The study of prehistoric society in China, especially the study of the origin of a country or civilization, has basically followed the theoretical model put forward by Engels in the book Family, Private Ownership and the Origin of the State since Marxism was introduced to China, thus constructing the history of the formation of ancient countries in China. However, in the specific research process, we often encounter such a puzzle, that is, how to combine the basic principles of Marxism with the reality of China's ancient history. Obviously, Engels' book The Origin of Family, Private Ownership and State is based on the research results of Louis Hen Morgan, taking ancient European history as an example. As the preface of the first edition said, "The following chapters are to some extent the implementation of the last words. It was Karl Marx who tried to explain Morgan's research results by combining his conclusions—to some extent, I can say both of us—from the historical study of materialism. Only in this way can we clarify the full significance of these results. " Therefore, our research work should also proceed from the reality of China's ancient history and get out of the inherent theoretical model.

First of all, we think it is necessary to correctly understand the two forms of slave society, which is the premise of our discussion;

Perhaps people still remember that in 1859 65438+ 10, Marx put forward the concept of Asian mode of production for the first time in the preface of Critique of Political Economy, and juxtaposed it with ancient times. Generally speaking, Asian, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production can be regarded as several social and economic evolutions. Whether this passage can be understood by dichotomy and "Asia" and "ancient" can be regarded as two forms of slave society in the ancient civilized world is still under discussion. However, from the eighth chapter of Engels' The Origin of Family, Private Ownership and State, when discussing the formation of the German state, we emphatically pointed out that "because of this barbaric country, they did not reach the fully developed slavery, neither reached the ancient labor slavery nor reached the family slavery in the East". At least two points should be made clear: first, there are two forms of slavery in the ancient civilized world, one is "family slavery in the East", and the other is that "ancient slave labor slavery" and "family slavery in the East" have to go through the primary development stage of slavery before they become "fully developed slavery". Engels' views can also be found in the article "The American Workers' Movement" published in the following years (originally the preface of the American version of "The Situation of the British Working Class", which was published in a separate book). He said: "In ancient Asia and classical ancient times, the main form of class oppression was slavery, that is, the masses were not so much deprived of land as occupied by individuals." (4) At this point, it tells us more clearly that "ancient Asia" and "classical ancient China" are not only geographical concepts, in fact, they also contain two different forms of meaning, which is different from what Marx said in the third volume of Das Kapital: "In the slave economy (not patriarchal slave economy, but later slave economy like Greek and Roman times) as a means of getting rich ..." (5) Viewpoint. That is to say, there are two forms of slave society, namely, Oriental family slavery based on patriarchal slave economy and ancient labor slavery based on slave economy similar to that in Greek and Roman times.

In fact, the Eastern family slavery based on the patriarchal slave economy and the ancient labor slavery based on the slave economy in the Greek and Roman times, as two different manifestations of the developed slave society, are mainly influenced by the geographical environment, and people's production and life practices are always inseparable from certain natural conditions. Plekhanov once said: "Because of the different natural conditions of production struggle, the forms of human life are gradually different." . Everywhere, the same national lifestyle gave way to various social relations, and the social system in Athens was different from that in China. The process of economic development in the West is fundamentally different from that in the East "(6), and it is also believed that" ancient society replaced clan social organizations; Similarly, the social organizations before the emergence of the eastern social system were also clan social organizations. These two economic systems are the result of the growth of productivity within the clan organization, which will eventually lead to the disintegration of the clan organization. If the two types are very different, their main features are all formed under the influence of geographical environment. In this case, the geographical environment endows a society with a certain degree of productivity and the sum of production relations; In another case, the geographical environment gives the sum total of another production relationship that is fundamentally different from the first one.

Secondly, since "ancient Asia" and "classical ancient China" are two forms or types, the emergence and development of their countries are inevitably different; Engels comprehensively and systematically studied the whole process of the emergence of Athens, Rome and Germany from the perspective of "classical antiquity" according to the materials he could see, and finally came to the conclusion that Athens was the purest and most typical form, where "the state directly and mainly emerged from the class opposition developed within the clan society itself"; In Rome, "clan society has become a closed-door aristocrat, surrounded by a large number of civilians, who stand outside this society and have no rights but obligations." The victory of civilians blew up the old clan system and established a country on its ruins "; Finally, "among the Germans who defeated the Roman Empire, the emergence of the country was the direct result of conquering the vast foreign territories".

Thus, it puts forward the "three main forms" of the rise of the country on the ruins of the clan system.

But in our view, these "three forms", to be exact, should be the "three forms" produced by "classical ancient" countries, which have certain universal and special significance. Generally speaking, it reflects the general law of the country; In a special sense, it only represents three main examples, that is to say, there are "three main forms", and of course there should be non-main forms or secondary forms, as well as other forms and so on. Why do you say that?

In the past, in the process of investigating the emergence of "classical ancient" countries, we found that there is always a certain internal relationship between the form of national emergence and the form of national government. Athens is a "democratic country", Rome is a * * * country, and Germany is a "kingdom".

Pet-name ruby don't need to elaborate, and, according to Aristotle's research, we can learn from how to preserve various monarchies, Morosous and Sparta's royal family. Attending, especially the early Spartan monarchical system of two kings, is still popular in Greek city-states, including all ethnic groups and states in Italy. 1 1 Around the 9th century BC, after the destruction of ancient Crete civilization, many slave city-states appeared on the island, and their forms of government were basically the same as those of Sparta. 12 This situation urges us to further realize that the form of state formation actually determines the form of state government, and the form of state government directly or indirectly reflects the form of state formation in a certain sense, and the two can be said to be complementary and inseparable.

