The oldest calendar in the world

The oldest calendar in the world


The oldest calendar in the word belongs to the Bulgars , one of the tribes ‘ people who created the country in the east Europe –Bulgaria. The bulgars’ calendar is proclaimed from UNESCO as the most accurate in the world with its almost inconceivable precisions . The scholars are on the opinion that this calendar was created in 2350 BC,but some of them adhere to the opinion that the accurate year might be 5505 BC, which if it is true , should reveal the possibility of the Bulgarian calendar to be a root stock of the Chinese’s calendar.

The calendar was a solar based, in reverse to the Chinese calendar based on the moon, which explains the fact why every new year’s beginning was dated on 22th of December , the day of the winter solstice. This day was not included in the calendar as a part of none of the seasons in it, it was somewhat independent day or zero-day. The rest of the days (364) were distributed into four different Parts (with each part included in itself three mouths). Quite interesting is the fact that due to that allocation, every new season used to start on Sunday- the first day of the Bulgars’ week. Moreover, the calendar was inflicted by the Jupiter revolution around the Sun  and it’s cyclic.

Like the whole cycle of one year, which fundamentally was consisted of 12 parts, the Bulgars’ calendar had a similar cycle of 12 years. The first year was the year of the mouse ( the years ran in that order – 1.Mouse ,2.-cow , 3-Ox, 4-tigger/wolf, 5-rabbit,6-dragon,7-snake,8-horse,9- monkey,10-ram,11-rooster, 12-pig). Speaking of the precision of the calendar divided the night in 12 hours as the day, too.

The calendar was used not only as an instrument of measurement, but also as grounds of identity with its structure in which you could see how the beginning and the end were part of the immense eternity. It was a weapon for the Bulgars to measure the history and how different things happened throughout it. The calendar is also an ample evidence of the advance knowledge of the Bulgars in astronomy and mensuration. As a matter of fact, much more information about how the calendar worked could be trace in the name list of the Bulgarians khans, a book of immense importance which indicates how one each ruler reigned.

Referring back to the Chinese’s calendar it’s worth saying that in the Bulgar calendar, the sequence of the elements is water, fire, earth, tree, metal; the sequence in the Chinese is – tree, fire, earth, metal and water. Another oddly interesting difference between the two calendars is that the former had a leap day while the later had (and still has) a leap mouth.





Berlin’s treaty or how the Balkans suffered unfair treatment

In duration of one month (between 13 June -13 July) 1878 in Berlin, the European major powers gathered together in order to solve the problems concerning the faith of many European nationalities. That delegation of representatives was highly influence by the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, whose main concerns were not to pacify the eruption of crisis in Europe (mainly in the Balkans) after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78, but to satisfy the desires of another European powers such as Britain and Austro –Hungary. That was diplomatic meeting , but it was far from being diplomatic and fair in many ways, especially regarding the ethical origin and respecting the rights of many nationalities across the continent. This is ample evidence, how one treaty could do more harm than good and how people’s wishes could be disregard and throw away without much courtesy.

Three main powers were in the center of that hurricane of struggles for domination between  the Ottoman empire (which was in its period of decay), the Russian empire (with its pretentions of dominations over the Balkans) and the Austro-Hungary with similar wishes as the Russians. In addition, the British’s interests were to support the Ottoman empire in hope to prevent Russian’s power to encroach in the Balkan’s territory. By contrast, one by one many balkans’ states became independent or less pliable to Ottoman’s influence , which immediately made them  potential targets for Russia or Austro-Hungary domination.

However, an arrival of the new element like “Pan-Slavism” movement , added brand new complexion in the international affairs. As a matter of fact, that movement arose by the power of culture, history and traditional heritage between the people in the northern (Poles, Ukrainians), western (Czechs, Slovaks) and southern Slavs (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes) and had its most influential power over the Balkans. The movement was eagerly accepted and grasped with wave of enthusiasm by Russia, since the empire could rise its pretentions over Poland and Ukraine. However , Poland refused to accept the new doctrines , being tired of the unwanted control of Russian, Prussian and Austrian empires on her territory, the only thing Poland wanted was her ultimate independence.

