2.3 Capitalism in Relation to Society, Civilization, and History

How can we come to an adequate understanding and interpretation of the capitalist system (which is clearly not economy, but is indeed anti-economy)? Where exactly should we situate it in terms of location and time within the social and civilizational reality? We can only reach a meaningful conclusion with regard to capitalism by probing into the actions and conflicts between and amongst the civilizational forces and systems, and the actions and wars led by the anti-civilizational forces against these.

If I am repetitive, I apologize; however, I believe a summary is needed here so that I can present a complete picture.

The Primitive Communal Era

Until about 20,000 years ago

The foundations of the economic culture were laid during the matriarchal Primitive Communal Order.5 Food attained from gathering and hunting was consumed immediately and by-products such as fur and fiber were used extensively. The regulatory authority of the clan was predominantly the woman-mother-the initial, but motherly, hegemon. Conflicts and relationships forming inside the clan society occurred mainly to protect the clan from the dangerous environmental conditions, and to benefit from those environmental conditions that offer nutrition. Under such conditions the clan identity was vital and indispensable. As yet, the concept of husband and wife did not exist. The mother that bore the child was recognized, but who the father was of so little importance that it was usually not known. The clan took shelter on riverbanks, in caves, and sometimes sheds. As yet, concepts such as homeland, borders, and property did not exist. Belonging was identified only with the clan. Clanship was symbolized by some object or totem.

This appears to have been the life-style for at least two million years in Africa and about one million in Asia and Europe. This life-style was the basis of human society for 98.5% of its existence; thus, out of all the social orders, this lasted the longest by far. The entire human race lived under this social order, and at the end of the last glacial period made the transition to the Neolithic era-although the level of development differed from region to region.

The Neolithic Era

Ca. 15.000 to ca. 4,000 BCE

As the last glacial period ended, approximately 17,000 years ago, the Mesolithic (or the Middle Stone Age) Period began. It was of short duration, and after this period the transition to a historically important stage, the Neolithic (or New Stone Age) Period was made. Although termed “Neolithic” (because of the “new” tools made from polished stone and obsidian) the essence of this era is the agricultural and village revolution that developed on the slopes of the Taurus-Zagros Mountains. Archaeological evidence indicates that this society developed ca. 10,000 years ago, probably due to the favorable weather conditions in these parts. The beneficial weather induced an abundance of flora and fauna that were then domesticated, forming the heart of the new culture of agriculture. This led to improved nutrition as well as the development of weaving and, ca. 6,000 BCE, pottery. The transition from cave life to village life was made and, especially in the crescent formed by the mountains that stretched from the eastern Mediterranean to Zagros, the transition to the cultural period of Tell Halaf began.6

The main locus of this development was Upper Mesopotamia, where society entered a period during which new inventions of production tools and methods flourished-the “industrial period” of the Neolithic. The mother-woman rose to the level of mother –goddess in this culture– most likely she played the decisive role in the construction of the new society –and the matriarchal order left its mark on clan society. Conflict with the male slowly began to develop.

Due to geological and climatic changes the groups now referred to as Semites could no longer easily make the crossing from the south into Asia and Europe over this main region (a factor that must have played an important role in the shaping of the Semitic culture). Neither could any groups from the north enter this region with ease any longer. While one of their branches made it to the American continent (presumably over the Bering Strait around 12,000-7,000 BCE), the rest spread over China. Central Asia. and Eastern Europe. The Indo-European group in the middle came to play a leading role due to favorable weather and nutritional conditions, while the group in the Fertile Crescent became the dominant group; this was a position that they maintained for a very long time –indeed, until the onset of the civilizational phase.

The Fertile Crescent culture was here to stay –and to spread. It expanded to Lower Mesopotamia ca. 6,000 BCE, to the Egyptian Nile valley ca. 5,000 BCE, and to the Balkans, Iran, and northern Black Sea, as well as to Europe and China ca. 4,000 BCE. Although much commentary is made about the Chinese Neolithic that developed by their own dynamics, my personal belief is that they rested predominantly on the transmitted culture of Upper Mesopotamia. This belief is reinforced by archaeological evidence regarding the spread of cattle husbandry and the use of obsidians. Of course, since we are talking about very long periods of time, each main region also had the opportunity to develop its own Neolithic Period, but all the prominent signs point to the Fertile Crescent as the focus of the initial cultural spark. The expansion was not based on colonialism or occupation –the vast, free fields did not allow for such relations.

This initial global movement has left its permanent mark on the world and continues to
influence it.

The Sumerian Civilizational Era

Ca. 4, GOO-2,000 BCE

A new phase, the Ubaid cultural period, prevailed in Lower Mesopotamia from ca. 5,500 to 3,800 BCE.7 Although it rested upon the Fertile Crescent culture (mainly that of Tell Halaf), this period is of historical importance in its own right because it started the transition toward patriarchal society, development in pottery, the growing importance of trade, and the onset of the era of invasion and colonization. It can be called the Proto-Uruk culture. Of special importance are the emergence of the patriarchal society in this era (as it is pre- civilization) and the concomitant loss of the preeminence of the goddess culture and women being coerced into recognizing men’s superiority. A major development in hierarchical rule occurred when, in this culture, the tripartite structure of traditional civilization’s rule declared itself for the first time in rudimentary form. It was namely in the Ubaid cultural period that the combination rule of the shaman (a type of priest), the sheikh (experienced ruler of the society), and military chief (who has the physical power) first took root. (The religious, political, and military culture of the Middle East carries deep traces of this period!)

This was a prolific culture and by 4,500 BCE its effects were felt in Upper Mesopotamia It subdued the Tell Halaf culture; it “colonized” it, as it were. Archaeological data indicates that by 4,000 BCE Ubaid trade “colonies” existed as far as Arslantepe, Malatya, and Elamg in eastern Anatolia. With dynasties, the culture of extended families also spread. These elements did not exist in the previous culture. The trade culture was here to stay. There are also traces of destructive activities. Archaeological remnants of some destroyed villages denote occurrences of deliberate destruction and invasion. With this culture came the first serious assertion of hegemony.

The period between 4,000 and 3,000 BCE is now widely referred to as the Uruk cultural period. The Uruk culture based itself on the Ubaid culture –the major difference being the emergence of the first city-class-state society, hence the onset of civilization and written history. And, of course, the transition from the patriarchal to the civilizational culture was a major historical event. The fundamental agent of change was the artificial-irrigation necessitated by the Lower Mesopotamian climate. This method of irrigation required a big population and irrigation tools –two important prerequisites for urbanization. Such a large population of workers brought the question of sustenance and the craftsmanship required to produce the irrigation tools. Settlements thus had to be city-sized but this, in turn, necessitated solutions to the questions of city administration and the legitimization of the administration itself. Moreover, there was a need for protection from ongoing predatory tribal attacks. When those conditions occurred together the tripartite consisting of the priest, the ruler-king, and the military commander was born. The Epic of Gilgamesh, dedicated to the first Uruk king, reflects this historical development in a most striking and effective way.

We can consider class division as predominantly the product of urbanization. The urban society surpasses the tribal and dynastic units. Moreover, because of the inherent conflicting nature of the hierarchical and patriarchal administrations, a huge part of the population more than likely even that of nature. Based on this. and in particular on the reflective language used. new meanings were derived and people were persuaded and life was blessedly lived in this new legitimized world. In the face of this ideological rebirth, the question, “Is there a real, material (physical) birth?” has almost lost its meaning, or, even if it is seen to be meaningful, it shall be portrayed differently.

The Uruk revolution, as the initial urban revolution, is as important as the agricultural revolution. There were many later derivatives. It is true that there were also urban revolutions in China and in Central America. But they were localized cultures that were either unable to form a main civilizational river or dried up in their own place of birth. The main condition for being a civilization is to either be the main stream or to be able to join the main stream. There are no pure civilizations. Besides, behind the Uruk culture was the ten-thousand-year-old Neolithic heritage.

