Your doors are wide open, but your soul is locked up.

Who is the master here? - I would give him wine to drink.

And in response to me: "Looks like you were on the road for a long time -

And I forgot people - we have been living like this for a long time!

(C) Vladimir Vysotsky "Alien House"

In previous articles, I have talked about what theoretical mistakes Marx and Engels made, why Lenin hated the royal family, what theoretical mistakes Vladimir Ulyanov/Lenin made, how feudalism was supposed to end as a result of the February Revolution, and how October brought feudalism back to Russia. .

In this article we will talk about the state of feudalism in Russia.

Feudal Russia in the 21st century

Today you can often hear the term "feudal lord" or "feudal" in relation to representatives of the current government.

When the escort of the governor or the president passes by, we say: “the feudal lord went with his retinue”, “the feudal procession”, “the gentleman went out”.

When we encounter the feudal system of “feeding” everywhere, this does not surprise us.

When power in Russia is transferred according to some little-understood principle (to one of our close associates), we sometimes say that this is a feudal distribution of grain places by inheritance.

When we see that a representative of power or his relative rudely violates the laws, when he is solemnly handed over firearms, when he is given deliberately excessive protection - we say that these are the normal "feudal privileges" of a representative of the current government.

When representatives of executive authorities (police, courts, prosecutors, riot police, various inspections) come to our house or organization, we forget about the laws and involuntarily recall the “invasion of the Tatar-Mongols” or “royal guardsmen”.

When citizens are deprived of their property, when forests are illegally cut down, when rare animals are hunted in nature reserves, when bribes are shamelessly demanded from us, we say that "these bastards behave like feudal lords."

When those in power themselves appoint subordinates to themselves, and those who think not about the people, but only about their pocket and their boss, we understand that these are normal feudal relations.

When the ruler of the Moscow region regularly arranges "arrows" with the ruler of Moscow in order to explain the injustice of when financial flows from the "regional people" working in Moscow are "mastered" by the Moscow ruler - we consider this normal.

When life, not according to the law, but according to medieval concepts, increasingly penetrates into our culture, we also calmly perceive this.

When in court everyone is equal before the law, but someone who has power or money turns out to be somewhat more equal, this hardly surprises us either. We have been living like this for a long time.

Relations in the Russian army have long been considered serfdom with their own versions of corvée and dues.

The relations between the guest worker and the employer are also ordinary serf relations.

Relations in criminal structures and in places of serving sentences are also ordinary serf relations.

And we experience all these relationships in everyday life.

We are rarely surprised when various officials, security forces, bandits and their servants treat ordinary Russian citizens as slaves or serfs. We know that nothing will happen to them for this, and it will be very bad for us for trying to be indignant.

When representatives of feudal states are Russia's best friends, we consider this normal.

When serfs from feudal states come to us and fit perfectly into our reality, this does not surprise us. Few people think about why a person who is accustomed to living in conditions of feudal relations is so well mastered in Russia.

Or maybe we live under feudalism?

I will try to consider this issue in detail.

What is feudalism?

feud(also - fief, linen, lat. feudum, from Old German. fe- "loyalty" and od- "possession") - land (less often - a fixed income or the right to receive income), granted senior vassal into hereditary possession, use and disposal on the terms of military, administrative or court service by the vassal in favor of the seigneur. This type of land holding was practiced in times Middle Ages in Europe .

When a lord transferred to a vassal the right to own a fief, the lord did not lose a similar right to own the same fief. As a result, the same fief was simultaneously owned by two or more persons.

Feudal property was conditional and class character. convention feudal property consisted in the fact that the right of the vassal to own, use and dispose of the feud remained with him only on condition that the vassal served in favor of the lord. If the vassal, for one reason or another, ceased to fulfill his obligations to the lord, the lord had the right to take away the fief from the vassal and transfer it to another person or keep the fief. The estate of feudal property consisted in the fact that only persons belonging to a noble ( noble) class. Peasants and townspeople, even the rich, could not become owners of a fief without first receiving the nobility.

When Marx spoke about feudalism as an economic formation, he meant not only that in this economic formation there are serfs and a class of feudal lords - people who received certain territories at their disposal, and with them the right to receive income.

I want to give some other definitions of feudalism:

Political Dictionary:

FEUDALISM

(feudalism) A social order in which vassals recognize the power of a lord and participate on his side in wars in exchange for personal protection and protection of land ownership. The seigneur, in turn, swears allegiance to the king, receiving his status in return

Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov:

FEUDALISM , feudalism, pl. No, husband.(cm. fief) (ist., sociol.). The socio-economic formation replacing the slave system and preceding capitalism, which is based on the feudal lord's ownership of the means of production and his incomplete ownership of the peasant producers, who are in serfdom from the landowners, who are sovereigns in their lands, subordinate to each other, with the monarch in control. chapter.

Law Dictionary 2000:

FEODALISM (German Feudalismus, French feodalite, from late Latin feodum, feudum - feud) is a specific system of economic, social and political-legal relations characterized by: a) conditional ownership of land; b) belonging of power (sovereign or at least administrative-police) to landowners-landlords; c) the presence of a feudal hierarchy, legally unequal and socially closed estates. generally accepted definition F. in historical science is absent (not least because of significant civilizational and historical differences from the "classical" Western European model, observed not only in Asian societies, but also in Eastern Europe).

Definition given by Belashov S.I.:

“Feudalism is a form of social management based on the exploitation of small peasant proprietors, to whom the feudal lord allocated land and receives from them rent in kind in the form of corvee and quitrent (feudal rent).”

Lenin's superficial criterion for distinguishing feudalism from capitalism is still used by some authors. At the same time, the authors believe that feudalism in Russia ended in 1861. Such authors argue that from 1861 to 1917 there was already capitalism in Russia, but with partial preservation of feudal forms of exploitation of the peasantry, and with preserved feudal remnants in the form of autocracy, class privileges, feudal ownership of land, and the nationalization of religion. , collective ownership of land.

The main differences between feudalism and capitalism

Under feudalism, the ruling class is distinguished from other classes not only by its financial position, but also by special, often unwritten rights that make it superior to other classes. Such rights are called "feudal privileges", from the word "feud" - granted right.

These privileges in any kind of relationship (in court, in the media, on the street) make the ruling class obviously have more rights than those around them.

The presence of feudal privileges is almost always accompanied by a hierarchical structure of the distribution of "feudal rights", and a system of building relations according to the type of vassal - seigneur (I'm the boss - you're a fool, you're the boss - I'm a fool).

