years to come. This is all true, and this fact strikes and raises the human child over the cubs of various mammals, insects, birds and fish. Of course, the cultural or evolutionary value of a species may be different, but in any case, the biological importance of this species cannot be ignored.

If we had excluded rats from the history, there would have been no diseases they carry, if we had excluded cats, a large number of people would have been elementarily more restless and angrier without finding solace in the form of their beloved pet. In such an alternative universe, human history would have a completely different look. Perhaps, turning off one or more species from the food chain, all life on Earth will die. That is why today we will move away from the usual anthropocentrism and try to consider reality more objectively, taking into account the maximum number of factors.

As mentioned above, reasoning about history may not be very popular in popular culture, but it occupies its own niche. If we think about how the word “history” is used in modern times, we will understand that in the overwhelming majority of cases we mean “the history of mankind”. So with this word we associate revolutions, charismatic politicians, dictators, wars, reforms and inventions. Of course, to have something against the use of the word "history" in this sense is unreasonable, because one person is unlikely to be able to influence the cardinal changes in the language. But it is worth noting that such an understanding was formed due to the perception of one's own species as the most important and, in a sense, central. And although anthropocentrism has already outlived its usefulness - it is known that there are hundreds of billions of stars in the Universe, around which new planets are being discovered right now, it would be reasonable to assume that the chance of another civilization or just life outside the Earth is quite high. Once geocentrism prevailed, but it turned out that our planet is far from the center and most likely that the Universe has no center at all, and looking at the projection of our galaxy and the location of the planet in it, thoughts about the centrality of the Earth leave our consciousness immediately.

"Figure of the Heavenly Bodies" - a geocentric model, painting by Bartolomeu Velho, 1568

The approximate location of the Earth in the Milky Way galaxy

Therefore, people abandoned geocentrism and anthropocentrism. But, having abandoned these points of view, humanity continues to mentally believe in them. This happens at some subconscious level. And at the same time, it closes a huge layer of both historical events and the current state of things in the universe from each individual person. Living in everyday affairs, a person does not believe in the wonder and transcendence of the world.

When we read or hear speculations about the work of an internationally recognized author, these speculations often begin with his biography. After all, you should know what factors influenced the formation of the personality of the writer, what profession his parents were and why he touched on this particular topic or problem, etc. Also, when characterizing any transnational company, you need to refer to its founders and their history.

Why, when it comes to the history of mankind, we immediately go either to predetermined historical events, or we begin to talk about creationism, evolution, panspermia, and most of all attention is paid to the dispute between representatives of these points of view. Of course, the argument is often interesting, but the truth is more expensive. Therefore, it is necessary to start looking for the origins of human nature not in the eighteenth, fifth or zero centuries of our era, but from the very beginning.

It is necessary to start with the history of the Earth, because this is our first and dearest home. It was here that man appeared, so the Earth is the most suitable object of research for us. As mentioned above, it is a mistake to look for the origins of modern human essence only in the history of man as a species. Therefore, it will be much more extensive and objective to pay attention to the origin of our planet as a source of life in the Universe.

Image of a protoplanetary disk around the star HL Tauri

The formation of a planet begins with the formation of a cloud of gas and dust around the forming star. Later, the star forms a protoplanetary disk in which the processes of planet formation finally end. With our planet, this process took place 4.54 billion years ago.

According to various ideas, the Earth looked something like this

So, as a result of the phased development of the lithosphere and the organic world, certain stages of the development of the Earth can be distinguished, which are reflected in the geochronological table:

Geochronological table

It is worth noting that each era in the presented table takes hundreds of millions of years of time, which tells us that there is an incredibly huge period of unknown processes in the formation of the basis for our life, as well as the formation of ourselves.

The way of identifying a certain number of epistemological positions of various sciences in the modern world looks rather strange. Often in the world scientific community it is customary to call the history of mankind "history", although in the definition of science they rarely do without the word "objectivity". And using objectivity, understanding the word "history" should lead us to a much wider period - from the beginning of the formation of the Universe to the present moment. Of course, the level of complexity of each individual science is growing and it is more and more difficult to be universal in this regard, but if we want to understand the true essence of the past and future, it is still necessary. That is why it is important not to dwell on the study of human history, but also to understand how he appeared, analyzing the time when people did not exist at all, that is, time that is not customary to analyze at all, setting off to learn completely different sciences.

We can say that the formation of our civilization began precisely with the formation of the planet Earth and, as strange as it may sound, it was then that our path in history began. So you can define that we already existed then, albeit in a different form and unconsciously, but quite actively transforming into various forms, having come to this form now, we will be reborn into something new later.

Arthur Schopenhauer, in his work "The World as Will and Representation", reasoning for a long time about death, creates a whole concept, which he calls "palingenesis". This is exactly what she tells us. As a biological being, a person acquires certain characteristics: an individual voice, eye color, hair color, height, weight and brain. The brain is followed by memory, which a person gradually fills with events from his life and distinctive features of his personality. You yourself are hardly just your memories and life path. I think everyone feels something much more behind the word "I". Nevertheless, according to Schopenhauer, even when dying, a person's will continues to exist in a different form. Although, it is worth noting that the concept of "will" can be interpreted by many people as a simpler and flat concept. Thus, studying a certain series of events, one should always look at things much more broadly and remember about the deep and long-term history of prehistoric times, drawing from it the probable future of mankind.

In the following materials, we will take a closer look at the life forms that existed on our planet long before the appearance of man, which will lead us to an understanding of our essence and the ability to predict our future.

Plan

1. Historical eras.
2. Acquaintance with history and archeology.

4. The primitive world.
5. Conclusion.

1. Historical eras.

The history of mankind can be divided into several large eras:

• - primeval history;
• - ancient world history;
• - history of the Middle Ages;
• - history of modern times;
• - history of modern times.

2. Acquaintance with history and archeology

The most ancient era in the history of mankind is called primitive.

How did people know about primitive people? Scientists carry out excavations, extract things of ancient people, their bones from the earth. Scientists who excavate are called archaeologists.

Archeology - the science of antiquity. She studies the history of society from the remains of the life and activities of people. Scientists believe that the oldest people, "traces" of which are found in Africa and Asia, lived more than a million years ago. From the remains of the skeletons of ancient people, it was possible to establish what they looked like.

The first ancestors of humans and apes known to us lived more than two million years ago and were called Dryopithecus.

3. The difference between primitive man and modern man.

The oldest man very different from you and me - modern people - and looked like a large ape. However, people did not walk on four legs, as almost all animals walk, but on two legs, but at the same time they leaned forward strongly. The man's hands, hanging down to his knees, were free, and he could do simple work with them: grab, hit, dig the ground. The foreheads of the people were low and sloping. Their brains were larger than that of a monkey, but significantly smaller than that of modern humans. He did not know how to speak, made only a few abrupt sounds, with them people expressed fear and anger, called for help and warned each other about danger, ate only what he found.

They were arboreal animals, resembling in their structure the great apes. Some of them led only an arboreal lifestyle. It was they who could give rise to a line of animals that later became the ancestor of man.

4. The primitive world.

The most ancient era history of mankind is called primitive. Primitive (tribal) community. It is characterized by collective labor and consumption.