This new culture is called the “civilization.” This can be interpreted to mean urban. We have thus defined the whole civilization by defining its material and immaterial structures and the manner in which these were reflected. Structurally, the Uruk culture was expansionist. The cities grew in many ways due to increased productivity. In turn, the increase in population led to the emergence of many neighboring cities. Formerly, the Fertile Crescent’s village culture had led to villages becoming widely established. The early villages spread out from Nevala Cori (Urfa, Siverek at the banks of Euphrates) to Cayonii (Diyarbakir, Ergani at the banks of a branch of the Tigris). From there it spread to Cemé Hallan (near Batman Creek) and all the way to Kirkuk (since 10,000 BCE). This is exactly what is meant with the blooming of cultures. The Uruk acculturation followed the same path.

The growing number of cities meant increased competition. City, at the same time, meant market, and so the new culture carried competition along with itself. Trade had already become a favorite occupation, and an agriculture and transportation industry had emerged under the leadership of craftsmen. Now the rivalry between cities would naturally put the question of hegemony on the agenda. Hence, the transition from city-state to primitive empire (the rule of all the cities by the same person or dynasty) would soon impose itself.

The trade needs of Uruk brought the Neolithic region into the civilizational and colonization phase early on. My understanding of the available data is that, following the colonies of Ubaid culture, Uruk’s expansion area and colonizing activities were more developed.Especially advanced were the Uruk colonies that were found on the banks of the EuphratesRiver. Archaeological findings also prove the existence of the Upper Mesopotamian culture,which had not stopped developing since the Tell Halaf culture. This culture rebelled against the Uruk colonization movement (3,500 BCE) but at the same time, there were mutual dealings between the two cultures. Numerous mound excavations prove the urbanization of this region around 3,000 BCE, a development that resulted from its strong internal dynamics.

The increasing number of findings suggest that the urban culture was transmitted to Lower Mesopotamia-as it was to Egypt, Elam, and Harappa-from the main regional source. In particular, the recent excavation of Gobeklitepe near Urfa (Klaus Schmidt and his team established its time of origin to be ca. 10,000 BCE) led to findings that may change present- day convictions. The remnants of a structure (most probably a temple) of vast dimensions were found. Although the significance of the erected stones is not clear, what is clear is that the structure reflects an advanced culture. New studies may well reveal some other settlement as the cultural center.

Only a very strong culture would have been able to respond successfully to this Uruk expansion. Previously, the culture of this region had resisted another cultural expansion (the Ubaid culture, which most likely started ca. 5,500 BCE) and maintained its own culture. The permanence of the cultural structure in the region can be explained by the continued resistance to the migration from the south and north throughout the Mesolithic and Neolithic Periods. This reality (that is, the dissolution of Uruk culture within the local culture) is indicative of the strength of the opposing culture-a situation that has continued to date. Uruk’s superiority lay in its production and its state-power, derived from its huge population. In fact, here we almost have the original model for the Netherlands and England.

My personal interpretation is that the cultures of Egypt, Elam (present day southwest Iran), and Upper Mesopotamia successfully responded to the Ubaid and Uruk expansions by creating their own urban culture. As u matter of fact. more and more archaeological findings indicate that urbanization in these three historical centers accelerated from ca. 3,000 BCE, enriching the development of the civilization.

What happened in the urban and rural regions around Uruk is more important. We know from history that the Uruk Cultural Era ended ca. 3.000 BCE and that a new period began with the First Dynasty of Ur, a development probably resulting from intense urban conflict. Indeed, this is what the tablets tell us: hymns like “The Nippur Lament” and “The Curse of Akkad” are all elegies focusing on the fate of these devastated cities. (How this resembles the events in Baghdad and the surrounding areas!) The period of the First and Second Dynasty of Ur continued till 2.350 BCE. Around 2,350-2,150 the Dynasty of Akkad was founded by the infamous Sargon. Sargon, who can be described as the very first emperor, proudly boasted about how he was able to construct his hegemony, indeed empire, all over the Fertile Crescent by waging his bloody wars –terrible atrocities told as if they were tales of honorable deeds. He is said to be of Amorite origin and according to the Sumerian list of kings he himself was the builder of his capital, Agade (Akkad). But ca. 2,150 BCE others with Zagros origins destroyed Akkad under the leadership of Gudea, who then founded his own dynasty, the Second Dynasty of Lagash. At about 2,050 li( 213, this dynasty also fell apart. It was replaced by the Third Dynasty of Ur, which existed for only a hundred years. When the clock of history pointed at 1,950 BCE, it was the beginning of the magnificent Babylonian Era.

In the battle between the cities an interesting contradiction occurred. The society mainly responsible for the creation of civilization, its main source, was the Sumerian civilization. Its point of origin probably was the Fertile Crescent, but it seemed to have become a people, a society, firmly settled in its new location. Their language differed from that of their two neighbors, the Amorites and Gutians. Although there were many words they shared, Sumerian was closer to the Aryan language group and differed distinctly from these languages with their Semitic roots. The attacks of the Semitic Amorite tribes were frequent. In fact, the city of Akkad, the Dynasty of Akkad, and Sargon were all of Semitic Amorite origin. (According to the Sargon legend, Sargon grew up in the Sumerian city castles and took part in their administration before making himself king of the Sumerian city-state of Klsh and subsequently set out to conquer the other Sumerian city-states.) The Gutians saw the Sumerians mainly as allies even though they were Aryans who initially came from Zagros. What is really interesting is that there is an extremely similar situation in today’s Iraq.

As a result, the emergence and development of civilization as a system, up until the beginning of the second millennium BCE, was characterized by bloodshed, ubiquitous exploitation, the construction and destruction of cities, the formation of alliances, colonization, and the establishment of hegemony. The slaves worked the moist, fertile land solely for their daily feed. But with the development of agriculture, trade, and craftsmanship, in the neighboring cities and the Neolithic regions, they produced a huge surplus product. With such production at its disposal, the civilizational system, based on this material culture, constructed a magnificent immaterial culture in which its own clique of rulers was elevated to gods. The slaves who worked the land, the producers of the surplus, were belittled; they were reduced to the excrement of the gods. It must be well understood that this was how the creation legends depicted material life.

The real creator, the woman-goddess, was reduced to a being created from the right rib of the male-the legends’ clear and striking reflection of mother-woman’s dependency.

Thenceforth, life would be analyzed and understood according to the language of these legends.

The true material life has not been able to create its own language and interpretation. At times it might attempt, vaguely, to mention the truth of former times. But because no one will understand, the true material life will thus continuously experience an absence of meaning and muteness. Let us not forget: the language of truth and its ability to express itself has not yet been created!

The Babylonian and Assyrian Civilizational Era

Ca. 2,000 BCE to ca. 300 BCE

These two civilizations, which brought about very specific changes, appeared in different times and at different locations.8 However, their appearance in history and their complete cessation from the rule of the Sumerian dynasties make them more significant in terms of culture and contemporaneousness. On the strength of the similarities between the two languages and cultures and from indications in surviving texts, we can assume that they were of Semitic (specifically Amorite) origin and shared a common civilizational heritage with the Akkadian Dynasty.9 The last moments of the glorious Sumerian era were lived in the ancient city of Nippur, the most important spiritual and cultural center of Sumer (and probably the first city to provide an academic education).10 Nippur went through periods of decline in importance. The new city that emerged nearby, under Akkadian cultural and linguistic influence, was Babylon (1,790-1,750 BCE).

The emergence of this city can be seen as the beginning of the new civilizational era.11 In fact, with the fall of Sumer’s last and Third Dynasty of Ur at the dawn of the second millennium, the new status quo became clearer as the hegemony of the Mesopotamian cities passed to Babylonian rule. The Akkadian language attained importance as the new civilizational language, making its presence felt throughout the civilizational region as the language of hegemony and trade. In time, it became the Aramaic language, the lingua franca with which all civilized people communicated with one another, playing much the same role as English today.

The Akkadian culture, in civilizational terms, inherited the contents of the Sumerian culture. The transformation in mythology can best be seen in the elevation of the god Marduk. In the most important myth from the period, the creation myth Enama Eli’s, Marduk is elevated to main god and the woman-goddess is vilified completely. Thus, the new religion symbolized and deified the male-dominated culture.