In 1786, after the miserable failure of Serbia’s war against the Ottoman Empire , an international conference took place in Constantinople , highly recommended by Russia , in which it was decided to be made settlements mutually agreeable to all parties. During the conference , the destiny of the Balkans’ nations were subject of greedy imperialism as if the territory was big cake and everyone was eager to get the biggest piece. For instance, Russia was eager to support the independence of Serbia and Montenegro as long she was given free access to Bulgaria and Romania. On the other hand, Bosnia and Herzegovina would be under the influence of Austro-Hungary. However, this rearrangement of priorities was not accepted lightly by the Turkish sultan Abdul Hamid II, consequently the Russo-Turkish war broke out with its highest straight and allured every Balkan’s state into war. It ended with the treaty of San Stefano, with the new enlarged Bulgarian state with its new territories, which possessed a treat in the eyes of Great Britain and Austria as they feared that it would serve as a tool of Russian’s expansion in the Balkans.

The main aim of the congress in Berlin was to re-create a new map of Europe, which would serve in benefit to only three states. Serbia, Rumania and Montenegro declared their independence, but Rumania had to cede the territory of Bessarabia to Russia, which the latter had lost after the Crimean War.

As the reason above, the possibility of Bulgarian’s state being a treat to great powers , was not justifiable to their unfair actions and the treaty of Berlin. After almost 500 years under slavery and Ottoman influence over Bulgarian territories, after that new state taking its first breath and could sense the freedom for the first time, Bulgaria was almost torn into after the treaty of Berlin. The territories of Macedonia and the unnatural creation of the principality of East Rumelia were under the control of the Ottomans.  Looking back with the perspective of the present, we could see how the coexistence of so many nationalities under Ottoman empire’s control was something impossible for 19th century Europe. One of the questions, which intensified the pressure even more was Macedonia, Bulgarians and Serbians were adamant to one another they were reluctant to give up on it, neither the Ottomans.

However, the most striking fact of the whole treaty was that representatives of from Russia, England, Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, Italy and Turkey attended it, in addition there were representatives of Balkan countries (Greece, Iran, Romania, Montenegro and Serbia) were invited to the congress but did not participate in its work. I would like to make an emphasis on the fact that there was no representative of Bulgaria, which violated the treaty and its validity. Here, we could see how Bulgarian state was not only refused a say in that question, but also was a subject of unfair treatment.

Nevertheless, Britain and German’s concerns about the Balkans’ influence or future dominations had grounds, they were unjustified in the eyes of many people. For instance, the Russian general Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatiev wanted ‘the Eastern peoples ,notably the Slavs,to turn their gaze to Russia, and not to other European state’.

The future of Bulgaria ,already divided into two principalities the first one (with capital Sofia) between the Danube and the Stara Planina range and the second (capital Plovdiv) in the south of the Stara Planina range, was uncertain and vague. There were fervent discussions over the fact that the prince (knyaz) who was supposed to rule the new Bulgarian state (with capital Sofia) should not have to be from Russia. Eventually , in 1886  Alexander of Battenberg was chosen to be the leader of the nation and who was a nephew of Russia’s Tsar Alexander II. Actually, the new –crowned knyaz was far from being satisfied with his position in his new principality, he even complained to his uncle and even expressed his concerns regarding his power and influence over the state. He even complained that his power was strongly restricted by the constitution and the government and that he felt himself out of place in that country – Bulgaria.

But we could easily forgive those words of him, as he was still young (only 25 years old when he came to power) and he was still green , knowing nothing of the foreign affairs and unscrupulous games of power.

Pirates’ life – nasty, brutish and short



The very existence of the piracy took its first breath when the first voyages occurred for the first time. The mystery and the terrifying role that the pirates occupied in people’s minds was almost poetic and was pliable by words of mouth, which were half-true, half-falsifications or just distant speculations.