As a rule, the system has the following obligatory rules: "each baron is sovereign in his barony". And "the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." But exceptions are possible.

Such hierarchies of privileges in a feudal society have different names: "feudal hierarchy", "table of ranks", "vertical of power".

Such relations are based on property relations, when the main feudal lord is the main landowner and distributes fiefs and immunity certificates to his subordinates (barons and nobles) for certain service obligations. Those, in turn, collect tribute and taxes from their subordinates, but they themselves can transfer the feud to the lower ones along the vertical of power.

At the bottom rung of the feudal hierarchy are feudal lords who do not have subordinate feudal lords and are forced to collect tribute in the form of corvée and dues from ordinary citizens or peasants.

Peasants who are assigned to a particular feudal lord are required to work for the feudal lord for some time or are required to pay tribute (tire).

Let us consider some features of the feudal system that distinguish it from capitalism.

Feudal ownership of land

In a feudal state, as a rule, all land available for commercial use and objects of private property are either state property or divided among several large feudal lords. The rest of the country's citizens, because of this, cannot fully enjoy private property and are dependent on the ruling class.

From the relations of feudal property follows the "right" of the ruling class to the gratuitous appropriation of the surplus product of the workers and peasants.

The feeding system

The system is organized in such a way that it is inevitable that officials should be maintained at the expense of subjects in a certain territory.

Extralegal structures

To maintain feudal hierarchies in feudal states, special extra-legal organizations are created to maintain hierarchies. Leaving such an organization is often more difficult than joining it. This is due to the fact that the disclosure of information about the structures that support the government poses a great danger to the current government.

Such structures can be the Inquisition and knights in Europe, the mafia in Italy, the KGB and organized criminal communities in the USSR. These structures, on the one hand, seem to be independent of the authorities, on the other hand, completely dependent on the authorities, are used by the ruling class for illegal operations within the country. Russian and Soviet intelligence officers see their main difference from the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the fact that the Ministry of Internal Affairs is forced to work within the framework of the law "in the legal field", and intelligence officers are not limited to this field.

Civil rights

Civil liberties are a sham and are not respected in practice.

Under feudalism, some or all of the country's citizens are deprived of basic civil rights. Labor, as a rule, is not a right, but a duty. So in Russia until 1991, there was Article 209 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, which provides for punishment for parasitism. It should be noted that this article was applied selectively - only those whom the authorities wanted to punish were punished.

court dependency

The presence of a hierarchy (vertical) in a feudal state builds the judiciary into the same hierarchy and makes it dependent. In this case, the judge does not so much follow the law as tries to please the hierarchical structure that controls him (appoints, removes, promotes or punishes).

The court can make an independent decision only when the interests of the authorities are not affected.

Where the interests of the authorities are involved, the court is never objective and fair.

Examples of how the courts treat ordinary citizens and how they treat representatives of the nomenklatura can be viewed< href = http://naganoff.livejournal.com/65182.html >here.

A more detailed analysis of the state of Russian courts can be seen< a href = http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/51767.html >hereand< a href = http://www.ng.ru/politics/2012-07-27/1_sudy.html >here.

No presumption of innocence

The feudal lord cannot allow the question of guilt or innocence to be decided without his intervention or without his permission by simple judges. Judges regularly visit higher instances and listen to instructions by phone - who and how to judge.

Vassal jurisdiction

Everyone knows the practice when a complaint from a higher authority is returned to the same authority, which is written, for "analysis and action." This is not just laziness and unwillingness to work, but the feudal principle "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal." That is, a higher authority usually does not interfere in the affairs of a lower one, if it fulfills the agreed “rules of the game” in relation to it. If the government intervenes and sends down the demand for a specific verdict, then this verdict is final.

Special serving of punishment

Criminals from the nomenklatura or their servants (members of law enforcement agencies, heads of election commissions, prosecutors, judges) rarely receive prison sentences. But if this happened, then they are kept in separate special prisons.

Lack of independent media, parties, movements, ideologies

The hierarchy of power allows the ruling class to eliminate any opposition media, parties, movements with the help of subordinate power structures. The court in this case is not an instrument for the restoration of rights, but an instrument for securing lawlessness.

Non-economic coercion

The absence or severe restriction of civil liberties under feudalism, the absence of independent media and the courts, gives the ruling class the possibility of non-economic coercion. Such coercion may be military service, participation in government events.

Another method of non-economic coercion is the obligation to work in places of deprivation of liberty. A convict who refuses to work in places of punishment is automatically included in the number of violators of internal regulations and loses the right to early release.

Lack of rule of law ( rule of law)

The hierarchy of power leads to the fact that not everyone is equal before the law. Those who are located higher in the hierarchical ladder have more rights to break the law.

Several examples of how the law is selectively applied in relation to the crimes of ordinary people and the crimes of officials can be found.

Lack of free markets

The feudal lord will never tolerate in his patrimony a stranger who trades without a bow and offering to the feudal lord, or a spontaneous market where something is sold uncontrollably. The feudal lord would rather liquidate any monetary relationship than allow someone to trade, since a wealthy person may consider that he no longer has to bow and obey the feudal lord.

Ideologization of the life of society on the basis of religious or communist ideology

Feudalism, in order to preserve its hierarchical structure, needs an ideology that would confirm the special hierarchical worldview in the country. Such ideologies are either religion or the theory of the imminent coming of communism.

Community connectedness of consciousness

The socio-psychological mindset of the majority of the population must be maintained, on the one hand, as communal, on the other hand, as patriarchal (subordinate). Any independent judgment relating to economic or ideological independence is a danger to the feudal (patriarchal) way of life.

Value retained by the worker

I won't write anything new. I will only quote a paragraph from Herbert Spencer's The Individual and the State, written in 1886:

“... in some cases, as, for example, in Russia until relatively recent times, the serf received permission to leave the estate of his owner and work or trade in another place under the condition of paying an annual tax (tire). Why do we call slavery more or less severe in these cases? Obviously, our opinion is determined by the degree of compulsion in which a person works for the benefit of another, instead of working for his own benefit. If all the work of a slave is given to the master, slavery is harder, but if only a small part of it is given, then it is easier. Let's go further. Suppose the owner dies, and that his estate, along with the slaves, passes into the hands of executors, or suppose that the estate and all that it contains are bought by the company - will the fate of the slave improve if the amount of compulsory labor remains the same? Suppose we have a community instead of a company, will it make any difference to a slave if the time he has to give to other people's work is as long, and the time he can have for himself as little as before. The main question is this: how long should he work for others and how long can he work for himself? The degree of his slavery fluctuates according to the ratio between what he has to give and what he can keep for himself; and who is his master: the individual or society? - it does not matter. If he has to give all his labor to society and receives from the common property that part which society assigns to him, he is a slave of society.”