The Greek equivalent of Marduk is Zeus and his Roman counterpart is Jupiter; his equivalent in the Indo-European culture is Gudea (Gott or God of the Germanic peoples and Xwedé of the Kurds both have the same Aryan root); and, in the Arabic culture it is Allah, Brahman in the Indian, and Tao in the Chinese culture. These male gods all represent the same divine generation. The commonality of civilizational phases and the cultural similarities are displayed most dramatically in the names given to the gods representing the various societies. It is no coincidence that these gods –and even their names– all made their first appearance around 2,000 BCE. This is due to the deeply rooted and common culture that lies at their foundation. Thus, the male dominated culture in symbolized form (the seizure of the mother-woman and her house economy by the tyrannous, cunning male) is deified. The mother-goddess –called Star by the Aryans, Inanna by the Sumerians, Kibele by the Hittites, Ishtar by the Semites. And Kali by the Indian cultures-gradually fades away while the male- gods are exalted. The years around 2,000 BCE also signify a defeat and belittling, reflected in culture and language, as the woman is pulled down to society’s basement. Her enslavement occurs even before man and tribe are enslaved within the material and immaterial culture of the civilization. The cursed slavery to which she has been subjected ever since is the most profound –the deadliest, most humiliating– enslavement of all enslavements. Indeed, the institution of housewifization and patriarch (giving the man-husband unlimited power over the woman) emerged from this cultural foundation. The continuation of this status of women in the Arabic and other Middle Eastern societies that share this cultural foundation attests to this. Honor crimes are only a small element of this culture.

The Babylonian city stands out in history because of some of its characteristics. In the first place, it absorbed the entire culture of Nippur, the last of the Sumerian cities. Thus, it can be deduced that it channeled the cultural accumulation and prominent people of all the contemporary societies to Babylonia at its empire-forming stage. Indeed, the famous tower of Babel and the “seventy-two languages” present there cannot be anything but truth turned into legend. Hammurabi was the most famous emperor of Babylon and, after Sargon, the second known emperor in history. Although the Code of Hammurabi might have been a continuation of a previous tradition of codes, its influence and the mark it has left on history is of primary importance. The “Law of God” and “code of law” of the civilizational culture most certainly carries traces of the Hammurabian period. After Hammurabi waged a series of bloody wars the Babylonian Empire came to dominate all the surrounding cities and imposed its hegemony on the neighboring tribal cultures, as well as those within its own borders.

The Old Testament tells the story of the Prophet Abraham’s escape, or exodus, from Ur (today’s Urfa). This escape seems to be closely related to the tyranny of the Babylonian Nimrod. Indications are that Hammurabi’s reign was from about 1,700 to 1,650 BCE. Since the Prophet Abraham’s exodus probably occurred in about the same period, we can well understand the contention between Abraham and Nimrod.

The tribe led by Abraham was one of the many in the region subjugated by Hammurabi that subsisted on agriculture, animal husbandry, and trade. Just as today, there were numerous transitional societies in this region that were influenced by cultures of both Aryan and Semitic origin.

The symbolic value of the partly-religious, partly-mythological story of Abraham and his tribe is widely acknowledged. The fact that the Prophet Abraham is considered to be the founding father of the three monotheistic religions and that he has not left a single religion unaffected attests to its importance. One might expect that many tribes and cities, along with Hammurabi, resisted the Babylonian Nimrods, who at the time reached a period of their utmost authoritarianism. Tribes and even villages and cities still under strong influence of the communal life will resist and rebel against the imposition of empires in the name of whatever god. Societies that have not yet known any form of slavery are enslaved only with great difficulty. They may even prefer total annihilation to enslavement. There are many such examples in history.

The Abrahamic religion and narratives represent this anti-Nimrod resistance culture. This resistance culture can initially be discerned against the background of the Babylonian Empire at around 1,700 BCE. The second source-and branch-is the narratives around the Prophet Moses and his opposition to the Egyptian Pharaohs at the end of the thirteenth century BCE. They tell the resistance story of communities that were partly enslaved but, in the tradition of the Prophet Abraham, rejected the culture represented by the Egyptian Pharaoh. The sum of these narratives constitutes the Biblical tradition. In the long run, and increasingly, it constituted itself as a new culture against the Nimrods and Pharaohs, the strong rulers of the time who represented themselves as the god-kings. After the Prophet Moses, this tradition was represented by even more powerful priests (including those in the tradition of the High Priest which began with Aaron the brother of Moses, followed by Samuel, Isaiah and others). Later, roughly during the years 1,020 to 900 BCE, the Hebrew tribes built a strong kingdom in what is today’s Israel and Palestinian territories under the leadership of the Prophets David and Solomon. In the absence of a careful interpretation of the movement and influence of the Hebrew tribe throughout history we shall not be able to understand and analyze civilizational history and the various forms of resistance and rebellion –the ideological, mythological, philosophic, religious, political, physical, economic, tribal, and national movements-against it.

In 1,596 BCE, the first Babylonian period was ended by the Kassites, a people of Hittite and Hurrian origin. The interesting and important thing here is the alliance formed between the Kassites and the Hittites. This is seldom studied by historians. However, it is important to do so if we want to understand the history of the peoples of the region. Not only could it not have been that easy to defeat such a strong cultural, political, and military tradition as that of the Babylonians; it would also have required a very strong counter-culture. Resistance in the Abrahamic tradition entailed hijra –that is, they escaped; it only turned into political power where there was a power-vacuum. The tradition formed in the Taurus-Zagros region, around about the time of Uruk and Ur, is of vital importance. The last example of these, the Zagros tribal federations, was represented by Gudea who brought down the Akkadian Empire at around 2,150 BCE. (Interestingly, the name Gudea, a priest-king of the independent state Lagash during the Guti reign, is the same as that of the word for the main god of the Aryans; it seems that he entered a kind of counter-civilizational process.)

Although historiography never mentions such a tradition, a thorough analysis of the tradition (that is, of the tribal federation) formed at the Zagros-Taurus area is crucial. It was the people from this area who were the creators of a more settled agricultural culture and the construction of a tight village network. They were on the brink of urbanization, could even have achieved it (the huge temple hills of Gobeklitepe near Urfa certainly suggest this). Those that created a culture such as this about 10,000 BCE could surely have created an urban culture more advanced than that of Uruk and Ur. A society with such a sophisticated architecture and mythology could have created a society surpassing that of Ubaid’s cultural colonies and the political and trade colonies of Uruk and Ur.

It is also highly probable that a wide variety of tribal communities resisted colonization and constructed a federation against the common danger, after which they formed a more permanent political unity. These communities (whom the Sumerians in 3,000 BCE called Hurrians) constructed two strong political unities at about 1.650 BCB. One, the Hittites, had two centers, namely Kanish and Hatushas. The second unity, the Mitanni, was centered at Washukkani (or Xweshkani: “good and pretty fountains”) located at modern Ceylanpinar and Serekani that fall within the borders of Turkey and Syria respectively. As indicated by many ancient documents, the Mitanni had expanded from Kirkuk (In the Zagros) to the Nur Mountains. After those of Egypt and the Hittites, theirs was the third biggest political and cultural power of the time. They shared a common culture and language with the Hittites. The two communities had strong blood ties and political marriages were common. The Hittite emperor Suppiluliuma, who ruled from 1,344 to 1,322 BCE, is rumored to have told a Mitanni prince “I gave you the hand of my daughter; come now so that we can rule the region together.” Many Egyptian hieroglyphs attest to Mitanni power, as do the many Mitanni brides in the palaces of Egypt (amongst them the famous Nefertiti).

Puduhepa, the famous Hittite queen with Hurrian roots, was the last representative of the woman’s trail on the culture of the region. The Getis and Kassites, as well as the Mittani as the new political formation, reflected the subdivisions of the Hurrians.12 The word Hurrian is derived from the Sumerian word for “highlanders.” The kings and princes of the Hittite state apparently all had Hurrian names and married Hurrian princesses. Personally, I think that while the Mitanni were a political unity or a confederation-like formation formed at the southern skirts of Fertile Crescent, another branch of the Hurrian community organized themselves as the Hittites in the north all the way to the Black Sea mountains and the northern Taurus region, representing themselves as a strong state or even a primitive empire. The cultural background, their kinship, diplomatic relations, and more importantly the Hittite-Kassite alliance may be seen as the affirming elements. It could be said that this cultural resistance in the north and the political unity it has thus developed heralded the end of the first Babylonian period. Babylonia in its second period (1,600-1,300 BCE) continued to exist either under the hegemony of this political unity or under some settlement where they ruled together. It was the most magnificent cultural and trade center of its time, much like today’s Paris.

