Summary of the Reading Group on the Ancient Greece Section of “A General History of the World”
Recently, the association organized a reading group on studying ancient Greek history. This is an informal reading group with no special preparation, mainly aimed at preparing materials for studying “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State,” and also to expand everyone’s historical knowledge. During the reading session, I will use many metaphors and jokes to explain, so everyone should自行鉴别. The excerpt of the explanation was整理的由同志advance。
1. The Initial Form of Slave-owning States — City-States
【With the development of social productivity and commerce, the slave relations in Greece and the class differentiation among free citizens also rapidly developed. The institution of class oppression—the city-state—appeared one after another.】
In fact, transitioning from primitive society to slavery inevitably involves forming city-states, with a transitional stage into the city-state, and finally the possibility of forming a unified slave-owning state. Initially, it must be city-states. Why? Around 3000 BC, Egypt also first appeared as a slave city-state. Then, around 2500 BC, Mesopotamia also first appeared as a city-state. By 2000 BC, China also first appeared with slave city-states. City-states are tools of class rule. The difference between a city-state and a slave-owning state is just in scale. A city-state is a slave-owning state, but it is based on a single city. Later, as slave-owning states expanded in scale, they were no longer just points like city-states but connected into lines and surfaces. China, of course, had slave city-states; China was a slave city-state. So many so-called feudal lords and states are all slave city-states. The fundamental reason is that the earliest slave-owning states—the city-states—developed from tribes.
A tribe is a group that develops from kinship-based organizations. Kinship organizations have a very small activity scope, limited to a certain area. The process of these tribes—entering class society and forming slave-owning states—is the process of their own development within their original activity areas into class society. This inevitably leads to the formation of individual slave-owning states on the basis of these tribes—forming city-states. Because the activity scope of clans and tribes is very small—each clan has at most a hundred people, each tribe at most a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand people—their scale cannot be large. Therefore, the process of class differentiation in such tribes, leading to the establishment of slave-owning states, is the rise of slave city-states.
Hence, all slave-owning states in the world are formed through the process of forming city-states. Except in very few cases, such as the invasion of some advanced and developed countries at the end of primitive society, directly replacing them, like the Mongol Empire. The Mongol Empire first unified tribes internally, then, before fully establishing a slave-owning state, in the process of destroying northern separatist regimes and attacking northern separatist regimes, it established a unified slave empire—the Mongol Empire.
2. The Emergence of Private Ownership Factors Leading to the Polarization of Primitive Society
【This series of processes has its own characteristics in Greece. Although some regions still maintained land communal ownership, several regions had already formed land private ownership. This began in Homer’s era and has become more intense now—the process of clan aristocrats seizing communal land, and the redistribution and privatization of land among ordinary community members, influencing each other. The result is that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.】
Originally, this land belonged to rural communes. Now, with private ownership, it loses—this is dialectical. When ordinary community members do not have private land rights, they cannot lose the land because it belongs to the commune and no one can deprive them. But once these ordinary community members have private land rights, they can lose their land. Because private land can be freely acquired or sold through economic laws or super-economic coercion, it rapidly polarizes in class society, leading to annexation and transfer.
So, “This is what you hoped for, George Dondon!”—these people who do small-scale independent work, wanting private wealth, end up with the outcome of losing everything. When they get land private rights, they also get the chance to lose their land, to become tenant farmers or hired farmers. Just like those in Xiaogang Village, who signed eighteen seals—got what they wanted. Although that might be fake, Xiaogang Village remains the poorest key poverty alleviation village now.
3. The Reasons for the Drastically Different Political Systems of Sparta and Athens
Flame: The most famous city-state of the Dorians is Sparta, which is the most barbaric branch of the Dorians. Damn Dorians often established aristocratic oligarchies and generally joined the Spartan Peloponnesian League.
fxyc: Why are the Dorians so barbaric?
Flame: Because the Dorians are the branch that invaded southward and destroyed Mycenae. During the destruction of Mycenae, they turned all the original residents living in Greek mainland lands into slaves, establishing a racial slave system. Racial slavery is barbaric, just like ancient China—barbaric.
