Introduction
Is the State an institution created by society to do good? Is the State needed to provide social goods that can in no ordinary sense be provided in any other manner? Was the State created by the weak to protect it from the strong? Just how was the State created? For the first 28 years of my life it never occurred to me to even ask the questions. I certainly was never educated through my State ran schools nor did I ever hear of anyone else talking about such things or why it even mattered. My attempt here is to enlighten others on some things I’ve discovered. My brief attempt to expose the State for what it is does not break any new ground. This is my attempt to write as if I were explaining what I know now to a person who was ignorant of the State, particularly, about its origins.
Theories of the Origin of the State
There have been many theories as to the origin of the State. Aristotle believed the State was a natural “thing” and required no explanation or examination because he, like many philosophers, could not conceive of it not existing. Still others believed that the State was created from divinity; that God created man and then man, in his image, created the State –known as the divine right of Kings. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each believed that the State originated by some form or another from the “social contract”. Marx believed the State was solely a creation of the capitalist class and only the dictator of the “proletariat” could end its exploitation. On the other hand, Libertarians such as Robert Noziak claimed the State was created from an “invisible hand” –popularly mocked as the Immaculate Conception Theory. Modern theories have tried explaining the creation of the State as a result of factors of environment, or created from the “genius” of men, or was a “historical accident”, even theories suggesting it arrives from the family. Still, today, it is common to hear some form of these theoretical and usually mystical beliefs about the origin of State. The question is never seriously considered or studied today – political “science” only starts with the assumption that the State or government exists and never delves into such things as to where it generates its power or why it would matter.
It wasn’t until the sociologists began actually studying early States that the origins of the State began to be understood in less philosophical ways and more from how they actually form in reality. From the sociological framework the Genesis of the State is nearly unanimous in principle and only differing in the specifics. However, what is clear is that the State is born from aggression, i.e., force, threats, coercion, theft, war, etc. Solely, at its origin, it arrives from conquest and confiscation. The conquest theories were mainly attributed to the work of Ludwig Gumplowicz, Franz Oppenheimer, and Gustav Ratzenhofer.
The Origin of the State
It is the sociologists “conquest” theory that truly explains the core of State and its origins. What is clear is that the State was not a creation of the weak over the strong. On the contrary, it was the systematic predation over a given territory by the ruling caste. It has only come about through conquest or confiscation and, thus, not by any “social contract”. Oppenheimer made the clear distinction between State and Society. “The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first states of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad”.[i]
Before the State there was society and since every society is made of individuals, each of us must face the fact that in order to improve our lot in life we act to do so. It follows, then, that we must choose to either transform our labor through “productive” means or we may choose to steal from those doing the producing, i.e., use the political means.
In particular, it was Franz Oppenheimer who identified the State as the institution of the political means. And, although he emphasized that the State by his definition was merely an institution that is the “summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra economic power.”[ii] It goes without much discussion that the only way this was possible was through force. He personally challenged the scientific world to invalidate his thesis. For a time, it was believed that the Mayan civilization posed a threat to his conclusions. It was believed by the archeological community that Mayans were the exception to the rule. However, the Oppenheimer thesis was fully vindicated with the discovery of the Bonampak murals, showing the early Maya at war and reveling in the torture of war captives. Then, excavations around Tikal revealed large earthworks partly surrounding that Classic Maya city, pointing clearly to a military rivalry with the neighboring city of Uaxactun.[iii] At present, no other challenges have been brought forward.
In brief, evolution of the State may be summed up as the following: It hit upon the State that instead of killing the vanquished it would serve its needs best by selling the idea of security; it may take charge of the markets, roadways, waterways, to gain revenue. It has evolved from marauding tribesmen to sovereign kings to dictators and democracies of all forms. However, whatever form it takes or whatever power it was granted by society since matters not –the characteristic stays the same.
The State is not society. The State is any institution that holds a coercive monopoly over the use of force in a given territory. Society, on the other hand, is made of those individuals whom the State feeds off of – those who have no power or will to rob, murder, kidnap, and cage other individuals. In turn, the forces of State and social power, like yen and yang, emerge, strengthen, and weaken in relation to one another. A rise in State power is a weakening of social power and vice versa. Perhaps Albert Jay Nock said it best when remarking of the State, “It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.”.
Why it Matters
The belief in the power of the State has greatly increased with the rise of democracy as it seems to give people the sense they have a choice in the affairs of the State. It’s prestige has been elevated to a point where people believe that whatever the State declares as wrong is wrong because the State says so and that whatever the State declares right is right because the State says it is right.
The origin matters because, unlike the famous claims of the philosophers and theorist, the weak did not create the State to protect it from the strong. All historical evidence supports the opposite.
[i] Franz Oppenheimer, The State (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926) pp. 15.
[ii] It should be noted that this may resemble Marx’s theory of the State. The resemblance is in the wording and not the ideas. The State itself is the institution of exploitation, period.
[iii] Carniero, R.L. 2006. A theory of the origin of the state. Reprinted in L. Grinin, D. Bondarenko, N. Kradin, and A. Korotayev (editors), The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues: 55-70. Volgograd, Russia, Uchitel Publishing House.
No comments:
Post a Comment