The Babylonian culture has profoundly influenced the three Sacred Books. It has left its mark in many areas. it can also be defined as a trade depot, regional market, and university city. One can easily describe it as the international (or rather, the inter-peoples and inter- denominations) center of the then civilization. All of the political, commercial, and intelligence games developed in Babylonia. One should not neglect its role as the center of conspiracies. Its depiction in the Sacred Book is striking. In short, it duly played its role as a civilizational center. From this perspective, it is much like today’s London.

The third Babylonian period (610-330 BCE) began as an alliance established with the Medes when Nineveh was wiped off the map around 612 BCE and ended with the invasion of the region by Alexander around 330 BCE. It was the last big empire of Mesopotamia and it gradually lost its role as the civilizational center. It is as though it suffered from fatigue after 15,000 years of being the leading power in the development of the culture of humanity in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and spreading this culture to all continents. And as if, with much hope, it is preparing for a new period today. The Assyrian era can also be divided into three periods. This was the strongest political, military, and trade power in ancient history. It was the main link between the Sumerian and the Greco-Roman civilization. It is remembered for tyranny, bloodshed, and creative trading and its destruction was celebrated as a holiday by all the peoples of the Middle East (including its own people) because it marked the end of Nimrod- and Pharaoh-like despotism.

Its first period (2,000-1,600 BCE) embodied the emergence of the trade aristocracy and, strikingly, the merchant and the political power were frequently represented by the monopoly of same person. It could be said that the political and trade power monopolies were first constructed by the Assyrian communities. They rested on the trade accumulation of Ubaid, Uruk, Ur, and Babylonia and developed trade in all civilizational areas and with neighboring Neolithic villages and nomadic communities. Establishing trade colonies in important centers, they were the first ones to work as independent capitulationists and had widespread networks of trade routes. It can easily be surmised that they used violence ruthlessly in order to secure all these strategic relations. Nineveh, much like Amsterdam, was smothered with riches, silver and gold. lust as Amsterdam was rivaled with Paris. Nineveh was rivaled only with Babylonia. Both had expended much effort to influence and dominate the other. Hence the economic, commercial, political, and military clashes were plentiful, yet neither ruled the other.

The second period was during the rule of the Mitanni-Babylonian alliance (1,600-1,300 BCE) when the role of trade remained preeminent. it was during the third period (1,300-600 BCE) that their military and political power was really built up and they became the most terrifying power of the time. They invaded everywhere, including Egypt, with the notable exception of Urartu. This was possibly the bloodiest manifestation of civilization as can be seen, for example, in the devastation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was a global power similar to that of today’s USA. The egoism inherent in all empires was most developed in the Assyrian Empire. They repudiated the culture of living together, compromise, and peace. Their role in the creation of the tradition of empire cannot be underestimated.

The decisive role in their destruction lies with the people of Hurrian origin. It is known that for a long time the Mitanni cracked down on the Assyrians (1,600-1,300 BCE). Although they brought down the Mitanni, they could not end the resistance of the people of Hurrian origin. The tribal communities known as the Nairi (Assyrian for “people of the water”) resisted Assyrian rule for a long time (1,200-900 BCE), much like the present day tribal confederacies in the Kurdish area previously known as Botan. Later, the political union Urartu came to the fore and they resisted Asur from 870 BCE until this union was destroyed in 610 BCE. This 300-year-old resistance became a very strong political formation with the present-day city of Van as its center, and left its mark on history. It is highly probable that there was a mixed political superstructure and that initially the Assyrian language would have been dominant. It is thought that a language with elements of Hurrian, Armenian, and Caucasian languages might have been used, a language structure which would have reflected the mosaic of the resistance. Most probably through a strong political formation and by acting in unison against the common danger they preserved their existence. The Scythians of Caucasian roots are also quite active at the time. The Urartu were the masters of iron and bronze. developing both weaponry and cooking utensils. Their superiority in castle construction and architecture signifies their importance even better. The Urartu state. although not the one that finally defeated the Assyrians, certainly had done most of the damage. It left a mark that cannot be easily erased from civilizational history. The alliance between the Median Confederation and the Babylonian city-state (a result of a long-term diplomacy by Babylonia and efforts of the Median Magi priests) in 612 BCE finally defeated the Assyrians. This heralded the start of the Median Period and the third Babylonian Period.

The most important observation to be made from the Assyrian civilization is the strong interdependence of trade monopoly and political monopoly, and the reliance of these monopolies on war. It is one of the most important stages of political and trade monopoly in civilizational history. We can conclude that the initial central link between the Egyptian, Chinese, and Indian civilizations was established by the Assyrian trade monopolies well before the Persian Empire had established any such link They had created a commercial world, a sort of globalization in its own time.

Once again it becomes clear that commercial monopoly is not economy. There is rather an external imposition of a regime of terror on the economy in order to seize what has been created and accumulated by the peoples and tribes. It is also clear that without a state there can be no commercial monopoly. The previous political monopolies were all a type of slavery-based agriculture but now, for the first time, trade had reached the level of agriculture. If we equate commercial monopoly with capitalism, then it will follow that commercial monopoly is a more effective exploitative power than the political monopoly that seizes the surplus product of agriculture. Trade, rather than agriculture, leads to and stimulates empire as a form of administration or government. A simple example is that of road safety; this is a requirement for long-haul trade and it can only be secured by an empire. There can be no doubt that its focus on violence led to the development of, and became inextricably linked to, the resistance of society to the new economic impositions.

Agriculture, the market, small-trade, craftsmanship and numerous independent private sectors are clearly contributing to economy. In all of these areas human labor has proven its value in advancing productivity. It is therefore not so difficult to see that there is absolutely no need for political, military, or commercial economic monopoly. if the Assyrians had not existed would economy have come to a complete halt? On the contrary, it is most probable that a peaceful environment would have led to a different and positive economic life. The state, as an anti-democracy administration, is not only not necessary, it is also a power that destroys society and economy through its bureaucracy, its wars, and its plunder. I am not talking about the importance of the city and of stratification or, for that matter, their necessity. However, I question the relationship between the despotic power (which has disguised itself under divine and ideological covers and has built a firm military and political wall around itself) and civilization. Even if there were some positive aspects to urbanization, I would like to repeat myself by showing how civilization has become so negative through the most backward and conservative barriers. Administrative coordination and usurpation by monopolists are not the same.

I want to emphasize that the interdependency of political, commercial, and economical monopolies is not unique to capitalism, but that it has existed since the beginning of civilization and the onset of urbanization and dynasties. These three monopolies, like a tenacious chain, together with the positive aspects of the civilization, have crushed and encapsulated democratic efficacy and are continuing to do so into the present day.

Let us now continue to examine the links in this chain.

The Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, and Phoenician Civilizations

Discussing the contributions made by the Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese civilizations to the main stream of civilization will require a vast amount of study which is not possible under present circumstances. But for he moment it may be sufficient to question why they concentrated predominantly on agriculture and apparently did not show the will or strength to go beyond their own regions despite the advances made in these civilizations. I believe the reason they survived for such a long time is that they did not establish a long-haul trade monopoly. There does not seem to be much evidence of these three civilizations engaging in external trade on any significant scale. Domestically, too, the internal structure of agriculture and trade did not allow much opportunity for monopolies. Political monopoly can only last if it is far removed from economic monopoly, and there are fewer objections to political and military power when it prevents external dangers and internal chaos. Hence, its life is prolonged. In the find analysis, though, they too are economic monopoly rentiers although they are not totally submersed in the economic monopolies.