Primitive people lived in groups, because it was impossible to cope with the difficulties of life alone. They didn't have to worry about warm clothes. They lived where it is always warm. Primitive people built dwellings to protect themselves from the scorching rays of the sun, bad weather, and predators.

The first tools of human labor were hands, nails and teeth, as well as stones, debris and branches from trees. The first people had to hunt, collect various plants, as well as learn how to make the first simple tools from sticks, bones and horns of animals, and then from stone.

The main the occupation of ancient people there were hunting and fishing (activities for men), which required great strength and dexterity. The ancient man could hardly count more than five, but he could sit motionless for hours in an ambush while hunting or construct an ingenious trap for a huge mammoth. Gathering (occupation for women) - the ability to understand different plants and collect edible mushrooms, as well as the exchange of prey - with other tribes.

Ancient man together with other animals, he fled from the fire in fear. But then a daredevil was found who began to use the fire left by natural phenomena as a result of thunderstorms, volcanic eruptions, forest fires. Man did not yet know how to make fire himself. And therefore the preservation of the fire was a big problem. The loss of fire was tantamount to the death of the entire family. Later, man learned how to make fire, and fire saved him during a cold snap on Earth. He began to use fire for cooking. He could fry a piece of meat on it, bake root vegetables on coals and remove them in time so that they do not burn out. Fire gave man what is not in nature.

Within each tribe, certain customs and rules of behavior were formed. Living in caves, they painted on the walls. They sculpted from clay or hewed people, animals out of stone, decorated dishes. They probably wanted to portray the world in which they lived.

5. Conclusion.

Primitive history lasted hundreds, thousands of years. During this time, people have settled on all continents, except for Antarctica. They appeared on the territory of our country about half a million years ago.

Views: 35 517

World history is a single process proceeding according to objective laws, that is, existing and acting independently of the consciousness and will of people. In this sense, it is an objective and predetermined process. But this is such an objective predetermination that not only does not exclude, but on the contrary, presupposes chance. The historical process is predetermined only in the main and basic, but not in the details. What cannot but be is manifested in what may or may not be. Necessity always manifests itself and exists only in accidents. Therefore, in history there have always been and exist different possibilities for future development. But if the future in history is always alternative, polyfurcative (within certain objective boundaries, of course), then the past is non-alternative and irreversible. To understand history, you need to abstract yourself from the particulars, to open up objective necessity, predetermination, which makes its way through all accidents.

World history is such a single process, which is an ascent from the lowest to the highest. Therefore, there are stages of the progressive development of mankind, and, consequently, world-historical epochs. This understanding of history is called unitary-stage. Of all the existing and existing conceptions of this kind of history, I consider the Marxist theory of socio-economic formations to be the best. Formations are stadial types of society, distinguished on the basis of socio-economic structure.

Marxism, as you know, believes that the development of production lies at the basis of the development of society. The productive forces of society are growing, which leads to a change in the systems of socio-economic relations, the types of social production - modes of production, are changing, which entails a change in the types of society: one socio-economic formation is replaced by another, more progressive. But the counting of formations does not go from the very beginning of human history.

Its entire history is quite distinctly subdivided into two qualitatively different periods, to the first of which the concept of a socio-economic formation is inapplicable. It represents the period of the transformation of animal ancestors of man into humans and the zoological association into human society, the period of anthroposociogenesis. The foundation of this process was the formation of social production. The emergence of a completely new social quality necessarily presupposed and made it necessary to curb animal individualism, to suppress and introduce zoological instincts into the social framework. The most important means of curbing animal egoism were the first norms of human behavior - taboo. On the basis of tabuity, morality subsequently arose. Unlike an animal, whose actions are determined by biological instincts, a person is guided by feelings of duty, honor and conscience.

The first was to curb the food instinct. As a social framework, distribution relations arose for him - the initial and most important form of socio-economic relations. The first socio-economic ties were communist. Animal selfishness could only be curbed by human collectivism. With the advent of the first form of marriage - the dual-clan, group marriage - the sexual instinct was curbed. With the introduction into the social framework, first of the food, and then of the sexual instincts, the process of the formation of man and society was completed. Forming people have turned into people who are already formed, ready-made. The period of the formation of society ended, and the history of a ready-made, truly human society began. This happened quite recently, literally "the other day." The period of anthroposociogenesis, which began 1.9–1.8 million years ago, ended about 40 thousand years ago. And socio-economic formations are stages of development of a ready-made, formed society.

The first form of being of a ready-made society is customarily called in our country a primitive society, in Western literature - a primitive, or egalitarian, society. It was the only one existing in the epoch from 40 thousand to 5 thousand years ago. This time is the era of primitive society. At the earliest stage of its development, it was communist (primitive communist). At the stage when the entire social product was life-supporting, no other form of distribution, except for distribution according to needs, could exist.

With the development of productive forces and the appearance of a regular surplus product, communist relations became an obstacle to the development of society. As a result, distribution according to work began to arise, and with it property of individuals, exchange and inequality of wealth. All this prepared and made inevitable the emergence of private property, the exploitation of man by man, thereby splitting society into social classes and the emergence of the state.

The first class, or, as they are usually called, civilized societies arose in the XXXI century. BC e., that is, about 5 thousand years ago. At this time, one of the features of the world-historical process, the uneven development of human society as a whole, was more than clearly manifested. Some specific individual societies - sociohistorical organisms (abbreviated as sociors) - went ahead, others lagged behind them in their development. With the appearance of such unevenness, human society as a whole began to consist of several historical worlds. One such historical world consisted of the most advanced sociohistorical organisms for this era, which can be called superior (from lat. super - over, over), another or other worlds - lagging behind in development - inferior (from lat. infra - under).

The first class societies emerged as solitary islands in the sea of \u200b\u200bprimitive society. One such class historical nest appeared in the interfluve of the Tigris and Euphrates, another - in the Nile valley. At its inception, Egyptian civilization was a single socio-historical organism, Sumerian civilization - a system of small socio-historical organisms, city-states.

Further development followed two paths. The first is the emergence of new historical nests, which existed as islands in the sea of \u200b\u200bprimitive society. One of them appeared in the Indus Valley - the Harappa civilization, the other - in the Yellow River Valley - the Yin, or Shang civilization. The second path is the emergence of a multitude of class sociohistorical organisms in the space between Egypt and Mesopotamia and in the neighborhood with them. All of them, together with Egypt and Mesopotamia, formed a huge system of class sociohistorical organisms that encompassed the entire Middle East. This Middle East historical arena, having emerged, has become the center of world-historical development and, in this sense, a world system.

All sociohistorical organisms that found themselves outside the historical center formed the world periphery. Some of these societies were class, others were primitive. With the emergence of the first class sociors and especially with the emergence of their Middle Eastern world system, the second era of the development of the finished human and the first era in the history of civilized society - the era of the Ancient East - began.

The basis of the original class societies was that antagonistic mode of production, which, following Karl Marx, is most often called Asiatic. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that it was based on general class private property and on the means of production, and on the personality of the producers of material goods. In this case, the private owner was only the exploiting class as a whole, and not one of its members taken separately. Class-wide private property took the form of state property, which caused the ruling class to coincide with the composition of the state apparatus. Therefore, this method of production is best called political (from the Greek. polity - the state). All politarists made up a corporation - a political system headed by a political arch, who was both the supreme manager of the surplus product and the ruler of the state. The politarch had the right to life and death for all his subjects, including the politarists.