For instance, many great leaders throughout the history tried to win the war against the piracy without much success, Alexander The Great made such an attempt to curb the piracy in the Mediterranean in 330 BC without avail. Moreover, in 78 BC the young Julius Caesar was captured in the island of Pharmacusa by pirates, just to be exchanged for ransom in a period of six weeks. In 67 BC, Pompey was strongly adamant not to tolerate such situation any more, he launched campaign against those ‘savages’ in which around ten thousand pirates were killed in the cost of Anatolia.

Until 17th century, pirates used only the galleys, but after the introduction of the sailing to them by Flemish renegade named Simon Danser , their straight and power intensified rapidly with high speed. The most dangerous and fearsome from them all, were the Algerian pirates, who were united by Khayr ad-Din widely known as Barbarossa. There were many attempts made by both Britain and France to stop those malice and to emancipate the seas from them, but in most of the time, the results were at least catastrophic and devastating.

On 29th May 1720, one ship named Samuel , in the waters of the North Atlantic, was leaving its port in London just to head to Boston. That ship was precious treasure indeed, with its a cargo of ironware,assorted goods in bales and trunks, and forty-five barrels of gunpowder. The crew was comprised only  of ten men, excluding the Captain Samuel Cary and another three passengers. On 13th July the ship was forty miles east of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland when another two ships were approaching from the distance. They were pirates, searching for new victim and a new object of plunder. As soon as they came up with the ship, they did not hesitate to rise fire and to wave the black flags.  Not only did the pirates were well-equipped with weapons to fight, but they outnumbered Samuel with the amount of men on each ship, Capitan Cary estimated that there were around hundred men on each of them.  Cary was told to abandon his ship and to come abroad the pirate ship where their captain Bartholomew Roberts had to meet him, and he did so as if he’d had another choice. After everything valuable was stolen from the ship and the rest was troweled overboard, it came down to the question of the ex-captain and his people. Eventually , as it was a long established tradition, all numbers of the crew were killed , but the captain and one Irish man was forced to join the pirates  in their new adventures. However, every rule has its own exception, during a heated discussion whether Samuel should be burned or sank, the pirates noticed a new ship coming out in the horizon and in that frenzy of events our Captain somehow managed to escape from the horrible hands of the pirates in order to reach Boston and to give report of his series of unfortunate events.

I could assure you that those circumstances were quite lucky for the poor captain as much more could have happened to him and to the ship, in short that was sheer happy ending .

However, the career and the life of pirate was not always the most foreseeable and predictable event, which might lie on the path of every men. That was the case of one Scottish man named William Kidd (1645 – 1701) whose passion for the sea voyages was inherited by his father who was a seaman. Kidd, at the very peak of his career, was responsible for protecting protect English ships in the Caribbean from French attacks during the war between them. In 1695, he returned to England in order to receive his payout for his duties as privateer, but the faith had another plans for him. He came up with a plant to attack the French ships and pirate vessels, after being financial backed by his new friend  Lord Bellomont. His voyage was granted with nothing, but failure due partly to the fact that almost half of the crew perished, another part was far from organized in order to accomplish such an action. In 1697, growing into the idea that his trip was merely a catastrophe, Kidd made a stopping point near Madagascar, famous shelter for many pirates across the Indian ocean. After that , he made his greatest mistake in his life, by attacking Indian company vessel, which was his passport to prison. From that point, he was pronounced a criminal and hanged on May 23, 1701. His body hung in a cage and left to rot as a warning against other pirates or men who might dare to do such thing. Some people said that the rope on which he was hanging broke twice and only on the third time Kidd died (such a shameful death).


What about the women?

While the men were slaughtered ruthlessly after the ship was attacked by pirates, the women did not reach better faith than being often thrown overboard like unwanted things. Sometimes, African women were given as a presents from someone else or they were captivated by the Captain of the ship by himself. Other women were even placed in much worse circumstances by being raped many times. For instance, one an American pirate Charles Gibbs recollected from his memory how once during an attack on one Dutch ship, everyone was killed, except on beautiful Dutch girl who was taken by force in one island near Cuba. She was their prisoner for two months, after which they decided to put her to death, poisoned her and throw her body in the ocean.

