Fernando Alcoforado*
This article aims to show the evolution of the State from Antiquity to the contemporary era and to present the new State that it would be necessary to build in the future. Historically, the state has not always existed. The birth of the State is the product of the social division of labor and the division of society into exploitative and exploited social classes. The State has played a fundamental role throughout history because it has been an instrument of those in charge to achieve its objectives, that is, when it is used by the dominant classes to ensure their interests within societies, in addition to exercising the domination of other nations and peoples. This trajectory of States has resulted in the occurrence of countless wars between nations and countless social conflicts, generating many deaths and suffering for human beings throughout history. The nature of the state needs to be modified in the future if civilization is to prevail over barbarism and the kingdom of fraternity, equality, fraternity and solidarity for all human beings is built.
1. From the primitive community to the birth of the State
In primitive communities, when the social division of labor was only rudimentary, all members of society exercised all social functions. There was no state or special state functions. One of these functions, the exercise of arms, was assumed collectively by all members of the primitive community. In the primitive community, all its members (and sometimes even women) were armed to defend themselves against beasts or enemies outside the community environment. With the advent of the State, it became, in the final analysis, nothing more than a body of armed men. In a society with the presence of the State, the concept of taking up arms is an exclusive prerogative of an institution called the army, or police, or military agents of various types, which did not exist in primitive communities.
Another function like the practice of justice belonged to the primitive community. At that time, there were no written codes of laws. Disputes were decided by families or by individuals themselves in collective assemblies that had the power to make judgments of value. Therefore, in primitive communities, before being divided into social classes, certain functions, such as that of arms or the administration of justice, were exercised collectively by all adult members of the community. Only when this society develops more, at the moment when social classes appear, are these functions removed from the community and reserved for a minority (dominant classes) that starts to exercise them in a special way.
In primitive communities, there was the collective ownership of the means of production that worked the land in the production of food. At that time, the level of development of the productive forces was so low that it did not allow obtaining the necessary means of subsistence in isolation. In these circumstances, men were obliged to live and work together and working in common generated the common ownership of the means of production and the fruits of work. What men obtained together belonged to the whole community. There was still no idea of the private ownership of the means of production, of the exploitation of man by man, or of social classes. The primitive community regime is a universal stage in the history of mankind, which means that each people had to go through this stage and that society divided into social classes is not initial, but that it was built on the ruins of the primitive community regime.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, founding philosophers of Marxism, looked at the problems of primitive history in several works such as The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State and The German Ideology – which report that in the early days of human society, when men lived from hunting, fishing, agriculture and livestock breeding, the entire property belonged to the tribe. Collective ownership was dominant. The time of the primitive community is followed by that of the clan regime whose heyday is usually accompanied by matriarchy, by equality between men and women. The development of productive forces and the emergence of grazing, plowing the land and treating metals (bronze, iron) mark the beginning of a time when the first germs of human exploitation by man and privately owned. Matriarchy is replaced by patriarchy and the democracy of the clan becomes a community divided into social classes that sets the stage for the founding of the state.
In primitive times, war, although occasional, existed on a small scale. The need to obtain agricultural products may have induced tribes to impose themselves by force on other farming communities. The accumulation of wealth – herds, land, etc. – resulted in part of the plundering of populations won in wars. With the evolution of exchanges between communities, some members of them started to accumulate more wealth than others, appropriating the communal surplus or the best part of the plundering obtained through wars. With the evolution of the relations of production, the private property of the means of production expanded to the land and, finally, to the worker (slave to which the peoples won in wars were transformed). One of the economic institutions of the Old State in Greece and Italy (actually the basis of the production system) was the existence of a commodity worker: the slave.
The transformation of the communal economy into a slave economy was due to the development of productive forces within the primitive community, especially when men began to use metal instruments. After the domestication of animals and the beginning of agriculture, it became possible to employ the prisoner of war’s labor force who could be forced to work for the community or for the private owner as a slave. The work of these enslaved populations started to support the community, together with the agricultural or pastoral activity practiced by the conquistadors. In slave society, the means of production (land, labor instruments, slaves, etc.) were owned by the master. At the time of slavery, the relations that existed in society were relations of dominance and subjection. A small number of masters ferociously exploited the mass of slaves deprived of all rights.
