All the dominant classes that were it throughout the history of the humanity have needed ideologically to justify their dominion before their subordinate classes. In the philosophy of the DD.HH. the ideological justification of the bourgeoisie is synthesized and summarized as dominant class and constitutes a typical case of hufheben hegeliano, or ideological overcoming of the esclavismo and the feudalism whose social essence: the operation of the man by the man, is conserved in Capitalism.

In the esclavista society, the right of property, this is the freedom, was reserved to a part of the society: the masters, whose economic power on the other part of the society: the slaves, politician exerted itself directly of absolute way and. Which was the ideological justification of this effective reality? For the Greek and Roman masters of those times, the one that being human person was not belonged to itself if not to another one because it had been born of the uterus of enslaved mother, bought, or put under by the warlike force, having preferred the submission to the death in fight to conserve the freedom, that, by nature, was considered enslaved. Of the exercise of the property on another human being, derived from the predatory wars or the commerce, it seemed to emanate the soul of the master and its corresponding señorio and capacity of control on the body without soul of the slave. Thus it is as - following Plato subject understands east Aristotle:

< < the alive being is constituted, in the first place, of soul and body, of which one commands by nature and the other is sent (...) Is possible then, as we say, to observe in the alive being the satately dominion and the politician, because the soul exerts on the body a satately dominion, and intelligence on the appetite a political and regal dominion. In them it is evident that it is according to the advisable nature and the body to be prevailed by the soul, and it affective part to be governed by intelligence and the part equipped with reason, whereas its equality or the investment of its relation is detrimental for all. Also it happens also between the man and the other animals, because the domestic animals have a nature better than the savages, and for all of them he is better to be put under the man, because thus they obtain his security. And also in the relation between the male and the female, by nature, one is superior and another inferior one, one commands and another one obeys. And in the same way it happens necessarily between all the men.

Thus, then, all the beings which they are different as much from the other as soul of the body and as the man of the animal (they find a in this relation all whichever his job are the use of the body, and this is the best thing of them), these are enslaved by nature, for which he is better to be put under this class of control, like in the mentioned cases. Then he is enslaved by nature the one that can be of another one (for that reason indeed it is of another one) and the one that participates as much in the reason as to perceive it, but does not stop to have it... > > (Aristotle: " Political " Book I 125â-1254b)

By virtue of this aristotelian ideological justification of the real fact of appropriation of enslaved manual labor on the part of the esclavista aristocracy, the masters could have absolutely and directly their slaves, not only on their force of work but on its own lives, to the end to make them work until the mortal debilitation or for whatever reason order their physical disappearance without responding for that reason before anybody. All this is gathered in ius utendi ET ius abutendi of the Roman right (right to the use and abuse) on the part of the propietary masters on the objects of its property, including the slaves.

It does not come to the case of extending here on the historical process that ended the use of the esclavismo and illuminated the way of feudal production in the typical line of development of the western societies. Only some notes of the objective logic that has done to the origins of the Christianity, whose religious doctrine connects, as we see, with the ideological justification of the capitalist private property and with the philosophy of the DD.HH.

Having bloomed by means of the conquest of territories and the submission of its inhabitants to the condition of slaves, the esclavista way of production decayed until disappearing when being letting produce more than what cost to maintain it. This happened in same measurement in which the Roman State - that based the right to its existence on the inner maintenance of order and on the protection against the siege and attacks of "the Barbarian" calls - was seen in the necessity to increase its army, whose social base of recruitment was the free farmers, as much more at the most ample and extensive they were become the borders under Roman dominion.

The continuous fights of expansion and defense were decimating the population free farmer, which logically decreased the agrarian production of this sector of the social work, only taxable economic base of the esclavista State, to the time that at certain moment forced to contract enslaved and Barbarian mercenarios soldiers. The exponential increase of the expenses of the State and the drastic diminution of the free farmers, turned to the Roman Empire a gigantic and complicated machinery of fiscal expoliación of subject his more and more decimated, by means of unbearable a tax pressure more and more, as much more ruinous for the economy farmer of the contributors Roman, at the most extensive, onerous and difficult to defend, they went away making the geographic and population dominions of the empire.

