Social progress and freedom

10 thousand years ago BC, in a very small piece of space where humanity then lived, namely in the Jordan Valley, a Neolithic revolution took place in a very short period of time — man tamed wheat and animals. We do not know why this happened exactly there and then — perhaps due to a sharp cold snap that occurred in the Early Dryas. The Early Dryas killed Clavist culture in the Americas, but may have forced the Natufian culture in the Jordan Valley into agriculture. It was a revolution that completely changed the nature of humanity, and with it a new concept of space arose, a new concept of property (the wheat that I grew is privately owned, but the mushroom in the forest is shared).

​​​​​​​Man entered into symbiosis with plants and animals, and the entire subsequent history of mankind is, in general, the history of symbiosis with plants and animals, thanks to which a person can live in such natural environments and use such resources that he could never use directly. Here, a person does not eat grass, but a sheep, a walking processing center for processing grass into meat, performs this task for him. In the last century, the symbiosis of man with machines has been added to this.

But, here, what is most important for my story is that the descendants of the Natufians conquered the whole Earth. The Natufians were not Jews, not Arabs, not Sumerians, not Chinese, they were the ancestors of all these peoples. Almost all the languages ​​spoken in the world, with the exception of African languages, Papua New Guinea and the Quechua type, are the languages ​​of the descendants of those who, using this new technology of symbiosis with a plant or animal, settled across Eurasia millennia after millennium. The Sino-Caucasian family, that is, both Chechens and Chinese, the poly-Asiatic family, that is, both the Huns and the Kets, the barial family, that is, the Indo-Europeans, and the Finno-Ugric peoples, and the Semitic-Khamites — all these are the descendants of those who are over 10 thousand years BC in the Jordan Valley learned to grow wheat.

So, I think, many have heard that Europe in the Upper Paleolithic was inhabited by Cro-Magnons and that this Cro-Magnon here, who supplanted the Neanderthal, who drew pictures in the cave, and so you need to understand that there was nothing left of these Cro-Magnons who inhabited all of Europe , less than from the Indians of North America — they disappeared completely, who painted drawings in the caves. Their language, culture, customs have been completely supplanted by the descendants of those wave after wave who tamed wheat, bulls, donkeys and horses. Even the Celts, Etruscans and Pelasgians, peoples who have already disappeared, are also descendants of the Natufians. This is the first lesson that I want to say, technological progress will give an unprecedented advantage in reproduction.

And 10 thousand years ago BC, the Neolithic revolution took place. After a couple of thousand years, the first cities are already appearing not only in the Jordan Valley, but around. One of the first cities of mankind — Jericho, 8 thousand years BC. It’s hard to dig. Well, for example, Chatal-Guyuk was excavated in Asia Minor a little later. And the emergence of cities is a consequence of population growth, a new approach to space. And now I want you to rethink the phrase that I said: «Cities appeared.» Because the phrase is banal, and in it, in fact, a terrible paradox is amazing.

The fact is that the modern world is inhabited by extended states, the results of conquests. There are no city-states in the modern world, well, except maybe Singapore. So for the first time in the history of mankind, the state did not appear as a result of the conquest of a certain army with a king at the head, the state appeared as a city — a wall, temples, adjacent lands. And for 5 thousand years from the 8th to the 3rd millennium BC, the state existed only as a city. Only 3 thousand years BC, from the time of Sargon of Akkad, extended kingdoms begin as a result of the conquests of these cities.

And in the arrangement of this city, 2 points are very important, one of which, looking ahead, I find very encouraging for humanity, and the other, on the contrary, distressing. It is encouraging that there were no kings in these cities. It is very important. Here, I am often asked the question “In general, kings, alpha males – can a person be without them?” Here’s exactly what it can do. My teacher and supervisor, Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov, generally adheres to a radical point of view, he believes that in humans, like in other higher apes, the leader function is reduced compared to lower apes. And man at first had only sacred kings. I am inclined to a more neutral point of view, according to which a person, precisely because he does not have genetically determined patterns of behavior, easily changes strategies, which, by the way, is also characteristic of higher apes, because it is well known that groups of chimpanzees can differ in behavior from each other like a samurai from a European. And there are documented cases when in a herd of orangutans an adult male, in case of danger, runs forward and takes a hit, and others, when in another herd the main male runs away first.