Slavery did not exist among hunter-gatherer populations during the primitive community. Slavery became known only in civilizations as old as Sumer, as well as in almost all other ancient civilizations, including ancient Egypt, ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Babylon, ancient Iran, ancient Greece , ancient India, the Roman Empire, the Arab Caliphs and Islamic Sultanate, Nubia and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas. Slavery resulted from debt, punishment for crime, prisoners of war, abandoning children and the birth of slave children born to slaves. The first States emerged after the end of primitive communities to ensure the right to property against internal enemies (thieves) or external enemies (invaders).
2. The States that emerged from Antiquity to the Contemporary Era
In the history of humanity, it can be considered to have existed from Antiquity to the contemporary era in the sequence indicated the following types of State: 1) Ancient State; 2) Medieval State; 3) Absolutist State; 4) Classic Liberal State; 5) Marxist State; 6) Keynesian Neoclassical Liberal State and, 7) Neoliberal Minimum State.
The Ancient State
The Ancient State has existed since 3100 BC in Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, Central America, the Andes, Greece, Persia, Carthage and Rome, etc. with the various states showing some features in common, such as being theocratic and polytheistic, divided into well-defined classes and castes and living in constant conflict with each other. These States also emerged as an organization aimed at making it possible to carry out the collective work (construction of canals, dams, aqueducts, etc.) necessary for the community. The first states were characterized by exercising absolute and theocratic power, in which monarchs identified themselves with a deity. Power was justified by its divine nature and it was the subjects’ religious belief that sustained it. The work in Antiquity, represented punishment, submission, in which the workers were the people won in the battles, which were enslaved. The work was not dignifying for the man. Slavery was seen as just and necessary. Among the ancient states, Egypt, Greece and Rome stood out in history.
In Ancient Egypt, Egyptian civilization was formed around 3 100 BC with political unification under the first pharaoh (Narmer) and developed over the next three millennia with the state playing a prominent role in society, which exercised control of trade and owned most of the land. The political regime adopted was the theocratic monarchy. Political power and religion went hand in hand through Pharaoh, who was the living representation of God himself. The work in Ancient Egypt was usually manual and predominantly carried out by slaves, who were present in agricultural activities, in domestic work and in the construction of public works. In Ancient Greece, the state existed between the 5th and 4th centuries BC in the classical period of Hellenic civilization, a period in which Athenian Democracy flourished. The Greeks believed that citizens would be able to contribute to the common good. Democracy was the government exercised by the people, unlike the empires that were led by leaders who were considered gods, as was the case with Egypt of the Pharaohs. Democracy developed mainly in Athens, where free men had the opportunity to discuss political issues in the public square. Greek political unity was the polis, or city-state, whose government was, at times, democratic. The inhabitants who attained the status of citizens – from which slaves were excluded – participated in political institutions.
In turn, Rome became the head office of the Roman Empire which is considered the greatest empire in Western history that operated based on slave labor and the subjugation of barbaric peoples (all foreign peoples who lived far from the culture, religion and customs of the great Roman Empire such as the Huns, Franks, Lombards, Angles, Saxons, Burgundians, Visigoths, Suebi, Vandals and Ostrogoths). The Roman Empire lasted five centuries: it began in 27 B.C. and ended in 476 A.D. It stretched from the River Rhine to Egypt and reached Britain and Asia Minor. Thus, it established a connection with Europe, Asia and Africa. In the political system of the Roman Empire, political power was concentrated in the figure of the emperor. The Roman Empire started with Octavian Augustus and ended with Constantine XI. The empire succeeded the Roman Republic. With the new system, Rome, which was a city-state, came to be governed by the emperor. Being the last of the great empires of antiquity, the Roman Empire fell due to the revolt of slaves and barbarian invasions, thus marking the end of the Ancient Age and the beginning of the Middle Ages that emerged in the 5th century and ended in the 15th century. With the invasions of the Roman Empire, the barbarians implanted a new state order, the Medieval State with feudalism, in which the Germanic customs prevailed over the Roman traditions, replacing the execrable slavery by the servile work in the productive activities.
The Medieval State
The medieval state emerged between the 5th and 15th centuries in Western Europe, it was decentralized with power centered on the figure of the feudal lord who operated based on the feudalism that replaced slavery including the Middle Ages from the end of the Roman Empire. Feudal institutions persisted in Europe until the 17th and 18th centuries. In the feudal system there was no trade, relations were based on the exchange of products, and all production was destined for local livelihood. Labor relations took place between the feudal lord, owner of the land, and on the other side, the serf or peasant, who was subordinate to the feudal lord. The servant lived with his family and worked on the master’s land and paid a “rent” for his use, in addition to working three days a week for free. The servant owed gratitude to the master for work and protection, this relationship of dependence and gratitude is called vassalage or servitude. In that period there was no wage labor, which resulted in a social dependency between master and servant.