Egypt contributed to European culture and civilization to the extent that it could influence the Greco-Roman culture. As far as its influence on the rest of Africa is concerned, it is as if its culture never existed. Egypt did not make any attempt at trade and isolated itself from the Middle East as well. It may be the early example of state socialism. None of the similar examples are as impressive as that of Egypt. Egypt totally, and India and China partially, joined the medieval civilization via the Middle East. Islam, on the other hand, played a major role in funneling all these elements into its own reservoir and presenting them to Europe.

There is no need to discuss the Hittites separately, as they spread the civilization to Anatolia as an ally of the Hurrians and Mitanni. Their influence on the Aegean shores meant that their contribution to the new civilizational development in the Greek Peninsula was as significant as that of the Egyptians and Phoenicians. They stopped the expansion of the Egyptians in Syria and they had a hand in stopping the Assyrian and the preceding Babylonian expansion.

The Phoenicians of the Eastern Mediterranean established the long-haul trade that the Egyptians could not; the success of establishing the first trade colonies all over the Mediterranean belong to them. They were also the first to bring the Egyptian and Middle Eastern cultures to Europe. An alphabet and the art of shipbuilding are important to civilization –the Phoenicians taught the Greeks the alphabet. They were the ones that constructed the first ports. Moreover, their role in transferring the immaterial culture is of great importance. Their contribution to the history of civilization is as influential as that of Urartu.

The influence of the Kingdom of Israel was more of an immaterial character. More importantly, the Abrahamic tradition generated the monotheistic religions. It is as though they had a historical reason to bring about an immaterial state, as opposed to the material states of Sumer and Egypt. But one should not evaluate the Hebrew tradition from a narrow Judaic perspective. Whereas the prophets. writers, and intellectuals emerged on the immaterial branch of this tradition. the merchants rather emerged on the material branch. Their influence on both branches has profoundly affected world civilizational history. In order to understand civilization as a whole we need to thoroughly analyze all aspects of the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Hebrew traditions. Thus, to describe Europe only in terms of the medieval period and, partially, the ancient Greco-Roman culture is not satisfactory; moreover, it is insufficient and incorrect. Later, I shall describe the terrible results of such insufficient study.

The Median-Persian Era

4 700-330 BCE

The influence of the Medes on civilization has not yet been explored. Some of the best known facts about them are that they had Hurrian roots and lived in Zagros, that they were related to the Persians, and constituted a branch of the Aryan tribes. The intense suppression that they endured at the hands of the Assyrians caused them to be known for their resistance. Their priests, called the Magi, educated and organized the people and are believed to have played an important role in management. We know that the Medes formed a confederative union around 700 BCE and lived in the region called Media where today’s Iran, Iraq, and Turkey border each other. At times, they were friendly and at other times in conflict with the Scythians who came down from the Caucasus. When they defeated the Assyrians around 612 BCE they not only became famous but more opportunities opened up for them. It is also known that they defeated the Phrygians at the banks of the Kizilirmak (Halys) River. In the meantime, a competent sage called Zoroaster (Zarathustra) emerged from amongst the Magi priests and a spirituality with high moral content developed around him. Zoroastrianism is neither purely a religion nor purely a philosophy. Although this spirituality is different from the Hebrew tradition, they mutually influenced each other to a great extent. The influence of Zoroastrianism was especially felt during the time when the Babylonian Emperor Nebuchadnezzar captured the Israelites around 595 BCE. In Greek civilization, the Medes were viewed as more important than and superior to the Persians, and they are the most mentioned people in The Histories by Herodotus. The Persian Achaemenlda were able to take over the Median political formation due to a betrayal from within. Cyrus, the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, was raised In the Median palaces. The Persians and Medians jointly founded this empire; thus, calling it just “the First Persian Empire” is not accurate.

For about 300 years the Persian-Median Empire (extending from Egypt to the inner parts of India, from the Chinese borders to the Greek Peninsula) achieved the broadest political unity of its time. It was divided into twenty-two provinces, forming a sort of semi-state. The Persian-Median Empire contributed to the civilization in the areas of bureaucracy, the creation of good roads, the postal system, and the biggest and most magnificent armies of that time. They also attached importance to the moral tradition.

Although Greek civilization derived many of its cultural elements from the Medians and Persians, it was in this era that the separation between East and West became more evident. Still, there was an extensive interaction between them with many Greeks working at Persian palaces, and thousands more becoming soldiers of fortune in the Persian armies. The Persians accumulated vast wealth and kept the Aegean region under their domination for two hundred years. This later led to an almost passionate opposition against the Persians. To break free from Persian suppression and to obtain the wealth they possessed became almost a national objective. It is not coincidental that Alexander could emerge as the new Hercules. He had been influenced by the zeitgeist. It is instructive to remember that he was a student of Aristotle, and Greek philosophy itself was influenced by problems associated with opposing such suppression. Still, the influence mythology had on him was far greater. It served to form a sort of resistance culture. The Greeks resistance against the Persians are similar to that of Medes against the Assyrians. Although Alexander was Macedonian he was a child of Greek culture. Indeed, it was the synthesis between hundreds of years of resistance culture-especially philosophical enlightenment-and a free Macedonian tribal spirit that led Alexander to shatter the Persian Empire.

The Greco-Roman Culture and Civilization

The Greco-Roman culture and civilization is wrongly interpreted as the start of Western culture. This culture and civilization did not emerge in the West. or Europe. for it to be called “Western” culture or civilization. All the major cultural milestones. including the Christian medieval period, have their origin in the Middle Eastern cultures and civilizations, that is, in Mesopotamia and Egypt. These had been transferred to Europe by the fifteenth century, albeit with some delay. We are trying to establish how a daisy-chain of a culture originating from a specific location and formed within the scope of Braudel’s longue durée of fifteen thousand years has been funneled into Europe. Although the Greco-Roman civilizational link was formed within the European geography, it has taken everything from this Middle Eastern inheritance.

In terms of material and immaterial culture, no important originality or “discontinuity” emerged after the sixteenth century. Even the philosophical leap forward, which can be seen as a novelty, is unthinkable without the culture taken over from the Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, Urartus, Medes, and Persians. Even Plato himself admitted that the Greek sages, like Solon, Pythagoras, and Thales, have for many years traveled around Babylonia and the other Eastern centers of wisdom to find their own philosophical views. The Greek and Roman mythologies are. in essence, the fourth or the fifth version of the Sumerian (and partially that of the Egyptian) mythologies with new names. We can thus say that the Greek and Roman mythologies are the result of the sum of the Sumerian, Babylonian, Hurrian, Hittite, and Mitanni mythologies. In fact. the material culture of the Neolithic had reached Europe’s most important centers of settlement by 4,000 BCE. Sumerian and Egyptian culture reached it around 2,000 to 1,000 BCE. The synthesis that had begun around the end of 2,000 BCE in the Greek Peninsula only came to fruition around antiquity (ca. 1,000 BCE) after it had a first trial between 1,600 and 1,200 BCE. Homer and Hesiod were early products of this period. The fermentation that began in the Italian Peninsula with the Etruscans at about 1,000 BCE resulted in a kingdom around 700 BCE and in a republic at about 500 BCE.

The Greco-Roman period (500 BCE to 500 AD) contributed important authentic aspects. It established a chain of cities second only to Urulc Greco-Roman urbanization was undoubtedly characterized by sophisticated aesthetic appreciation. Features of Greco- Roman civilization, such as class division and elements of governmental administration, existed thousands of years prior. They had not. however. developed nearly to the extent they eventually did in Greco-Roman civilization. Similarly, although material and immaterial cultural elements like trade, market, money, alphabet, science, philosophy, morals, and mythology had existed for thousands of years before, they were all exceptionally refined during the Greco-Roman civilization and constituted a very important second version. So, to say that Europe’s material and immaterial culture could have emerged from these two Peninsulas in the absence of the mentioned inheritance is not really meaningful. For a very long time Western history’s understanding of the issue of its roots had been inadequate and incorrect. More correct interpretations have developed in post-modern times.