In the ancient history of the world, this is not only the case of "classical antiquity"; This is true even in the case of "ancient Asia". From the Nile valley to the two rivers valley, from the Indus valley up and down, including our ancient China, there are various forms of government in the country, which shows that the forms of national production are diverse and complex, and cannot be generalized.

In a word, it is a long historical process from the development of prehistoric society to the emergence of civilized countries. If military democracy is its necessary stage, it is only the end of clan society and the eve of the emergence of the country. This transitional political system or political form includes:

A. The personal power of military leaders appears in parallel with clan democracy, but it is customarily elected by a clan or family, and its power has not yet reached the level of state power;

B the power of military leaders must also be subordinate to the people's congress, the highest authority of clan and tribal alliance;

C. The general trend is that while the power of military leaders is strengthened, the power of parliament is rising and the power of people's congresses is declining. The important feature of this period is that wars are extremely frequent.

The setting and division of these three levels of different powers constitute the characteristics of the political form in the transitional period. The relationship between them is mutual influence and restriction, and each represents the interests of the clan or tribal group, which is more obvious in the future, especially on the eve of the emergence of the country. According to the political form of the transitional period, the emergence of the national government should take many forms, namely:

Chief military power → future kingship politics → monarchy;

Parliamentary power → future aristocratic politics → aristocratic regime;

NPC power → future democratic politics → democratic regime.

From the above model, we can see that the three types of national governments are all derived from the political form of military democracy, and their intersection will produce more and more complex forms of state power organization. Only by acknowledging this specific fact can we further explore the formation form of countries, especially the specific way of "ancient Asian" countries, find out their internal relations and find out their regular unity.

Third, the next issue we want to discuss is the symbol of national formation, which is the focus and difficulty of our discussion;

We believe that although the forms of "Yagu" and "Classical Ancient" countries are different, objectively speaking, as a symbol of the formation of a country, there can only be one, and there will be no two symbols of "Yagu" and "Classical Ancient". In that case, we can't discuss or measure the formation of a country.

According to Engels, there are always two differences between the state and the old clan organization: "The first point is that it divides its citizens by region"; "The second difference is the establishment of public power", 13.

The former constitutes the "basic unit of the country", while the latter "is no longer directly consistent with the residents who organize themselves into armed forces". We discuss or measure the "classical ancient" society with these two points as the symbol of the formation of the country. Of course, there is no problem and there is no need to discuss it again. Because Engels first drew a conclusion from the historical reality of the "classical ancient" society.

However, if we take these two points as the symbol of the formation of the country, we can discuss or measure the "ancient Asian" society, such as the ancient history of China, which will show its limitations. This has attracted the attention of many scholars. We believe that as a symbol of discussing or measuring the formation of a country, we might as well take "the second difference is the establishment of public power" as the main point of view, supplemented by "the first point of view is that it divides its citizens by region", because as the main symbol of the formation of a country, it is the establishment of public power, which Engels himself emphasized when discussing the emergence of the Athenian state. And approachable works, such as Roman Herzog's book "Ancient Countries-Origin and Ruling Forms", also put forward that what can really be used as a standard to identify a country is a ruling institution with a long history, 14, which is what Engels called "public power". There is no difference between the two.

At the same time, we also believe that from a political point of view, "public power" or ruling institutions, that is, "state form", includes two aspects, that is, state management form and state structure form, which mainly refers to the organizational form of state power, that is, what we usually call "regime"; The form of national structure refers to the relationship between the whole and part of the country, the central organ and the local government. I think if we discuss or measure the formation of a country from two aspects of this symbol as a problem, it can not only supplement Engels' symbol on the formation of a country, but also explain the formation of an "ancient Asian" country.

Finally, we think that the study of the origin of a country is an important historical topic, and it is also an important archaeological topic. As long as we combine these two aspects better and more closely, we are expected to make a breakthrough and surpass our predecessors.

Precautions:

(1) See Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 4, p. 1, People's Publishing House, p. 1972, p. 1. The same below.

(2) See Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 13, Page 9, People's Publishing House, 1962.

(3) See Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 4, page 153.

(4) See Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2/kloc-0, p. 387, People's Publishing House.

(5) See the Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 25, p. 672, People's Publishing House.

6. See Selected Works of plekhanov's Philosophy, Volume 4, Page 44, Joint Publishing Company, 1974.

7. See Selected Works of plekhanov's Philosophy, Volume 3, Page 178, Sanlian Bookstore, Edition 1962.

See Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 4, page 165- 166.

Pet-name ruby See Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 4, pp. 15, 126 and 148.

See Plutarch: Biography of Pilars 5. Aristotle: Political Science V, Chapter 11, Commercial Press, 1965, 1 edition, the same below.

1 1 See Plutarch: Artax)24. Outline of World Ancient History, Volume 6, page 85, People's Publishing House, 1980, page 1.

12 See Aristotle: Politics II, chapter 10.

13 See Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 4, Page 166- 167, People's Publishing House, Edition 1972.

14 Li See xueqin: rewriting academic history, p. 279, Hebei education press, 2002, 1 edition.