An indicator of the level of development of productive forces is the volume of the product created in society, calculated per capita of its population. This indicator - the productivity of social production - can be increased in different ways.

In a political society, the growth of the productivity of social production and thus of the productive forces was achieved mainly by increasing working time - the number of working days per year and working hours per day. This temporal (from lat. tempus - time) the way to increase the productivity of social production was limited. Sooner or later, the limit came, beyond which the increase in working time led to the physical degradation of the main productive force - the human worker. There was a rollback. All this has been repeated many times in the history of political sociohistorical organisms.

This is primarily associated with the cyclical nature of the development of the societies of the Ancient East: they arose, flourished, and then entered the era of decline and even death. The political, socio-economic formation was a dead end. She was not able to transform into another, more progressive one.

A way out of the impasse became possible because, in addition to political societies, primitive societies continued to exist, including the latest of them - pre-class ones, and of various socio-economic types. The pre-class societies that were adjacent to the Middle East world system were subjected to powerful cultural, political and economic pressure from its side. As a result, they assimilated all the main achievements of political societies, which significantly affected their entire development.

It became different than the evolution of the proto-political (emerging political) pre-class societies, from which the first political societies arose. Subjected to the influence of the world political system, the pre-class societies in the end also turned into class societies, but only of a completely different type than the ancient Eastern ones. Ultimately, not a political one, but a qualitatively different mode of production was established in them, precisely the one that is usually called slave-owning, or antique.

In the VIII century. BC e. a Greek historical nest arose, then the Etruscan, Latin, Carthaginian nests joined it. All of them, taken together, formed a new historical arena - the Mediterranean, which has since become the center of world-historical development. So, on the scale of mankind, in the form of a change in the world systems of sociors of two different socio-economic types, a change of the political formation by the ancient formation took place. The transfer of the historical baton from the political Middle East to the ancient Mediterranean has come to pass. With the relocation of the historical center to the emerging new antique arena, the Middle Eastern political historical arena ceased to be a world system. She became part of the world periphery. With the transformation of the Mediterranean historical arena into a world system, the second era of world history ended - the era of the Ancient East and the third era began - the era of antiquity.

If in the era of the Ancient East outside the world system there were only many primitive sociohistorical organisms and several isolated political historical nests, then in ancient times the class historical periphery began to consist of many political historical arenas. They filled most of the Old World, and by the 1st millennium BC. e. two political historical arenas - Mesoamerican and Andean - emerged in the New World.

It is generally accepted that the ancient world was based on slavery. But slavery to slavery is different. Slavery in itself is not yet a mode of production. It is an economic and legal state in which one person is the complete property of another. But the slave does not necessarily have to be used in the production of material goods. He can be a valet, nanny, teacher, official, etc. Even when a slave is used in production, his labor can play a purely auxiliary role. In this case, they talk about domestic, or patriarchal, slavery.

The labor of slaves becomes the basis of society only when special economic units of production arise, in which slaves are the main force. And this necessarily presupposes the systematic import of slaves from outside society. This was exactly what ancient slavery was. Slavery also existed in ancient Eastern society. But only in the ancient world a special method of production, based on the labor of slaves, arose - servo (from lat. servus - slave) mode of production.

The increase in the productivity of social production in the ancient world was based on an increase in the share of workers in the population of society due to the import of additional labor from outside the sociohistorical organism. And this meant pulling out this workforce from the surrounding societies. The main source of slaves was the historical periphery, primarily the late primitive - pre-class, or barbarian, periphery.

Thus, the ancient world lived largely at the expense of the barbarian periphery. The way of increasing the productivity of social production, characteristic of ancient society, can be called demographic. Its capabilities, as well as those of the temporal mode, were limited.

The normal functioning of the ancient society presupposed continuous external expansion. But this attack on the historical periphery, sooner or later, had to drown. When this happened, there was a general decline, degradation of the ancient world. The ancient (servant) socio-economic formation, like the political one, turned out to be a dead end. She, like the political one, could not turn into a more progressive formation.

With the decline of the ancient world, the barbarian periphery launched a counteroffensive. At the end of the 5th century. already n. e. the ancient world system came to an end. The ancient world collapsed under the blows of the barbarians. The entire territory of the last great ancient power - the Western Roman Empire - was conquered by the Germanic tribes. And this opened up the possibility of a way out of the historical impasse in which mankind again found itself.

On the territory of Western Europe (the former Western Roman Empire), an organic fusion took place, a combination of Roman (class) and Germanic (pre-class) socio-economic structures (Romano-Germanic synthesis), as a result of which socio-economic relations of a qualitatively new type - feudal - emerged.

Feudal sociohistorical organisms, taken together, formed a new historical arena, which became the center of world-historical development and thus the world system. The ancient socio-economic formation was replaced by the feudal one. The change of the ancient feudal formation took place, as earlier the change of the political formation of the ancient, within the framework of not individual sociohistorical organisms, but human society as a whole, and bore the character of a historical relay race. It, like the change of the ancient political formation, took place in the form of a change in the world systems of sociohistorical organisms of different types and was accompanied by a territorial displacement of the center of world-historical development. With the beginning of the formation of the feudal Western European world system, the ancient era was replaced by the fourth era of world history - the era of the Middle Ages.

Outside the world system, many primitive sociohistorical organisms and a large number of political historical arenas continued to exist. In Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, there was a process of transformation of pre-class societies into class societies. But neither the ancient socio-economic structures, nor their fragments were there. Therefore, the Romano-barbaric synthesis could not take place there, and accordingly feudalism could not arise there.

But these societies were in the zone of powerful influence of the existing class societies - Western European, on the one hand, Byzantine, on the other. As a result, they took a step forward and at the same time to the side, sideways. There emerged class societies of several special socio-economic types, different from the political, and from the ancient, and from the feudal. These minor socio-economic types can be called socio-economic paraformations.

Thus, along with the main line of human history, several lateral historical paths arose. One historical world was formed in Northern Europe, the other in Central and Eastern Europe. In further development, another new historical world separated from the latter - the Russian one.

A characteristic feature of the late Middle Ages was the closest symbiosis of the feudal and commercial-burgher modes of production. It was the development of cities with their trade and burgher system of economy that prepared and made possible, and then necessary, the appearance in the 16th century. a new mode of production - capitalist. Capitalism independently, spontaneously arose in only one place on the globe - in Western Europe. With the transformation of feudal-burgher socio-historical organisms into capitalist sociors, the world Western European feudal system was replaced by the Western European, but already capitalist system. It immediately became the center of world-historical development and thus a world system. With the change of world systems, there was a transition from the Middle Ages to the fifth era of world history - the era of modern times.

The development of capitalism took place in two directions: in depth and in breadth. Development in depth is the formation and maturation of capitalism in the countries of Western Europe. Bourgeois revolutions thundered there, as a result of which power passed into the hands of the capitalist class, an industrial revolution unfolded - the replacement of manual production by machine. With the advent of machines, an adequate technical basis was provided for capitalism, and as a result, a steady progress of the productive forces of society began. The technical method of increasing the productivity of social production, which came to the fore under capitalism, in contrast to the temporal and demographic methods, seemed to have no limits.

