p The part of nature that comes into contact with society is conventionally called the geographical environment.

p The geographical environment consists of surrounding lands and bodies of water, the climate, flora and fauna, minerals, and so on. Society’s existence and development undoubtedly depend on all these factors. Nature is a handy store of foodstuffs and means of labour. While utilising nature’s wealth and the properties of its component material forms (objects, bodies and processes), people create the necessary conditions for existence and produce the goods needed for their lives. Nature or, more precisely, the geographical environment thus produces a considerable impact on people’s life in society and on society’s current state and development.

p For example, “the greater the natural fertility of the soil and the favourableness of the climate, so much less is the labour-time necessary for the maintenance and reproduction of the producer. So 310 much greater therefore can be the excess of his labour"  [310•1  and the accumulation of social wealth. The greater amount of minerals a country possesses, the greater possibilities it has for development of production. And the more varied is its wealth and other natural conditions, the more diverse are people’s activities. Man’s diverse activities are inevitably conducive to “multiplication of his wants, his capabilities, his means and modes of labour.”  [310•2 

p The influence of the geographical environment on society’s development was especially pronounced Ifl the early stages ot mankind’s existence. During this period, the emergence and development of any specific type of production or activity was directly dependent on the geographical environment and its specific features. Thus, for example, fertile land was conducive to the emergence of land cultivation, rivers and lake conditioned the appearance of fishing, large forest areas stimulated the development of hunting, while steppe and hilly areas provided favourable conditions for taming wild animals and raising stock.

p The geographical environment thus makes a considerable impact on society’s development, but how important is it?

p The proponents of so-called geographical determimsm hold that the influence of the geogrF phical environment on society is determining, and 311 that society’s nature and its development depend entirely on environmental factors. The ideas involved here are in no way new. Even in the ancient times some historians, such as Strabo ( Strabon), referred to the geographical environment when describing the life and mores of different peoples. Geographical determinism has become widespread, however, in the period of the development of capitalism-when various “theories” have emerged explaining the nature and development of society by temperature conditions, terrain, the presence and location of water, and so forth.

p The 18th-century French philosopher Montesquieu, for instance, held that society’s moral principles, the forms of state power and legislation were all determined by the climate. In particular, a hot climate, according to Montesquieu, engenders laziness, cowardice and inevitably leads to the emergence of slavery, while a cold climate, on the contrary, imparts a certain strength to people’s minds and bodies, enabling them to perform prolonged, strenuous, great and courageous acts, as a result of which northerners are free people. He wrote : “The pusillanimity of peoples of hot climates almost always led them to slavery, while the courage of peoples of cold climates maintained them free.”  [311•1 

p The Russian sociologist L. I. Mechnikov held that water resources play the determining role 312 in society. “Water,” he wrote, “proves not only to be a vitalising element in nature, but also a genuine driving force in history.” It represents a “power” that encourages the development of cultures, progression from the river systems towards inland seas, and thence to the oceans.  [312•1 

p The 19th-century British ideologist Henry Thomas Buckle advocated a whole host of geographical agents, such as the climate, soil, relief, and so on, as determining factors in social development.  [312•2 

p In the initial period of capitalism’s existence, geographical theories played a progressive role, since they were spear-headed against theological doctrines of society and provided secular explanations of social changes. Later on, however, they became increasingly reactionary in character, for they diverted the attention of the working people, notably the proletariat, from the actual reasons behind their oppression and misery, and laid the whole “responsibility” for this state of affairs on the geographical environment-climate, soil fertility, etc.

p In the 20th century, geographical determinism, under the title of Geopolitik, became the theoretical basis for the imperialist bourgeoisie’s militaristic views, thus vindicating aggressive wars and the enslavement of one nation by another. 313 Such views appeared for the first time in Germany. Their authors claimed that Lebensraum (living space), in particular a certain area of land, plays the determining role in society’s development. They asserted that accordingly each nation strove to obtain living space for its people, and seize the requisite territory, thus explaining the necessity of struggle for living space between various nations and, consequently, that of wars.

p The ideas were well suited to the policies of fascism and so Geopolitik was proclaimed the official ideology by the nazis. It was taught as a special subject in all universities of nazi Germany. Geopolitik lost its former significance when fascism was defeated in World War II.

p The geographical theory of society’s development obviously includes the possibility for bourgeois ideologiststo draw reactionary conclusions. Its utter insolvency is proved by the fact that it is unscientific and does not correspondto the actual state of affairs. The geographical position is not, in fact, a determining factor in society’s development.

p If this were the case it would be impossible to explain why nations living under the most diverse climatic and natural conditions and managing their economies both on fertile and poor soils, on hills and plains, on river banks, the shores of seas and oceans, and far away from them, usually pass similar stages of social development. They begin with a primitive classless society based on common ownership of the means of production, then pass to a class society based on private 314 property, and then through a socialist revolution and the building of socialism to a classless communist society. Furthermore, if the geographical position determined social development, how could it happen that in relatively similar environments, for examole, in Europe, the majority of nations have gone through three socio-economic formations (the primitive-communal system, slavery and feudalism), while nations that have taken the road of socialist transformation are already in the fourth socio-economic system.

All this shows that the geographical environment is not a determining factor in social development, which means that it cannot determine state policy either. The policies pursued by a state depend entirely on the ruling class. When reactionary imperialist circles are in power, then irrespective of the country’s geographical position the policies pursued by its government would be antipopular and would endanger peace.