Formation of the State?

[Hermes]

Sorry for the really idiotic question, but I was wondering something.

Many of the anarchist/communist thinkers I've read (although, granted that's about two so far) seem to believe in man's natural tendencies towards good and how the State corrupts this. What I don't remember reading are any explanations of how the State came about, then? Was it just the fabled 'paved with good intentions'?

Or am I completely wrong and most anarchist/communist thinkers don't actually believe this?

[Prometeo liberado]

A simple explanation is that the state is a product of the ruling class. The State can be viewed as necessary until it is no longer needed, it withers away. After a revolution it is necessary for a dictatorship of the revolutionary class in order to keep post-revolutionary society running and keep the displaced class from returning to power. As the machines of capitalism are dismantled and the workers take full charge of all aspects of society then the need for a state grows less and less.
Got off the topic a bit but I hope it helps a little.

[Ocean Seal]

Man is neither good nor evil in an abstract sense. The state formed out of tribalism and the consolidation of tribes around agriculture as well as property, the division of labor, and the institution of slavery.

[Renegade Saint]

Redbrother and jbeard are close.

States arise due to the cleavage of society into class and the irreconcilable class conflict that is a product of this. The State is created to allow one class to rule over the other classes.

That's the marxist conception. The logical conclusion is that states can only cease to exist when classes themselves cease to exist, as it is a product of class antagonism. Since there will still be classes post-revolution for some time, it's illogical to think that it's possible to go from State---->stateless society in one fell swoop.

To be honest, I'm not of anarchist's conception of the State and where it comes from. Perhaps some anarchists can answer that.

[Blake's Baby]

I suspect that Hermes' question of 'where does the state arise from' is not going to be successfully answered with 'it arises from a division into of society into social classes'.

Because that just begs the question 'so where does social class come from'?

OK; marxist analysis of pre-history posits the existence of primitive communism, where hunter-gatherer tribes or bands live an existence of wandering (though how much wandering is an open question) and harvesting food; following herds, maybe, or moving around a landscape exploiting resources such as berries and roots at particular points. This is a classless society, because in essence everyone can (and generally does) take part in it - all the fit people are out hunting and gathering, all the less fit are at the camp/cave/whatever mending fishing nets, squashing berries, roasting nuts, making shoes or whatever. Everyone has equal access to the necessities, as far as health and fitness allows. So no class system. Even when some people might be 'experts' - Old Nog is the best hunter of deer the tribe has ever had, let's ask him where he thinks the herd will go tomorrow - the activities people are engaged in are shared and therefore there's a certain democracy of knowlege. Expert opinion isn't enough to force a privileged position (though Old Nog may be greatly honoured and given first dibs on the fresh kills...)

Once agriculture comes in there seems to be the beginings of a class system. Different groups have different access to the means (and products of) production. Fences and walls mean that some people are excluded; different knowlege about planting and harvesting is no longer shared in communities but held by specialists. Green Fingered Ook has a way of making the plants grow that no-one else knows about. So she can control whether the village lives or dies, quick let's make her Queen because she's magic and might get angry with us...

Is that closer to answering your questions, Hermes?

[Hermes]

Thanks, to all of you. So the State was first established when tribes first started to settle down and make use of agriculture? After that, due to the specialization and 'secrecy' of the knowledge known to individuals, a class system began to spring up?

It makes sense though, because I'm also pretty sure that religion didn't really exist before tribes started settling down into communities.

So the hope for a utopia rests on our knowledge currently that the state itself is inevitably corrupt and causes more harm than good, so shouldn't be erected to try and further the people?

[roy]

So the hope for a utopia rests on our knowledge currently that the state itself is inevitably corrupt and causes more harm than good, so shouldn't be erected to try and further the people?

We aim for worldwide proletarian revolution followed by the establishment of a communist society. If this is ever achieved, it will not be a utopia. Reaction would have to be fought constantly and life will still be fraught with difficulty. However, the destruction of state, that is, lines drawn in the sand by patriarchs, is contained within the destruction of capitalism. The state apparatus is used by the bourgeoisie as a means of monoplising wealth (the defence of property rights, etc.) Some say that a transitional worker's state must be established on the road to communism, but we're in agreement that the current bourgeois state must be annihilated in its entirety as it is a vehicle for oppression and exploitation.