Among the Greek city-states that arose from the 8th to 6th centuries BC, the most advanced were the Ionian city-states and some Dorian city-states. It is very clear here: the most economically developed were the Ionian city-states. Why? Because Ionian city-states were keen on developing production, with relatively developed agriculture and industry. Ionian city-states had a characteristic—they were not built through racial invasion and conquest but emerged from internal class differentiation into slave city-states. These city-states had fierce class struggles, with slave-owning bourgeoisie and commoners constantly fighting for political and economic power, driving social and economic development in the Ionian region. Therefore, these states’ bourgeoisie and commoners were relatively strong, and they often established democracies.
Fundamentally, the migration to these city-states was peaceful development, and during this process, internal class differentiation occurred. It was internal class differentiation and struggle that led to conflicts between the bourgeoisie slave-owners, commoners, and aristocratic slave-owners. After the Dorians invaded from the south, they started promoting Confucianism, saying “We dominate the entire conquered nation, and within our ruling nation, we must also achieve close unity.” How to achieve close unity? Through “ruler-ruler, subject-subject, father-father, son-son” to realize close unity.
Thus, states practicing racial slavery tend to be autocratic, barbaric, and legally despotic. Not only in Sparta’s Dorian city-states but also in Persia in the East, Egypt in the South, and China in the Far East. They are all racial slave states, very barbaric, autocratic.
4. The Process of Establishing Slave-Democratic Politics
【 Newly formed city-states often had their governments controlled by aristocratic clans and slave-owning classes. During the era of military democracy, military leaders became kings—tyrants—but without real power. Most city-states strengthened the elder council to weaken and abolish the king’s authority, establishing aristocratic republics. Although nominally republics, they were actually ruled by aristocratic clans. At this stage, the state power was not only to suppress slaves but also to oppress and plunder lower free citizens and industrial slave owners. Even in the earliest city-states, power sharing was impossible.】
The main contradiction in class relations at that time was between aristocratic slave-owners and lower free citizens and industrial slave owners. They led and relied on the lower free citizen masses to fight against aristocratic rule. In more developed city-states, this struggle ended with the defeat of aristocratic clans. After aristocratic rule was overthrown, tyrant politics often arose.
A tyrant is a ruler who seizes state power through a coup. Today, Greek coups have become a trend, and discussing coups and using coups is necessary. Most tyrants came from aristocratic backgrounds but, amid fierce class struggles, defended the interests of industrial and merchant slaves, showing support for the free citizen masses, thus gaining power. These people’s status was similar to “Protector of the Realm.” The so-called tyrant politics was this “Protector of the Realm” politics, the first ruling political stage. “Protector of the Realm” periods were usually short, and tyrant politics generally opposed aristocratic rule, favoring the development of industry and small-scale agriculture. Cleisthenes’ tyrants, such as Cypseros and Pylos, did so. They expelled opposition aristocratic clans, distributed land to farmers, supported agricultural development, vigorously promoted immigration and overseas activities, and turned Corinth into a powerful industrial and commercial city-state. The rise of Cleisthenes’ tyrant politics was due to the balance of power between aristocratic clans and farmers and industrial slave owners.
Industrial slave owners and lower free citizens supported this dictatorship that could strike against aristocratic rule. That is, at that time, the power of industrial slave owners and lower free citizens was not yet very strong, so tyrant rule emerged, which was a dictatorship without full democracy but against aristocratic rule. When the bourgeoisie and free citizens gained full political dominance, they would drive out the tyrants. But when aristocratic rule was overthrown or weakened, and the bourgeoisie and industrial slave class further grew, they would not tolerate tyrant dictatorship. Therefore, tyrant politics generally could not last long.
Thus, after the death of most Greek tyrants, the bourgeoisie and commoners would celebrate their death, beating drums at funerals, just like “Protector of the Realm”—Cromwell. Tyrant politics usually do not last long; they are replaced either by oligarchic rule of industrial slave owners or by broader slave-democratic politics. The former like Cleisthenes, the latter like Athens. This is the general process of political development in Greek city-states from the 8th to 9th centuries BC.
5. Contradictions Between Tyrants and Industrial Slave Owners
fxyc: Why do the forces of industrial slave owners want to overthrow tyrants once they further develop?
