1.6 Historical Societal Civilizations and Capitalism

I am pursuing the answer to this question: Is the capitalist economy and its social formats a social and historical necessity? This part of my defense will be a reply to this question, which, in short, is: No, it is not a social or a historical necessity.29

The most serious mistake of Marxian interpretation (vulgar materialism) of historical materialism is its claim that capitalist economy is thrived a necessity. Even worse is the fact that these Marxists also adopted the linear development model of society-indeed, a presentation of Hegelian idealism under the disguise of materialism. This is thus nothing but a secondary derivative of Hegelian idealism. In reaction, Immanuel Kant (l724- 1804) attempted, albeit rather hesitantly, to countermine this object-centered development by asserting the power of the subject, thereby emphasizing the role of morals as an option of freedom. Concerning freedom morals, Marxism lags even behind Kant. There is not much use in mentioning the right-wing liberal schools of thought since they see capitalism as not only a necessity, but as the final word of history.

Let me reiterate that positivism is more dangerous than religious obscurantism; it is also more conservative. If the truth behind capitalism, which rests on positivism, is not exposed and rendered ineffective, the option of freedom will have no chance. In fact, the two- hundred-year-old history of socialism and real socialism indicates that it has not surpassed the left-wing efforts to sustain capitalism. It is not a question of just finding where the mistake has been made-the paradigm itself is wrong. Hence, indicating any right or wrong elements within the paradigm will be of no consequence. Society cannot be approached in a linear manner, and all the social formats cannot be realized one after the other as if by divine order. Even the debate on partial (human) and total (God’s) will of the Middle Ages was superior to this positivist and materialistic approach. The factor responsible for the failure of the struggles that are waged in the name of socialism is this paradigm in approaching the society.

Clearly, my definitions in previous sections don’t follow this approach. Viewing capitalism as a necessary social phase is to be under the influence of and to be an instrument of this system, whether intentionally or not. Let me say right now what I should say at the end of this analysis: Capitalism cannot be a social format. It may want to be one and it can influence society, but it cannot be a format of society. Some might argue that capitalism has been the sole format ruling the world for the past four hundred years, but to that I would say that it is one thing to rule and another to be a format. History has witnessed three social formats or modes: primitive clan society, classed state or civilizational society, and democratic, pluralistic society. The linear development approach that sets the societal formats as primitive, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, and socialist, is far too dogmatic –or, indeed, idealistic and fatalistic. More importantly, the three social forms that I postulate do not linearly succeed each other. It is closer to a cyclic system that deepens and expands. I do embrace the notion of dialectical operation but I must clearly state that I do not agree with the interpretation that progress is achieved through extremes that eliminate one another. In- my opinion the model of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is a logical tool to explain the operational principles of the universe. A model of dialectic that is rich, that enables the existence of diversity and recognizes the need for symbiotic relationships, is much closer to nature’s dialectical operation and will have more explanatory power.

We should not forget and be constantly aware that, from the smallest being to the entirety of the cosmos, all entities consist of contradictions that lead to creation as well as to their reciprocal relationships and mutual influences. A creation formed thus is both a sum of the separate elements and totally different from and more than its constituent parts. This is the kind of creation that can be observed in all change and development.

Society is not an entity outside of this creation. It has the same characteristics. In short, it too continuously generates antagonistic dilemmas. Hence, it allows for new and diverse formations that encompass both constituents but that surpass their total. This concept of dialectical flange and the development of societies will yield more knowledge about concrete entities. Adopting this dialectical approach may lead to insight that will empower us to activate the potential of the free human. It will enable the development of free and responsible individuals by embodying society in the individual; as a result, the society, which has been influenced by free individuals, will become even freer. The opportunity to become free tailors the best potential and chance to equality and democratization.

I must reiterate that when I talk about the triad dynamic of the social reality i am not making a new discovery. All that I am trying to do is to tailor the dynamism of universal genesis to that of society. If I am asked for the reason behind triad dynamism, I would have to say that it is due in existence. If existence too would require an answer as to why, then the question as to why we exist comes in. However, the fact of existence is incontrovertible. In the absence of being there would be no need for such problems and questions.