Here, it seems that a person can live as a monogamous family in the territory, a male with a female, can form hierarchical packs with a dominant male and a harem, the first in case of peace and abundance, the second in case of war and shortage. In the second, by the way, case, well done males are always organized into something like a proto-army. In general, aside from that, homosexual intercourse between young males seems to be a good behavioral adaptation that increases mutual assistance within such an army. And now this instinct is a little knocked down and gays are perceived as feminine in our country. And, in general, in the history of mankind, gays were the most militant subclass. Both Epaminondas and Pelopidas, in general, the entire Theban sacred detachment were gays. The samurai were gay. Military communities of this kind were very common among the ancient Germans. In general, these are banal examples. Here, not very banal — hwarang. It was in Ancient Korea that there was a military elite, and it is characteristic that, in addition to rage in battle, the Hwarang were extremely feminine, painted their faces, and dressed in a manner.

Well, back to the ancient cities. They did not have kings. There is no royal palace in Chatal-Guyuk or in Mohenjo-Daro. There were gods, later there was a popular assembly, it had different forms. There is an epic about Gilgamesh, the ruler of the city of Uruk, who ruled at the end of the XNUMXth century BC. Uruk was ruled by a bicameral parliament, the first (parliament) of the elders, the second of all those capable of bearing arms.

It is said in the poem about parliament, that’s why. Uruk at this point is subordinate to another city, Kish. Kish demands workers from Uruk for irrigation work. Gilgamesh consults whether to obey Kish. The Council of Elders says «Submit,» the Council of Warriors says «Fight.» Gilgamesh wins the war, in fact, this strengthens his power.

Here, I said that he is the ruler of the city of Uruk, respectively, in the text “lugal”. This word is often translated as «king», which is fundamentally wrong. Lugal is just a military leader elected for a fixed term, usually up to 7 years. And just from the story of Gilgamesh, it is easy to understand that in the course of a successful war, and it does not matter whether it is defensive or offensive, such a ruler can easily turn into a sole ruler. However, a lugal is not a king, but rather a president. Moreover, it is clear that in some cities the word «lugal» is close to the word «president» in the phrase «President Obama», in some it is close to the meaning of the word «president» in the phrase «President Putin».

For example, there is the city of Ebla — this is the largest trading city of Sumer, this is a metropolis with a population of 250 thousand people, which had no equal in the then East. So, until his death, he did not have a normal army.

The second rather distressing circumstance that I want to mention is that there was political freedom in all these cities. And even Ebla was more politically free 5 thousand years BC than this territory is now. And, here, there was no economic freedom in them initially. In general, in these early cities, life was terribly regulated. And most importantly, Ebla died from the fact that it was conquered by Sargon of Akkad at the end of the XNUMXth century BC. This is such the first world Hitler, Attila and Genghis Khan in one bottle, which conquers almost all the cities of Mesopotamia. Sargon’s dating list looks like this: the year Sargon destroyed Uruk, the year Sargon destroyed Elam.

Sargon established his capital Akkad in a place that was not connected to the ancient holy trading cities. Sargon’s last years there were marked by famine and poverty. After the death of Sargon, his empire immediately rebelled, but it is important that this person throughout the next 2 thousand years … Not even 2 thousand years. In fact, she inspired all the conquerors of the world, because the Assyrians, Hittites, Babylonians, Medians, Persians came after Sargon. And taking into account the fact that Cyrus imitated Sargon, Alexander the Great imitated Cyrus, Napoleon imitated Alexander the Great, Hitler imitated Napoleon to some extent, then we can say that this tradition, which originated 2,5 thousand years BC, reached our days and created all existing states.

Why am I talking about this? In the 3th century BC, Herodotus writes the book «History» about how free Greece fought with despotic Asia, we have been living in this paradigm ever since. The Middle East is the land of despotism, Europe is the land of freedom. The problem is that classical despotism, in the form in which Herodotus is horrified by it, appears in the East in the 5rd millennium BC, 5 years after the appearance of the first cities. It took the terrible despotic East only XNUMX years to go from self-government to totalitarianism. Well, I think that many modern democracies have a chance to manage faster.

In fact, those despotisms that Herodotus wrote about are the result of the conquest of the Middle Eastern city-states, their incorporation into extended kingdoms. And the Greek city-states, bearers of the idea of ​​freedom, were in the same way incorporated into an extended kingdom — first Rome, then Byzantium. This very Byzantium is a symbol of Eastern servility and slavery. And, of course, starting the history of the Ancient East there with Sargon is like starting the history of Europe with Hitler and Stalin.

