Despotia in Greek means unlimited power. Today, by despotism, we understand a certain form of the state, in which all power is concentrated in the hands of one ruler-ruler, as a rule, a hereditary monarch, who rules the state through the military-bureaucratic apparatus.
Such a form of government as despotism was characteristic of ancient east, for example, for , Iran, India, China.
By the way, this is where the concept of Eastern despotism comes from.
Characteristic features of a despotic form of power
- complete arbitrariness of power;
- absolute disenfranchisement of the people.
Fundamentals of a despotic state
- The will of the tyrant is the law;
- The personality of the tyrant is divine;
- The monarch is the supreme owner of the land;
- The power of the despot is unlimited.
Causes of Despots
Historians note that the main reason for the emergence of boundless despotism is long-term preservation of the community way of life. Recall that under the communal system, all members of the community work the land together or transfer allotments for temporary use to families. With such a way of life, there is still no private property, therefore state power usually appears in such a form as despotism.
Despotism is also often called tyranny, monarchy.
Imagine a small group of people (a community) where everyone works the land together for further harvesting in order to feed themselves. The tribal leader is in power, who manages this entire community, makes important decisions, gives orders to whom to do what. Gradually, the community grows, turns into a settlement, a city, a state, and power remains in the hands of one tribal leader with a handful of close relatives who can give advice. But at the same time, nominally all power is still concentrated in the hands of one person - this is how despotism begins.
It is this late primitive communal system with long-term preservation general rules for all and with one leader gives rise to a form of power known as despotism. And given the absolute power of the monarch and his deification, few resisted the fact that the heirs of the tyrant would be at the head.
The classic example of tyranny is Ancient Egypt. In power, the son of Ra (the sun god). Legislative, judicial, executive and military power was concentrated in his hands. The people were completely dependent on their monarch.
Despotism was traced in Babylonia, Assyria, in the Persian state, ancient india, China, Iran and many others. Each individual state had its own characteristics, for example, sometimes the despot was not deified.
Tyranny in action
Supreme Ruler through intermediaries:
- Organized public works;
- Collected taxes;
- Built irrigation facilities - additional watering of land (necessary for efficient farming);
- Provided protection from external enemies;
- Captured the lands of external enemies.
All this required the formation of departments: the department of military affairs, internal affairs and public works, and at their expense, the despotism could function.
There were no laws as such, the supreme ruler applied a policy of intimidation. And the divine cult was an effective tool in this. The priests became so powerful that they even administered justice, but still the despotism did not give them too much power.
Human rights under tyranny
1. Preservation of the communal system
The primitive communal system did not give up its positions, which means that there was no question of private property, all family members were collectively responsible and the crimes of one fell on the shoulders of all members of the community.
2. Consolidation of social inequality
Those close in race to the monarch still had advantages, as for slaves, freedmen and other categories free people their rights were infringed.
3. Religious foundations
Law was closely connected with moral responsibility and religious canons. For example, in honor of the celebrations of a certain god, it was forbidden to cause disturbances in the streets. Any offense at the same time was a violation of the canons of religion.
4. Oral norms of morality
Even when the state used written sources, the law still remained oral and passed down as customs from generation to generation.
5. Fixing Common Cases
IN legal practice specific cases were prescribed by the despot, and they were already repelled for the interpretation of justice in other cases.
6. Formalism of law
Legal norms remained in their infancy for a very long time.
The development of Eastern countries with a despotic form of government was slowed down due to:
- Excessive centralization of management;
- Archaism of legal norms;
- The lawlessness of the people;
- Stagnation of social relations.
It cannot be said that the despotic form of government was the result of the greed of some and the stupidity of others. The formation of this form of power was also determined by geographical factors. In particular, farming in the East was a rather difficult occupation, it was necessary to create reserves in case of various natural disasters, crop failure; tough management was needed to unite the communities.
But on the other hand, despotism slowed down the development of countries so much that Western civilization entered the arena of the outside world and replaced the Eastern civilization in this field.