If we accept being and existence, then it is meaningful to talk shout the manner of genesis. Those who focus on all the meanings of life and development of thought would have sensed that change and development arise from formation. Therefore, an extraordinary corpus has been created in the categories of mythology, religion, philosophy, and scientific thought. We obviously cannot deny such a corpus. They all are attempts to respond to the question of genesis. To this end some have employed the mythological, others the religious method; where these were insufficient, philosophy and science have come to rescue. Their functions have been similar but their responses have not. The reason, manner, and aim of genesis have continuously been questioned and each category has tried to come up with its own answer in accordance to its discipline. Science –the most ambitious discipline of all– has mnsiderably elucidated the triad dynamic of genesis. When matter-energy and particle-wave mechanics are evaluated at the quantum level, both theoretically and experimentally, it can be proven that the new formation, which is the result of these formations, bears traces of its originating dichotomy (matter-energy and particle-wave currents have universality). Thesis and antithesis continue to exist within the synthesis, while at the same time becoming different. Change maybe in the form of progress or regress. Thus. it has been shown that this is the fundamental characteristic of existence dynamics. There is no need to re-prove it.

Let us look into ourselves. The child of a given father and mother looks much like the parents, where the child carries the genes, but is also becoming different (a very slow process), and becomes a different entity that represents them. We may look at this as a grain of eternal creation. Creation is able to win the existential war in this manner. What is the existential: war? How does one remain to be? To continue to exist is to maintain itself through change. Why? Maybe to prove its existence, and to be able to guy at the divinity and magnificence of existence through change!

Here is the absurdity: Whilst we could have attained a sound logic: through observing the beings that are nearest to us, why did we –or why were we made to-become distanced to this essential truth? If we are to unravel this absurdity, then we will arrive at the fundamental issue.

I am talking about the web of narratives, disguises, and masks that have wrapped themselves around the operational characteristic of the social phenomenon since its birth. Why did communality need such mash and disguises? Why did intelligence split into emotional and analytic aspects due to this development? What were their functions? If we find the correct answers, we may be able to either interpret our communality as it is or change it the way we would like it to be. Human beings have the characteristics to interpret any given thing and change it in any way. The more interpretation and desire (or thinking and perception, and demand) correspond to creation dynamics, the better the new form’s chance to develop. However, the more they drift apart, the bigger the danger of dogmatism or of deterioration of the communality. The development of emotional and analytical intelligence is due to such problems.

I must end this section of mostly philosophical interpretation. I will focus on it in the third volume, The Sociology of Freedom. I will explain in more concrete terms:

The communality called “clan” is not a static entity. Clan society developed as our species began to differ from all the other primates. Its fundamental problem is to stay alive. In general, the primary problem of a society is to continue and defend its existence in the face of forces that wish to end it. Such a problem has existed for societies at different times and locations. Defense may at times take the form of self-defense against the various dangers and risks and thus targets defending its own existence. When at other times if there is a positive environment and there are entities that allow for symbiotic development, then positive development accelerates. Here the species, clan, or society is enriched by the material and immaterial culture. If we try to explain it through the contradiction of “I and the other” of the contemporary sociological concepts. then the I’s adopt self-defense against the other’s that constitute it danger or a risk. In the case that they defeat the other, the I’s continue to develop, or if the F5 and the other are at equilibrium, the I’s preserve their existence but their development may slow down, whereas if they are defeated then- depending on the level of their defeat-the I’s lose their existence partially or totally. In the latter case, the I’s no longer exist as itself but become the object of another entity. Or the I’s will be assimilated to continue its existence as another entity. In such a case, distorted or degenerated categories are formed.

More concretely, the society, at more simple levels of formation, has constantly struggled against environmental conditions to not fall prey to predacious animals and to protect itself against illnesses and malnourishment. Whilst dangers threaten its existence, favorable umditions lead to progress. This adventure, which has taken place mostly in Africa and the last one million years in Asia and Europe, has been elucidated, to a degree, at fundamental points. Such early communality lurmed or aggregated around the mother-woman mostly due to her communal practices and to a lesser degree to the influence of her biological characteristics. The feminine suflixed structure of early languages confirms this. One should not overlook the mother-based characteristics of society. It is important to see the mother- woman as an “administrative,” natural tenter of power due to her life experience and the raising of children. In early settlements, her appeal and pivotal position continually increases.