However, many European women were treated with respect, for example on board the Revenge there was long established rule which said that ‘If at any time we meet with a prudent woman, that man that offers to meddle with her, without her consent, shall suffer present death.’

Many people hold the opinion that a woman could not be a pirate and they sniffed in disbelief when someone rise that question as if it was equivalent to absurdity.

One of the most famous pirates in the history was a woman and her name is Anne Bonny. She was born from love affair between a maid and English lawyer , around 1700 in Cork,Ireland. As a result, her father and her mother fled to America in order to avoid some scandalous reputation. However, Anne was supposed to marry some deceint gentleman, but when she chose James Bonny, poor as a mouse sailor, her father did not make an attempt to conceal his discontent and immediately disinherited her. Anne and her future husband set up to New Providence, where little by little she lost respect for him and did not miss an opportunity to indulge herself in different pleasures. If she was not pregnant (probably around 1719), she might have persuaded her life as a pirate even much more earlier. After that she met two of people of her future crew (“Calico Jack” Rackham and Mary Read), which by 1720 came up from the world of obscurity, just to became famous for its savages and brutality. All across the Caribbeans , everyone knew their names and they were eventually captured and sentenced to death.

On November, before the executions to take place, Rackham was allowed to see Bonny and she said to him only this ‘”I’m sorry to see you here, but if you had fought like a man you need not have hanged like a dog.” However, Bonny and Mary were not killed, due to the fact that they, both were pregnant, but Mary died in prison five months later. What happened to Anne, nobody could verify with certainty as her story stopped there, and the tail got cold.






The first peasants’ war in Russia or the Time of Troubles

Bogolubov_Krestn_hod_v ‘The time of troubles’ as many historians call upon that period was turning point in Russian history, not only with its unprecedenting events, but also with its great importance. After the Soviet Era, many scholars rejected the theory that that period was the ‘first peasant war’ in Russian history, instead they were inclined to refer to it as a civil war, something which they found much more compatible to the people’s perception.

That period was indeed troubling and deserved to be called upon that name, also it was serious mixture of discontent, confusion and grievance.

Everything began with the appearance of one man, which identity is still under the scrutiny of many observations, who claimed to be Tsarevich Dmitrii, Ivan the Terrible’s youngest son who died in 1591. That man intentions were not only to put into question the Boris Godunov’s reign, but also to overthrown the tsar. His explanation how he survived and fled from the hands of death was so credible than, after being reported to Prince Adam Vishnevetskii at Brahin in Lithuania, was represented to the King Sigismund of Poland. So successful was the pretender’s plan that he eventually was taken under the patronage of Prince Constantine’s father-in-law, Jerzy Mniszech, the Palatine of Sandomierz, whose family seat was at Sambor, in Poland. Mniszech promised Dmitrii military support in return of gaining part of Russian territory, as a result the ‘lost’ son agreed and even took the daughter of the first as his wife, which was playing role as a guarantee. We could see how those even subsequently led to serious strains between Russia and Poland and the implementation of further difficulties was almost unavoidable.