In order to put itself safe from the violent exacción of the civil employees, of the magistrates and the userers of the declining empire, they were more and more the small free Roman proprietors who deserted to look for the protection of powerful gentlemen between the Germanic Barbarians of the north, on condition that they transferred the property right to them on his earth and they were limited to work in them by the minimum necessary to live. Thus it was like the properties of the free Roman deserters turned servants, were divided in small parcels to make them work in them by a fixed annual remuneration or by the regime of aparcería, happening to pay the gentleman, it is in species or services.

With the declination of the esclavista empire according to the borders of their geographic dominion expanded, the deserters turned servants who remained subject to the Earth in which they worked and they could be sold with them, happened to constitute the amplest operateable social base in the emergent way of alternative feudal production to the esclavista. They were not enslaved workers, but they do not libres.En such sense either, can say that the feudalism was a way of transicional production between the slavery and the capitalist wage-earning work.

As it is known, as much the Greek esclavistas as the Romans professed the politeismo. On the contrary, the unique God of the Christians did not tolerate that another deity and except the human figure of the Emperor, shared its divine rank. For that reason, and because three fourth parts of their religious prédica were based on the glorification of the poor men, the Christians were persecution object. Nevertheless, politically, the Christianity has not had absolutely anything to do with the process of extinction of the social formation based on the enslaved work. During centuries, this movement subsisted in the interstices of the Roman empire accepting the slavery. And when this way of production stopped being dominant, the Christians never have made nothing prevent the reminiscente commerce of slaves of their own accumulated faithfuls, neither the one of the Germanic Barbarians of the north, nor the one of the venecianos in the Mediterranean, nor as of century X deals with it black on the part of the Sacred Germanic Empire. Finally, from century IX one adapted to the new effective reality of medievo and turned his Santa Catholic Iglesia feudal proprietor, as much to enlarge the "kingdom of God" like his own terrenales goods. And in that same measurement substitute of the esclavista system was putting its religious doctrine to the service of the social formation.

The operation of the servile work replaced the slave when the development of the productive forces left without economic sense the aristotelian justification of the slavery, whose social logic had culminated in the Roman right to ius utendi i ius abutendi. The feudalism needed hers and it found it in the Christianity. The Christian monoteismo followed in the line of the dualismo between soul and body, like an retort - at level of the human creature of the macrocosmic religious dualismo between Cielo and the Earth. But that - according to Aristotle the soul was the esclusiva substance of the proprietors, for the Christianity happened to be the common thing to all the human beings in as much creatures of the unique God, without distinction of classes, of nationality, race or religion.

The Greek and Roman esclavistas distinguished between human beings propietary possessors therefore of reason, and their same types that, devoid of her, naturally happened simple dependent instruments of the absolute will of their proprietors. The esclavista society consecrated thus, philosophically and jurdicamente, absolute the terrenales prerogatives of the masters on its slaves.

The feudal society let subsist the inequality between the individuals and the consequent predominance political-personnel of on others. But when conceiving the soul as substance implement in each human being of the divinity, the Christianity denied the Roman right to ius utendi ET abutendi of human beings on others, transferring all absolute power on the destiny of the souls, of the human beings to God, the Earth to the Sky. This universal law of the Christianity became sense common in "you will not kill" of the fifth order.

The Capitalism, that bases the operation of the man by the man on the free work of all personal attachment, did his the divine foundation about the equality of the human beings in as much souls, but not only in the sky and before God, but in the Earth and before the civil law. This way, ius abutendi of the society esclaba not only continued being a sinful and morally reprobable conduct religiously, like in the feudalism, if not that universally happened to be criminalized by the modern positive right. For that, the bourgeoisie had to previously end the social relations of señorío and servitude based on direct the subjective or personal dependency of human beings on others, and to come to transform them into material social relations, that is to say, half-full by things or alienable objects of property, that are bought, they render or they sell. Under these conditions imposed by the new effective reality of Capitalism, the bourgeoisie could retake the traditional philosophical doctrine of the dualismo between soul and body, to introduce an element of unquestionable human progress, that consisted of rescuing and making effective in the human society, the Christian religious concept of equality of the human beings in as much souls, that the feudalism had relegated to the sky.