1) Despotism- (from the Greek despotes - lord, lord) - a form of unlimited, absolute, autocratic power, which is characterized by complete arbitrariness, imperious self-will, arbitrariness, tyranny, rude and cruel suppression of the will of subjects and their lack of rights. D. is especially characteristic of absolute monarchies.
2) Despotism- - (from the Greek. despotes-ruler) - a form of autocratic power, an unlimited monarchy, characterized by complete arbitrariness of power, lack of rights of subjects; autocracy and tyranny in relation to others. The ancient political philosopher Aristotle, along with three correct and three incorrect ("deviating") forms of political organization, singled out the seventh form - despotism, which outwardly resembles already known shape- tyranny. If tyranny is one of the transitional forms of political organization, then despotism outside the civilizational community or the barbarian world is permanent. The representative of the French Enlightenment, Montesquieu, supplemented Aristotle with another theoretical conclusion about the nature of despotism - its total inefficiency. The American political scientist A. Yanov, relying on the fundamental work of K. Wittfogel "Eastern Despotism", as well as on the works of other authors, formulates a number of important theoretical conclusions: 1. Despotism is based on the direct bureaucratic management of the economic process or on the total control of its results by the state. 2. The absence of economic restrictions leads to more or less permanent economic stagnation. 3. The absence of what is called economic progress, based on the continuous modernization of the economic process and on expanded reproduction, is combined with the absence of political dynamics. 4. In order to exist for thousands of years in conditions of economic and political immobility, despotism had to develop a special social structure, reduced to two polar classes: "controlling" and "managed". 5. The economic immobility of the system corresponds to the immobility (immobility) of the managed class. Their equality in the face of a despot is postulated. 6. The reverse side of this absolute homogeneity and stability of the ruled class is the absolute atomization and instability of the class of managers. Despotism does not know what can be called the category of "political death". The mistake was equal to physical death. 7. The government that denies economic restrictions cannot but deny ideological restrictions. 8. It also explains the monstrous stability of despotic systems, for it excludes the emergence of political opposition (or the reformist potential of the system). 9. The absence of social, economic and ideological constraints makes it impossible for despotic structures to resist subjugation to the private goals of the despot. 10. Despotism turns out to be a dead political body. He does not know the political alternative, it is a closed system. A world that is organically incapable of producing a political civilization out of itself. Naturally, many researchers noted the "genetic" kinship of socialist society with its classical system of centralized distribution, with a strong, rigid power of the center, a huge administrative-bureaucratic apparatus, etc. It cannot be argued that the socialist version was a cast or repetition of its eastern (not in the geographical sense of the word) predecessor, but the fundamental uniformity of these structures is confirmed. There are differences, first of all, in the artificial predetermination of the created society. The despotisms in the East developed in a natural-historical way, while private property and the market were never destroyed, even if they existed in a truncated form and under the control of the authorities. Private property and the market provided at least simple reproduction and, like a circulatory system, supported life in Eastern society. A totalitarian-oriented society was deprived of such a circulatory system, and artificial methods of maintaining life were imposed on it, associated with the super-exploitation of nature and man, violence, fear, constant indoctrination, etc.
3) Despotism- - 1) system state structure, characterized by the complete arbitrariness of power, lack of rights of subjects; 2) autocracy, the brutal suppression of individual freedom.
4) Despotism- absolute and lawless power, arbitrariness, arbitrariness. Sometimes despotism is a tyrannical display of deserved authority; in this capacity, it often manifests itself in politicians of the older generation in relation to novice politicians.
5) Despotism- (from the Greek despoteia - unlimited power) - a form of autocratic power, an unlimited monarchy, characterized by complete arbitrariness of power, lack of rights of subjects; autocracy and tyranny in relation to others.
6) Despotism- Autocracy, arbitrariness in relation to subordinates. Despot - an unlimited and cruel ruler, ruling at will, and not on the basis of laws; cruel, autocratic person, tyrant.
Despotism
(from the Greek despotes - lord, lord) - a form of unlimited, absolute, autocratic power, which is characterized by complete arbitrariness, imperious self-will, arbitrariness, tyranny, rude and cruel suppression of the will of subjects and their lack of rights. D. is especially characteristic of absolute monarchies.