That is, the problem is that in the history of mankind, freedom does not appear at all in the XNUMXth century with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, or the XNUMXth with the signing of the Liberty Charter, or, there, with the liberation of Athens from Peisistratus. It always arose initially, as a rule, in the form of free cities. Then it perished and turned out to be incorporated into extended kingdoms, and the cities there existed in it like mitochondria in a cell. And wherever there was no extended state or it weakened, cities reappeared, because the Middle Eastern cities conquered first by Sargon, then by the Babylonians and Assyrians, Greek cities conquered by the Romans … And Rome was not conquered by anyone, but in the process of conquest it itself turned into despotism. Italian, French, Spanish medieval cities lose their independence as royal power grows, the Hansa loses its importance, the Vikings called Russia «Gardarika», the country of cities. So, with all these cities, the same thing happens as with ancient policies, Italian commodes or Sumerian cities. Their lugals, called for defense, seize all power or conquerors come, there, the French king or the Mongols.

This is a very important and sad moment. We are often told about progress. I must say that in the history of mankind there is only one kind of almost unconditional progress — this is technical progress. It is the rarest case that this or that revolutionary technology, once discovered, was forgotten. Several exceptions can be mentioned. The Middle Ages forgot the cement that the Romans used. Well, here I will make a reservation that Rome used volcanic cement, but the reaction is the same. Egypt, after the invasion of the peoples of the sea, forgot the technology for producing iron. But this is precisely the exception to the rule. If humanity learns, for example, to smelt bronze, then soon the Bronze Age will begin throughout Europe. If mankind invents a chariot, soon everyone will be riding chariots. But, here, social and political progress is imperceptible in the history of mankind — social history moves in a circle, all of humanity in a spiral, thanks to technological progress. And the most unpleasant thing is that it is technical inventions that put the most terrible weapon into the hands of the enemies of civilization. Well, just like Bin Laden did not invent skyscrapers and airplanes, but he used them well.

I just said that in the 5th century Sargon conquered Mesopotamia, that he destroyed self-governing cities, he turned them into bricks of his totalitarian empire. The population that was not destroyed became slaves elsewhere. The capital was founded away from the ancient free cities. Sargon is the first conqueror, but not the first destroyer. In the 1972th millennium, our Indo-European ancestors destroyed the civilization of Varna. This is such an amazing civilization, the remains of it were found quite by accident during excavations in 5. A third of the Varna necropolis has not yet been excavated. But we already understand now that in the 2th millennium BC, that is, when there were still XNUMX thousand years left before the formation of Egypt, in that part of the Balkans that was facing the Mediterranean Sea, there was a highly developed Vinca culture, apparently speaking a close to Sumerian. It had a proto-writing, its gold items from the Varna necropolis surpass in variety the tombs of the pharaohs. Their culture was not just destroyed — it was a total genocide. Well, perhaps some of the survivors fled there through the Balkans and made up the ancient Indo-European population of Greece, the Pelasgians.

Another civilization that the Indo-Europeans destroyed completely. Pre-Indo-European urban civilization of India Harappa Mohenjo-Daro. That is, there are a lot of cases in history when highly developed civilizations are destroyed by greedy barbarians who have nothing to lose except their steppes — these are the Huns, and Avars, and the Turks, and the Mongols.

The Mongols, by the way, for example, destroyed not only civilization, but also the ecology of Afghanistan when they destroyed its cities and irrigation system through underground wells. They turned Afghanistan from a country of trading cities and fertile fields, which was conquered by everyone, from Alexander the Great to the Hephthalites, into a country of deserts and mountains, which no one after the Mongols could conquer. Here, many probably remember the story of how the Taliban blew up huge statues of Buddhas near Bamiyan. Blowing up statues is, of course, not good, but remember what Bamiyan himself was like. A huge trading city, which the Mongols destroyed the whole. They slaughtered for 3 days, then returned, slaughtered those who crawled out from under the corpses.

The Mongols destroyed cities not because of some wickedness of character. They simply did not understand why a man needs a city and a field. From the point of view of the nomad, the city and the field are a place where a horse cannot graze. The Huns behaved in exactly the same way and for the same reasons.

So the Mongols and the Huns are, of course, terrible, but it is always useful to remember that our Indo-European ancestors were the most cruel of this breed of conquerors. Here, as many emerging civilizations as they destroyed, not a single Genghis Khan destroyed. In a sense, they were even worse than Sargon, because Sargon created a totalitarian empire from the destroyed population, and the Indo-Europeans did not create anything from Varna and Mohenjo-Daro, they simply cut it.

But the most painful question is what. What exactly allowed the Indo-Europeans or Sargon or the Huns to engage in such massive destruction? What prevented world conquerors from appearing there in the 7th millennium BC? The answer is very simple: there was nothing to conquer. The main reason for the death of the Sumerian cities was precisely their wealth, which made the war against them economically feasible. Just as the main reason for the barbarian invasion of the Roman or Chinese empire was their very prosperity.

