Human nature and the origin of the state.

[Let's Get Free]

Whenever you have a discussion about anarchism, there's one phrase that's pretty sure to come up sooner or later: "That's against human nature!". Well, I guess there are two simple arguments against this:
- Life's not Hobbes' war of each against all ( Kropotkin's Mutual Aid)
- Human nature is strongly shaped by the society it exists in

Still, there remains one problem I'd like to know a little bit more about: For a couple thousand years now we have "states" all over the place, so, where did they come from? Why did people accept lords? And why did some people become lords? (I'd especially like to argue from a philosophical point of view, except of course if you think that this development was inseparable from political, economical or other factors)

My thoughts so far:
In their early history, humans lived in libertarian communist families, tribes, communities, etc... Today only a few do. So, there must have been one point where hierarchies and governments, and exploitation took over, where the power went from the majority to a minority. An opponent of anarchism will of course argue that these are characteristics of human nature and thus unavoidable. In that case though, I'd think that we were a pretty pathetic species. So, probably we just have one minor flaw that led to all this misery. And if I had to name it, I'd say fear.

[robbo203]

Whenever you have a discussion about anarchism, there's one phrase that's pretty sure to come up sooner or later: "That's against human nature!". Well, I guess there are two simple arguments against this:
- Life's not Hobbes' war of each against all ( Kropotkin's Mutual Aid)
- Human nature is strongly shaped by the society it exists in

Still, there remains one problem I'd like to know a little bit more about: For a couple thousand years now we have "states" all over the place, so, where did they come from? Why did people accept lords? And why did some people become lords? (I'd especially like to argue from a philosophical point of view, except of course if you think that this development was inseparable from political, economical or other factors)

My thoughts so far:
In their early history, humans lived in libertarian communist families, tribes, communities, etc... Today only a few do. So, there must have been one point where hierarchies and governments, and exploitation took over, where the power went from the majority to a minority. An opponent of anarchism will of course argue that these are characteristics of human nature and thus unavoidable. In that case though, I'd think that we were a pretty pathetic species. So, probably we just have one minor flaw that led to all this misery. And if I had to name it, I'd say fear.

I think key to this might well be the differentiation between simple hunter gatherer societies - band societies - and complex hunter gatherer societies orgainised on a tribal basis. This latter development was associated with sedentarisation and the shift toward agriculture, storable food surpluses providing the means and the incentive for a ruling class to emerge. In other words, I think this movement towards a class society can be explained ultimately in environmental terms .

Nomadic band societies have a bult in tendency towards fission, individuals would vote with their feet if anyone tried to lord it over them and tell them what to do. That is why they were fundamentally egalitarian in the social structure. Their whole way of life was sustained by the ability to move from place to place without restriction as local resources became depleted. Climate change in the form of the ice age would have fundamentally affected their physical enviroment compelling them to reassess their survival strategy. Hence agriculture which enabled more food to be obtained per hectare and thus enabled a greater population to be supported.

Having said that, it should be pointed out that simple HG societies resisted going down the agricultural route, preferring a HG way of life. There is archaeological evidence based on human remains that hunter gatherers lived longer and were significantly healthier than the early agriculturists. It is possible that some of this hunters might have transmogrified into armed thugs preying on farming communities and apprpropriating an economic surplus by extra-economic means - military force.

At any rate, material scarcities gave rise to conflict and hence social hierachies first apparent in tribal societies and latter institutionalised in the form of the first class based societies - "civilisation" as it is called

[Let's Get Free]

A more recent archaeological study doesn't support Engels' thesis that the state came after class stratification & class struggle had begun to occur. As Michael Taylor talks about in "Community, Anarchy, Liberty", people who have studied the very first states in Mesopotamia & Egypt etc that emerged nearly 6,000 years ago have not found evidence of class conflict. It seems, rather, that class stratification emerged through the state. Once chiefs or headmen in some villages persuaded their people to let them create the new institutions, with tax powers & a professional army, then class stratification began to develop, with wealth accumulated around the palace, the ruling family & court, and the emergence of a bureaucratic elite of officials and army chiefs.

[robbo203]

A more recent archaeological study doesn't support Engels' thesis that the state came after class stratification & class struggle had begun to occur. As Michael Taylor talks about in "Community, Anarchy, Liberty", people who have studied the very first states in Mesopotamia & Egypt etc that emerged nearly 6,000 years ago have not found evidence of class conflict. It seems, rather, that class stratification emerged through the state. Once chiefs or headmen in some villages persuaded their people to let them create the new institutions, with tax powers & a professional army, then class stratification began to develop, with wealth accumulated around the palace, the ruling family & court, and the emergence of a bureaucratic elite of officials and army chiefs.

Interesting point. It kind of ties in with Karl Polanyi's 3 fold typology of patterns of economic interactions i.e. reciprocity, redistribution and price-marking markets.