What is unique to Greco-Roman culture is that the state regimes of kingdom, republic, democracy, and empire developed in sequence and within each other. Initially, democracy and kingdom were intertwined: in the later Greco-Roman period republic and empire were intertwined. But finally, just before the collapse of the Roman Empire, empire as a form of regime became very important. In a way, it represented the last and most comprehensive culture and civilizational system of the slave-owning society. This is a crucial characteristic and as a result it will either collapse or transform. As it turned out, the Roman Empire could only transform after its collapse. The Greco-Roman civilization, after experiencing one of the long-term phases of history, went through its most mature period and then plunged into a deep crisis.

To understand this, we need to understand that agriculture in rural regions and craftsmanship in the urban centers both result in an important amount of surplus product. This abundance of surplus product lays the foundation for state-like organizations. Surplus product is essentially related to laborers that will work for sufficient food and will attain skills. The primary form of labor used is slave-like labor. This type of labor makes possible state monopoly: a monopoly consisting of the trilogy of ideology, politics, and the military. This system develops in tandem with urbanization and improves the division of labor in conjunction with craftsmanship; hence, securing the formation of commodification, market, and money chain. Trade monopoly comes into play and gains the opportunity to seize some surplus product. In essence, two monopolies come about within the state or between states: competing against one another. they gradually come into conflict with each other over the surplus product that has resulted from agriculture and craftsmanship. While there is no sharp division between them. the concepts of state monopoly and trade monopoly are critical for analyzing various political and military relations and conflicts.

We can define civilization as a social system that is made up of material and immaterial cultural wholes. The nucleus of these is in turn shaped by the ideological, political, and military apparatuses that position themselves around the city and the forces that can loosely be called the agricultural and commercial monopolist cliques. Because the dominant form of the exploited labor is controlled in a slave-like fashion, one could readily call such systems “slave-owning civilizations.” We can distinguish between two different forms in the rivalry and conflict experienced throughout civilization: first, within civilization itself (and generally between monopolies, and especially amongst the agricultural and commercial monopolies), and second, all the social forces that are in conflict with the civilizational forces (the oppressed class, tribe, people and artisan). The nature of war is nourished by these two forms. The reason why material culture and immaterial culture have to be continuously developed under circumstances of intense rivalry and conflict is in order to win. Thus, formations (which we can call “chain reaction”) in the history of civilization will commence.

We can view the era up to the Greco-Roman period as a period of crisis, the result of the chain reaction which we have summarized. The crisis was always sustained due to the collapse or weakening of agriculture and trade in some areas, for various reasons. The main reasons for such crises could be climate, excessive production, internal and external conflict, internal and external migration, efficient production methods, more advanced systems (philosophies), and organizations in the ideological, political, and military areas. Members of monopolist cliques that do not wish to go under, but desire to increase their share, use conflict and war as if these were tools of production. This is because they are monopolies that have established themselves over the economy. In particular, states and civilizations that are primarily commerce based will evoke war more often due to the frequent crises in trade. In contrast, states and civilizations that are dominated by agricultural monopolies with a suitable climate and regular irrigation more stable and more likely to be peaceful. Thus, such conditions prevent frequent occurrences of crises. In general, civilizations with Mesopotamian roots are more expansionist and are constantly fighting. At the heart of this lies the extreme dependency on trade. Ubaid, Uruk, Ur, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian civilizations continuously lived in an atmosphere of colonization, expansion, and war. This is closely related to the indispensable role of trade in the production processes.

The Greco-Roman civilization continuously embarked on expeditions and waged war, both at sea and on land, during the Athenian and Roman period. This must be seen in relation to trade being the sine qua non of the Mediterranean world. Mesopotamia had been the cradle of agriculture and trade since the formation of civilization. For similar reasons, since 600 BCE, the Persians from the East and the Greek and Romans from the West started “thousand years’ wars,” both against their own main regions of production and trade, as well as against Mesopotamia, due to their dependency on Mesopotamian trade and agriculture.

Without trade, but in particular without Mesopotamian trade, there would be no civilization. Either one or both would fall, or they would find an equilibrium. The winners have indeed been losers. Periods in which an equilibrium was reached while there were no winners have occurred for long periods of time. For example, Ubaid and Uruk were both in conflict and in equilibrium with one another. And both of them were previously in conflict and in equilibrium with the society in Upper Mesopotamia. There was terrible conflict between the Ur and the Akkad dynasties, yet they also achieved an equilibrium between them. They were both later obliterated from history. Akkadians and Guteans went through periods where they fought, eliminated, and balanced each other. The Babylonians and Assyrians also balanced and fought with one another. Over all, there frequently were terrible wars and periods of equilibrium amongst the Hurrians (including the Hittites, Mitanni, Kassites, Medes, and Urartuans), Babylonians, and Assyrians. Amongst the Egyptians and Hittites, too, war and equilibrium was attained. Finally, though, the “thousand year” Greco-Roman and Persian-Sassanid wars (550 BCE – 650 CE) occurred. This is the way civilizations make war and peace within themselves (involving internal cliques) and against one another.

On the other hand, the resistance and rebellions of peoples, tribes, slaves, and cities, including craftsmen-who forcefully wished to be bound to the civilization or, indeed, to be subjected to slavery and trade extortion-constituted the other main category. Civilization is a bloody, torturous, exploitative, and enslaving system based not only on the surplus-value of capitalism but also on the five or six thousand year old surplus product.

Islam and Christianity

Islam and Christianity are no doubt both civilizations. The differences and similarities between them are both interesting and important. Although much has been said about their position and influence within civilizational history, interpretations with a scientific base are rare. This is mainly due to the nature of the human character that was formed under their influence. Thus, to step outside of Islam and Christianity in order to develop a different paradigm may be a task successfully completed in the future. Secular and positivist interpretations are themselves religions, similar to that of the coarsest idolatry, and are devoid of any content that could be helpful in the analysis and overcoming of religion in general, and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in particular.

The Reformation and Enlightenment represent the modification of Christianity to suit the requirements of capitalism. Thus, it can be said that the Renaissance did not enter into a conflict with Christianity. The anti-religious and anti-Christian character of the Enlightenment did not only deprive it from the quality necessary to surpass religion and Christianity, but also was far removed from offering a consistent critique and interpretation.

Islam, on the other hand, was never criticized by its followers. Instead, from early on it entered denominational conflicts as a result of which it became rigid. It has not been subjected to philosophical interpretation like Christianity. It has not gone through its own Renaissance, Reformation, or Enlightenment at all. The “neo-Islam” currents, which are merely reactionary and provocative movements, mean nothing other than nationalist and fascist rule under capitalist conditions.

Islam and Christianity may be interpreted as the second phase of civilizational history. The crisis that the Roman Empire entered into in the fourth and fifth century CE was in general a civilizational crisis. During these centuries, the general dissolution of the nearly 4,000 year old slave-owning civilization accelerated. Historians describe these two centuries as “dark” Humanity, living under the yoke of civilized society, was in need of a profound liberation and the concomitant intellectual and material (structural) tools. There was a quest for purpose and the tools to realize this purpose all around. The existing mood was as if everyone and everything was about to awaken from a nightmare. There would be a dawn, but that dawning day would be uncertain. The old beliefs and their icons were no longer worthy of anything; even the Roman emperors no longer visited the shrine of Jupiter. The emergence of Christianity, Manichaeism, and Islam were in accordance with the spirit of the time-a time during which the intensity of thought and the search for faith was profoundly felt.

A more important question is this: Although both Christianity and Islam were certainly political movements, why did they insist on presenting themselves as “divine” and “theological” movements or, in short, as religions? The answer to this important question is to be sought in the liberationist, intellectual pursuits, as well as the atmosphere of the time. Thought, discussion, understanding of program, and organization must follow the previously shaped examples.

The tradition that played the most important role in this was the Abrahamic tradition of prophets. The prophets were the first to bring news of liberation; only a prophet would be followed, no one else-even if they laid claim to being “liberators.” Since this tradition was very deep-rooted, no other option would have had much of a chance. Indeed, Manichaeism attempted to proffer a different tradition, but although its contents were more enlightening, it did not really succeed because of this old tradition. Even to date, the Middle Eastern movements presenting themselves under the garb of religion are linked to this historical tradition.