The medieval state had governments in the form of feudal decentralization with submission to the Church, which had a representative spiritual power within society. With the domination of Germanic kings (barbarians, francs, goths, lombards and vandals) over the vast Roman territories, they began to distribute positions, advantages and privileges to their warlords, and thus generated the fragmentation of power, with each dominating a part of the territory (plots of land called feud) and committing to defend it, thus generating feudalism. The feudal lord was the exclusive owner of his land and all its inhabitants his vassals. He served as head of state, decreeing and collecting taxes, administering justice, issuing regulations and declaring war. So he acted as a king within his domain, but under a concept of private law. Land ownership was lifelong and hereditary. The Medieval State and the Roman Catholic Church maintained a close relationship in order to bring the idea of unity to the former. Generally speaking, the Church has become an agglutination factor for the Medieval State.
The functions of arms and administration of justice are carried out in a special way when the feudal system becomes dominant in Europe. The feudal lord, and he alone, came to exercise dominion over all the functions of primitive communities (weapons and administration of justice). The feudal lord is the absolute owner of his territory. He is the only one to exercise all the classic functions performed by the State, as we know it today. Later, there was an evolution. While the state is moderately small, the feudal lord’s state functions are rudimentary and not at all complicated. Since the exercise of these functions does not take too much time from the feudal lord, he can handle the situation and exercise them personally.
With the increase in the size of the territory and the population, the functions of the responsibility of the feudal lord become more and more complex, more detailed and more stressful. It becomes impossible for one man to perform all these functions. What does the feudal lord do then? It partly delegates its powers to people completely under its control: the servants, who are part of its household staff. During the Middle Ages, political power in Europe was controlled by the various feudal lords, who generally submitted to the Holy Empire and the Pope. At that time, there were no centralized national states. The crises of feudalism brought about the dissolution of the feudal system in the 16th century and paved the way for the implantation of capitalism. The land is no longer the only source of wealth. Some serfs accumulated economic resources and freed themselves from feudal lords and migrated to cities. Trade, especially overseas, was expanding, bringing major economic and social changes in Western Europe.
During some centuries of the Low Middle Ages (from the 10th to the 15th century), the economic and social stability resulting from the Crusades and commercial development provided a time of relative prosperity. In the 14th century, as a result of the Black Death and the Hundred Years’ War between France and England, there was a decrease in agricultural production, which caused the lack of food and consequent famine in much of Feudal Europe. The lack of food prompted many feudal lords to promote increased taxes and obligations to be levied on serfs. Through this measure, the landowners sought to guarantee the maintenance of their standard of living and, at the same time, to prevent peasants from leaving their domains to cities with greater ease, a situation that led to several peasant revolts and attacks on feudal lords.
The peasants demanded better working conditions and wanted a larger share of agricultural production. The feudal lords tried to avoid the revolts and enforced the laws that prohibited the escape of the serfs. In 1358, a peasant revolt took place in France and, in 1381, in England. The main demands of the peasants concerned the fight against hunger and the bad living conditions that were accentuated during the crisis of the 14th century. The most important claim was the questioning of the status quo in force in medieval society, that is, the social division into estates (the first stage formed by the clergy; the second stage formed by the nobles; and the lower layer formed mainly by peasants). The peasant uprisings in the 14th century contributed to the subsequent formation of European monarchies, as several rulers formed armies led by a monarch to protect their kingdom.
The expansion of trade contributed to the disorganization of the feudal system, and the bourgeoisie, which was the class linked to commerce, became increasingly wealthy, powerful, and aware that society needed a new political organization. For the bourgeoisie to continue to progress, it needed stable governments and an orderly society. In this sense, it would be necessary to end the constant wars and endless conflicts between the members of the old feudal nobility that hindered trade, reduce the amount of taxes levied on goods by the various feudal lords and reduce the large number of regional currencies, which hindered the business. At the end of the medieval period, political and military power, held by the feudal lords, was transferred to the hands of an absolutist monarch, the king. The bourgeoisie and the progressive nobility sought to strengthen the authority of the kings in order to build national monarchies capable of investing in the development of trade, in the improvement of transport and in the security of communications.