However, some scholars argue that behind that unpredictable and sudden arrival of Dmitrii was an attempt of some families, between which the names of Romanovs, Shuiskii or Nagois were mentioned. On the other hand, due to lack of ample evidences the involvement of some of them was not justified or the possibility of boyars intervention, too.
After gaining enough support, Dmitrii entered Kiev with a small army of Polish troops and Cossacks, strongly determined to make his way throughout the empire. After his successful occupation of many regions like Chernigov, Putivl’, Ryl’sk and Kursk his popularity grew rapidly hand in hand with the support of many people explicitly not willing to tolerate Godunov’s policies anymore. Despite the fact that the ‘true’ tsar did not make any promises concerning the lower class society, mainly who supported him, the peasants but only expressed his views of unity against Gudanov’s regime and alternative future plan, he rose into favor even more. Those feelings were intensified even more when the sudden death of Boris Godunov took place on April 1605. Many of the boyars swore allegiance to Fedor Borisovich (Godunov’s son), but on 6th May considerable number of soldiers and army’s men changed the sides and turned to the Dmitrii. The way to Moscow was open to Dmitrii as result of that shifting nature of power and loyalty.
A proclamation wasa read out in the streets of Moscow , where people were gathering around, as a result massive revolt took place against the Godunov’s reign. No sooner did the former Tsaritsa Mariia Nagaia arrive and recognized Dmitrii as her son, he was proclaimed a tsar and his reign began( which weight was not longer than an year or less).
Some historians are quite dubious about the importance of Dmitrii’s reign due to the fact that his achievements were in shortage. We could not put so much blame on this, if we consider the short time in which he was on the throne. However, we could not turn blind eye on the fact that he granted with considerable land and money the servicemen of the southern and south-western towns who fervently supported him and also exempt them from paying taxes for fixed period of time, he indeed knew how to express his gratitude. He even planned campaign against the Turks and the Cremean Tatars, but unfortunately those ambitions were thwarted after his overthrown and dead in 1606.
As the situation continued to deteriorate, a new fresh complexion was added to the mixture, after Dmitrii’s death, on the throne came Vasili Shuiskii. As a response, everywhere around the empire a rumor was spread out that Dmitrii’s death was a fraud and he was only biding time and gathering forces. Indeed, that was sheer falsification, but new Dmitriis popped up in the scene much more quickly that it was expected. In the end, a new Dmitrii (the second false Dmitrii) made an appearance in the town of Starodub, in the Seversk region, in June 1607. His stategy was different, he entered Russia with considerable troops of Polish solders and made his own new ‘Moscow’ , just outside the city. That new ‘Moscow’ or Tushino, as this was the name of the town, had its own military support, royal court and even own Orthodox Patriarch. Moreover, the second Dmitrii was trying to alienate Moscow from the country with all the ways possible, while his supporters grew in numbers. Much more shocking events happened in his support, for instance Marina, the wife of the first Dmitrii, recognized and accounted him as her first husband, she even born a child from him. The country was relatively speaking in shock and terror, many people were shifting sides in the blink of the eye and wave of uncertainty was making his way everywhere. During that unbearable tension in the country, Shuiskii found himself in position of seeking foreign help. So, he made negotiations with the king of Sweden in possibility of war against Poland, as the second party provided military support to Dmitrii II.

Nevertheless, the grand battle between Poland and Russia occurred after Dmitrii II’s death (1610) at the very moment he ceased to be a factor. The war was triggered by another difficulty, while the army was exhausted by the events within the country, the vast majority of the boyars were ready to accept with open hands the Polish Crown Prince Ladislaus as the new Tsar as long as he maintained the Orthodox supremacy in Russia.

The Poland ‘s army was invading Moscow while someone declared Marina Mniszech and her newborn child as the rightful heirs, which was one needless action with fatal consequences. The occupation of Moscow was boiling point in Russia’ history, especially after the revolt in the city in 1611 in which the Poles troops marched towards Kremelin, after burning the outskirts of it, making the vast majority of the population homeless. A massive exposition of armies swept out the invaders from the Kremlin in October of 1612, Russian people were granted with a new tsar the year later, but the recovery from those events were not short-lived.

Law and Church in Russia during the late middle ages


  • Russian Pravda

The first arrival of the ‘Russian Pravda’ appeared to be in 1016 and reached its completion in 1170s. In fact, those series of documents were regarded as the most fundamental principle of Russian law until 1546.

The document started as a court handbook in order to provide protection of the people in Novgorod against the various Vikings’ oppression. Throughout the years, many new chapters took place in it , considering different aspects of the Russian society. For instance, Vladimir Monomakh’ (1113–25) was particularly concerned about the debts and how they were paid, since he introduced a new accretions to the document concerning that problem. Furthermore, around 1176, a new chapter was added regarding the status of the ‘slaves’ – which claimed for the first time that the slaves were not animals,but human beings like everyone else with true characters. Despite the existence of those fundamental affairs, it is quite astonishing the fact that by and large the document was consisted of oral evidences written down. But for Pravda, Russian law would have continued its path as providing only oral evidences with questionable faithfulness.