Therefore, when one attempts to interpret Islam and Christianity, one should understand that they are outright political movements clothed in religion. As I briefly mentioned before, there certainly is an ideological part to these traditions as well. The Abrahamic religious tradition, with roots that can be traced back to the mythological-religious icons of the Sumerian and Egyptian prlesta’ temples. is mainly theological. It is concerned with the concept of god and its rituals. They made a big effort to develop a different interpretation to that of the Egyptian and Sumerian gods and rituals. There have always been contributions of interpretation attributed to very famous prophets. Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Isaiah, and many others can be considered prophets that made such contributions, and that had the grand liberationist mission to dispose of the contemporary despotic regimes.

The reason why all traces of Manichaeism have been lost must be due to the lack of any strong tradition preceding or succeeding it. And even though the Abrahamic tradition had been around for 1,500 years, it only had a partial success, that is, until the period of Jesus Christ. It could not defeat any of the civilizations that had Egyptian and Mesopotamian roots. The tiny Kingdom of Jerusalem it established was not very influential or long-lived. Its most important success was to continuously be the hope of the oppressed and those seeking liberation. It had thus become the conscience and center of attraction for all those who had suffered at the hands of the Nimrods and Pharaohs-of all despotic rulers-for the poor and for those with ideals.

If the phenomenon of Jesus Christ were seen in this light it would be better understood. When, following the Roman conquest of Judea, the collaborationist priests sided with the Roman rulers, the atmosphere was once again conducive to new prophets. Moreover, the Roman slave-owning system dissolved the Middle Eastern community structures, and many “unemployed slaves,” proletarians, were generated as a result. Many cults and prophets came to the fore, and Jesus Christ was probably only one of a number that were crucified or condemned to similar deaths. Christ (as liberationist) became the symbolic name for the general movement of the poor. One may see this as a primitive socialist movement. Initially, it was definitely the movement of the poor and the escaped slaves. Jesus’ last action was his march to conquer Jerusalem: he was after a new kingdom-a kingdom of the poor-a Spartacus that did not wage war. But the movement changed after the time of the twelve apostles and, especially, immediately after the initial outlines of the Bible (which one can call the ideological material) were compiled and separate groups were formed. Then it became the movement of the massses.

Saint Paul and some other apostles were very active and they monitored the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Three important groups joined the movement en masse: Greeks from central and western Anatolia, Assyrian, from the East and the regions of the Sassanid Empire, and Armenians from northeastern Anatolia. Many Jewish intellectuals, and in particular Saint Paul, were quite active at the time. They rocked the social foundations of the Roman and Sassanid Empires, generating quite a strong political movement. The acceptance of Christianity as an official religion was followed by Byzantium’s (Constantinople’s) separation from Rome and the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire. This is where the contradiction lies: the doctrine that had emerged in opposition to Rome became the official religion and ideology of the larger part of the Empire. While it sped up the split in the Empire, this transformation also prolonged its life-span.

The history of Eastern and Western Roman Empire is well-known. It seems obvious that at the time there would have been much discussion and divergence between leading Christian rulers. As a result, many denominations emerged. Although the argumentation appeared to have been theological (Monophysites vs. Dyophysites), in reality its essence was purely political. While some denominations went underground again, the majority became the most powerful political and economic partners of the two Romes; politics and economy pouring out from under their ideological masks. Christianity ceased to be a religion and was transformed into a civilization. It was this theological and political act, as summarized above, that allowed Europe for the first time in its history to make the complete transition to civilization under the guise of religion.

Christianity successfully completed its first historical mission by moving to northern and northwestern Europe in the tenth century. Later, especially during the spread of capitalism, its expansion became global. The Christians of Anatolia and Mesopotamia (the Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians) also embarked upon the transition to civilization, initially with the Byzantine Civilization and later around independent churches. This transition to civilization, however, retained a stronger moral aspect. Being “Christian peoples” strategically influenced the destiny of these people; in particular, being targeted by lslam would lead to tragic results.

The emergence of the Islamic civilization stems from a similar tradition. Mecca was essentially the intersection of the main trade routes between the Red Sea and the Golden Horn, Yemen, Ethiopia, and Damascus. The Arabic Quraysh tribe’s hierarchical and aristocratic rule had been established early on. They were a tribe of merchants with a certain amount of commercial capital. At the time, along with Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity, there were many other belief systems around; for example, the Quraysh were pagan.

The Zamzam well, the initial place of worship in Mecca, is said to have been miraculously created when Ishmael, the son of the Prophet Abraham and Hagar (two breakaways from the main Hebrew tribe), migrated there. A hut, in which later some idols were placed, was constructed around the well. There were three important idols at the time of the Prophet Muhammad: Allat, Manat, and al-‘Uzza.

The Prophet Muhammad was born into the Banu Hashim clan, part of the Quraysh tribe.The countries claiming to be Islamic steer clear from sociologically studying Islam in generalbut they especially avoid studying the life of the Prophet Muhammad. It is as if they arescared of something. A true enlightenment cannot be developed if religion, as a sociallifestyle and system of thought, cannot also be studied sociologically. If the Middle Eastcannot achieve such enlightenment, then it cannot but be the guinea pig of the US and itsallies. Indeed, in order to better understand the Prophet Muhammad, we need to dosociological research. Society will not lose as a result of it. Europe had the Age ofEnlightenment exactly because of such research into Christianity. If the Middle East is notable to realize its own enlightenment, then it cannot develop its own thought revolution. Ananalysis of the Prophet Muhammad could be the first step in this thought revolution. Theperiod he lived in, his personality, and his actions are all subjects for such an analysis.

In return for a share, he organized expeditions to Damascus for the female merchant Khadijah’s trade caravans. He had been influenced by Syriac priests, and no doubt his contact with the Jews and the importance of their trade would have been an additional influence; however, from the start he had many conflicts with them.

Muhammad’s marriage to Khadijah brought about a new situation. Once again there were rumors about the “Final Prophet,” with many –including women– laying claim to this title. I believe that the young Muhammad learned much from Khadijah. She clearly would have been a very competent individual, as it could not have been easy to be both wealthy and a female merchant at this time. I think it highly probable that she would have been the one who whispered to him that he was the prophet. What united the two of them was most definitely the quest for power in embryonic form. The Quraysh aristocracy was in no position to form a state because of its backward traditions (such as their use of idols). The Jews and Christians were ineffective and not approved of. Besides, there were also material conflicts between them.

The story of Hagar and Ishmael is an Arabic folktale and it gave Muhammad inspiration. He began to get to know and analyze the beliefs and cults of the time, and he came to understand that none of these beliefs and cults would succeed in establishing a political union amongst the Arabs. He set out to achieve this union with Khadijah’s encouragement. He had all he needed in terms of ideological tradition, as the Arabic branch of Abrahamic tradition was available to him, and it was not difficult to learn whatever else was needed from the talented Syriac priests.

Muhammad’s first revelation as a prophet came at around the year 610 CE, a period of the fiercest conflict between the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. This conflict could be considered a great fortune to the Arabian Peninsula, but there were two obstacles in the way: the Quraysh and the Jewish colonies. From the very beginning, prophethood entailed political leadership-otherwise it would not have been successful. And, indeed, every message delivered by the Prophet Muhammad resembled those typical of statesmen. And so, it was a move forward for the new rising empire of the Middle East. Under the leadership of the Arabs, the Jewish ideology was renewed and modernized-transcending its narrowness and opening it to all peoples. The new way of worship symbolized a new lifestyle and, due to good strategy and tactics, it spread to all four corners of the world. One could call Islam the first comprehensive internationalist movement. In short, an exemplary civilizational political movement, together with its ideology, political program, leader, strategies, and tactics, would leave its mark and advance in history.

It is interesting that the word islam also means “peace.”13 The Prophet Muhammad most probably foresaw a period rather riddled with conflict, and in this way wished to show that he gave priority to peace. But to realize his goals he had to overcome a number of obstacles. The three main targets he had to tackle were the Byzantine, the Sassanid, and the Quraysh aristocracies. Confrontation with the latter in Mecca ended in the Hijra (the migration to Medina) at about 622 CE. It was during this time in Medina that he prepared the first social contract. This new contract was approved by the majority of the tribes, but not by the tribal and clan aristocracy. Indeed, the heaven he promised his followers was laying their hands on the possessions of the Byzantines and Sassanids, while the hell he warned of was the old way of life. When he drove back the first attacks of the Qurayshans (amongst others, during the Battle of Badr, Uhud, and Hendek) the outcome seemed more or less clear: it would be only a matter of time before the first Arabic republic (or democracy) was born. Discussions and meetings were plentiful –the mosques evoked assemblies. In fact, contrary to common belief, the first mosques were not places of worship but of meetings and discussion.