Of the frst, there are various forms of reciprocity. I maintain that, in Polanyi's terms, communism/socialism would take the form of generalised reciprocity in which there is a generalised expectation or sense of moral obligation on the part of individuals to contribute something to society in return for what they take out of it. There are also other forms of reciprocity such as balanced reciprocity and negative reciprocity....

Redistribution is different. In Polanyi's terms, redistribution is when goods flow inwards towards a centre and are then redistributed outwards in the form of patronage. Its a client-patron type arrangment in which dependency becomes assymetrical (as opposed to the interdependency of reciprocity or a gift economy). Here we have the beginnings of social hierarchy which can be traced back to tribal society.


I guess what would have happened is that some form of adminstration or proto-state would have emerged to manage this inward flow of goods in the form of levies and taxes imposed on the populace which seamlessly developed into a form of appropriation of the economic surplus by a distinct group - a class.


There is an old pamphlet produced by the SPGB on historical materialism which I still find quite useful. Im not a great fan of Kautsky but it quotes Kautsky's "Ethics and the materialist concepttion iof History" in which he puts forward various scenarios as to how a class society might have emerged.
Check it out here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialism

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Gladiator, you made excelent thread!

If you analyse human bahaviour (like I do) you will realise egoism is not inheritely human, and it is actualy a feeling that is seen as bad by others. The reason why egoism exists in so many people today is because capitalism encourages egoism and punishes altruism. Even in this individualist system where altruism is punished it is still seen as good. Now you can imagine that in primitive times of hunter-gatherer societies altruism was encouraged, because it was what made humans have so much success. We did not abandon the sick and the old, we took care of them, and that is why we are the dominant species today, we are more united than any other species.
I beleive heirarchy begun with agriculture, which created disputes between people over harvests and need for arable land. Before, in time of hunter-gatherer groups, everyone worked, and there was no such a thing as private property (there were possessions, but not property), but when agriculture appeared property came with it. With property came individualism, from individualism, money based economics appeared, and from those money based economics classes began to form. Leaders appeared with agriculture as well, because now when there was need to enter armed conflict with other communities someone of influence could coordinate the attack, and with the success the people would begin to follow him. And so the leader gained power, and eventualy allied with the powerfull clases.

This is what I think.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Agriculture allows for division of labour and leisure time that the life of a hunter-gatherer simply can't provide. Essentially this allowed some folks to specialise in being farmers, some to specialise in pottery, some specialise in religious ceremony etc. It's believed by some that in the middle ages peasants only spent 40% of their time actually working in the fields with most of the rest of their time being spent in church and I'm sure that in early agricultural societies a similar incentive would pursuade people to give up the labour-intensive life of a hunter-gatherer. Of course, this allows individuals to specialise in being priests, bureaucrats, soldiers etc and essentially establishes the state as we know it.

I'm certain that early civilisations didn't see it as an exploitative class relationship, especially when the priests were giving a vital ritual service in a world that had no material explaination for death or life, but it essentially provided the possibility for individuals to wield influence over others who produced through their labour. And, of course, with the introduction of money as a facilitator of trade in a life essentially ruled by the seasons it allowed individuals to accumulate wealth as well and then exert that wealth for their own class interests.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would imagine that hunter-gatherer societies developed leaders in a military sense, since such societies engaged in battles over territory, women, etcetera. That is not the same as social class.

[robbo203]

I would imagine that hunter-gatherer societies developed leaders in a military sense, since such societies engaged in battles over territory, women, etcetera. That is not the same as social class.

There is little evidence to support this claim. The predominant response of simple hunter gatherer societies to aggression was flight. In a nomadic way of life, a sense of terrioriality was pooly developed. Any tendency towards social hierarchy would have been undermined by the constant tendency for bands to break up - fission . With very low population densities, hostile encounters would have been infrequent and what would such hostility have focussed on anyway? Unlike agricultural societies there was no storable surpluses to raid. Possessions were mininmal precisely becuase they impeded a nomadic way of life.


The myth of the warlike hunter gatherer is precisely that - a myth. People like Stephen Pinker and Napoleon. A. Chagnon who have been among the leading figures propagating this myth have been comprehensively refuted. Pinker relied on the archaeologist, Lawrence Keeley,for evidence to support his outrageous suggestion that pre state societies had the highest levels of violence of all but even Keeley in his War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, (Oxford University Press, New York. 1996), referring to simple HG societies, notes that "Truly peaceful agriculturalists appear to be somewhat less common than pacifistic hunter-gatherers." and that "some of the most peaceful nonstate societies in the world had very low population densities… Most of these peaceable groups prevented intergroup disputes and conflicts from escalating into armed violence by fleeing from their adversaries. But this option can be exercised only under conditions where possessions are portable and essential resources, however scarce, are widely distributed." (ch 2)