Fatherhood is a social relation that appeared much later, the society not knowing such a concept for most part. The concept of fatherhood has developed with patriarchy after the emergence of inheritance and the system of ownership. 30 The concepts of the child’s place of attachment or belonging, and unclehood –that is being the brother of the mother– emerged much earlier. Material needs were fulfilled through gathering and, to a lesser degree, hunting. Being a clan member was the most important assurance of life because being excluded from a clan. Or to become isolated, would most likely result in death. It is thus realistic to view the clan as a sound social nucleus. It is the original form of society.

I have continuously emphasized that after long stages of development, and due to the favorable geographical conditions (the Taurus-Zagros mountain system), the transition to the Neolithic society was made. This stage can be viewed as the zenith of mother-based society and the emergence of surplus-product potential. Social sciences mostly call this order the primitive communal system or the Old and New Stone Age. However, I believe it is more meaningful to call it a mother-based society, as there were a series of stages involved. This stage comprises almost ninety-nine percent of the total duration of human society. It should not be belittled. It is not difficult to deduce that the strong and crafty man who was always at bay-mostly idle but slowly gaining strength due to some successful hunting heads- began to strive for domination in the face of the accumulation of the surplus-product and other cultural values at the heart of the communal mother-based society.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the patriarchal society mostly consisted of the shaman, the elderly experienced sheikh, and the military commander. It may be wise to look for the prototype of a new society within such a development. With “a new society” we mean a situation where hierarchy emerges inside the clan. The immanent division is finalized when hierarchy gives rise to permanent class-formations and a state-like organization. A society acquainted with class and the state has clearly changed its qualities. The fundamental dynamic of such change is to stop considering surplus-product as gift and to turn it into a commodity that can be exchanged, bought, or sold at the market. As the triad of market, city, and trade become a permanent component within the society, the movement towards becoming a state and class formation gains momentum. I will not elaborate on how such a development has occurred at different times and locations. This new society has been referred to as classed society, urban society, and state society, slave-owned, feudal, and capitalist society in various sociological studies. Clan. urbanization. and statehood are its obvious and permanent traits, and since civilization is the epithet accorded to these eras, it may be appropriate to call it “civilized society” or in short “civilization.”

It probably has not escaped your attention that we don’t use civilization in depict elevation or progress, but rather decline and suppression of social ethics. Civilized society, when compared to the old communal mother-based values, that is, moral perception, means a huge decline. This relationship is strikingly expressed in one of the earliest languages we know of, Sumerian. The word amargi means “freedom” and, at the same time, “return to the mother and nature.” Such an identicalness established between mother, freedom, and nature is a striking and correct perception. Through the use of the word amargi, the Sumerian society. that had only just become acquainted with civilized society, wished to express the longing it felt for the old communal mother-based society from which it had not yet drifted too far away. It is quite instructive to learn what happened to the civilized society from the very first experience, the Sumerian original.

The equilibrium in the relationship between woman and man deteriorated against woman. This can best be seen in the very first attempt at writing an epic, consisting of dialogues between Inanna (the patron goddess of Uruk) and Enki (god of Eridu). This epic, written before the Epic of Gilgamesh, depicts the struggle between the communal mother-based order or society, and the hierarchic patriarchal society (the transitional society to civilization). It is clear that the process was extremely unfair and full of struggle. There are some arguments and historical data indicating that there may have been a primitive democracy at the early stages of Sumerian society. The elders’ assembly had not yet turned into a patriarchal order and the very vibrant discussions there point to a democracy of sorts. Concepts such as God’s command (in fact a principle of the one-sided military-despotic order originating from a masked person, such as the strong and crafty man) had not yet been formed. Indeed, the conversation style in the epic of Inanna is very vivid and depicts all that has happened within the society-the injustices and all the disasters that struck the women, their accumulation, and children. If there were more data available, it is highly probable that we would have been able to notice that there was also a transitional period of democracy-one that surpasses the democracy (slave-owned, classed democracy) of ancient Athens.

We can theoretically assume that the transition to both the civilized society and the democratic society formed within one another. The harsh arguments in the early elders’ assemblies are the initial reflections thereof, the footsteps of democratic society. During this stage in all societies we witness a similar contradiction: the democratic society and civilized society contradiction; or, in more understandable and concrete terms, the contradiction of state and democracy. The problem of democracy exists in all places where the state exists. And, vice verse, in all places where there is democracy, there is the risk of becoming a state. Democracy is not a type of state nor is it correct to say that a state is a form of democracy. It is important to be extremely careful about the characteristics of the relationship between the two.