- (from the Greek despotes - overlord) - a form of autocratic power, an unlimited monarchy, characterized by complete arbitrariness of power, lack of rights of subjects; autocracy and tyranny in relation to others. The ancient political philosopher Aristotle, along with three correct and three incorrect ("deviating") forms of political organization, singled out the seventh form - despotism, which outwardly resembles the already known form - tyranny. If tyranny is one of the transitional forms of political organization, then despotism outside the civilizational community or the barbarian world is permanent. The representative of the French Enlightenment, Montesquieu, supplemented Aristotle with another theoretical conclusion about the nature of despotism - its total inefficiency. The American political scientist A. Yanov, relying on the fundamental work of K. Wittfogel "Eastern Despotism", as well as on the works of other authors, formulates a number of important theoretical conclusions: 1. Despotism is based on the direct bureaucratic management of the economic process or on the total control of its results by the state. 2. The absence of economic restrictions leads to more or less permanent economic stagnation. 3. The absence of what is called economic progress, based on the continuous modernization of the economic process and on expanded reproduction, is combined with the absence of political dynamics. 4. In order to exist for thousands of years in conditions of economic and political immobility, despotism had to work out a special social structure, reduced to two polar classes: "governing" and "governed". 5. The economic immobility of the system corresponds to the immobility (immobility) of the managed class. Their equality in the face of a despot is postulated. 6. The reverse side of this absolute homogeneity and stability of the ruled class is the absolute atomization and instability of the class of managers. Despotism does not know what can be called the category of "political death". The mistake was equal to physical death. 7. The government that denies economic restrictions cannot but deny ideological restrictions. 8. It also explains the monstrous stability of despotic systems, for it excludes the emergence of political opposition (or the reformist potential of the system). 9. The absence of social, economic and ideological constraints makes it impossible for despotic structures to resist subjugation to the private goals of the despot. 10. Despotism turns out to be a dead political body. He does not know the political alternative, it is a closed system. A world that is organically incapable of producing a political civilization out of itself. Naturally, many researchers noted the "genetic" kinship of socialist society with its classical system of centralized distribution, with a strong, rigid power of the center, a huge administrative-bureaucratic apparatus, etc. It cannot be argued that the socialist version was a cast or repetition of its eastern (not in the geographical sense of the word) predecessor, but the fundamental uniformity of these structures is confirmed. There are differences, first of all, in the artificial predetermination of the created society. The despotisms in the East developed in a natural-historical way, while private property and the market were never destroyed, even if they existed in a truncated form and under the control of the authorities. Private property and the market provided at least simple reproduction and, like a circulatory system, supported life in Eastern society. A totalitarian-oriented society was deprived of such a circulatory system, and artificial methods of maintaining life were imposed on it, associated with the super-exploitation of nature and man, violence, fear, constant indoctrination, etc.
DESPOTISM (Greek despoteia - unlimited power) - unlimited power of a despot, arbitrariness, autocracy, suppression of someone else's will.
Raizberg B.A. Modern socioeconomic dictionary. M., 2012, p. 118.
Despotism (NFE, 2010)
DESPOTISM is one of the fundamental characteristics of dictatorial rule, which is associated with arbitrary power, enhanced by the concentration political power in the hands of the head of state (despot, leader, king, etc.) and the elite close to him, the absence of separation of powers, the suppression of dissent by any means, including violent ones, the use of the army to reinforce the actions of the state apparatus in order to exercise a monopoly on power. Under despotism, there are no legal restrictions on political power, which makes it impossible to mix the despot, relying on the law. Non-existent civil liberties have been replaced by strict enforcement of forced labor norms. Decision-making is unpredictable, impulsive, usually explained by the desire to transform or discipline society. Despotic methods of control over society pursue one main goal - to strengthen the sole power ...
Despotism (Lopukhov, 2013)
DESPOTIA - power based on the ancient Eastern traditions of patriarchy and paternalism, when the state, growing out of a community organization and using community foundations, is identified with society and is further regarded as a single and indivisible patrimony of the supreme ruler, whose will, whose decision is the law for numerous subjects (members of the "family-community"), united, as a rule, in social corporations. Under despotism, the personality of the ruler, the monarch, is deified during his lifetime, and after death becomes the subject of a cult.