However, according to the document, the possibility of banishment and exile was as strong as the corporal punishment and execution. In its principle the Russian law was somewhat unfair regarding the women, for example if there were no heirs, the land was passed to the prince. It was not permitted to the wives to inherit anything, neither the children of female slaves. On the other hand, another major function of the law was to preserve the Christianity and protect it, facilitating male superiority, but providing protection towards the helpless women and enforcing the feeling of collective responsibility.

Indeed, as every political document, Russian Pravda took over questions as supporting the military power,private property and business trade.


  • Church law

The Church was another major body of the political and social structure of mediaeval Russia with its own laws and rules. The church of Russia was almost as powerful and with inhospitable predominance as in other places around Europe at that time, in terms of staying above the ruler of the country.

In fact, there are to major points ,which are worth to be mentioned in relation with the status of the church law. First of all, the Church people (which population consisted not only by the clergies, bishops,monks and priests, but also widows, beggars and free men) were not permitted to be juridical subjects. In other words , they were not allowed to impose decisions and making judgments regarding the crime in the country. As an quite opposition to the previous prohibition, the second point illustrated how the Church was given right to impose its judgment over some family and common issues, which was viewed by many people as sheer violation of the communal law.

During the 15th century, many questions were raised in close relation with the succession of the dynasty or in correlation with the conflicts between the representatives of the Old Testament, but above all the most important one was the role of the Orthodox Church in the world. Gaining more and more land, the Church in Russia at the very end of 15tth century owned around third of the populated land of Muscovy. This refracted with little sympathy and outrageous rage among many people, who urged that the major objective of the church should have been anything, but the souls’ salvation of the people.

As usual , there were two major views of those who accused the church of Godless by its actions and those who interceded it.  The first called themselves ‘nonpossessors’ , they believed in the holiness of the Church’s image, in the simplicity in which monks should have to lived and in the disengagement of everything, but searching for spirituality. On the second front were the so-called ‘possessors’ whose argument was that in possessing a land, the church was involved in responsibility of regulating society’s needs, those needs included in themselves the schools and the hospitals. Joseph Volokolamsky,fervent defender even said ‘God’s holy churches and monasteries must not suffer injury or violence, and their lands and belongings must not be taken away. … For all Church and monastery property, as well as the fruits of the monks’ labor, are dedicated to God. … He who takes away anything that belongs to a monastery is an offender, and the holy regulations curse him.’

However, we should not take those words as a face value and turn a blind eye on the situation, but consider the both sides with equal judgment. In 1508, Vasilii (Vasily or Basil) III (1479-1533) ascended the throne and became grand prince of Moscovy. According to the historical records, he made everything possible to expand the Church authority and refused to consider the ‘nonpossessors’ objections. It is pretty obvious, how his actions worked in completely unison with his intentions to reinforce his authority and secure his centralization at the same time.  Vassian (Ivan) Patrikieev, who appeared in the court of the prince in order to raise his voice against these misjudgments, said ‘Where in the tradition of the Gospels, Apostles, and Fathers are monks ordered to acquire populous villages and enslave peasants to the brotherhood? …. We look into the hands of the rich, fawn slavishly, flatter them to get out of them some little village. … We wrong and rob and sell Christians, our brothers. We torture them with scourges like wild beasts.

Here we have either one unsolved question whether one of the speculations was untrue and absolutely unfair or we could see how , not for the first time and surely not for the last, the authority works against the common good of the people.

Karl Marx -a man of clear vision


Karl Marx- a philosopher, journalist, writer, economist, sociologist, historian-but who was the man behind these layers of labels? Behind them stood a dreamer with comparatively different perspective on the world for his time . Marx was born in 1818 in Prussia, his father was successful lawyer and also a Jew, who was find compelled to be baptized due to the anti-Jewish movements and laws in the country. Being well-educated in Benn and Berlin, studing philosophy, history and law, Marx was destined to receive great knowledge of the world and its government. Unfortunately, he was far from satisfied and quite disappointed and devoted to his radical convictions he went on the journalism. As a journalist, he shortly worked as an editor of e Rheinische Zeitung, until the newspaper was banned due to the censorship imposed by the Russian government. Therefore Prussia didnothing, but abided by the decision.