This contradiction is yet another point that has been much doctored throughout time. What has developed from the heart of the old society: democracy or state? This question has lead to extensive discussions and contortion. The fact that democracy and state developed within one another denotes the struggle, contention, and wars that occurred during the process. The best-known example is the discussion and struggle for a republican democracy versus a sultanate within Islam. The Charter of Medina, drafted by the prophet Muhammad, is quite similar to The Social Contract drafted by lean-Jacques Rousseau. This can be seen clearly in the Koran and hadiths.31 However, the tribal aristocracy –and in particular the hierarchic order of the Quraysh tribe– wanted a sultanate similar to that of the Byzantines and Sassanids. The dispute already existed when the prophet Muhammad was alive. Indeed, another way to interpret the dispute between Medina and Mecca is whether the new order would be a republic (the Arabic jumhariyya means “people’s democracy”) or a sultanate (a monarchic order where power is handed over from father to son). The quarrel began as the prophet Muhammad fled Mecca in 610 BCE. The quarrel led to the killing of the prophet Ali in Kufa (a similar conflict, of a similar intensity, had raged in this city, 170 km south of Baghdad), and in 661 BCE it concluded with the pro-sultanate Muawiyah faction emerging Victoriously from the fifty-year-old dispute. At the time. the very strong tribal hierarchic order did not allow an opportunity for the republic or even a primitive democracy to flourish. I believe a sociological study of Islam from this perspective will result in quite striking and interesting results.

Another striking example from history is the case of the Persian Empire. After long discussions and disputes, the legacy of the Median Confederation was turned into an empire. The decisive role in this was played by the Aehnemenid lineage. There are many indicators that point to an intense era and resistance led by the Median priests (560-520 BCE). The story of CImnbyses is a striking example in this regard.” The establishment of the Median Confederation is an example of a typical primitive democracy at the time. The Histories of Herodotus has interesting narratives in this regard.

Another well-known example is that of the Athenian democracy. The wars waged against the Spartans, Persians, and Macedonians are a reflection of the struggle of whether to establish a democracy or an empire-kingdom. Albeit primitive and class-based, there has always been a dispute and struggle over whether the society should be a democratic or a civilized society. The quarrel in Rome over being a republic or an empire shows that even famous personalities like Caesar can be killed in such quarrels, thus signifying a severe contradiction. Examples can be multiplied and the Great French Revolution, as well as the Russian Revolution, can be expanded upon in order to further develop our understanding of, and interest in, the topic.

The French Revolution began against absolute monarchy in 1789 and resulted in a republic (radical societal democracy). It went through an extremely violent period, the so-called Terror.33 The period of the Triumvirate was followed by the era of the Napoleonic Empire. 34 To date, live republics have been declared, and the sixth is still being discussed.

The Great Russian Revolution began with a more radical democracy, the Soviet era. 35 However, it became acquainted with revolutionary dictatorship, and during the Stalin era the dictatorship became permanent. In 1989, the 20oth anniversary of French Revolution, it returned to democracy. It still wishes to develop its democracy. Hundreds of such examples have been experienced during the era of capitalistic modernism.

I presented these brief examples in order to Illustrate the web of relations between civilization and democracy. and the tense, conflicting and stormy ambiance resulting from this web.

Another important point to consider is that both new societies wish to build their existence atop the communal society. The communal society is still ongoing, continuing its existence, albeit as remnants amidst the fabric of societies. As described earlier, communal society is an irrevocable “mother cell” society, and one should not doubt its permanency that will last as longs as the human species exist. As a mother cell plays the role of nurturing and repairing the body structure, rebuilding it when necessary, the communal mother-based society continues its existence in all societies with such a duality. In democratic and civilized societies born from the communal mother-based society’s structures, and despite the conflicting, intense and at times reconciling ambiance, the communal society has not and will not disappear. I am aware that I often emphasize this, but I do so for important reasons, and it has important results which I shall continue to expose.

I continuously refer to conflict between democratic society and civilized society. However, the possibility of compromise cannot be excluded. On the contrary, compromise is essential-or rather, should have been essential. The main reason for their continuous existence, in terms of the dialectical understanding that opposites do not destroy one another, is that the one cannot exist without the other. The existence of one is possible only through the existence of the other. As I pointed out before, both democratic and civilizational breakthroughs have come from within the communal mother society. Democracy is based mostly upon the substratum majority and multitudes that have been betrayed, oppressed, and exploited mostly by the hierarchic upper-strata, whereas civilization is based mostly on the section of the upper strata that pursue the oppression, exploitation, and ideological hegemony. No doubt neither are completely isolated from one another and from the communal mother society-although intertwined, they have distinct differences.