Non-cash (in-kind) payments in agriculture

Farmers are forced to hand over agricultural products to buyers at a price several times lower than the market price.

Peasants working on collective farms and state farms receive the main income from work in agriculture not in monetary terms, but in kind (fodder, firewood, manure, fertilizers, etc.).

Transfer of power by inheritance

The children of officials are sure to receive “monetary” positions in Russia if they do not decide to go abroad.

Non-execution of judgments

In Russia, only 20% of court decisions are executed.

Why is this happening? Because it is easier for a bailiff not to execute a judgment against a feudal lord than to execute it.

Imagine some dacha cooperative "Lake" or "River" with 200 members, built near the water in violation of water protection laws. Even if the court makes 200 decisions on the demolition of 200 illegal buildings, it will be enough to find at least one Russian feudal lord among the owners of illegal dacha buildings, as this will automatically lead to the suspension of all decisions made.

Region trade

In the USSR, power over the regions was transferred only to trusted people who proved their devotion to the supreme power. Now more and more often you can find cases when moneybags buy out land with residential buildings or entire villages located on it, the inhabitants of which become dependent on the will of the new landowner. Quickly finding a common language with representatives of local authorities, in one way or another removing those who disagree, they become full-fledged arbiters of the fate of local residents.

On the above points, "socialism" is not a special formation (communism) or capitalism, but is feudalism

V. A. Voslensky in his book “Nomenklatura” clearly states that if a worker works for a capitalist, then the capitalist appropriates surplus value. A communist revolution happens, the capitalist is expelled, the worker sits in the same place, he has to work even more, and they pay even less. Where did the added value go?

How can this be explained by the advanced science of Marxism-Leninism?

The authorities simply announce that we need to be patient, and in 20 years it will be good and we will catch up with Portugal.

Now nobody in Russia (in the government) is interested in whether you work or not until you go to register as unemployed and spoil the state statistics.

To understand how feudalism works in Russia, it is enough to remember how the authorities can send people of a certain class (workers and intelligentsia) to agricultural work with one snap of their fingers.

Why is there no capitalism in Russia?

The socio-economic formation that was established in Russia, Lenin first called communism, but then decided to call it socialism.

Over the past 95 years, this formation has been called by different names.

For example, the name "State capitalism" was often used.

The emphasis was placed on the fact that the ruling Russian class appropriates surplus value for itself, but at the same time all sources of wealth (means of production and natural resources) are formally considered the property of the people.

The term "rental capitalism" is sometimes used. In this case, the emphasis is on the fact that the class in power receives a certain rent from what is in power.

The fact is that many people fell for the bait of Marxism-Leninism, deciding that after the October Revolution, if not communism, then at least capitalism came to Russia.

But capitalism did not come to Russia:

1. As a result of the events of 1917, the exploited classes (workers, peasants and intelligentsia) did not come one iota closer to the distribution of surplus value. As a result of the new redistribution of surplus value, they received only housing. But this cannot be considered a serious conquest, since under the slave system the slave owner provided the slave with housing, and under the feudal system the feudal lord provided the feudal peasant with housing and allotment.


2. The relationship between the exploiting class (the nomenklatura) and the exploited classes (workers, peasants, intelligentsia) never became a contractual relationship between a seller and a buyer in the labor market. The labor market remained tied to the place of residence/registration. It is still tightly controlled by law enforcement agencies and courts.


3. There is no proletarian class. The workers and peasants are attached to their housing, and the peasants are attached to the land. A worker or peasant who has become a proletarian, who has lost his home, who has decided to live in a motor home, or who has begun to "scourge" - to rent housing at his place of work, loses his feudal affiliation (propiska). Such a person automatically falls under the control of law enforcement agencies as violating administrative norms.


4. The ruling class (nomenklatura) not only receives possession and disposal of the means of production, but it also receives certain rights in their possession and disposal, which it can, within certain limits, transfer to subordinates (feud - certain means of production and the right to violate the law, remaining formally owned by the seigneur and at the disposal of the vassal with the possibility of further redistribution).


5. The ruling class is largely outside the law; has the so-called "immune letters" - the right to remain outside the law. And this right can be transferred according to feudal rules.

Features of monopoly feudalism:

1. The maximum concentration of the means of production and natural resources in the hands of the ruling class (nomenklatura),

2. All able-bodied citizens of the country who are not members of the ruling class become feudally dependent on the ruling class,

3. All citizens become obliged to work, while receiving more than under early capitalism, but less than under capitalism.

4. Modern feudal lords do not use the labor of a specific serf or worker, but the labor of a certain number of people assigned to the land or enterprise transferred to the modern feudal lord.

These features lead to the fact that monopolistic feudalism is a more progressive state of the productive forces than was the feudalism of the 18th and 19th centuries:

Centralization and planning allow you to quickly and more powerfully concentrate forces in the chosen direction (usually militaristic),

Rigid centralization makes it possible to increase the rate of surplus value at the expense of low incomes for peasants and slightly higher wages for workers (but also low),

The transition of peasants from agriculture to industry is not accompanied by an increase in the wages of the worker, which makes it possible to make a big leap and extract huge incomes as a result of the cheap power of workers and intellectuals (industrialization),

The transaction costs of governance decrease in the initial stage of monopolistic feudalism (infinitely increasing thereafter).

Industrialization as the swan song of feudalism

The monopoly state of the economy leads to the possibility of organizing industrialization, when part of the peasants move to the city, becoming workers, intellectuals and scientists. Workers in the city produce products needed by the army and agriculture. The peasants released in agriculture become a huge almost free army of labor, capable of making a sharp breakthrough in production and science (as a rule, copying and replicating the achievements of capitalist thought in huge numbers).

At the same time, industrialization leads simultaneously to the emergence of capitalist productive forces and production relations. Thus, the final transition to the capitalist social formation is being prepared.

Such an industrial breakthrough was made by Russia in the middle of the 20th century. We see the same industrial breakthrough at the beginning of the 21st century in modern China and modern North Korea.

§one. Primary savings in England

XVI-XVII centuries in the history of Europe - a transitional period from feudalism to capitalism. What are the main features of this period?

Firstly, this is the period of initial accumulation, i.e. the period of preparation of the basic conditions for the development of capitalist production.