Flame: Should tyrants be allowed to rule dictatorially? The bourgeoisie of industrial slave owners want to seize power themselves, to promote industry and commerce, rather than let a tyrant from aristocratic background run wild on them.
Tyrants attack aristocratic clans because they are opportunists. If they do not fight and betray their origins, they will be attacked by bourgeoisie and lower free citizens. A famous Greek tyrant once said: “Water can carry a boat, but it can also overturn it.” Meaning people can support you, but they can also overthrow you.
Caesar was also like this. At that time, democrats and aristocratic clans were fighting; Caesar was in a military environment, a kind of opportunist. But as Caesar’s military expansion rapidly progressed, many oppressed classes gained wealth, and the economic foundation of democrats quickly formed and consolidated.
Caesar used the remnants of democracy to defeat the aristocratic Senate, then immediately styled himself as the supreme ruler, becoming a particular dictator. After inheriting Caesar’s position, he quickly became the “First Citizen.”
6. The Nature and Class Composition of Greek City-State Migration Movements
【Initially, external migration was often scattered and unplanned, but once it became a movement, it was mostly sponsored by city-state governments.】
【The main migrants at first were displaced peasants and those who failed in political struggles. The former were small producers, and the latter had a more complex class composition, including both lower free citizens and fallen aristocrats.】
Why was it initially scattered and unplanned? Because the early outward migration was composed of these lower small producers, bankrupt farmers, and fallen aristocrats. What were they migrating for? To find a utopia.
From the identity of those participating in migration, the fundamental reason for the migration movement was the internal class oppression and class struggle within city-states. These people were actually middle-class. They were neither the poorest bankrupt farmers, tenant farmers, hired farmers, nor the upper aristocrats of free citizens, but the middle class—fallen aristocrats and lower small producers. If they were the poorest, they could not escape; they could only try to overthrow slavery. Slaves have no right not to work; they can only work, and if they don’t, they will be whipped.
And these aristocrats could not think of “escaping” either. Aristocratic clans aimed to climb higher and become the greatest dictators and rulers, ruthlessly exploiting slaves.
Those middle-class, wavering small producers, once threatened with bankruptcy, wanted to escape, to move to new continents, to America, and thought they could live a rich life there. So, this is the mentality of bankrupt small producers—they seek a utopia, want to escape, and lie flat, avoiding work.
Look at how many Greek emigrants there are—Greek emigrant maps show that Greek migration city-states are very powerful and large, like the Roman Empire, which is the predecessor of the Roman Empire. So, Rome is the successor of Greece, inheriting the ancient Greek and Roman traditions, turning the Mediterranean into its inland lake, at least turning the Black Sea into its inland lake.
Between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, especially in the early period, aristocratic clans held economic and political power in city-states. It was common for commoners to lose land and suffer political oppression. One of their outlets was to form new city-states overseas. Therefore, the initial migration was mainly engaged in agriculture.
Just like in China. Does China have migration? Yes, it does, including overseas migration. Why? Also because of class oppression. The peak of migration was during the Ming and Qing dynasties, when class oppression intensified, struggles became sharper, and with the further development of maritime trade, large numbers of Chinese went to Southeast Asian islands to live. They migrated due to class oppression and class struggle, with no way out.
Later, with the development of trade and the need to establish commercial outposts, migration gradually took on a more industrial and commercial character. The driving force was mainly merchant-slave owners. After the 7th century BC, some migrant city-states also became important industrial and commercial centers in the Greek world.
The relationship between migrant city-states and the original residents was one of invasion, enslavement, and exploitation. Greek migrants crossing the sea first occupied land, then plundered slaves, subdued neighboring tribes, further exploited resources, and engaged in commercial plunder and piracy.
As Herodotus said, these Greek migrants always kept plundering and kidnapping their neighbors, eventually provoking their neighbors to unite against them.
Of course, on the other hand, Greek migrant city-states also objectively promoted local social, economic, and cultural development. Greek cities in southern Italy and along the Black Sea coast played a significant role in local economic and cultural development. But this does not mean ignoring the exploitative and oppressive nature of Greek migration to local residents. As an expansion of slave city-states, migration movements inevitably carried this nature. Therefore, migration is essentially an expansion of the scope of slave city-states.