At this point, there is a need to review our understanding of the concept of society as a whole and we should continuously remind ourselves of it. Societies should be understood to be the integral sum of classes (including hundreds of sub-groups and millions of families within each class), all communities who have not yet been subject to class division or who resist class division, global as well as local units (religions or languages, economies. tribes, nations and transnationals, chaos and order) that have love, calm, conflicting, solidarizing, and various multiple intertwined relationships and contradictions. Societies should not be understood as being unique but as the integral of sum of thousands and thousands of instances of uniqueness. Amidst this huge complexity a societal order that is closest to peace can only be created if democracy and state strike a balance. Absolute peace requires the state of having no state. While theoretically this can be envisaged, practically we are far from it.

Only a long-term democratic life that includes the entire society, even the society of the state, can lead to absolute peace. At this moment in history we can only talk about peace in terms of no-clash periods based on the equilibrium of the forces in question, that is of the state and democracy. If democracy attempts to absorb the state completely, then at this historical moment chaotic features will outweigh-as demonstrated by experiences in many countries. If the state continuously imposes the absence of democracy, then despotic dictatorship systems form and in the present historical moment this again results in chaos. Becoming civilized, also called the historical process, has continued for the past five thousand years. Democracy has had a more restricted opportunity. But society, the overwhelming majority and multitudes, has always awaited, and struggled for, democracy. Maybe thousands of years from now, although it may have a different form, state and democracy will continue to exist intertwiningly as a category.

The challenge is, just as much as dissociating state and democracy, to determine systematic rules under which they will live in coexistence without denying each other. It may be necessary to draw new types of constitutions. The present claim that the state and democracy are interwoven is totally deceptive. It cannot be more than efforts to hide one another’s detects. In the absence of overcoming this position there can be no coherent discussion on state and democracy. The two most modern revolutions, the French and the Russian Revolutions, instead of clarifying and improving the debate regarding this topic, have made it more complicated. There is an urgent need for political theory to at least determine and define a state that is open to democracy. that is. a state that does not ban real democracy or consider itself to be the epitome of democracy. Similarly. it must define a democracy that does not deny the state, that ls, a democracy that will rapidly turn into state itself and that does not continuously see the state as an obstacle to be destroyed. There is a true need for theoretical work that responds to the complexities of the practical aspects experienced. I believe that there is a need, and indeed that it is possible, to have modes of state and democracy that will be in less conflict and will improve each other’s productivity. It is in this way that we can develop the much needed and strongest political possibility. Present states essentially do not acknowledge democracy. States are extremely bulky and bulky, and democracies are like caricatures of states, extremely distorted and dysfunctional. No doubt, this is the fundamental problem of political philosophy and praxis. I will dive into these topics more extensively in the next volume, Sociology of Freedom, I am aware that I am presenting a paradigm, a theoretical framework, far different from the traditional liberal and socialist paradigms. I will attempt to elaborate on the short framework outlined above, which is a response to the question of where to situate capitalism “as a form of society.” Clearly, not only do I not consider capitalism to be a form of economy, I also do not consider it to be a form of society.

So, if it is not a form of economy and not a form of society, where capitalism then fit in? To form a clear picture, we must, above all, attempt to see the web of relations called capitalist economy within the integrity of civilized society. It is of the uttermost importance to understand that the capitalist economy is nothing but an exchange economy (or commodification) that descends on market relations and competition. It then establishes itself through monopolist acquisition by exploiting fluctuation in price and the difference in price formed in different regions. From this definition, it should be clear that it is not a sector that generates exchange value. It relates to just a trivial part of the general economic life. However, due to its strategic position, this triviality is a determinant of economic life. It is a huge amount of accumulated exchange value in the hands of a few, which puts it in a position of superior power where it can manipulate both supply and demand. In the past even the state did not possess such authority.

We understand very little about the my in which this superiority came about. but because the way it functions depends on the perpetual growth of capital. the impact its functioning has on society is bigger and more subversive than its birth. To call this revolutionary is a betrayal of society, especially of the historical, democratic society!