Secondly, this is the manufacturing period, i.e. the period of domination in industry is not yet factories, but manufactories.

In most European countries at this time the feudal system and the feudal mode of production were still preserved. Only two countries have pulled ahead and are already developing along the capitalist path - England and the Netherlands. On their example, we will consider what primitive accumulation and the manufacturing period are.

So, what is initial accumulation? It is the creation of two decisive conditions necessary for the development of capitalist production.

First condition. For the development of production, capital is needed, i.e. large sums of money sufficient to organize an enterprise. Without capital there is no capitalist. Therefore, one aspect of primitive accumulation is the accumulation of capital from future capitalists. It is with them. Large sums of money that accumulated with the feudal lords were spent on their consumption, and not invested in production, did not become capital.

Second condition. For the development of capitalist production, workers are needed; people who do not have their own economy and the means of subsistence associated with it, and therefore are forced to hire themselves to the capitalists.

Hence it is clear that this process should be called precisely "initial accumulation" and not "initial accumulation of capital", as it was called in the textbooks of political economy. The accumulation of capital is only one side of primitive accumulation.

The main reason for the ruin of the peasants and their transformation into workers in England was sheep breeding, which the British considered such an important part of their economy that even the speaker of the House of Commons of the English Parliament sat on a wool sack during meetings. As a result of the “price revolution”, sheep farming has become especially profitable, because the price of wool has risen even more than other goods. And vice versa, it became completely unprofitable to continue the feudal exploitation of the peasants, because the real value of the fixed feudal rent has sharply decreased. And so the English bourgeois feudal lords, in order to increase pastures for sheep, drive out dependent peasants from their feudal estates, demolishing entire villages, turning them into pastures for sheep. This process was called "fencing" because the land was fenced off.

It would seem that the feudal lords drove the peasants on a "legal" basis - they drove them from their land. However, according to feudal norms, the feudal lord does not have the right to take away land from the peasant, he can only receive rent from him: the peasant is the same owner of the land as the feudal lord himself. Feudal law provides for two owners of land - the peasant and the feudal lord. But the English feudal lords by this time already considered their ownership of land not as feudal, but as bourgeois, i.e. complete.

Peasants were driven off the land in another way. In England of this time, rental relations were already widely developed. Unlike fixed rents, rents could be increased. And it rose to such an extent that the peasant tenants went bankrupt.

So, the mass of peasants found themselves without housing, without sources of livelihood. This process was in the middle of the XVI century. supplemented by the secularization of church lands. One of the manifestations of the transition to capitalism in the sphere of ideology was the spread of the Protestant doctrine in Christianity as opposed to the Catholic one. In England, the victory over Catholicism was won by the Anglican Church, headed by the king, who broke off relations with the Pope. At the same time, 650 monasteries were liquidated, and thousands of monks replenished the army of vagabonds. At the same time, those peasants who cultivated it either as tenants or feudally dependent holders were driven off the land. Finally, the king dissolved the private military squads of the feudal lords, and a large number of former military men also found themselves on the high road. This was a manifestation of the transition to capitalism - it was a blow to the remnants of the independence of the feudal lords of the old formation. The gentry had no squads.

Now a mass of unemployed and indigent people roamed the roads of England. Why else would "tramp laws" be required? To drive them to the enterprises of the capitalists? Wasn't the economic necessity reliable enough for that? The fact is that the "laws on vagrants" were not issued at all in order to provide the capitalists with labor. These homeless and unskilled people were not suitable as workers of the then manufactories. These were lumpens, who hunted by begging, and even robberies, and the situation in England escalated. Cruel laws were directed against the growth of crime. According to these laws, it was a crime not to have a job and a household. Such a person should have been beaten with whips, cut off his ears and branded with a red-hot iron, and if he fell into the hands of the authorities for the third time, even executed. Deprived of housing and livelihoods, people found themselves, in essence, in a hopeless situation.

This was how one side of primitive accumulation was accomplished in England: the ruin of the peasants and the formation of an army of people who were to become workers in the future.

The second side is capital accumulation. The regularity is such that capital was initially accumulated not in production, but in the sphere of circulation and credit. The capital accumulated over a long period of time in trade and usury begins to overflow into industry during the transition to capitalism.

Another major source of capital accumulation is the plunder and exploitation of the colonies.

For England, it was the colonies that became the most important sources of capital accumulation. But, since almost all the colonies at first belonged to Spain and Portugal, England had to act indirectly.

First, English merchants carried on a smuggling trade with these colonies, making considerable capital in the process.

Secondly, huge capitals were made through the slave trade. English merchants brought across the ocean not only manufactured goods, but also African Negro slaves. The Spaniards, having exterminated a significant part of the local population in America, were forced to import labor from Africa. But they themselves abhorred the slave trade. This was taken over by the British. The founder of this industry, John Hawkins, received the title of knight for this, and a Negro in chains was depicted on his coat of arms. The slave trade was a very profitable occupation, because in Africa Negroes were either simply captured in predatory raids, or bought from local kings for rum and trinkets. A profit of 100% per flight was considered low, and often reached 300% or more.

The so-called "triangular trade" was practiced: from the Spanish colonies of tropical America, where there were sugarcane plantations, molasses was brought to the colonies of North America. Here they made rum out of it. Rum was taken to Africa and traded for slaves. Slaves were brought to America and history repeated itself from the beginning. Sometimes for one "triangular" flight the profit reached 1000%. Negroes were stacked on deck or in holds, "like rows of books on shelves." About 30% of blacks died on the way. Those who fell ill were thrown overboard while still alive in order to avoid "spoiling" the rest of the cargo.

Thirdly, the British traded in piracy, attacking Spanish ships that came from the colonies with a cargo of gold and spices, on the Spanish seaside cities in America, which was then considered a patriotic duty. To equip pirate expeditions, joint-stock companies were created, in which not only merchants, dignitaries, and even Queen Elizabeth herself took part. Pirate Francis Drake, who completed the second circumnavigation of the world in history, became an admiral of the Royal Navy. In short, piracy was considered a perfectly legal and respectable occupation.

So, at first, through smuggling, slave trade, piracy, the British intercepted from Spain part of the wealth stolen in the colonies. But this is not enough for England. She seeks to have her own colonies and starts an open war with Spain for them. At the end of the XVI century. The Spanish fleet "Invincible Armada" was defeated. The defeat of the "Armada" in literature (not English) is sometimes interpreted as an accident: the storm scattered the Spanish ships, for some reason not touching the English ones. In fact, the defeat was a consequence of the economic backwardness of Spain. The Spaniards used outdated boarding tactics, and the British smashed their ships with cannons.