Along with the development of capitalism, its development went in depth and in breadth. In the process of the evolution of class society, the world systems that existed in various epochs have always had a great impact on the historical periphery. But this influence in previous epochs affected only a greater or lesser part of the peripheral societies, who formed the nearest, or internal, periphery. These sociohistorical organisms fell into dependence on the center, in particular, were exploited by it. The outer periphery continued to lead a completely independent existence.

With the emergence of the world West European capitalist system, the situation changed. Over the course of several centuries, the world capitalist system has drawn practically the entire periphery into its sphere of influence. For the first time, all sociohistorical organisms that existed on the globe formed one system. The world historical space that emerged as a result of the unfolding process of internationalization was clearly divided into two main parts.

The first part is the world capitalist system, which was the center of historical development. It didn't stay the same. If initially it included only the states of Western Europe, then later it included the countries of Northern Europe and socio-historical organisms that arose in other parts of the world by spinning off from Western European societies (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). The Western European world system then turned into a Western one.

The second part - all other sociohistorical organisms that continued to make up the historical periphery, which in the end, with rare exceptions, became, firstly, internal, and secondly, dependent on the historical center. The dependence of the periphery on the center meant the domination of the center over the periphery. This dependence of the societies of the periphery on the countries of the center (and, accordingly, the domination of the latter over the former) was expressed in the fact that the center exploited the periphery in various forms, appropriating part of the product created in the societies of the periphery free of charge. This exploitation is not intra-communal (endosocial), but extra-communal (exosocial), inter-social (inter-communal). There is no term for this kind of exploitation. I will call it international slavery, international slavery.

There are two main forms of this exploitation. One involves the transformation of the country into a prison colony. This is colonial exploitation, colonial slavery. Another form is the exploitation of a country that formally remains a sovereign and, in this sense, a politically independent state. Sociohistorical organisms of this kind can be called dependetions (from lat. dependetio - dependence), and the form of their exploitation - dependential slavery.

The involvement of peripheral countries in the sphere of dependence on the center entailed the penetration and development of capitalist relations in them. The countries of the periphery, which were previously dominated by various kinds of pre-capitalist socio-economic relations, including ancient political ones, began to turn and eventually turned into capitalist socio-historical organisms.

Here one of the important features of world-historical development is more than clearly manifested. As can be seen from all that has been said above, world history is not a process of the simultaneous rise of all sociohistorical organisms from one stage to another, higher one. There have never been and never could have been socio-historical organisms that have passed the stages of historical development. One of the reasons is that there have never been sociohistorical organisms that would have existed throughout the entire history of mankind. In history, not only stages were replaced, but also sociohistorical organisms. They appeared and then disappeared. Others came to replace them.

Therefore, socio-economic formations have always been primarily stages of development of human society as a whole. Only human society as a whole could pass through all formations without exception, but in no case was it any single sociohistorical organism taken separately. Formations could be stages in the development of individual societies, but this was completely unnecessary. Some socio-economic formations could be embodied in some socio-historical organisms, others in completely different ones. Only such an interpretation of the theory of socio-economic formations, which is called global-stage, global-formational, corresponds to historical reality.

As we have already seen, since the emergence of the first class societies, the change in socio-economic formations took the form of a change in the world systems of superior sociohistorical organisms, entailing a change in world-historical eras. Each such world system of superior sociohistorical organisms prepared and made possible the emergence of another, more advanced one. The replacement of the Middle Eastern political world system by the Mediterranean antique world system, the antique one by the Western European feudal system, and the latter by the Western capitalist world system is the mainline of world history.

With the emergence of each new world system, the nature of the historical development of inferior socio-historical organisms that found themselves in the zone of its influence changed. They could no longer develop in the same way as organisms that had become superiors developed, to go through the steps that the latter passed. The steps passed by the superior sociohistorical organisms often became passed for inferior societies who never reached them.

This pattern was especially evident with the emergence of the world capitalist system, into the sphere of influence of which the entire historical periphery was drawn. From that time on, for all societies, at whatever stage of historical development they were, the transition to capitalism and capitalism alone became inevitable. Historians sometimes say that certain societies can and do pass by, they skip certain stages of historical development. In reality, under the circumstances, they could not help but pass them. When the advanced part of humanity reached the stage of capitalism, then for all inferior societies, without exception, all stages of development that they themselves did not go through were already passed for them.

From this, it would seem, followed the conclusion that as soon as all inferior sociohistorical organisms become capitalist, the division of human society as a whole into historical worlds will disappear and thus into the historical center and the historical periphery. But the real historical development turned out to be more complicated.

Capitalism that emerged in peripheral countries, due to their dependence on the world center, turned out to be qualitatively different from what existed in the states of the latter. In science, it was called dependent, or peripheral, capitalism. For brevity, I will call it paracapitalism (from the Greek. rara - near, near), and capitalism of the center - orthocapitalism (from the Greek. orthos - straight, correct).

If the countries of the center belonged to the capitalist socio-economic formation and thus to one historical world, then the societies of the periphery belonged to the paracapitalist socio-economic paraformation and thus to another historical world. At the end of the XIX century. Tsarist Russia was also included in the number of dependent paracapitalist countries.

The capitalist world system was not politically united for a long time. Among the states that were part of it, there was a rivalry over the colonies, over the sphere of influence. The split of the center into groups that fought for the division and redistribution of the peripheral world led to two world wars (1914–1915 and 1939–1945).

Peripheral capitalism, born of dependence on the West, doomed these countries to backwardness and their populations to desperate poverty. Therefore, revolutions began to ripen in them, aimed at eliminating paracapitalism and liberating the country from exploitation by the West - socio-liberation (national liberation) revolutions.

The first wave of these revolutions unfolded in the first two decades of the 20th century: Russia, Persia, Turkey, China, Mexico and Russia again. One of these revolutions - the Great October Workers 'and Peasants' Revolution of 1917 in Russia - ended in victory. It marched under the banner of socialism, but did not and could not lead to a classless society. The productive forces of Russia were not ripe for this.

Therefore, the revival of private property and class society in the country was inevitable. And it was reborn, but in a new form. In Russia, the newest type of politicalism emerged - neo-politicalism. But the country's liberation from semi-colonial dependence on the West made it possible to make a powerful leap forward. From a backward, mainly agrarian country, Russia, having become the Soviet Union, in a matter of years turned into the second industrial power in the world, and then became one of two superpowers.

The October Revolution, having pulled Russia out of the peripheral world, laid the foundation for a new world system - a neo-political one, which finally took shape after the second wave of socio-liberation revolutions that swept through the 1940s and 1950s. XX century for the countries of Central Europe and East and South-East Asia. As a result, the territory of the paracapitalist periphery was sharply reduced and two world systems, two world centers arose on the globe. This configuration of the world historical space was expressed in the public consciousness in the thesis of the existence of three worlds: the first, which meant the ortho-capitalist center, the second, the world neo-political system, which was customarily called socialist, and the third, which continued to depend on the ortho-capitalist center of the paracapitalist periphery.