The Absolutist State
The end of the Middle Ages marks a period of transition from the Medieval State to the monarchical Absolutist State: absolutist monarchies appear in Spain, France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, etc. The concentration of powers in the hands of kings aimed at nothing more than strengthening the central power of these kingdoms with a view to ending the division of society into feuds with the promotion of national unity within the modern state. The theoretical foundation of monarchical absolutism was the divine right of kings. The authority of the monarch was considered to be of a divine nature and came directly from God.
In the Middle Ages, the theory that power emanated from the king emerged as a new element. The king or emperor, therefore, should be accepted as such by his subjects, in order for his sovereignty to be legitimate. The transformations that took place in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, with the advent of mercantile capitalism with the Commercial Revolution and the overcoming of the feudal mode of production, led to the redefinition of the State that became strong and centralized. In this way, the Absolutist State arose, defended by Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, who considered that the sovereign State meant the maximum realization of a civilized and rational society. He argued that only the state, a power above individualities, would guarantee security for all. The Absolutist State was formed in opposition to the regionalism of feuds and cities, which generated the political-administrative fragmentation and the universalism of the Catholic Church (and the Holy Empire), which spread its ideological and political power over different European regions based on Christianity .
Overcoming medieval regionalisms and universalism, the Absolutist State had as its objective the formation of national society. The entire concentration of power came to be called monarchical absolutism. The Modern State was born with absolutism in the second half of the 15th century, from the development of mercantile capitalism in countries like France, England and Spain, and later in Italy. With mercantilism, adopted in Western Europe in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the Absolutist State commanded the economy operating together with capitalist entrepreneurs, constituting a great instrument for the expansion of commercial capitalism or the commercial revolution with the great navigations and the beginning of globalization.
The Classic Liberal State
With the American Revolution or War of Independence of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 promoted by the bourgeoisie that abolished feudal society in Europe from 1789, the classic Liberal State arose, antithesis of the Absolutist State. The Absolutist State ceased to exist at the beginning of the 20th century as a form of government since it was already challenged by Enlightenment ideals since the 19th century. The French Revolution and the changes that emerged from it contributed to the end of this form of government across Europe. John Locke, a theorist of the English Liberal Revolution, fearing that one man would try to subject the other to his absolute power, said that men should delegate powers to a state, through a social contract, so that it would guarantee its natural rights, as well as, your property. The classic capitalist Liberal State broke with the hierarchical order of corporations, blood ties and privileges, characteristic of the Absolutist State, and created a political power structure capable of maintaining and expanding its conquests.
The classic Liberal State adopted in several countries from the 19th to the mid-20th centuries only intervened in the economy exceptionally in times of economic, political and social crisis as occurred in the depressions of 1873 and 1929, leaving economic decisions in each country to companies and individuals, that is, in charge of the free market with capitalist entrepreneurs operating freely in the market unlike the Absolutist State. Classical liberal economic thought, which emerged in the 16th century with the clear intention of combating mercantilist economic thinking, whose practices no longer met the new needs of capitalism, was adopted in the West from the 18th century to the mid-20th century, when the Liberal State classic, of a plural nature, was formed by the meeting of ethical, political and economic conceptions, centered on individualism and liberalism.
An institution that today appears to be of a democratic nature, for example, Parliament, clearly reveals the class nature of the Liberal Capitalist State. Thus, in most countries where parliamentarism was instituted, only the bourgeoisie had the right to vote because it owned properties. This situation lasted, in most Western States, until the end of the 19th century and even the beginning of the 20th century, when universal suffrage, which is a relatively recent invention in the history of capitalism, was adopted under pressure from society. Universal suffrage was granted, but the tax to be paid was extended to workers, which became universal, which increasingly burdens workers. It was in this way that the bourgeoisie established fiscal “justice” worldwide The parliamentary institution is a typical example of the very direct link between the dominance of the ruling class and the exercise of state power. Today only the most naive believe that the executive and parliament rule in fact, that they are lords of the state, based on universal suffrage.
In the classic capitalist Liberal State, the proclaimed political equality is more apparent than real and that the citizen’s right to vote is merely a right to vote at certain times. Law does not go further, nor does it (above all) reach the real centers where decisions are made and power is exercised. Capitalist monopolies seize Parliament. In fact, it was only in Parliament that the common denominator of the interests of the bourgeoisie could be determined. Capitalist groups could only come together in an orderly manner in Parliament. It is in Parliament that a line can be drawn to express the interests of the capitalist class as a whole.