The aristocracy and its leader Muawiyah, who briefly lost his throne, began to regain power through new maneuvers after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in about the year 632CE. The murder of Prophet’s son-in-law, Ali, a staunch believer and a person of principle, paved the way for Muawiyah and his family to regain their sultanate. The house of the Prophet lost all its political power when Husayn ibn Ali was tragically killed at Karbala and anew clique of Arab merchants laid claim not only to the peninsula but also to the looted Byzantine and Sassanid possessions. They initiated a large conquest movement which wonmany successive victories. The first to lose to them were the Jews and Christians of theArabian Peninsula, but at around 650 CE all Sassanid territories and most of Byzantium andNorth Africa had been conquered. The new conquerors were knocking on the gates of Constantinople. We may compare this rapid expansion to Alexander’s swift conquests, achieved by combining the Macedonian tribal spirit with that of Greek philosophy, and the resulting material and immaterial culture. Similarly, the synthesis of the Arabian tribes’courage and the spirit of the new religion, that rested on a deep-rooted heritage, made possible these Alexander-like wars of conquest. This formed the second stage of the civilization, its most important branch. It achieved the last major cultural-civilizational advance of the East.

The most interesting point in the story of Islam is that the declaration thereof and its expansion occurred simultaneously: it was born as a power. In contrast, Christianity only came to power three hundred years after its advent. The oppressed, the poor, and those who really contributed to it, were rapidly excluded from power and instead the rebellious, fresh, and hungry spirit of the tribes started constructing the civilization through a mighty state, organized around the heavenly palaces and mosques. And thus, although it started as a small city merchant clan, an empire was constructed in no time (between the years 640 and 650 CE). A sociological analysis looking at its religious perspective together with its political significance and implications would be most instructive.

I personally think that this rapid establishment of political power can be explained by the long-term power vacuum in the Arabian hinterland, the social chaos created by tribal conflict, Prophet Muhammad’s personality, and the fact that the character of the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires was that of the first stage of the civilization. Islam had not only conquered all the traditional civilizational areas of the Middle East but went all the way to parts of India, Central Asia, the heartland of Caucasus, the farthest regions of Southeast Asia (that is, Indonesia and Malaysia), and way beyond the two most important peninsulas of southwestern and southeastern Europe, the Balkans and Iberia.

A religious word like Islam cannot really explain such a large military and political movement. It only serves to disguise the reality. Islam is a symbolic name. The concepts Allah and prophet were developed by the Hebrews much earlier. The Medina Iews’ criticism that “you are stealing our religion from us, and using it against us” must have angered Muhammad very much.

Sociologically, one can trace the roots for the glorification of the king and his deputies back all the way to the Sumerian and Egyptian mythology. However, Muhammad brought a different context to the concept of Allah. It is like the energy of the universe, a more advanced concept. But Islamic scholars have not yet developed a sociological interpretation of this issue. The dictates of faith in Islam are more like theoretical principles, and different forms of worshiping exist to keep the connection with practice alive. Most of the directives were needed to meet the moral and legal requirements of the time. They stipulate productivity in trade and agriculture, and thus the canonical jurisprudence (fiqh) developed. Islam made a harsh intervention against the ideological lifestyle of the initial phase of the slave-owning civilization. An infidel was “the other” that had to be annihilated. Ideological pluralism as a right was only granted to those who adhered to the Abrahamic tradition.

Objectively, Islam is far more open to secularism than Christianity. But the radical struggle against the old lifestyle had many adverse outcomes as well. The historical cultures of peoples had either been annihilated or assimilated on the ground of their beliefs: Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and Christianity are examples of this. Clearly, the new life- style it brought resulted in feudal aristocracy: instead of a god-king there would now be the duality of God and his shadow, the Sultan. Eventually, despotic sultanates were inevitable. Islam as a religion did not have, and still does not have, the ability to prevent despotism. Christianity was even worse because of its susceptibility to monarchy, with priests becoming more advanced partners in power. Still, these two religions, as far as they constituted the state, in some ways kept the sections of society excluded from the civilization under better conditions than that of classical slavery. However, they took care to keep them at a level of servitude that was even worse than the slavery imposed on them before. Neither religion was totally opposed to slavery. Both had the characteristics to strongly protect the hierarchical and state power. Both also encouraged the development of nations.

In terms of time and location, these two religions (and we can include Judaism here) joined the main stream of civilization to constitute its second phase. They, however, could neither redress the problems experienced amongst the ruling monopolist cliques, nor the demands for freedom and justice of the democratic social forces that had been excluded by the civilization. On the contrary, this second phase has aggravated the problems of warfare, freedom, and justice, as I will outline below.

First: New monopolist powers were added to the already existing structures of monopolist power. Yet there had been no qualitative improvement in efficiency and yield of craftsmanship and agriculture. More parties were now fighting over the surplus-product. Emirs (princes) became as monopolist as the sultans (monarchs) and dynasties multiplied. Those who claimed a share increased. Just like the middle class, when they could not get as much as they wanted, they continuously started wars-and the wars waged by feudal lords in Europe and Russia were severe. The monarchs on the other hand increased the problems associated with income by enlarging the bureaucracy.

Second: There were also those who accepted these two new religions with liberation, freedom, and justice in mind. However, when their expectations were not met, they continuously resisted in various denominations.

Third: There was no development in terms of immaterial culture. While the old culture, which was described as “dark,” was destroyed, no new culture was developed. Instead, there were endless discussions on theology and on different denominations. As a result, mankind no longer had a hold on the real world and its history. History had been reduced to religious stories. The will power of human beings was ignored and people were turned into shadows. Humans were captivated by the imagery of heaven and hell, and they began to not care about the world and living while the monopolist cliques built heavenly castles and palaces for themselves. Urban culture and philosophy fell behind the old ones.

Fourth: Even worse was the slogan “a single god in heaven and a single sultanate on earth.” Their war to expand their rule around the world had made antiquity look innocent. The war in the name of god was more destructive than the war of the gods of the first phase; the expansion and colonization were much worse during this second phase. The wars of ummah became more systematic and persistent than ones in antiquity. Sectarian conflicts became really difficult to settle.

Notes

5. This period is also referred to as the Palaeolithic Period, or Old Stone Age (from the Greek palaios, “old,” and lithos, “stone,” referring to the knapped stone tools that characterize the period) and the period of primitive savagery. However, the sociological term is Era of primitive communism. [A.O.]

6. The Tell Halaf period occurred from about 6,100 to 5,500 BCE in what is today called south-eastern Turkey, Syria, and northern Iraq; however. evidence of field influence is found throughout Mesopotamia.

7. There is a general agreement that the Ubaid culture has begun before 5,000 BCE and ended with the beginning of Uruk period around 3,800 BCE.

8. I discuss the profound influence of these civilizations in more detail in Part 1 of my Prison Writings I: The Roots of Civilization. [A.0.]

9. As seen, for instance, in the seven tablets known as Enuma Elish.

10. This is modem-day Nifl’er, or Nuffar, in south-eastern Iraq. Nippur was one of the world’s longest-lived sites: from the prehistoric Ubaid period 5000 BCE until about 800 CE.

11. The Weidner tablet suggests that the Akkadian Empire fell as divine retribution because Sargon transferred the holy city status from Nippur to Babylon.

12. There are lots of discussions and research into this. One such example is Eva CancikKirschbaum, Nicole Brisch and Iesper Eidem, eds, Constituent, Confederate, and Conquered Space in Upper Mesopotamia: The Emergence of the Mittani State (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014).

13. According to The Online Etymology Dictionary, Islam literally means “submission” (to the will of God), from the root aslama “he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted,” causative conjunction of salima “he was safe” and related to salam “peace.”