Despotism (Comte-Sponville, 2012)
DESPOTISM (DESPOTISME). The unlimited power of one man. Despotism can be enlightened and even legal (in this it differs from tyranny), but it always remains unjust. If the despot obeyed the law, his power would lose its infinity. In this, despotism differs from monarchy, in which, as Montesquieu notes, “one person governs, but through the establishment of immutable laws”; while under despotism, “everything outside of all laws and rules is moved by the will and arbitrariness of one person” (“On the Spirit of Laws”, Book II, Chapter 1). The despot puts himself above the laws (Rousseau) or does not recognize any other laws than his own (Kant). Despotism is an absolute authoritarian monarchy. Its fundamental principle is not honor, as under a constitutional monarchy, and not virtue, as under a republic, but fear (ibid., III, 9). But this also determines the limit of despotism: it remains in force only as long as it is feared.
Despotism is the most terrible thing that can be in a person. It can manifest itself in various forms, and it is often called a property of character, but this is not at all the case. Despotism is not alien to either man or woman. What is despotism and how it manifests itself, we will talk about this in the article.
What it is?
Stanisław Jerzy Lec rightly noted that from the wound inflicted on a despot, a sea of foreign blood is pouring. Despotism is such an activity when a person who believes in his unlimited power cannot even believe that someone is able to act contrary to his wishes. From this, he begins to show aggression, which is expressed in physical or psychological violence. This is exactly what is said about despotism in psychology. This is an acquired personality trait that manifests itself in the desire to gain unlimited power.
On the other hand, the term "despotism" is used in political science. From the point of view of political science, despotism is a form of government when the state apparatus is in the hands of one person or group of people, and they have every right to control the fate of their subjects. Simply put, despotism is unlimited power.
I am a demigod
It is believed that despotism consists in the manifestation of unfavorable features of the ego. As a result, this can lead to the loss of rational control over one's behavior, and all actions will become subordinate to the exclusively affective sphere.
Despotic behavior cannot stop on its own. The less the despot is resisted, the more he will consider himself a demigod and will demand the impossible as a matter of course.
There are no people who have not at least once turned into despots in order to get what they want from their environment, but if this becomes a stable line of behavior, then a person definitely needs expert advice. After all, the main features mental disorders considered uncontrolled violence, inadequate demands and assessment of reality.
Arbitrariness, tyranny, imperiousness, authoritarianism, autocracy - these synonyms of despotism very well describe the deviation that has arisen. A despot tends to impose his will on others through the use of psychological or physical violence, aggression or humiliation.
Often the causes of despotism are childhood traumas that a person tries to cope with in such a destructive way in order to gain self-confidence. The more fears are stored in the bins of the despot's psyche, the more he seeks to control someone else's freedom. Aggression, he covers the uncertainty in his own attractiveness.
In the family, the despot literally makes you love yourself. He is led by a global and causeless revenge that appears without a reason. Thus, a person restores undermined conceit and respect. Despoticism excludes such concepts as cooperation and respect for others. As a result, instead of missing love and understanding, a person receives hatred, hostility, misunderstanding and, as a result, loneliness.
Causes
Despoticism is not inherent at the DNA level and does not depend on features nervous system, but the prerequisites for its formation are laid early. Being brought up by imperious parents who did not hear the needs of their child, but demanded unquestioning obedience, a person perceives such a model of behavior as the norm. Growing up, he begins to realize a despotic form of relationships at all possible levels. Also, despotism can be caused by the desire to take revenge on the environment for their grievances. Constant insults, humiliation and cruelty can lead to the desire to take revenge on the whole world, and not just the offender.
Although despotism is not only the desire to punish someone or copy the behavior of parents. Often despotism develops against the background of the fact that the child was constantly inspired by thoughts about his uniqueness, originality and superiority over others. The manifestation of despotism lies in the obsessive, neurotic idea confirm your power. To do this, a person chooses inadequate methods and is sure that he alone in this world deserves universal recognition and unquestioning obedience.