So, only after the emergence of city-states, specialized civilizations appear that parasitize on them. And, in fact, all modern states are the result of these ancient and often repeated conquests.

And secondly, what makes these conquests possible? These are technical achievements, which, again, were not invented by the conquerors themselves. How not bin Laden invented airplanes. The Indo-Europeans destroyed Varna on horseback, but they did not tame them, most likely. They destroyed Mohenjo-Daro on chariots, but chariots are for sure, most likely, not an Indo-European invention. Sargon of Akkad conquered Sumer because it was the Bronze Age and his warriors had bronze weapons. “5400 warriors eat their bread before my eyes every day,” Sargon boasted. A thousand years before that, such a number of warriors was meaningless. The number of cities that would pay for the existence of such a machine of destruction was missing. There was no specialized weapon that gave the warrior an advantage over his victim.

So let’s summarize. Here, from the beginning of the Bronze Age, the 4th millennium BC, trading cities arose in the Ancient East (before that they were more sacred), which were ruled by a popular assembly and a lugal elected for a term. Some of these cities are at war with competitors like Uruk, some have almost no army like Ebla. In some, the temporary leader becomes permanent, in others it does not. Starting from the 3rd millennium BC, conquerors flock to these cities like flies to honey, and their prosperity and causes their death as the prosperity of modern Europe is the reason for the immigration of large numbers of Arabs and how the prosperity of the Roman Empire was the reason for the immigration of large numbers of Germans there .

In the 2270s, Sargon of Akkad conquers all. Then Ur-Nammu, which creates one of the most centralized and totalitarian states in the world with the center in the city of Uri. Then Hammurabi, then the Assyrians. Northern Anatolia is conquered by the Indo-Europeans, whose relatives destroy Varna, Mohenjo-Daro and Mycenae much earlier. From the XIII century, with the invasion of the peoples of the sea in the Middle East, the dark ages begin altogether, everyone eats everyone. Freedom is reborn in Greece and dies when, after a series of conquests, Greece turns into Byzantium. Liberty is revived in Italian medieval cities, but they are reabsorbed by dictators and extended kingdoms.

And all these ways of death of freedom, civilizations and noosphere are numerous, but finite. They can be classified as Propp classified the motifs of fairy tales. A trading city dies either from internal parasites or from external ones. Either he is conquered as the Sumerians or Greeks, or he himself, on the defensive, develops such an effective army that he turns into an empire like Rome. The irrigation empire turns out to be ineffective and is conquered. Or very often it causes salinization of the soil, dies itself.

In Ebla, the permanent ruler replaced the ruler, who was elected for 7 years, then Sargon came. In Italian medieval cities, the condottiere first seized power over the commune, then some French king came, the owner of an extended kingdom, conquered everything.

One way or another, the social sphere does not develop from despotism to freedom. On the contrary, a person who has lost an alpha male at the stage of formation of the species regains it when the alpha male receives new technologies, armies, and a bureaucracy. And the most annoying thing is that, as a rule, he receives these technologies as a result of other people’s inventions. And almost every breakthrough in the noosphere — the prosperity of cities, chariots, irrigation — causes a social catastrophe, although sometimes these catastrophes lead to new breakthroughs in the noosphere. For example, the death and collapse of the Roman Empire and the triumph of Christianity, deeply hostile to ancient freedom and tolerance, unexpectedly led to the fact that for the first time in several thousand years, sacred power was again separated from worldly, military power. And, so, from the enmity and rivalry between these two authorities, in the end, the new freedom of Europe was born.

Here are a few points I wanted to note that there is technical progress and technical progress is the engine of the social evolution of mankind. But, with social progress, the situation is more complicated. And when we are joyfully told that “you know, here we are, for the first time, finally, Europe has become free and the world has become free,” then very many times in the history of mankind, certain parts of humanity became free and then lost their freedom due to internal processes.

I wanted to note that a person is not inclined to obey alpha males, thank God, but is inclined to obey a ritual. Gu.e. speaking, a person is not inclined to obey a dictator, but rather tends to regulate in terms of the economy, in terms of production. And what happened in the XNUMXth century, when in the same America there was an American dream and the idea of ​​becoming a billionaire, it, oddly enough, rather contradicts the deepest instincts of mankind, because for many thousands of years, humanity, oddly enough, has been engaged in that shared the wealth of rich people among the members of the collective. This happened even in ancient Greece, it happened even more often in primitive societies, where a person gave away wealth to his fellow tribesmen in order to increase his influence. Here, the influential were obeyed, the nobles were obeyed, and the rich in the history of mankind, unfortunately, were never loved. The European progress of the XNUMXth century is rather an exception. And it is this exception that has led to the unprecedented development of mankind.