[Blake's Baby]

... So the State was first established when tribes first started to settle down and make use of agriculture? After that, due to the specialization and 'secrecy' of the knowledge known to individuals, a class system began to spring up?



Well, that's part of the answer I think. Specialisation and secrecy are part of it. 'Property' itself is a major part of it too. In hunter-gatherer societies there is little that can be considered 'exclusive' property. People occassionally put forward the idea of different groups having different (exclusive) 'territories' but this doesn't seem to be borne out by anthropology. Territories overlap. Relations between different groups in this case - when the Nug people bump into the Fom peole and they're hunting the same herd of antelope - are governed by complex social rules, usually, that we might think of as kind of a 'customary treaty'. But usually there aren't 'borders' as we understand it, as exclusive boundaries. The herds roam, and people follow them, around customary territories that overlap with those of other groups.

Farmers of course do have exclusive boundaries. This area is for these animals, that area is for those plants, and everything inside the fences/walls/hedges belongs to us not them.



...It makes sense though, because I'm also pretty sure that religion didn't really exist before tribes started settling down into communities...

Hmmm. What's religion? Cave painting, that has been generally assumed to be about magical control of fertility, hunting, etc, goes back to at least 35,000BC, and farming as such doesn't really develop until after 10,000BC. The oldest paints so far found date from maybe 65,000BC, and it's thought were used for body painting, again suggesting some kind of magical or religious ritual. So 'spirituality' as in an appreciation of the awesomeness of nature, and potentially a link between the microcosmic and the macrocosmic, seems to go back at least 55,000 years before farming.

[cb9's_unity]

Sorry for the really idiotic question, but I was wondering something.

This question is the farthest thing from idiotic. We all had to start somewhere, and just starting to learn can be the hardest part.


Many of the anarchist/communist thinkers I've read (although, granted that's about two so far) seem to believe in man's natural tendencies towards good and how the State corrupts this. What I don't remember reading are any explanations of how the State came about, then? Was it just the fabled 'paved with good intentions'?The good vs. bad debate around human nature is an extremely misleading one. Good and bad are both subjective terms and are subject to change in certain circumstances. Things get messy quickly when trying to split something as definitely one or the other. For example, killing is universally considered a bad thing. Yet, it is almost universally recognized that there can be good reasons to kill.

Man's natural tendency is simply to survive. Classical liberal views on human nature take this to mean that man will doing anything against his fellow man to survive. For them the state is then the institution that protects man against his fellow man. The problem with these thinkers (and all social contract thinkers) is precisely that they have no conception of how the state historically arose. The were reading the problems of modern European civilization on to primitive civilization. I think Blake's Baby did a pretty good job explaining what early humanity was like, and the real reasons the state came to be.

Man was by no means "good" before the state arose. Sure, humans were more communal, but its not as though they were any more virtuous than the ordinary person today. The state doesn't have any metaphysical power to corrupt people, and removing it will not suddenly remove man of his social ills.

In fact, criticism of the general idea of the state isn't all that helpful. Each state exists for different reasons. Our state exists primarily to ensure that capitalist property relations continue to exist, and that any large or small threat to capitalist property can be put down with legal or violent force. The socialist state will exist to dismantle capitalist property relations, see to an equitable distribution of wealth, establish a new mode of production, and ensure the revolutionary transition can remain as peaceful as property. Once class distinctions are abolished, the state will have no material reason to continue to be exploitative. The socialist state will not have the resources manipulate the democratic process like the capitalist one does, and the democratic force that is necessary to bring it to power will not allow it to become despotic (though skepticism towards those who seek power will always remain useful and should be encouraged). In fact, the socialist state should be expected to continuously get weaker as humanity adapts to its new power over production and creative labor.

[Rooster]

So the hope for a utopia rests on our knowledge currently that the state itself is inevitably corrupt and causes more harm than good, so shouldn't be erected to try and further the people?

It's not so much that the state will end up inevitably corrupt or causes harm. It's that the existence of a state means that there is a class society.

[Revolution starts with U]

The state arose in sumer and Egypt as a way of providing legal and military protection for the wealthy landowners. It appears to be pretty much the same in mesoamerica. I don't know much about indus and Chinese prehistory, but I'm betting its pretty much the same.