But by the end of the XX century. neo-politicalism in the USSR and the countries of Central Europe has exhausted its progressive possibilities. A new, this time really socialist, revolution was needed, but in reality a counter-revolution took place. The restoration of peripheral capitalism took place in the new states that emerged after the collapse of the USSR, including its largest "stump" - the Russian Federation, but excluding Belarus, and in most of the neo-political countries of Europe. They again became the dependencies of the West.

As a result, the configuration of the world historical space has changed. All countries of the world are divided into four groups: (1) ortho-capitalist world center; (2) old dependent periphery; (3) new dependent periphery and (4) independent periphery (North Korea, China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Belarus, Cuba).

This configuration was superimposed on a new process that began in the last quarter of the 20th century - globalization. If started at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. internationalization consisted in uniting all sociors into a single world system, then globalization in uniting all sociors into one world (global) sociohistorical organism.

The world system by this time included two large groups of societies, one of which exploited the other. As a result, the global socior began to form as a class one, as split into two global classes. The world orthocapitalist system began to turn into a global exploiting class, countries of the dependent paracapitalist periphery - into a global exploited class. And where there are classes, the class struggle is inevitable. Humanity has entered the era of the global class struggle.

The ortho-capitalist center acted as the attacking side. The most favorable conditions have been created for him. If in the past it was split into warring factions, then after the end of the Second World War it became basically united. He has one leader - the United States. He rallied organizationally: a significant part of his societies entered a common military alliance - NATO and a common economic union - the EU. Imperialism has grown into ultra-imperialism.

However, in the period before the beginning of the 90s. the possibilities of action of the ortho-capitalist center were very limited. The ultra-imperialist beast was muzzled by the powerful neo-political world system. The orthocapitalist center had to come to terms with both the falling out of a large number of countries from the paracapitalist periphery, and with the disappearance of the colonial system, after which all the remaining paracapitalist societies became dependent.

With the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the global neo-political system, it seemed that the time had come for revenge.

Even earlier, it became clear to the countries of the center that the Dependetiae were more difficult to exploit than the colonies. Therefore, the Western center was faced with the task of re-establishing its complete and undivided domination over the peripheral world, and re-colonizing it.

But a return to the colonies of the previous type in the new conditions was impossible. A way out was found in the planting of such regimes in peripheral countries, under which their governments would forever become puppets of the West, primarily the United States. In order for the leaders of these countries to be easily held in subjection and easily changed, these regimes had to be outwardly democratic. AA Zinoviev proposed to call this kind of country "democratic colonies". I will call them satellites. The USA and its allies began to fight for world domination under the slogan of democratizing all countries of the world.

The greatest danger for the West was, of course, the countries of the independent periphery. He started with them. But China was clearly too tough for him. The first victim was Yugoslavia. The parts that fell away from it - Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina - immediately turned into satellites. On the remaining part of Serbia and Montenegro, Yugoslavia was attacked by the West. Kosovo was cut off from Serbia. As a result of the "color" revolution, organized primarily by the USA, it itself became a satellite of the West. The final chord is the separation of Montenegro, which even earlier became a satellite.

Under the flag of fighting international terrorism, NATO troops entered Afghanistan. The US and Great Britain attacked Iraq. The country was occupied by foreign troops. A "color" revolution was carried out in Ukraine, an attempt was made of this kind of coup d'etat in Belarus, which ended in complete failure. Every now and then there is a leak of information about the impending missile and bomb attack on Iran.

Along with the military and political offensive, there is an ideological and cultural expansion of the center. But it is not that great culture that was created in the Renaissance and the New Age that is spreading outside by the West at all, but the current commercial culture that has nothing to do with genuine art. A wave of propaganda of violence, cruelty, immoralism, debauchery, homosexuality, etc., pours from the West in a muddy, fetid stream.

This Western pseudo-culture, of course, is immeasurably lower than the local aboriginal culture of the peoples of the periphery. Most of the population of peripheral countries meets her with hostility. As a result, in their eyes, resistance to the West appears primarily as a struggle to preserve their traditional cultural values. As a result, a significant number of Western and not only Western political scientists perceived the global class struggle as a clash of civilizations: Western, on the one hand, non-Western, on the other.

the pressure of the West meets not only ideological protest, but also other forms of resistance. A manifestation of the global class struggle is the powerful anti-globalization movement that has unfolded in recent decades, as well as international terrorism, which is going under the banner of radical Islamism.

But the main actors in the global class struggle are still not individuals or even large groups of them, but socio-historical organisms. The world that emerged after the disappearance of the global neo-political system is usually characterized as unipolar. This is both true and false. This is not true, because the world is split into two groups of countries with opposite interests. It is true, because of these two groups of sociohistorical organisms, not just a system, but also a powerful organized economic, political and military force is only the center, which allows it to dominate and trample all principles of international law, to act on the principle of the landowner from the well-known Nekrasov poem:

No contradiction

Who do I want– have mercy,

Who do I want– execution.

Law– my desire!

Fist– my police!

Sparkling blow,

The blow is furious.

Blow the cheekbone!

As for the peripheral countries, they never formed a single system. They were united only by dependence on common owners. These countries were fragmented, there were and still are many contradictions between them. Therefore, they did not represent a force. The center took advantage of this disunity. He was always guided by the long-known rule - "divide and conquer." To do this, he used both a stick and a carrot. Part of the periphery countries, on the one hand, out of fear, and on the other, out of a desire to receive handouts from the master's table, became satellites of the center. This is how the servile, servile, lackey periphery was formed, which in its attitude to other peripheral countries surpassed even the masters in terms of insolence.

Almost all countries of Central and Southern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc.), as well as Georgia, have become such voluntary satellites of the West. Most of them were included in organizations that initially united mainly only the countries of the center - NATO and the EU. It is the countries of the center and the countries of the servile periphery that they usually mean when they talk about the international, or world, community, refer to its opinions, its assessments of current events.

The countries of the rest of the periphery are not taken into account in this case: they do not seem to exist. And it is clear why: in any class society, not excluding the global one, the dominant ideology is always the ideology of the ruling class.

The creation of the Kholui periphery was largely initiated by the United States. The countries of the center make up one gang of gangsters. But this does not mean that there is complete unity between them. There are contradictions both between its individual rank-and-file members, and between the latter and the “chieftain”. The leader often puts pressure on the rank and file, trying to turn them from junior, but still partners, into servants. Those put up feasible resistance.

Sometimes the rank and file try to rein in the leader when he goes overboard. For example, France and Germany opposed the US plan of attack on Iraq. And the United States, having achieved admission of the countries of the lackey periphery to NATO and the European Union, uses them to put pressure on its not always sufficiently obedient ortho-capitalist partners.

If the Kholui periphery as a whole agrees to support the existing state of affairs, then the rest of the periphery is generally unhappy with it. But many of these disaffected are forced to put up with the existing order. And even those who are his opponents do not dare to enter into open conflict with the countries of the center.

But now, in addition to hidden opponents of the “new order,” more and more direct, open ones are beginning to appear. These are, first of all, the countries of the independent periphery, in particular Iran and Belarus. Now we are witnessing the third wave of socio-liberation revolutions. They take place in Latin America. The countries in which these revolutions are unfolding are rising from their knees and challenging, first of all, the leader of the center - the United States. These are Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua.