After that, the colonial expansion of England unfolds openly. At the beginning of the XVII century. it seizes colonies in America, and at the end of the century, English companies begin to plunder India.

Monopoly trade was also an important source of capital accumulation, which made it possible to resell goods much more expensive than their cost. For example, the Moscow Company of English merchants had a monopoly right to trade with Russia. They exported lard, wax, furs, flax, and hemp from Russia. Hemp for England was of particular importance: hemp ropes were necessary for the growing English fleet. Therefore, in Kholmogory and Vologda, even English enterprises for the manufacture of ropes were created. And the English fleet was equipped with Russian ropes. By reselling Russian goods in Europe, English merchants, of course, received increased profits. During the period of primitive accumulation, the sphere of capital accumulation, including trade, usually provided unequally high profits.

The communist theory is based on the fact that Marxists often confuse capitalism with industrial (industrial) feudalism.

But these are actually completely different things. If the feudal lord builds a factory and drives free labor there, and not necessarily even by force, but using the fact of mass poverty of millions of people, this system does not become "capitalism".

Signs of mature capitalism are:

1.) Private property is not converted into state (regional) power, and power is not converted into private property.

2.) When there are no masses of people who are ready to work practically for free

on the owners of the means of production (land in the case of agrarian feudalism or factories and plants in the case of industrial feudalism).

3.) When the main source of rights to property is the economic viability of the owner, otherwise he is declared bankrupt and the property is alienated by the actions of the state power maintaining law and order.

4.) Multiformity. That is, free competition between small owners and large corporations in various fields. On the side of the first is always mass character and cheapness,

on the side of the latter is always quality, ubiquitous availability, quick adaptability due to low inertia. As well as the ability to be an autonomous link

within large corporations. Only a capitalist system with freedom of competition can ensure coexistence along with giant corporations - thousands of small firms, not allowing them to relax. Otherwise, with the help of corruption, large firms easily put pressure on the authorities, which physically eliminate their competitors, completely destroying small and medium-sized businesses, and also providing mass unemployment - that is, providing millions of potential "serf" workers for the corporations of industrial feudal lords.

5.) The predominance of the mass of people with an average income, whose total income is orders of magnitude higher than the income of the wealthiest people. This happens due to the fact that in conditions of fierce competition, large corporations are not able to extract super profits, but are forced to constantly invest their capital in development, which in one way or another contributes to the redistribution of income, since these capitals are invested in all related sectors of the economy. Starting from raw materials and ending with the infrastructure serving the enterprise, that is, one way or another, they go to the income of both the owners of these related sectors and the people working there.

On the other hand, the absence of masses of people with very low incomes makes it necessary to pay a significant part of the income in order to attract workers to the enterprise. This is especially true for highly skilled workers, and the more efficient production, the more of its workers are highly qualified (that is, in literal translation from Latin "know as do" or in English possessing "know how").

And finally, mass production is not possible without mass consumption, and if the conditions for mass consumption, that is, the sale of products, are not provided, it is not possible to provide a corresponding profit. Therefore, investing in the consumer automatically means investing in production, because the higher the volume of consumption, the greater the profit of production. And finally, large volumes of real production of goods and services mean high incomes even from small taxes of the state or regional local budgets, which in turn are also redistributed either directly in the form of benefits and social payments or indirectly in the form of payments to social workers and infrastructure service firms. in the income of citizens. Thus, it is the capitalist organization of society that can provide the maximum possible amount of benefits per capita at a given level of technology development.

Everything else is feudalism and there is no difference if it is agricultural or industrial.

It makes no difference whether serfdom exists de jure or de facto.

If we discard demagogy, then such an organization of society ensures the well-being of only a very few people, senselessly and inefficiently exploiting the labor of the majority of the population.

Under feudalism, the status of the owner ensures not the efficiency of the organization of production, but the political status of the feudal owner. The feudal lord seeks to create greenhouse conditions for his farm by physically eliminating competitors and reducing the company's employees to the status of manure.

Industrial feudalism is thus no better than agrarian feudalism.

And just as in the agrarian sector it has been supplanted by farms, so in the laundered sector it must be completely replaced by capitalist production based on free and fierce economic competition, that is, on the struggle of capital.

But did capitalism bring Russia to a social explosion in 1917?

No. Industrial feudalism brought Russia to a social explosion, which, moreover, with the help of the state-forced collapse of agrarian feudalism, received maximum freedom to exploit the gigantic masses of non-serfs - proletarians, extracting super profits.

It is the rudiments of industrial feudalism, which have not been completely overcome in the West, that are responsible for the fact that after the resource of local "industrial serfs" disappeared, that is, the "proletariat" it was precisely the most conservative, and not the liberal circles of Western Europe (for example, in England under The Thatcher government) decided to import millions of proletariat from third world countries to Europe, in the USA it was the Republican Party that advocated attracting blacks to the industrial regions of the North and therefore opposed the policy of segregation.

But even this did not help industrial feudalism to finally survive in the developed capitalist countries. Firstly, the general technological progress has made economically uncompetitive production with a large mass of workers, besides low qualification. And secondly, the imported proletarians themselves, having the freedom to choose work, also for the most part did not want to work for much less money than the locals. Moreover, they gave rise to a mass of social, ethnic and racial problems.

Therefore, today Western large corporations, whose income is still based mainly on the use of cheap labor of the masses of proletarians, are moving their production to third world countries.

Today in Russia, after the collapse of the classical slave-owning clan system,

similar to the one that existed in Rome No. 1, that is, the construction of neo-feudalism began in the Roman Empire. The only difference between the Soviet nomenklatura and the Roman nomenclature (“nomenklatura” in Latin for “to know”) is that it was a pseudo-aristocracy.

In the USSR, from an economic and even political point of view, there was a classic slave system. In all its main features.

You don't need to resort to any metaphors to understand that in fact it was just that.

1.) The bulk of industrial and agricultural production was carried out by enterprises that de facto belonged and were managed by a single owner - the CPSU clan.

2.) The bulk of the workers did not have the opportunity to change the "owner", moreover, they did not have the opportunity not to work for him.

3.) Employees received a ridiculous share of the profits.