When will the science of political economy admit that the growth of capital (the infamous law of profit that the politicians varnish and shine invoking the sacredness of the term law) is nothing but disguised plunder? Why am I not calling the strong and crafty man a capitalist? Only because his appropriation is based overtly on power and war. War mans ambushing: it does not see the need to camouflage itself in law, religion, or any other cover. But there is a need to remunerate capitalist economy. The previous state-economy relationship depended on seizure by force; the tacit law and tradition of the hierarchy allowed looting as an inherent right –the strong crafty man was on the way to statehood. This is where the capitalist economy differs from the classical state. It is not that the state and the economy are in conflict –it is just that civilized society’s development level does not allow plunder in the form of overt looting because such plunder is no longer productive. Indeed, it stepped in the moment the slave-owning and feudal states started to become ineffective, thus grasping the opportunity to label itself “the new economic order.”

The slave-owning state monopoly of antiquity was very productive, as can still be seen from the Pharaohs’ tombs and the remnants of the Greco-Roman cities. The capitalist sector did exist at the time, but was quite restricted-the productivity of the state monopoly did not allow the sector much scope. When the slave-owning system’s labor order became unproductive, the feudal labor order became widespread. Why the slave-owning society became unproductive is not under discussion here. but let me just say that it was due to its view of life and labor, its spread over extensive areas, its enormously costly structure – including the enormous cost and exhaustion of occupying distant geographical PBSs and of enslaving humans– and the thousands of democratic and freedom struggles and rebellions, both internally and externally.

The system of legitimization and exploitation upon which the constructed civilized society (mostly the Islamic Middle East and Christian Europe) rested. differed from the one inherited from Sumer through the Greco-Roman and Egyptian civilizations. The two religions presented very strong legitimization armor and, since serfs and peasants had more say over themselves than slaves, civilized society indeed managed to renew itself. The first three centuries of Christianity (when it represented the conscience of the poor), the struggle for equality and freedom by Islam (disguised as interdenominational struggle), thus the general efforts and quests of the democratic society, played a dominant role in the renewal of civilization and its becoming more tolerable. However, that this phase was reached at all was due to the remnants of the old communal societies, the tribes and slaves that have run off, and the resistance and rebellion of the poor and not, as claimed by the ideologues of civilization, due to the sublimeness of the civilization or its honorable development.

The new legitimization tools renewed coercion and exploitation, which in turn led to the renewal of its fundamental tools: class, city, and state. In the new environment of serf- seigneur, city-market, and subject-state, the advancement of the capitalistic elements became much easier. From China to the Atlantic Ocean, towns flourished around markets allowing acceleration of commodity production as well as expansion and depth of exchange. Because of the difference in price between the markets, the monopolist merchant’s profits reached unprecedented levels. For the first time, there was a balance between the influence of town and rural area. In a way, the Islamic Civilization was a trade civilization, functioning as trading agent between the Far East and Europe. It presented Europe with all that it required for trade, both in terms of material and of immaterial culture. Other fundamental tools of civilization had been provided since antiquity. With Islam, the transporting of city, class, and state from the Middle East to Europe ends. Arabs and Jews played leading roles in this transfer-changes started by the Greco-Romans were completed by Arab and Jewish scholars, craftsmen, and merchants.

The Middle East civilization’s most important deficiency was the capitalist sector’s inability to reach beyond the city and to play a leading role in an entire country: this is why it could not achieve what Amsterdam and London did. This was mainly because of the despotic central authority, which was far more repressive than the autocratic regimes of Europe. The political structures in China and India were even more centralized and had an even more asymmetric and crushing superiority than that of the Middle East. This rule was only prolonged and strengthened by the migration and invasion of Turkish tribes and the conquests of Genghis Khan and Emir Timur. Japan remained a semi-feudal political structure, similar to that of Europe. Thus, as the sixteenth century approached, the ancient Asian civilizations did not have the strength to take a new direction. Hence, if anything were to happen, it had to be in Europe. So Europe, almost a peninsula at the western edge of Asia, was the new civilizational laboratory.