From a political point of view, the classic capitalist Liberal State left the positive legacy of practiced political democracy where it was implanted from the 19th century to the mid-20th century in practically the entire West, but presented as a negative legacy it did not prevent the emergence of Nazifascism and dictatorships among the two world wars. From the economic point of view, the classic capitalist Liberal State contributed to the advance of capitalism globally, but failed economically because it did not prevent the outbreak of the economic depressions of 1873 and 1929, which resulted in two devastating world wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945 ) that shook the world economy in the first half of the 20th century. From a social point of view, the classic capitalist Liberal State left a massive legacy of mass unemployment worldwide as a result of two major world economic depressions in 1873 and 1929 and two major world wars that resulted in 187 million deaths.
The Marxist State
The Marxist State inspired by Marxism that emerged as antithesis to the classic Liberal State was adopted from 1917 to 1989 mainly in Russia, Eastern European countries and China, among other countries, played a dominant role in the economy and society without the presence of capitalist entrepreneurs. in the economy. The Marxist State, after a resounding success in the implantation of socialism in several countries for seven decades, came to fail because, after conquering the power of the State, it did not fulfill its historic promise to promote political, economic progress and social welfare of its populations, in addition to enabling the restoration of capitalism in Russia, Eastern European countries and China since 1990.
From a political point of view, Marxism left the negative legacy of not exercising democracy by implanting dictatorships in socialist countries. From an economic point of view, Marxism failed economically because, despite the initial success in promoting economic development in the countries where socialism was implemented, it was unable to make this development sustainable, paving the way for the restoration of capitalism in Russia, countries of the Eastern Europe and China. From a social point of view, Marxism deserves a positive highlight for its contribution to social development in the countries where socialism was implanted.
The Keynesian Neoclassical Liberal State
The Keynesian Neoclassical Liberal State was adopted in several countries after the Second World War based on neoclassical liberal economic thought, which appeared in the period between the end of the 19th century and the middle of the 20th century, seeking to perfect classical liberal economic thought in order to offer solutions to the crises of capitalism and combat Marxist economic thinking. Neoclassical liberal economic thought promoted a revolution in economic doctrine with John Maynard Keynes and Keynesianism from 1936 onwards. Keynes defended the existence of a state with different characteristics from the classic Liberal State, which intervened in the economy only exceptionally and the market functioned freely, and the Marxist State, which commanded the economy without the existence of a free market, with its proposal for a Welfare Social State to benefit the population and regulate the economy in order to guarantee its stability and the full use of the factors of production acting together with market forces. From an economic point of view, there was an exceptional contribution by Keynesianism after the Second World War in promoting the economic development of most countries of the world in the “glorious years of capitalism in the 1950s and 1960s”, despite the failure after until the 1970s, with with the exception of Scandinavian countries that currently position themselves as the countries with the greatest political, economic and social progress in the world.
Regarding Scandinavian countries, it is important to note that Scandinavian social democracy is the most successful model of society in the world, which is characterized by the combination of a broad social welfare state with rigid mechanisms for regulating market forces based on Keynesianism with the ability to put the economy on a dynamic path. The Nordic or Scandinavian model of social democracy could best be described as a kind of compromise between capitalism and socialism, the attempt being to merge the most desirable elements of both into a “hybrid” system. The UN World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations in the world are concentrated in Northern Europe, with Norway at the top of the list among Scandinavian countries.
Therefore, from a political point of view, the neoclassical liberal state of Keynesian inspiration leaves the positive legacy of the Scandinavian countries that currently position themselves as the most democratic countries in the world. From an economic point of view, the neoclassical liberal State of Keynesian inspiration contributed to Keynesian economic policies, after the Second World War, in promoting the economic development of most countries in the world until the 1970s, despite the failure after this period, with with the exception of Scandinavian countries that currently position themselves as the countries with the greatest political, economic and social progress in the world. From a social point of view, neoclassical Keynesian liberalism was successful in its application in Scandinavian countries, which according to the UN are the best governed in the world with the Social Welfare State and are the countries with the greatest political, economic and social progress whose people are the happiest in the world.
The Neoliberal Minimum State
With the end of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries in 1989, neoliberal economic thought emerged as an economic and political doctrine to oppose Marxist economic thinking and Keynesian neoclassical liberal thinking of social welfare proposing the restoration of the classical liberal economic thinking based on a conservative economic vision that aims to minimize the State’s participation in the economy not only at the national level, but also at the global level. In general, it can be said that neoliberalism seeks the minimum state, drastically reducing its participation in the economy and deregulating the economy at the national and world levels.