4.) Workers did not have the opportunity to dispose of even this part of a ridiculous share of the profits, since most of the goods and services were either not available at all, or carried out exclusively by the “owner” himself

5.) All political power belonged to the CPSU clan, which had all the property

Thus, it is clear that the demagoguery of the communists that allegedly there was some kind of fundamentally new system in the USSR, and not the most ordinary slave-owning system, based on the fact that in the USSR de jure (according to Soviet laws) there was no “private ownership” of the means of production does not change the fact that she was present de facto. Why, then, in a state where everything already belongs to one clan of the CPSU and is not subject to alienation from it under any circumstances, and to consolidate this "de jure"?

From this it is clear that after the collapse of this system in post-communist Russia, the construction of feudalism began according to all its laws. Large feudal lords were formed by converting state power (proximity to the "king") into property, medium - by overt violence and robbery of property, and not by any means with the help of capitalist relations. Naturally, in order to maintain their status and system, an appropriate one is needed - feudal. Naturally, there are also some rudiments of capitalist relations in Russia, but they are very weak and do not have much prospects under the conditions of the dominance of feudal relations.

Russia, therefore, theoretically has two paths.

1. It will develop independently, then feudal fragmentation will first arise, because a feudal state, unlike a slave state, cannot exist in conditions of centralization and too strong a vertical, the power of the main feudal lord. According to the law of development, they raise their heads - local feudal lords also want to redistribute property in their favor. And only in some places, on some ruins of the former Russia, will a bourgeois-democratic revolution and so on take place in decades.

1. Rapid integration with the West and the rapid displacement of local post-communist feudal lords by Western capital, as well as real competitive national capital. Bourgeois-democratic revolution - in the coming years.

I’ll make a reservation right away that the first path is possible purely theoretically, because in practice Russia, having broken up into dozens of specific principalities with a semi-feudal system, will all the more be uncompetitive in modern world who will not wait at all and in any case will become a victim in any scenario.

On the contrary, the countries of Eastern Europe have followed this path.

While Ukraine has just followed the path of Russia and has a very significant "national capital", but in fact there is no smell of capitalism in Ukraine and according to all the laws of the genre - Ukraine is torn apart by classical feudal regional contradictions. There is not even anything to talk about about what a wild difference in the development of Poland and Ukraine is in the end. In Russia, however, feudal relations led to the complete collapse and non-competitiveness of almost all industries except raw materials, and even then thanks to the world conjuncture.

Those who scare that Russia's integration with the modern West means globalization

completely wrong. On the contrary, the modern West is just building a system of collective security against the inclinations of global humanity to “take everything and share”.

About the “hordes of colored people”, etc. again, just the opposite. The modern West has just passed the stage when conservatives needed millions of colored proletarians to keep the semi-feudal industrial sector of the economy afloat.

On the contrary, Russia, which is put on this path of development, and which lacks millions of its own proletarians (the Russian village, as you know, cannot now supply millions of proletarians, and urban residents will not agree to work off corvée for neo-feudal lords practically for free.) From this it is clear that it is Russian neo-feudal lords need a massive import of workers from other countries. But such a potential - millions of people who are ready to work for a penny - is possessed by exceptionally poor countries, much poorer than Russia (and Russia is a very poor country). The racial composition and cultural level of the population of such countries cannot in any way inspire optimism in the guardians for the "purity of the white race" and the preservation of the European cultural principle.

That is, by and large, anti-Westernism in modern Russian conditions means strengthening and conserving the foundations of the feudal system that was established in Russia after the collapse of the slave system, only hiding behind the attributes of the Western bourgeois-republican system.

Naturally, all the institutions of such a system as the inviolability of the property status of central and regional feudal lords, regardless of the legality of such rights, the strengthening of such feudal institutions as the Church. Creation of artificial barriers for the development of capitalist relations. The absence of a normal legal framework for capitalist relations and, as a result, the impossibility of mass attraction of Western capital to all spheres of the Russian economy. Complete control of the neo-feudal lords of the judicial and legal system in general.

Absolutely all the conservative forces in Russia fighting against the integration of Russia with the West are fighting for the preservation (conservation) of the current feudal system, the existence of which is not interested in Russia and the Russian people, but a small handful of post-communist oligarchs.

It is also worth recalling that feudalism and oligarchy (the power and property of the few) are exactly the opposite of capitalism and polyarchy (the power and property of the many). Oligarchy and feudalism cannot exist under conditions of democracy, and vice versa, there is no democracy under feudalism and oligarchy.

Talk about "civil rights" from the lips of the oligarchs and feudal lords and their servants is just nonsense.

Civil, civil and bourgeois and political is one and the same word formed from Russian city, Latin civis, German burg, and Greek policy.

Since it was the inhabitants of the cities who opposed the power of agrarian feudal lords in the classical era of confrontation between feudalism and the bourgeoisie.

With the exception of the right to life, etc. there are no other social rights other than property rights. And in the conditions of exclusive rights to the property of feudal lords, what rights can we talk about? What rights can an absolutely poor person defend? Only their property rights. But this is impossible if the property status is assigned to some forever and, on the contrary, others are deprived of it by definition. What are “political rights” worth for a person who, in any political situation, does not shine with anything but hopeless poverty?

Quite clearly, because democracy is not "Western" or "sovereign",

just as there is no "democratic" or "sovereign" slavery.

“sovereign Russian democracy” means building a society in Russia that has nothing to do with the interests of the Russian people. Opposite "Western democracy",

existing in Western countries, with all its complexities and shortcomings, it is clear to understand that it is even impossible to completely ignore the interests of the bulk of the people.

For example, the US federal budget formed from taxpayer payments is an order of magnitude larger than the income of the richest people in the US.

This is despite the fact that the wealth of these people is based on the creation of real capital, and not on the banal appropriation of resources. This is despite the fact that the lion's share of tax revenue remains in the state budgets. In Russia, where everything goes to the central budget, the income of the same thousand of the richest people, stupidly appropriating resources for almost free of charge, using their status of proximity to the communist nomenklatura, is an order of magnitude higher than the sum of the entire budget of the country. And this despite the fact that in the United States a significant part

capital is invested in the American economy itself, while in Russia even the state stabilization fund is taken out by the "sovereign democrats" of the same USA. And

even more so for personal income.

This is what "sovereign" democracy really is.

It should be understood that there was no strict framework for the transition from one form of social structure to another. Each state developed individually, preserving the general trends of the socio-economic formation.

Today, there are 5 socio-economic formations based on certain forms of ownership:

1. primitive communal;
2. slaveholding;
3. feudal;
4. capitalist;
5. communist (socialist).