Traits of despotism
In a society with a disturbed perception of violence and the boundaries of the individual, despotism can be perceived as a manifestation of character, and for this a person will even be respected. First and most hallmark despotism is the use of violence as the norm of behavior and the only possible way to regulate relations. Despots do not know how to ask, negotiate or compromise. If the behavior of the partner does not correspond to the desires of the despot, various kinds of violence can be used. Although at first the despot, by demonstrating his displeasure, may give another the opportunity to correct his oversight, but if this does not happen immediately, he will immediately be punished. It is also worth noting that often despots put forward very strange demands, in which dissatisfaction can be caused by what others consider the norm.
Gaslighting
You can often observe this type of behavior as gaslighting. This is when a despot convinces his victim that she imagined everything, and any rudeness is nothing more than an unstable mental state of the victim himself. A despot will never admit his guilt, on the contrary, his victim will be accused of manipulative tantrums, although in reality these will be tears caused by pain and humiliation.
For a despot, humiliating and insulting others is the norm. And if someone tries to clarify the relationship, they can be accused of lacking a sense of humor, and in order for the victim to dispel all doubts, her social circle gradually narrows. Despots are always trying to completely destroy the other person's self-esteem, so they get more leverage to manipulate.
How does a despot work?
Despots usually act very subtly. The mechanism of influence on a person is something like this: at first, a despot will be a harmless shushpanchik, ready for anything. He will give a lot of attention and compliments. Over time, a person gets used to admiration in his address, and then the despot begins to act, namely, to criticize. After the first criticism, a person does everything possible to improve. But then the criticism becomes much more, in proportion to it, the desire of the victim to correct the situation increases. As a result, an idea is discovered with the help of which one can easily control the consciousness of another person. Also, it is also important to note that the despot will assign all the achievements to himself, and he will dump the failures on the partner, and it is useless to appeal to an adequate perception of reality.
Male and female despotism
When a man is led by a despotic ego, he turns into an unguided projectile. It is acceptable for him to use psychological and physical violence, some do not shy away from sexual violence. Households are imposed their own ideas and rules, which must be unconditionally followed, and any manifestation of free-thinking and individuality is considered obscene.
Despots can be not only men, but also women, and this is much more dangerous. A man is designed in such a way that he is guided either by reason or by feelings. In a woman, both of these factors work simultaneously. Her favorite hobby is constant jealousy. A woman knows that her word can destroy any man, so she takes on board insults, reproaches, caustic remarks and does not forget to ridicule the qualities of a person and his sexual abilities. If the man tries to resist, the woman turns to blackmail and threats. For example, threatens to commit suicide or take away children.
The word despotism does not just characterize a person's behavior - it is a real diagnosis that needs to be treated.
from the Greek despoteia - unlimited power) - a form of state-va, with which all the fullness of power, not limited by law, belongs to one ruler - inheritances. monarch, ruling through a complex military-bureaucratic. apparatus; especially characteristic of the majority of slave owners. state-in Dr. East (Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Iran, India, China, etc.) and is distinguished by the complete arbitrariness of power and the lack of rights of the population; D.'s synonym is unlimited. monarchy and tyranny. Under D., the will of the despot was considered law. His personality was often deified during life and after death. The power of the despot was recognized as unlimited, although in fact he made decisions, taking into account the wishes of the representatives of the nobility surrounding him. The reason for the formation of D. in ancient countries East was long. preservation of community life. F. Engels noted that where the state. power arises "... at a time when the community still cultivates the land in common, or at least transfers it only for temporary use to individual families, where, therefore, private ownership of the land has not yet formed - there state power appears in the form of despotism "(Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 19, p. 497). The need to create and maintain irrigation systems. structures, without which agriculture could not exist in a number of countries of the East, raised the