The struggle against the West requires the unification of the periphery countries for its success. And this objective necessity is increasingly beginning to make its way, often independently of the subjective intentions of the ruling elite of the peripheral countries. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) emerged in Eurasia, which includes Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Mongolia, Iran, India, Pakistan take part as observers in its work. All of them want to join it, Iran even submitted an official application.

Although the leaders of the SCO countries in every possible way emphasize that this organization was created not at all with the aim of confronting any other countries, its anti-American and - more broadly - anti-Western orientation is obvious. No wonder the United States was denied the right to participate in its activities as even an observer. Many political analysts see the SCO as a kind of anti-NATO. Within the framework of the SCO, joint Russian-Chinese military exercises were held. Within the framework of the CIS, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was created.

In Latin America, an organization called the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin American countries of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia was created, which is characterized by a sharp anti-American orientation. Honduras has recently joined it. The creation in 2008 of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), consisting of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela, is associated with the desire to jointly resist the United States. US military bases are being dismantled in Ecuador and Paraguay. The triangle Caracas - Minsk - Tehran emerged. The abbreviation BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) arose to denote a kind of informal union of the four largest countries of the peripheral world, which is gradually acquiring more and more distinct outlines. Thus, the first steps have been taken towards the unification of the peripheral world.

The position of Russia, which is the largest power in the world in terms of territory, occupying more than half of Europe and a significant part of Asia, is of great importance for the fate of the peripheral world. The ruling elite, which took shape after the collapse of the USSR as an independent state of the Russian Federation, immediately embarked on the path of all possible pleasing to the West and especially the United States. The Russian leadership, neglecting the interests of its own country, diligently followed all the instructions of the "Washington Regional Committee".

This continued after Boris N. Yeltsin was replaced as president by V. V. Putin. The Americans ordered the Mir to be drowned - they drowned it, ordered to close the tracking station in Cuba - they closed it, demanded to leave the base in Cam Ranh (Vietnam) - they left, etc. The number of concessions was endless. But in response to them, Russia received demands for more and more concessions and spits in the face.

Russia was pulled into the servile periphery, but at the same time it was denied the handouts that other voluntary lackeys of the West received. In response to the desire of the Russian leadership to please the United States and the West, they diligently engaged in throwing a noose around her neck. The goal is to lead Russia as a slave under threat of strangulation. This was expressed both in the constant approach of NATO to the borders of Russia, and in the creation of military bases, radars and missile systems on the territory of the new members of this alliance.

Sooner or later, the Russian leadership's complete disregard for national interests began to threaten the country's very existence. A change of policy became more and more urgent. And the changes began. But they walked with a constant eye to the West, with constant retreats, endless vacillations and vacillations. Russia opposed, for example, tough sanctions against Iran, but, however, not against sanctions in general. On this occasion, one involuntarily recalls the famous Russian proverb about something dangling in the hole.

But then the President of Georgia M. Saakashvili threw his army, armed to the teeth by the United States and a number of other states and trained by American instructors, against tiny South Ossetia with the aim of total extermination or expulsion of the Ossetian population. If successful, he was going to do the same with Abkhazia.

M. Saakashvili hoped that Russia, despite all the warnings expressed, would not dare to stand up for the Ossetians, fearing the inevitable harsh condemnation of these actions by the United States and the West in general. But the Russian leadership, knowing full well what would follow, decided on a conflict with the West. The Rubicon was crossed.

Units of the Russian army literally in five days completely defeated the Georgian troops, destroyed the air and naval forces of Georgia and eliminated almost all of its military infrastructure (bases, radar stations, etc.). The Georgian soldiers fled in panic, giving observers reason to tartly note that the Georgian army was apparently being trained by American running instructors. The road to Tbilisi was open, but Russian troops, forcing Georgia to peace, stopped.

The aforementioned international community erupted in a storm of indignation. People posing as irreconcilable champions of human rights, amicably rushed to defend Saakashvili and his accomplices, in fact, thereby fully approving the genocide they had undertaken. But Russia, despite all these hysterical cries, continued the work it had begun: it recognized and reliably guaranteed the independence of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Of all the Western countries, the United States was especially hot. From the mouths of their leaders, after the end of hostilities, threats and insistent demands for the most severe punishment of Russia fell down. The most groveling satellites of the West (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) have come up with proposals to impose severe sanctions against Russia. Some Western European countries also started talking about sanctions. But, having calculated their possible consequences, they fell silent. It became clear that they would turn like a boomerang against themselves.

The US and NATO were about to send their warships to the shores of Georgia, completely forgetting that the time of "gunboat diplomacy" was over, and it was never used against countries such as Russia. The stay of this fleet in the Black Sea turned out to be a completely pointless business. Even the leaders of the European Union understood this, expressing their fear that this would only lead to an exacerbation of tensions, while it was necessary to remove them. After making sure that there was no and never would be any sense in the presence of military ships in the Black Sea, the United States was forced to withdraw them. It all came down to just wasting fuel, which is so expensive now. It did not bring any benefit to the United States, nor did it add fame. As a result, the United States and the West as a whole were unable to take any real measures against Russia. Thus, they clearly demonstrated their powerlessness.

As a result of these events, a serious blow was dealt to the prestige of the United States, first of all, which was unable to protect its most devoted lackey, which was a harsh lesson for all other American lackeys.

Russia won a huge military and political victory. The main thing was her victory over herself. Russia has become convinced that it can, without fear of the West and without reckoning with it, defend its interests. It was a lesson for the whole world: both for the center and for the periphery. It turned out that even one country, true, such as Russia, can successfully resist the West. It became clear that in the event of its unification, the periphery may well completely end its domination over the world.

The threats of the United States and the West to put Russia in a position of isolation from the whole world turned out to be ridiculous. As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noted in this regard, NATO and the EU are not the whole world yet. In the peripheral world, excluding the lackey periphery, Russia's actions have evoked widespread understanding and approval. The President of Iran immediately said this. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the same. Nicaragua announced the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as sovereign states. The SCO, which together with observers represents half of the world's population, expressed its approval for Russia's active actions in the Caucasus. They unanimously condemned the aggression of Georgia and expressed their agreement with the actions of Russia and the CSTO country. But the isolation of Russia did not work out not only from the whole world, but even from Western Europe. The European Union, having condemned Russia, simultaneously stressed the need for further close cooperation with it several times.

In general, the events of August 2008 were a turning point in the history of the modern world. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy admitted, from that moment on, the unipolar world came to an end. It was quite clearly revealed that in addition to the world community to which Western politicians and publicists, as well as their henchmen belong and endlessly talk about, outside of it partly emerges, partly already exists, and another, second community, which has more reason to call itself world, because it represents 5/6 of the world's population.

The struggle between the center and the periphery will be prolonged. But its outcome as a whole is already a foregone conclusion: the defeat of the West is inevitable. And his economic power will not help him. China, the largest of the independent periphery countries, is becoming a powerful economic force. In 2007, he already controlled 13.2% of the world industrial production, catching up with the leader of the center - the USA, whose share was equal to about 20%. According to the forecast of the research center "Global Insight", already in 2009 these countries will change places: the share of China will be 17%, the USA - 16%.

But the main thing, of course, is the rallying of the periphery countries. By uniting, the periphery will end the domination of the West, with its dependence on it. The abolition of the exploitation of peripheral countries by Western states will mean the abolition of paracapitalism and thus capitalism in these countries in general. By ending exploitation by the West, the periphery will cease to be a periphery. It will become the center.