Since 1990, the neoliberal system has become dominant, which is defined by the ubiquity of its mercantile ideology that occupies all the space and all sectors of life at the same time. This ideology says nothing more than: produce, sell, consume, accumulate! It reduced all human relations to mercantile relations and considers our planet as a simple commodity. The duty that the dominant neoliberal system imposes on us is servile work.
The only right he recognizes is the right to private property. The only god he worships is money. The omnipresence of ideology, the cult of money, and the single party disguised as parliamentary pluralism, the absence of visible opposition and the repression in all forms against the will to transform man and the world. This is the true face of modern totalitarianism, which we call “neoliberal democracy”, but it is necessary to call it by its true name: totalitarian mercantile system. Man, society and our planet as a whole are at the service of this ideology. The totalitarian mercantile system has accomplished what no totalitarianism has managed to do before: to unify the world in its image. Today there is no longer possible exile. The dominant neoliberal system aims to minimize the State’s participation in the economy not only at the national level, but also at the global level and to deregulate the economy at the national and world level.
From a political point of view, the neoliberal state leaves a negative legacy by viabilization of the modern totalitarianism called “liberal democracy” that should be called by its true name: totalitarian mercantile system in which man, society and our entire planet are at the service of this ideology whose only right he recognizes is the right to private property, the only god he adores is money, in addition to repressing all actions aimed at transforming man and the world. From an economic point of view, the neoliberal state fails with the outbreak of the 2008 global crisis and the chaos that ensued in the world economy thanks to the lack of global economic and financial regulation that can lead to the collapse of the international financial system and the explosion of debt worldwide. From a social point of view, neoliberalism is leaving a legacy of extreme social inequality that has reached alarming levels around the world.
3. The new State of the future to build the kingdom of freedom, equality, fraternity and solidarity for human beings
The objective reality shows that, under the current conditions, the election of representatives of the people to the executive power and parliaments in the neoliberal Minimum State is not enough to change the character of the governments that will always continue to serve the totalitarian mercantile system. Many people naively believe that the purpose of the State is the search for the common good. It is a great mistake because, since the State emerged throughout history, its role has been to serve the interests of the dominant social classes in its different periods. Parliament and, even more, the government of a capitalist state, no matter how democratic it seems, is subordinated to the interests of the ruling classes, above all of the financial system through chains of subordination that take the name of public debt. Today, more than ever, no government could last more than a month without knocking on the banks’ doors to pay its expenses. If banks refused to finance the public deficit, governments would be bankrupt. The increase in public debt results from the fact that the government spends more than it collects, the public deficit of which grows continuously. The government raises funds from the financial system by paying it at high rates, which makes it extremely dependent on the financial system.
Despite the illusion of voting and parliamentary democracy in a neoliberal Minimum State, people still see themselves as citizens. They believe that they actually vote and freely decide who will defend their interests. In parliamentary democracy, there is no opposition to the “status quo”, as the dominant political parties are in agreement on the essential that is the conservation of the current commercial society. There are no political parties capable of coming to power that doubt the dogma of the market. And it is these parties that, with media complicity, monopolize appearances. The representative and parliamentary form that usurps the name of democracy limits citizens’ power by the simple right to vote, that is, to nothing. The seats of Parliament are occupied by the vast majority of the dominant economic class, be it from the right or from the intended social-democratic left.
One question that arises for the true democrats in the world is how to implode the dominant neoliberal system in such a way that the executive power and the parliament of each country become constituted in truly democratic organisms that act for the benefit of their populations. In order to achieve the goal of transforming the neoliberal Minimum State that is at the service of modern totalitarianism into a new state that is diametrically opposed, it is necessary to adopt the Keynesian Welfare State to transform it for the benefit of all the people, making structural changes necessary in each country in the molds of Scandinavian countries which, according to the UN, is the most successful model of society in the world, being described as a kind of middle ground between capitalism and socialism in an attempt to merge the most desirable elements of both into one system “hybrid”. The choice of Scandinavian social democracy as a model of society to be adopted is due to the fact that the UN World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations in the world are concentrated in Northern Europe, with Norway at the top of the list among the Scandinavian countries. Worldwhile, Neo-Keynesianism should be adopted, which means the adoption of Keynesianism on a planetary level.