When the old civilization was brought to Western Europe, this area with its freshly established cities and inexperienced, adolescent feudalism, lay follow before the trade and capitalist sector that came with the civilization. The Europe of the time could hardly be called a civilization-Christianity succeeded in being a moral vaccine by the end of the tenth century. Had an ancient civilization such as that of the Middle East developed in Europe, the development of the capitalist civilization there would not have been certain, as new civilizations can only develop in virgin soil. The difficulties in maintaining the old and the inexperience of the new (feudalism) created a vacuum that allowed a third force to rise above the rest. Had, for example, the Arabs in Spain, the Ottomans in the Balkans, or the various tribes attacking from the south of Siberia (the last of which the Mongolian tribes) been able to establish an old-fashioned empire in Europe how would history have proceeded? So, chance also was an important factor for Europe.

These speculations are important if we want to clarify the factors that led to the birth of the capitalist sector and its hegemonic character. It should now be clear that capitalism is not an inevitable developmental stage of civilization-it is the result of the combined effects of coincidences. Sheltering in the cracks and margins of ancient civilizations, it established itself above and against the market. Through the money games it devised, by exploiting the long-haul trade and by colonial looting, it has taken more than its share. When it arose, this group of big merchant-speculators grasped the opportunity to establish its hegemony, initially over Europe through the two unassertive cities, and then over the world. It has used the opportunity well.

These speculators were a conservative group. without truly creative or inventive ideas-its only talent that of making money with money. The only social area it was resourceful in was profiting from famine and war and utilizing price disparities in different regions of the world to make more money. This was not civilization’s first introduction to money, market, city, trade, or even to banks and deposit slips-these tools were invented thousands of years earlier. Civilizational renewal did not occur out of the blue-the weight of the money factor in the civilizational history of the world (not the world’s history, that is to say, the history of the societies struggling against the civilization!) prepared the way for this. But it did not cause a fundamental change of its essence.

A striking characteristic of Europe at the beginning of the sixteenth century was that money attained the power to command everything. Indeed, money became the real master and commander: whoever had the money wielded the power. The main reason behind this was the frightening growth of commodification, urbanization, and marketing. No other empire or ruler, not even the ancient Asian powers or the Roman emperors, exercised its reign by basing itself entirely on money. If they did have any wealth anywhere around the world, these emperors would have them moved to the palace instantly. But, in sixteenth century Europe, when the capitalist sector gained one success after another, the kings begged for loans. The might of money and power had entered a new phase. For the first time, political power knelt down before money. Money had gained so much power that it could take over the political power. Napoleon’s remark about money was actually an attempt to comment on this state of affairs.

Initially, the capitalist sector took no part in production or even in small scale trading. It had nothing new to contribute to the fundamental relationships of the economy; neither did it bring anything creative to commodification or exchange, which had been in existence for millennia. Thus, its only skills lay in discovering how to use the power of money, turning money into capital, and the art of making money with money. And let us not forget that these merchants masterfully sniffed out the routes, towns, countries, and markets where the most money was to be made and that they were the experts on the networks through which money and goods were circulated.

We would be mistaken if we thought that Europe came under the command of money due to the mastery of this group of merchants. The facts that we have reviewed show that its role in this civilizational development is but marginal. For money and market to give rise to the capitalist economic sector is not inevitable. In fact, Asian civilizations had money and market power long before Europe; had there been a direct causal relationship between these factors and the capitalist economy, capitalism would have been generated there. The victory of capitalism cannot be attributed to science, arts. religion, and philosophy either; on the contrary, these disciplines have always been suspicious of and opposed to it.

Something that I have always tried to remind: How was it possible that the power held by the woman fell into the hands of the male, who was not very productive or creative? Why did the woman become so miserable and fell captive in his hands? The answer, of course, lies in the use of force. When, besides the leading position in the family-clan, the economy was taken from her too. atrocious captivity was inevitable. She has been convinced to cease to be herself. In fact, it is more horrific to be the housewife of the strong man. A comparison of this instance of usurpation to that of the power that money as capital has gained over the entire society is quite instructive.

Admitting its attainment of the commanding power is also an admission that money is no longer an economic phenomenon. The brilliant historian Fernand Braudel makes a most significant statement when declaring that capitalism is anti-market and hence anti-economy, even non-economy –an opinion that I share. Capitalism, which suffocates everything in the economy, is the sworn enemy of economy. Let me repeat: Capitalism is not economy, but the sworn enemy of economy. I shall later discuss this in more depth. Is finance economy? What about global finance? Environmental disasters? Is unemployment an economic problem? Are banks, deposit slips, exchange and interest rates economy? Is production for the sole purpose of profit, growing like cancer, economy? We can increase the list of questions, but there is only one answer to them all: No. Money-capital is no more than a pretext for attaining power. No new economic forms, capitalist community formats, or even a capitalist civilization has been generated through the fraudulent games of money-capital. Instead, the society was seized; an unprecedented act in history. A seizure not only of the economic power, but of all cultural power, including political, military, religious, moral, scientific, philosophical, artistic. historically accumulated material, and immaterial power. Capitalism is the most advanced hegemony and power in history. If you examine the last four hundred years, the Age of Capitalism, can you find a single cell or tissue related to society that capital has not taken under its hegemony, not established its power over?

