General View of the Historical Development of Human Societies. Monograph. Mamanov Abdurahim

endeavors to procure essential material goods for sustenance invariably manifest in distinct modes of production. From this perspective, human society progresses through the following formations:

      – Primitive community system.

      – Slavery.

      – Feudal system.

      – Capitalism.

      – Communism.

      These are referred to as socio-economic formations, which are rooted in the method of producing material goods. Each society develops a complex of political institutions, ideological beliefs, and religious views based on its method of production – the economic foundation. Property and production relations in each society are shaped in accordance with a particular level of productive forces.

      The mode of production in any society is determined by its specific relations of production and ownership. As productive forces grow and develop, a tension emerges between the existing method of production and the productive forces within society. This tension is typically resolved through a social revolution, wherein the established production and property relations are dismantled by the forces of production, paving the way for new production and property relations that align with the current level of productivity – a new economic foundation and mode of production. Subsequently, new structural, political, and social organizations – along with artistic, literary, ideological, and philosophical systems – emerge to correspond with the new economic base.

      Presently, many scholars acknowledge that while the formative approach offers insights into European historical development, it falls short in accurately capturing the histories of other regions, particularly those in the East:

      «The formative approach is not without its limitations. Historical evidence suggests that not all countries follow the rigid framework proposed by proponents of this approach. For instance, many nations have not transitioned beyond the social and economic system of slavery. Moreover, the historical trajectories of Eastern countries often diverge significantly from the formative developmental system formulated for European societies.»2

      According to Zamonov, the formative approach was primarily designed for European societies, suggesting it effectively elucidates the historical evolution of Europe. However, we contend that the formative approach struggles to accurately depict the trajectory of historical development not only in other regions of the world but even within Europe itself.

      In our view, the delineation of slavery and feudalism as distinct periods in the history of individual societies, as proposed by Marxists, lacks justification. We argue that these systems cannot be considered as separate periods or methods of production within the historical development of individual societies.

      In essence, what criteria should be utilized to ascertain the method of production that delineates a distinct period in the history of human society?

      According to Marx, a production method identified as a separate period and stage in human societal history is characterized by its economic foundation, alongside the development of ideological superstructures, political and social institutions, legal systems, literature, art, philosophy, and other facets within society. However, some scholars argue that Marx and Engels did not sufficiently elucidate how this economic foundation gives rise to an ideological structure.

      Erich Fromm, a renowned philosopher of the 20th century, asserts that Marx emphasized the interconnectedness between society’s economic foundation and its political, legal, philosophical, artistic, and religious dimensions. According to Marx’s theory, the ideological structure arises from the economic base. However, Engels acknowledged that neither he nor Marx had elucidated how the economic base transitions into an ideological superstructure. Fromm suggests that this gap in Marxist theory could be addressed through psychoanalysis, revealing the mechanisms by which the economic foundation shapes the ideological structure. As Fromm states, «Marx emphasized that there is an interrelationship between the economic base of society on the one hand and political and legal structures, philosophy, art, religion, and others on the other.»3

      Hence, Marx and Engels did not delineate the process by which the economic base transforms into an ideological structure. According to Erich Fromm, this intermediary link is fulfilled by the social character of that society.4

      Fromm posits that social behavior primarily stems from the requirements and necessities dictated by the prevailing mode of production within society. Consequently, our current objective revolves around analyzing the attributes of Western social character. Many scholars contend that the behavioral traits specific to a given society are intrinsic to its members and go unnoticed by them. Hence, individuals within that society may not discern the distinctive features of their social behavior.

      To comprehend and assess the distinctive attributes of social behavior inherent to a particular society, it is imperative to juxtapose it with dissimilar social behavior. For instance, to grasp the traits of Western social character, it is necessary to contrast it with an alternative example, such as the Eastern social character.

      A comparison of Eastern and Western social behavior reveals stark differences in their primary characteristics. For instance, in Eastern societies, individuals often exhibit deference to authority, whereas in Western societies, emphasis is placed on individual freedom and dignity. While Eastern social character may prioritize attitudes of deference and compromise, with morality holding a broader and more significant role than legal strictures, Western social character may be characterized by a stance of assertiveness in interpersonal relationships, with the law holding greater sway than morality.

      According to Erich Fromm’s teachings, the social character is shaped by the prevailing mode of production. From this perspective, one might inquire into the basis upon which the social character characteristic of the West is formed. If we adhere to the formative approach, which suggests that slavery and feudalism were the primary modes of production during Antiquity and the Middle Ages, one might wonder if the characteristics of these modes of production contributed to the development of the Western social character. For instance, how might the traits associated with slavery or feudalism – such as authoritarian rule and subjugation – have influenced the characteristics of the Western social character, such as individualism, prioritization of personal interests, and intolerance?

      It would be more coherent to view slavery and feudal systems not as distinct modes of production, but rather as methods of exploitation employed by one class over another. Towards the decline of communist ideology, there emerged notions that it is unscientific to regard slavery and feudal systems as separate stages in the history of human society.5

      It is striking that Marxist theory largely overlooks the concept of social behavior. How can we account for the dearth of inquiry into the notion of social character (mentality), not only during the era of Marx and Engels but also in the socialist countries until the latter stages of communist rule? In contrast, from the latter half of the 19th century and particularly the early 20th century, Western scholars dedicated significant efforts to studying social behavior – namely, the mentality of diverse peoples. This raises a pertinent question: was this oversight intentional on the part of Marxists, or simply a disregard for the matter?

      Historical evidence and logical analysis suggest that the first possibility holds more credibility: after all, Karl Marx himself may have manipulated the theory of Asian mode of production (AMP) he developed for political ends.6 Thus, what political motivations might have compelled Marxists to ignore reality? To answer this question, a deeper understanding of the content of the Marxist worldview is necessary.

      As per the Marxist worldview, the history of human society is delineated by class struggle. «The history of human society is the history of class struggle,» as asserted by Karl Marx.

      The

2

Замонов А. Сам. ДУ тадқиқотчиси А. Мамановнинг «Тарих фанини ўқитишда инновацион услуб» номли мақоласига тақриз.

3

Фромм Э. Из плена иллюзий. В книге «Душа человека» М-1992. Стр: 327

4

Фромм Э. Из плена иллюзий. В книге «Душа человека» М. 1992. Стр: 331

5

Илюшечкин В. П. Эксплуатация и собственностьв сословно-классовых обществах. М. 1990

6

Латов Ю. Тройной юбилейТеории АСП. htts:||cyberleninka.ru|article|v|vostochnyy despotism-k-a-vittfoqelya-k-50-letiyu-strannoy-knigi.