NeoKeynesianism would aim to coordinate Keynesian economic policies at the planetary level that would only be achieved with the existence of a world government. NeoKeynesianism means the adoption of Keynesianism at the national level to obtain economic stability and the full use of the factors of production in each country, but it would also operate at the world level to eliminate the global economic chaos that currently prevails with neoliberalism. NeoKeynesianism means the adoption of Keynesianism at the planetary level in order to ensure economic stability and the full use of production factors globally. This would be the way to regulate the world economy to eliminate the chaos that characterizes neoliberal globalization. This would be the way to avoid a repetition of what happened in the 1970s and 1980s when the absence of global economic regulation contributed for the national Keynesian economies to suffer uncontrollable external impacts. These events demonstrate that Keynesianism in each country is not enough to ensure economic stability and obtain full use of the factors of production. There needs to be a world government that would act to ensure coordination between the Keynesian economic policies adopted in each country.
This stage in the history of mankind would make it possible for the world system that operates uncoordinatedly to operate as a true system with the existence of feedback and control mechanisms through a democratically elected world government by all the peoples of the entire world. This would be the necessary step for the organization of a world system in which its parts, that is, the countries and the whole, the global systems (political, economic, social, environmental and international) would act in a coordinated way for the benefit of all humanity. This would be the solution to avoid economic chaos, international conflicts and the degradation of the local and global environment.
After this stage of humanity’s development, it will be possible to evolve towards the construction of a new society without the existence of exploiters and exploited that has characterized its history fulfilling the dream of many supporters of socialism. Thus, the conditions would be created for the construction of a new stage in human history of advanced political, economic, social, environmental and international progress to be shared by all peoples in all countries of the world based on cooperation between all human beings. The high level of scientific and technological development achieved by humanity will create the conditions for work to be automated on a large scale with the use of artificial intelligence that will free human beings from the burdens of work, allowing them to dedicate themselves to culture, leisure and scientific and technological research for the progress of humanity. Only then, it will be possible to build the kingdom of freedom, equality, fraternity and solidarity for all human beings. This would be the way of humanity’s redemption with the victory of civilization over barbarism and of building the kingdom of freedom, equality, fraternity and solidarity for all human beings.
REFERENCES
ALCOFORADO, Fernando. The evolution of economic thinking and its effects on the world economy throughout history. Available on the website <https://www.academia.edu/43972021/THE_EVOLUTION_OF_ECONOMIC_THINKING_AND_ITS_EFFECTS_ON_THE_WORLD_ECONOMY_THROUGHOUT_HISTORY>.
DALLARI, Dalmo de Abreu. Elementos da teoria geral do Estado. 19 ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1995.
GILISSEN, John. Introdução Histórica ao Direito. 2 ed. São Paulo: Montscheid, 1996.
HUNT, E. K.; SHERMAN, Howard J. História do Pensamento Econômico. 26ª ed. Petrópolis: Ed. Vozes, 2013.
MALUF, Sahid. Teoria Geral do Estado. 3 ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1950.
MARX, Karl e ENGELS, Friedrich. A Origem da Família, da Propriedade Privada e do Estado Rio: Editora Civilização Brasileira, 1984.
MARX, Karl e ENGELS, Friedrich. A Ideologia Alemã. São Paulo: Editora Boitempo, 2007.
MASCARO, Alysson Leandro Barbate. Estado e forma política; 1ª ed. (São Paulo, Boitempo, 2013).
_________________________________. Filosofia do Direito; 1ª ed. (São Paulo, Atlas, 2010).
SOUSA, Ricardo Gonçalves. Ciência política e Direito: da evolução do Estado desde a antiguidade até os dias atuais. Available on the website <https://jus.com.br/artigos/38897/ciencia-politica-e-direito-da-evolucao-do-estado-desde-a-antiguidade-ate-os-dias-atuais>.
WIKIPEDIA. História da escravidão. Available on the website <https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hist%C3%B3ria_da_escravid%C3%A3o#:~:text=O%20pr%C3%ADncipe%20Infante%20D.,converter%20todas%20as%20pessoas%20escravizadas>.
* Fernando Alcoforado, 80, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development by the University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is author of the books Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2016), A Invenção de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017), Esquerda x Direita e a sua convergência (Associação Baiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018, em co-autoria) and Como inventar o futuro para mudar o mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2019).
Site Title 