importance of political. centralization and strengthened the despotic. power. D. education in slave-owning countries. The East was preceded by military democracy - a form of society. organizations that take shape during the transition from the primitive communal system to the class. society; the tribal leader became the heirloom. despot. Often the original form of the state. building was a slave owner. the oligarchy that preceded the formation of D. The most complete incarnation of D. was Dr. Egypt, where the ruler is the pharaoh, starting from the era of Dr. kingdom (3rd millennium BC), was considered a god, "the son of Ra" (the Sun) and possessed the supreme legislator., judicial, perform. and military power. D. also existed in the states of Mesopotamia. So, in Sumer, the kings of the III dynasty of Ur fully exercised the power of the east. despots. The entire population was completely dependent on them, receiving allowances and land in their hands. At the disposal of the kings were numerous. crafts. workshops and caravan trade. Their support was the service nobility, who participated in the division of the surplus product. Similar orders can be traced in Babylonia and Assyria. In the laws of Hammurabi, the king, however, is not called a god, but is regarded as the viceroy of the gods. The vast Persian was the despot. power (see the Achaemenid state), in which all the threads of the state. management converged in the palace of the "king of kings". D. also developed in Dr. India, where, according to Manu laws, the king ruled the country as unlimited. lord, relying on priests. and military aristocracy. The character of D. was also inherent in other whales. gos-you, it was especially clearly expressed during the Qin monarchy (3rd century BC). During the period of early feudalism in Bl. and Wed. In the East, the power of the monarchs was limited by the tribal aristocracy - the "kings of the regions" in Iran under the Arshakids and the early Sassanids, the leaders of the Arab tribes. Caliphate. Restraining influence was exerted on the autocratic monarchs by religious-legal norms and traditions (especially Muslim ones), which provided political. influence and highly" societies. position of the clergy. This was observed even in the Baghdad Caliphate (see Abbasid Caliphate) of the 8th-9th centuries, which was a feud. D. Khalif, having concentrated in his hands the fullness of the spiritual and secular power, rules, relying on weapons. force, and widely used terror measures. With the collapse of the Baghdad Caliphate in the 9th-10th centuries. feud. despotism formed in the department. parts of the previously unified state-va (in Spain, Iran, Egypt). D.'s features were especially pronounced in the state of Nadir Shah in the 18th century. On the territory India also took shape despotic. monarchies, for example. the state of the Great Moghuls (in the 16-17th centuries), covering a vast territory. and realized means. centralization of control. Along with the state of the Great Moghuls, the feud. D. reached her highest development V Ottoman Empire 14th-16th centuries The presence of a special form of state-va - despotic. monarchy - in the countries of Dr. East was noticed by Aristotle, to-ry, noting different kinds monarchy, singled out the despot. power in some barbarian peoples. Identifying D. with tyranny, he defined the latter as a monarchy that is despotic to the whole political. society. On Wednesday. century for denial. evaluations of incarnations of the monarchy. authorities used the concept of "tyranny" (Thomas Aquinas, tyrant-fighters, and many others). Widely used the concept of "despotism" French. Enlighteners of the 18th century (Montesquieu, Mably, Diderot, and others) to criticize the absolutist monarchy. Montesquieu, for example, contrasted moderate rule with despotic rule, as one where "... everything, beyond all laws and rules, moves by the will and arbitrariness of one person" ("On the Spirit of Laws", in the book: Selected Prod., M., 1955, p. 169). However, since any unlimited monarchy inevitably represents the rule of one person, unbound by law, the difference between unlimited. monarchy. D. and tyranny cannot be established with sufficient certainty. K. Marx pointed to this, noting that all this is called. of the same concept, in the extreme case, a difference in morals with the same principle (see Letter to Ruge, in the book: K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 1, p. 374-75). Lit .: Marx K., Forms preceding capitalist production, M., 1940, p. 6-; Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 9, p. 135-36; v. 19, p. 497; v. 20, p. 186; Avdiev V.I., History Dr. East, 2nd ed., M., 1953; Struve V.V., History Dr. East, M., 1941: Dyakonov I. M., Society. and Mrs. system of ancient Mesopotamia, M., 1959; The World History vol. 1, M... 1955, ch. 4-7, 9-13, 21, 23-25; T. 2, M., 1956, Ch. 1, 7, 14-17; T. 3, M., 1958, Ch. 7, 8, 20, 35, 37; Rienne J., Histoire des Institutions et du droit priv? de l'ancienne ?gypte, t. 1-3, Brux., 1932-35. S. F. Kechekyan. Moscow.