However, during his studies in Berlin, Marx became more and more interesting in philosophy, he was almost part of the so called “Young Hegelians ’’ society, in which he converted himself into passionate supporter of Hegel’s philosophy, but without accepting whole his concepts and making some criticizing remarks on his own. For example, according to Hegel the reality itself is composed by the vision of some Idea, while Marx argued that it is the Man, who is the true subject of the reality. However, despite being eager to achieve something new and impose justice where it was missed, the reality in which Marx lived was a harsh one. In his early years when he lived in London around 1850s, he and his wife experienced depravation of living in poverty. This is an fragment of letter, which he wrote to his friend Friedrich Engels, depicting explicitly clear about the situation –‘My house is a hospital and the crisis is so disrupting that it requires all my attention. My wife is ill, Jennychen is ill and Lenchen has a kind of nervous fever. I couldn’t and can’t call the doctor, because I have no money for the medicine. For ten days I have managed to feed the family on bread and potatoes, but it is doubtful whether I can get hold of any today. How can I deal with all this devilish filth? ‘. Fortunately enough, Engels helped him out to come though those struggles, setting up some king of pension for his friend.

Despite the fact that few people ,if not nobody, doubted the intelligence of Marx, he was a hard nut to crack. Indeed, his personality was not the most pleasant one when it comes down to accepting or acknowledge somebody ‘s opinion. Many people depicted him with an arrogant, stubborn and sarcastic personality without omniscient features. For instance, his Russian rival Mikhail Bakunin said ‘“He called me a sentimental idealist and he was right. I called him vain, treacherous, and morose; and I too was right.”

Nevertheless, in a long term, it do not matter the personality of the person,but his achievement, and Carl Marx did achieve much. His vision of the world laid to the foundation of the new order and new attitude towards the social class struggle. This struggle was one of the main points in the Marxism as a theoretical knowledge and vision. Briefly, Marx was fervent opponent of the capitalism with its ruthless exploitation and unfair treatment towards the classes. The explanation of that exploitation is quite simple –society in which people receive less than they produce is capitalistic one, indeed we could see how this regime is put into practice in many regions around the world, not only in the lest developed countries.

In one of his major works (Das Capital) Capital, Marx described in detail the vagueness of the vision of the capitalism and its true nature. He himself put it extremely clear how the capitalist’s society runs and what future implications brings with its actions. ‘The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis.’ Karl Marx , London 1873 Marx had a vision of the world, where the universal class- labour struggle did not existed anymore and the private enterprises were converted into collective ownership. He called ‘socialism’, the one which would wipe out the furious capitalism once and for all. Being quite convince, Marx wrote that the new regime should be born from ashes of the old one as if the mankind needed to preserve its observations in the course of the formation of the new one. For instance, he provided clear explanation how the capitalist society could provide solid grounds and preparation for socialism in the end of ‘Das Capital’ Volume One.

The most distinctive character of the socialism, which made clear demarcation between itself and the capitalism, is the very principle of distribution. (‘. . . a community of free individuals, carrying on their labour with the means of production in common, in which the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community.’ ‘Das Capital’). We could easily grasp the importance of the distribution of labour, once we understand its fundamental principle in which the individuals work together in the single body of the society as a whole. The motto of the capitalism is clear ‘everyone for himself ’ while the socialism tries to tighten up everyone in one single grasp. With these ‘grasp’ Marx claimed that the class differences and the coercive force over the people would disappear.

Some people flatly contradict and refuse to accept these ideas , as such concepts are implausible and even impossible to be accomplished. Could it be possible for us to live without being govern by no one, and what are the chances of our survival in such society? In its peak, the communism doctrine ended up like a new dictatorship and Engels was able to predict such an outcome by saying ‘`the government of people will be replaced by the administration of things’ (1884).

However, it is not clear whether someday we will succeed in achieving the most precise and absolute vision of Marx’s classless society. I would prefer to be optimistic, but the universal struggle and exploitation do not give much hope for our utopia.