Primitive communal system

Under the primitive communal system, people lived in communities (). The tribal community included from 20 to 100 people who led a sedentary lifestyle, hunted, cultivated the land, were engaged in gathering, mastered crafts (,).

There were no material differences as such yet, they could only appear in more massive decorations made of animal bones and skins. Priests and elders received special respect, from whom they learned the arrangement of life. No less revered were strong warriors, on whom the security of the community and food depended. Otherwise, there were no significant differences, since each person worked for the benefit of his tribal community.

slave system

Under the slave system, the active production of means of subsistence began. Agriculture, craft (), cattle breeding were actively developing.

Due to the growth of communities, the emergence of surpluses of production, the development of more developed tools and materials of labor, the nature of the appropriation of products of production is changing. The surplus product was appropriated by the leaders, their entourage and priests.

There is such a thing as "exploitation".

There are 2 main classes:

• slave owners;
• slaves (devoid of property and means of production, moreover, they themselves are property).

The slave system reached its highest development in ancient Rome, manifesting itself in such a state form as.

Production relations were built on the oppression of slaves, whose needs were reduced to a minimum, which allowed slave owners to receive the maximum surplus product.

The source of obtaining slaves was wars of conquest, as a result of which the ranks of weak-willed people were replenished - free labor.

Despite the two dominant classes, under the slave system there also existed other classes that did not differ in numerical significance. They were usurers, merchants, peasants, although even they had slaves at their disposal, which means they belonged to the class of slave owners. The question was only how many slave owners could afford slaves. A simple peasant had at his disposal one or two slaves, while a wealthy merchant could afford several dozen slaves.

The class struggle became so aggravated that the slave system ended its existence. The starting point for the collapse of the slave system was the uprising of Spartacus in ancient Rome.

Feudalism

The feudal system supplanted the slave system with a large-scale development of agriculture (traction power for plowing appeared: a horse, a plow).

Relations under feudalism were built between the feudal lord and his vassal. The land was cultivated by the peasant, who owned the means of production, in contrast to the weak-willed slave. Despite the ownership of the means of production (the same horse with a plow), the feudal lord fully appropriated the surplus product.

The vassal pyramid was headed by a king (monarch), whose vassals were large landowners. They, in turn, had at their disposal the unlimited labor of peasants and artisans.

Capitalism

Capitalism is based on the emergence of a capitalist and a worker, where the former is a producer, the latter sells his labor. If you return to the slave system, you will see that the labor of a slave has nothing to do with the surplus product. But the labor of the worker also has nothing to do with him. The difference between a slave and a worker is freedom, but both have at their disposal only the necessary means of subsistence.

However, the freedom of the worker implies his possible transition to the rank of capitalist in the presence of:

• consumer (demand for products);
• initial capital (bank loan);
• free labor force.

Socialism

The big plus of capitalism is the financing of new inventions, even if they are pleasing to the oligarchy for the time being (for example, the ideas of Nikola Tesla were left out only because of the desire of the powerful of this world to make a profit from oil).

Progress makes it possible to improve material life and to use machines in production, completely relieving man of physical work. Thus, socialism is a social system where machines would take over the work of providing people with material goods, while people themselves would live on the principle of brotherhood, equality and justice, with the rejection of private property.

The basic law of socialism should be considered "to ensure the maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural needs of the whole society through the continuous growth and improvement of socialist production on the basis of higher technology." I. V. Stalin.

Sources:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_formation
• Kushatov I.M. Reflections on matter and consciousness
• Philosophical Dictionary
• Filippov B., Yastrebitskaya A. The European world of the X-XV centuries.
• https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

The objective historical process of transition from feudalism to the next stage of social development - the capitalist socio-economic formation - had both common features characteristic of the change of previous formations, and features. What was common was that the main engine of this process was the development of the productive forces of society - the tools and means of production, and at the same time the producer himself - man. Accordingly, the relations of people in the system of production and distribution of products of labor, the social structure and the entire social system changed.

The feudal world, as has been considered, is characterized by the independent development of several centers in various civilizations. In each of them, feudal social relations, like the feudal mode of production itself, had their own characteristics. Chinese feudalism differed from Indian, European from both, as well as Russian from European.

Elements of the capitalist mode of production matured within feudalism: they originated at the stage of developed feudalism, then developed at its later stage, disintegrating and ousting feudal relations. The needs of the economy and the changed social structure of society come into conflict with the feudal social system, with the state power of the feudal class. Feudalism gave rise to capitalism. This process was natural for states of different civilizations.

Unlike previous formations, the transition to capitalism did not take place in parallel in several independent centers of the world, but first in Western Europe. Western European feudalism, due to the peculiarities of civilization and historical development, pulled ahead in economic and military-technical terms, accelerating the formational movement towards capitalism. This process was greatly influenced by the plunder of the colonies, the slave trade, and the cruel exploitation of the colonial peoples. The German researcher of capitalism, W. Sombart, noted: “We must not forget that the economic development of Europe had as its condition the robbery of three parts of the world. We have become rich because whole races and tribes have died for us, whole parts of the world have been depopulated for us.” European feudal colonialism transformed into capitalist colonialism, retaining in itself, in addition to economic methods of exploitation, non-economic methods.

Due to the noted historical reasons, capitalism as a mode of production went through the formation and established itself as a formation first in Europe, and then, under European influence, spread on a global scale, preserving Europe as a “metropolis” - as a world center exploiting the “periphery” (other regions of the world) in various forms and degrees. The scientific revolution contributed to the economic rise of Europe, and the religious reformation gave an ideological component to the development of capitalist relations.

The assertion of the capitalist formation in Europe itself also took place successively in different states from the 17th century. until the middle of the 19th century. along with the spread of their colonial rule in other regions of the world. The transition from feudalism to the capitalist formation in the socio-political sphere was the destruction of the state power of the ruling class - the feudal lords - and the establishment of the political power of a new class - the bourgeoisie as the leading force in the capitalist mode of production. In the course of the bourgeois revolutions, the bourgeoisie seized power, relying on the working class and other working strata of the population. The first bourgeois revolutions took place in the industrialized countries of Europe - the Netherlands and England.

The Dutch bourgeois revolution (1566 - 1609) took place during the national liberation struggle against Spanish feudal rule and led to the formation of the bourgeois Republic of the United Provinces. The Republic's economy is accelerating its growth rates and is dominating Western Europe.