The crafty English sociologist Anthony Giddens talks about the three discontinuities of modernity, namely the capitalist mode of production, nation-state, and industry. 36 His definition of modernity, based on these three discontinuities, seems realistic. But he surely must realize that what he is really doing is theorizing a new stage of the salvation of capitalism in its homeland: another attempt at theorizing capitalism as eternal. So, where right-wing liberalism proclaims it to be the end of time, left-wing liberalism eternalizes it. Thus, once again, with its last global assault, capitalism attempts to imprint upon us that it will exist forever.

In the next section, as I evaluate modernity, I will continue my analysis of capitalism- especially in terms of the nation-state and industrialism. I will try to track it down to the bases of its power. I will show how capitalism, whose aim from the very start was to become a global power, used the nation-state and industrialism, supported by a synthesis of various modes of explanation, to succeed in this. This new Leviathan’s first task was to break down the existing modes of explanation in order to render it difficult to understand –a fragmented explanation is an incomplete explanation. My method may be seen as unusual, but I believe that it will render a competent analysis, and thus knowledge, of social relations. The subtitle of this section, “The Thief in the House,” is inspired by Braudel’s description of capitalism’s “real home” as the zone of the anti-market, where the great predators roam and the law of the jungle operates.37 This description evokes in me images of the underground palaces where the Sumerian god Enki and the Greek god Hades played their power games, shrouded in invisibility. As the kings and gods of capitalism do not feel the need to mask the power games that they play, “At the palace of the naked king, the unmasked god and the Commander Money” is a fitting subtitle.

Notes

29. When analyzing the reciprocal role of the capitalist sector in terms of its act to shape society, I will approach the question of social formats more concretely. [A.O.]

30. The establishment of wealth and private property gave rise to patriarchal societies. Instead of being passed on to the next generation of children, property and wealth were passed down through the line of the patriarch, or father. In order to ensure a rightful heir, a woman’s sexuality had to be controlled.

31. A hadith is a saying that is attributed to Mohammad and a part of Muslim tradition.

32. “According to the Greek historian Herodotus, Cambyses misinterpreted a dream as meaning that his brother Smerdis was plotting against him, and had Smerdis secretly murdered. To Cambyses’s horror, though, a priest –who happened to be named Smerdis too, and happened to look exactly like the dead Smerdis– now seized the throne, pretending to be the real Smerdis. Cambyses jumped onto his horse to rush home and reveal the fraud (and the fact that he had murdered his own brother) but accidentally stabbed himself in the thigh and died. Meanwhile, Fake Smerdis was exposed when one of his wives discovered that he had no ears (Fake Smerdis‘s ears having been cut off as punishment sometime earlier). Seven noblemen then murdered False Smerdis and held a contest for the throne: each plotter brought his horse to a chosen place. the plan being that whoever’s horse neighed first when the sun rose would become king. Darius won (he cheated). Most historians suspect that Darius actually murdered the genuine Smerdis and overthrew a priestly clique around him.” Ian Morris, Why the West Rules-for Now: The Patterns of History and What They Reveal About the Future (London: Profile Books, 2010), 249.

33. The Reign of Terror, which was marked by mass executions of the “enemies of the revolution,” span from 5 September 1793 to 28 July 1794.

34. During the Terror, Robespierre, Louis de Saint-Just, and Couthon were alleged to have formed an unofficial triumvirate (a political regime dominated by three powerful individuals) which was used against them in the coup of 9 Thermidor.

35. Soviet literally means “council,” a body of elected representatives. During the early twentieth century, soviet became synonymous with the socialist-leaning councils of workers, peasants and soldiers during the 1905 revolution.

36. Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1990), 4-10.

37. Fernand Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism: 15th-18th century, vol. 1 (New York: Harper 8c Row, 1982), 229-230.