As for the ortho-capitalist center, having lost the influx of surplus product from the outside, it will be doomed to radical changes in its social system. There is now a mass of literature in the West that discusses scenarios for the future of humanity. And in most of these works, there is invariably a statement of the long-begun and steadily continuing decline of the West. Almost all of these works draw an analogy between the modern situation in the West and the last centuries of the Roman Empire, when it was heading towards its inevitable destruction as a result of complete internal decomposition and the pressure of external enemies - the barbarians.

Authors of a wide variety of beliefs write about this: from extreme left radicals to liberals and even extreme right. In this respect, the title of the book of the American arch-reactionary PJ Buchanan "Death of the West" (2002) sounds more than eloquent.

The crux of the matter is that capitalism has by now exhausted all its former progressive possibilities. He became a brake on the path of human development. It turned out that the use of the technical method of development of productive forces so characteristic of capitalism in the conditions of this society is approaching the limit. In pursuit of profit, capitalism has developed technology so that it now threatens the nature of the planet and thus the existence of mankind.

Capitalism at a new level and in a new form revives the individualism prevailing in the animal kingdom, unbridles zoological instincts, destroys morality, deprives people of their sense of duty, honor and conscience and thereby turns them into a special kind of animals - animals with thinking and technology. Its preservation dooms humanity to degradation, desertification and, ultimately, to death. To survive, humanity must end capitalism.

When Western countries are deprived of the opportunity to exploit the rest of the world, the only way out for them will be the elimination of capitalism. When it is destroyed all over the world in both its forms (both paracapitalist and orthocapitalist), the era of transition to a society of a fundamentally different type will begin - a society without private property and exploitation of man by man. The division of human society as a whole into the historical center and the historical periphery will disappear. Humanity will merge into a single society.

But, unfortunately, another development option is not completely ruled out. The rulers of the ortho-capitalist West, sensing the approach of imminent defeat, may decide to use nuclear weapons. Then both humanity and its history will come to an end. In the third orbit from the Sun, a dead, deserted planet will circle.

The obsolescence of capitalism and the danger posed to mankind by the continued existence of this economic system are more than clearly demonstrated by the enormous financial crisis that broke out in 2008, and then a comprehensive economic crisis. He made many of its hardened defenders think about the future of capitalism, and the governments of capitalist countries to take measures that go against the basic principles of the functioning of the capitalist economy. The head of the American Chamber of Commerce E. Somers said that the era of the free market has ended and the era of state regulation of the economy has begun, which does not exclude the nationalization of banks and enterprises. Former head of the US Federal Reserve System A. Greenspan spoke directly about the usefulness of nationalizing the country's banks in the midst of a severe crisis. In the United States, this process has already begun, prompting one of our publicists to publish a condemning article called "Socialist States." The German government also plans to nationalize problem banks. The representative of the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Maria de Belem Roseira described the prevailing opinion that market mechanisms can provide a solution to social problems as a deep mistake. In fact, they cannot be resolved without infringing on the "free" economy. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the current economic crisis is caused by the "bad" capitalism that still existed, it needs to be abolished and replaced by another capitalism, this time - "good". Existing capitalism really needs to be destroyed. But it can be replaced not by some other - better capitalism, because there is none and cannot be, but only by a society based on social ownership of the means of production - communist.

Abstract.

Lesson type: lesson in learning new material.

The purpose of the lesson: characterize the prehistory of mankind, its differences from the historical period

Formable universal learning activities:

explain the reasons for the search by ancient people for answers to questions about the origin of the world and man, formulate their own judgment about the ethical meaning of these questions; compare the historical period of human development and prehistory, identify differences; explain the criteria for the periodization of the ancient history of mankind; compare a modern person with a primitive, identify significant differences, draw up a comparative table; characterize the main forms of primitive religion, be able to apply theoretical knowledge

about the primitive forms of religion to the analysis of historical situations; structure the text of the textbook, highlight the essential features of the Neolithic revolution, formalize the results into a reference scheme; formulate and argue their own opinion on the problem of the origin of a person, participate in its collective discussion.

Lesson equipment: computer, projector, multimedia presentation, textbook by V.I.Ukolov, A.V. Revyakin. History. General history grade 10. M: - "Education", 2015.

During the classes:

Organizational moment. Greetings, checking the readiness of students for the lesson.

Motivational stage.

Remember the most common periodization of history. Name the stages of historical development in chronological order. (Primitiveness, Ancient world, Middle Ages, New time, Modern time).

Today we will consider the longest period in the history of mankind - Primitiveness or Prehistory.

Learning new material:

Slide 1. Lesson topic: Background.

Slide 2. The purpose of the lesson: to find out the main content, role and place of the prehistory of mankind in the historical process.

Slide 3. Task: Read the section "Prehistory and history" (p. 16 of the textbook) and formulate the essential difference between prehistory and history as two stages of human development. Record conclusions in the table.

Background and history.

Checking the completion of the task

Slide 4. Acquaintance with a sample of filling the table.

The turn of the IV-III millennium BC e. -

present time

Formation of a person as a biological species with its psychophysical and social characteristics

The emergence of civilizations, i.e. statehood, writing, society's awareness of its past

Slide 5. We will conduct the study of primitiveness according to the following plan.

Plan:

1. The origin of man.

2. Periodization of primitiveness.

4. Neolithic revolution.

Slide 6. The origin of man.

Man arose on Earth in the course of a long and uneven evolutionary process - anthropogenesis, many stages of which are not completely clear.

It is believed that 8-5 million years ago, African monkeys split into 2 branches: one led to great apes (chimpanzees, etc.), the other to the first hominids (Australopithecines, who had a bipedal gait).

Australopithecus are southern monkeys. Their remains have been found in southern and eastern Africa. They lived 9-5 million years ago. Their appearance is associated with the emergence of savannas. This is the first representative of the evolutionary branch that eventually, according to some scientists, led to man.

Slide 7. Probably approx. 2 million years ago, the Australopithecines gave rise to the genus "man" (Homo), the first representative of which many scientists consider "a man of skill" (Homo habilis) - its fossil remains are found together with the most ancient stone tools (the so-called Olduvai culture).

Slide 8. Homo erectus took the next era (HomoErectus). Homo erectus has perfectly mastered the technique the manufacture of hand-held stone choppers, the remains of which are found in different places - Asia, Africa, Europe.

A skilled man created rough chopping tools: chops, arrowheads, widely used fire. His brain allowed him to perform operations inaccessible to monkeys: to split stones and sharpen sticks with their sharp edges, to cut meat. It is believed that these were truly the first people. They lived in collectives - human herds, were engaged in hunting and gathering.

Slide 9. There is no consensus in science about the time, place of origin and direct ancestors of modern humans - Homo sapiens sapiens. According to one hypothesis, it originated in Africa approx. 200 thousand years ago and then drove out more ancient people everywhere; according to another, the formation of "Homo sapiens" (the so-called sapientation) took place gradually in different parts of the planet. One of the subspecies of Homo sapiens is Neanderthal.