After 40 years, the bourgeois revolution in England (1642 - 1649) wins in the course of two civil wars (1642 - 1646 and 1648). After the execution of King Charles I, a republic was proclaimed in 1649. The subsequent conquest of Ireland and Scotland, as well as the Anglo-Dutch war, led to the dictatorship of Cromwell (1653). In 1660, under the influence of feudal France and as a result of an agreement between the bourgeoisie and the feudal aristocracy, the Stuart dynasty (Charles II) was restored. The restoration of the feudal order (with the preservation of large bourgeois property) lasted almost 30 years. A new intensification of contradictions leads to a secondary bourgeois revolution in 1688-1689. (called "glorious" in English historiography). It completed the final transfer of state power to the bourgeoisie while maintaining the monarchy, limited by parliament. Capitalist England intensifies external expansion, the British Empire is being created, which occupies the place of the leading world power for several centuries.

The French Revolution. its historical significance

After the first bourgeois revolutions, another century passed, during which capitalist relations continued to mature within other European feudal states, intensifying contradictions and heating up the social situation. In the 80s. 18th century in the most acute form, socio-political contradictions manifested themselves in France. In 1789 - 1794. The French Revolution broke out. It dealt a powerful blow to the feudal foundations, crushing feudalism in one of the largest European countries. The French Revolution became an important turning point not only in European but also in world history, which is why it was called the Great Revolution in historiography. Prepared by significant changes in the social structure of society (the development of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) and the ideas of humanist philosophers, it acquired a bourgeois-democratic character, putting forward the slogan "Freedom, Equality, Fraternity" and adopting the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen." It stirred up the popular masses in Europe, provoking a united rebuff from the feudal world. A counter-revolutionary intervention in France began from a coalition of feudal states. The armed struggle between capitalism and feudalism, which was establishing itself, acquired European proportions. Bourgeois England and the Netherlands supported the counter-revolution in France, seeking to eliminate their competitor on the world stage.

The revolutionary process in France, with the participation of the broad masses of the people, headed by the then revolutionary bourgeoisie, went through all the stages and forms that became classic in the subsequent course of world history. The beginning of the revolution was marked by a popular uprising in Paris on July 14, 1789, and the taking of the Bastille, a symbol of royal absolutism. The big financial and commercial bourgeoisie, which came to power together with the liberal nobility, establishes a constitutional monarchy in 1791 and strives to prevent the revolution from deepening. The dissatisfaction of the masses with the unresolved basic contradictions and the threat of counter-revolution lead in 1792 to a new uprising, as a result of which the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie (“Girondins”) comes to power. The monarchy is liquidated, a bourgeois republic is established. The execution of King Louis XVI and then Queen Marie Antoinette completes the second stage of the revolution. The radical demands of the masses, the struggle against counter-revolution and intervention move the revolution forward. In 1793, the Jacobin dictatorship of the most resolute revolutionary section of the petty and middle bourgeoisie was established. The new constitution establishes a republican-democratic system. The revolution and intervention is accompanied by a civil war in the Vendée against the royalist rebels (nobles, clergy, part of the wealthy peasants). The support of the masses and the formation of a mass revolutionary army create a turning point in the war. The invaders are defeated. The war is being transferred outside France, and mass terror is unfolding against the counter-revolutionaries. The bourgeoisie quickly profits from the war. The "new rich" ("nouveau riche") are gaining influence in the Convention, and the Jacobins are losing contact with the masses. On July 27, 1794 (the 9th Thermidor according to the revolutionary calendar), a counter-revolutionary coup takes place. The convention decides to arrest the leader of the Jacobins Robespierre and his associates. The next day they were executed. Under the slogan of "saving the revolution from tyrants," the big bourgeoisie again came to power. The revolution, having destroyed the feudal foundations, ended. French capitalism, using its revolutionary upsurge, rushed to conquer dominance in Europe.

Napoleonic Wars. The second revolutionary wave and the establishment of capitalism in Europe

To assert its dominance, the French bourgeoisie quickly finds a dictator - General Napoleon Bonaparte, who has shown high military and administrative abilities. Having gained popularity in the course of brilliant military victories, in 1804 he declared himself emperor. France became a bourgeois monarchy. The war has become a source of income for the new bourgeoisie. The Napoleonic wars to conquer dominance in Europe not only redrawn state borders and established French domination over most European peoples, but also contributed to the destruction of feudal foundations in the conquered countries. To fight England, Napoleon establishes a continental blockade. The collapse of Napoleonic rule began with the victory of Russia in the Patriotic War of 1812. The offensive of the Russian troops, together with the troops of the new anti-Napoleonic coalition, ended in Paris in 1814.

Napoleon is deposed and exiled to the island of Elba, the Bourbon dynasty is restored in France. On the initiative of the victorious powers - Russia, England, Austria and Prussia, an international congress was convened, which was held in Vienna from September 1814 to June 1815. The issues of the post-war structure of Europe were decided at the Congress of Vienna. During his work on March 1, 1815, news came of Napoleon's landing in the south of France. The army went over to his side, on March 20, Napoleon entered Paris and restored the empire. During the "100 days" of his reign, he concentrated a 120,000-strong army and opposed the new, 7th anti-Napoleonic coalition. The coalition troops were led by the English Field Marshal A. W. Wellington. In the battle near the Belgian settlement of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, the Anglo-Dutch army of Wellington and the Prussian army of Field Marshal G. L. Blucher acted against Napoleon. The French army was defeated, Napoleon fled to Paris. On June 22, he abdicated for the second time and then was exiled to the distant island of St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean, where he was kept as a prisoner of the British until the end of his life.

The victory of the coalition of feudal states led by Russia over Napoleonic France led to the restoration of feudal monarchies both in France and in some states conquered by it. But it turned out to be impossible to completely return to feudal social relations, especially to the economic system. For 15 years there was a partial revival of the feudal order, but in 1830 - 1849. Europe was shaken by the second revolutionary wave. As a result of a series of bourgeois revolutions, the capitalist formation by the middle of the 19th century. finally established itself in various forms in most European countries. Through revolutionary upheavals, wars, blood and violence, the bourgeoisie established its political and economic dominance.

The capitalist formation, established in Europe, has entered its first, early stage of development. Early ("free", "competitive") pre-monopoly capitalism contributed to the rapid scientific, technological and economic rise of European countries and the spread of their influence to other regions of the world.

Russia, which possessed great military power and asserted its influence after the victory over Napoleon, was actively involved in world political processes and the economic life of Europe. Due to its formational backwardness and the power of feudal structures, it acted as a support for the restoration of feudalism, which contributed to the preservation of feudal foundations within the country. However, being drawn into European market relations, Russian feudalism is subject to ever greater disintegration.