The Neanderthal was a stocky, strong man, his brain volume even exceeded that of a modern man, but he was different in structure. Judging by the finds of bones at the sites of the Neanderthal, he hunted large animals. The emergence of a new technique for making tools of labor, the first burials associated with the emergence of religious rites, speaks of the high mental development of this person.

Slide 10. The early representatives of modern man (neoanthropus) in Europe were Cro-Magnons who lived 40-10 thousand years ago; possible ancestors of the Caucasian race. The name comes from the Cro-Magnon grotto in France, where in 1868 several human skeletons were discovered along with tools from the late Paleolithic.

The Cro-Magnons created a rich and varied culture of the Late Paleolithic and the transition to the Mesolithic. More than 100 types of complex stone and bone tools are described that were made by new, more efficient processing of stone and bone (for example, more than 250 blows were required to make a flint knife).

Slide 11.The Cro-Magnons also significantly improved the methods of hunting (driven hunting), taking out reindeer and red deer, mammoths, woolly rhinos, cave bears, wolves and other animals. They made spear throwers, harpoons and hooks for catching fish, snares for birds.The Cro-Magnons tamed their first pet, the dog.

Slide 12. Cro-Magnons are the creators of European primitive art, as evidenced by the multicolored painting on the walls and ceilings of caves (Altamira, Lasko, Montespan, etc.), engraving on pieces of stone or bone, ornament, small stone and clay sculpture.

Slide 13. Apparently, the life expectancy of the Cro-Magnons was longer than that of the Neanderthal: approx. 10% have already lived to be 40 years old. Cro-Magnons were able to make full use of speech and abstract thinking. They were less aggressive than the Neanderthals. And this contributed to their unification. They lived in tribal communities. In this era, a primitive communal system was formed.

Slide 14. Differences between a modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens) and an animal (monkey).

Walking upright. Moves on two legs.

Lack of body hair.

Moves on four limbs. Climbs trees well

Has a coat all over the body

Head

The skull bones are much thinner than those of the monkey.

Facial features are thinner and smaller, the face is flat.

Powerful bones of the skull.

The muzzle stretched forward.

Developed superciliary arches.

Slide 15.

The brain is larger and more complexly organized (more convolutions).

The ability to think.

Articulate speech

Small brain volume.

Sound and emotion system

to transfer information

Spine

The spine is thinner and has curves that allow you to maintain balance in an upright position and when walking.

Straight and powerful spine.

Arms

Hands do not participate in walking, shorter than that of a monkey, reaching only to the hips.

The thumb of the hand is opposed to the rest, which simplifies the grasping movements

The forelegs are long, below the knees.

The monkey grabs the object not with five fingers, but only with four, because the thumb is short and poorly developed

Slide 16.

Legs are longer than arms. The foot has a vault that acts as a shock absorber when walking.

There is a massive heel

The hind limbs are shorter

cue in relation to the body and forelimbs.

The foot is not developed and not adapted

lena to walking, flat in shape

Social characteristics

Activities and communication

Ability to communicate, work together, purposeful

activities, not only to adjust

respect for the environment, but also

the ability to create socio-culture

tour Wednesday

Instinctive behavior.

Organized community.

The ability to work together.

Feasibility of action.

Slide 17. About 40 thousand years ago, at the turn of the Upper Paleolithic, "Homo sapiens" becomes the only representative of the hominid family and populates almost the entire Earth.

An example of filling out the table.

Lower palaeolithic

Isolation of a person from an animal state.

Manufacturing of roughly cut stone tools (choppers, knives, scrapers, spearheads).

Mastery of fire.

Age and sex division of labor.

Formation of the basic unit of society - a small clan community

The origin of man as a biological

geological appearance and the beginning of the formation of human society

Middle Paleolithic

Upper Paleolithic

Distribution of Homo sapiens sapiens on Earth.

The emergence of throwing weapons (darts, harpoons).

The existence of small dwellings.

The origin of religion.

The emergence of art

(dance, music, rock art).

Development of new continents - America and Australia

Providing food and necessary livelihoods.

Becoming a person as

spiritual being

Mesolithic

The emergence of microliths - miniatures

stone tools.

The likely domestication of a dog as a hunting assistant

Expanding hunting opportunities

Neolithic

Formation of a neighborhood community.

Neolithic revolution (transition

from the appropriating economy to the producing one).

The complication of painting (many

gourness, abstraction)

Enhanced food and livelihood opportunities.

The beginning of the transition to the formation of statehood

Slide 19. 3. The oldest forms of social and spiritual life.

Man is a bio-socio-spiritual being. The most important stage in the development of human culture and man as a spiritual being is the birth of religion. Religious beliefs and beliefs were quite diverse.

Animism - (lat. anima, animus - soul, spirit) Belief in the existence of souls and spirits, in the animation of the entire surrounding world.

Slide 20. Totemism (the term is borrowed from the North American Ojibey tribe, in whose language totem means its genus, as well as the name of a natural object related to

a certain group of people) - belief in the patronage of a real or imaginary ancestor (totem), which could be a person, animal or plant.

Slide 21. Fetishism (lat. factitius - magic, miraculous) - worship of inanimate material objects - fetishes, which are attributed to supernatural properties.

Magic (lat. magia) - rituals with the help of which people tried to influence in a supernatural way on other people, on natural phenomena and events.

Slide 22. The concepts of the most ancient forms of social life have undergone major changes in connection with the new discoveries of historians and ethnologists. Schema comments.

The period of the assigning farm.

Slide 23.

Transition to a manufacturing economy.

Functions of the neighborhood community:

Collective labor mutual assistance

Regulation of relations

Some forms of government

Slide 24. 4. Neolithic revolution.

Neolithic - New Stone Age, period (approx. 8 - 3 thousand BC)

The Neolithic Revolution is a transition from an appropriating economy (gathering, hunting) to a producing one (agriculture, cattle breeding).

Work with the map of the first farming centers (page 23 of the textbook).

1. Define the territories where the earliest agriculture arose, the territory where the first civilizations appeared on Earth.

2. Do these territories overlap?

3. Have agricultural centers developed uniformly across the globe? What factors, in your opinion, influenced this process?

Slide 25 - 28.

Signs

The emergence of new

multifunctional

stone tools; the transition to the regulated cultivation of cereals and the raising of animals;

highlighting craft;

the emergence of arable

agriculture; invented

the development and development of the plow and plow; highlighting construction as a special

spheres of economic

activities; appeared

development of individual (family) economy and the beginnings of private property

Creation of permanent

settlements, villages,

ancient settlements - the previous

city \u200b\u200bowners;

transition to neighbor

community; delamination

within the community; for-

mating large

intercommunal associations

neniy - tribes

Management transformation

in a special sphere of work; the appearance of

chats of the administration, the power of the leader;

expansion of military

collisions between

tribes

Complication and differentiation of religious beliefs;

the emergence of tribal gods; form-

ration of polytheism (polytheism)

Slide 29

property and social inequality arose

a special group of noble and wealthy people stood out

Slide 30. Homework:

§ 1, end table

"Periodization of primitiveness", make a reasoned conclusion about the most significant, in your opinion, change in people's lives.

Consolidation of the learned. Complete application tasks 1.

Answer:

magic 2. animism 3. animism 4. magic 5. fetishism 6. magic 7.totemism 8.totemism

9.magic 10.animism 11.totemism 12.fetishism