This hints at the problem with Pinker's thesis - namely that he falls to distinguish between simple hunter gather societies - band societies -under which human beings have lived for 95% of our existence on this planet and complex HG societies which were tribal formations. It is with the latter that we begin to the emergence of social hierarchy and warlike behaviour. Of simple HG societes - like the Arunta of Central Australia - Elman Service notes:

Warfare in the sense of organised intertribal struggle is unknown. What fighting there is is better understood an an aspect of juridical procedure than as war. If a group or family feels wronged by an outside individual, it organises an expedition to avenge the wrong. It is important to realize, however, that arbitration usually occurs instead of actual fighting; and the elders of both sides may confer and reach a decision. The wrongdoer's own group may actually aid in his or her punishment. In general, observers from Western civilisation have been struck by the friendliness and hospitality of the Australians.
(Elman.R.Service Profiles in Ethnology 1978, 3rd edition, Harper & Row , New York p.27)

Richerson et al note, also note:

The !Kung and the desert people of the Australian interior had elaborate institutions to link people together beyond the bounds of normal kinship. The !Kung, according to Polly Wiessner, used a gift exchange system to cultivate friendships with people in distant bands.Women exchanged fancy beadwork and men arrows. The Central Australians had elaborate “section” systems of extended kinship that classified marriage with all
but a few women as incestuous. Men might have travel hundreds of kilometers to find an eligible mate. According to Aram Yengoyan and Wiessner the effect of these institutions was to ensure that every family had friends and inlaws scattered everywhere.When subsistence or political problems occurred, people could seek aid from any of a number of kin or friends in a number of different environments.
(Peter J. Richerson, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, and Bryan J. Vila. 1996. Principles of Human Ecology. Pearson Custom Publishing, Part II, ch 3,)


As the authors go on to point out, the harsher the environment, the more sophisticated and extensive this support network seems to have become. It served as a form of social insurance in such an unpredictable environment

Napoleon. A. Chagnon, whose study of Yanomamo iin the 1970s suggested inter-village warfare and feuding within villages often revolved around access to women who were occasionally subjected to kidnapping and rape has been strongly contested by anthropologists who lived among the Yanomamo as a gross exaggeration. See for example Sponsel, Leslie E. (1998). “Yanomami: An Arena of Conflict and Aggression in the Amazon,” Aggressive Behavior, 24(2):97-122). In any case, the Yanomamo were not even strictly apeaking a HG society but from the Chagnon we mainly get this idea of hunter gatherers fighting over access to women

What little forensic evidence there is to support the idea of the warlike hunter gather - based on skeletal remains of early human beings - has been strongly contested by the likes of the anthropologist , R. Brian Ferguson, considered to be the foremost expert on the early history of war,. As Ferguson points out: "Many hominid remains once thought to establish the most ancient evidence of homicide or cannibalism were actually gnawed by predators or just suffered postmortem breakage" ("The Birth of War" R. Brian Ferguson , Natural History Jul/Aug 2003, Vol. 112, Issue 6).

Ferguson himself has conducted an extensive global survey of archaeological records and has found no substantive evidence of systematic violence in prehistoric human societies. Such evidence that there is suggests that warfare only really began to happen within the last 10,000 years or so and as a result of developments such as sedentarisation and emergence of social hierarchies which may have come about as a result of certain other factors, chiefly environmental, as I earlier suggested.

[robbo203]

Agriculture allows for division of labour and leisure time that the life of a hunter-gatherer simply can't provide..

Not quite true. Marshall Sahlin's work the Original Affluent Society comes to the quite opposite - that simple hunter gatherer societies enjoyed unequalled levels of lesure time (see for example http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html). Sahlin's data was based on time spent on gathering and hunting and has been contested on the grounds that it leaves out time spent on food preparation but even when you take that into account , hunter gatherers still seem to have enjoyed a degree of leisure time which we modern wage slaves can only envy

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Not quite true. Marshall Sahlin's work the Original Affluent Society comes to the quite opposite - that simple hunter gatherer societies enjoyed unequalled levels of lesure time (see for example http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html). Sahlin's data was based on time spent on gathering and hunting and has been contested on the grounds that it leaves out time spent on food preparation but even when you take that into account , hunter gatherers still seem to have enjoyed a degree of leisure time which we modern wage slaves can only envy
Very interesting, thanks for bringing that study to my attention. I would like to point out that permenant settlement allows domestication of animals such as horses and oxen that work as force multipliers to make labour easier (of course, while a horse might be able to drag a plough far more easily than a human could push one, it doesn't have the opposable thumbs needed to pick fruit/weave baskets etc... and it's not as if hunter-gatherers didn't use horses to keep up with herds and carry packs either).

As TheRedAnarchist suggests, along with permanent settlement of course comes proliferation of property and the accumulation of wealth, the main sources of class struggle. I guess my point was that the establishment of an agricultural society divides labour between those who specialise in agriculture, those who specialise in producing tools and those who specialise in bureaucracy and ritual; class society. I don't know too much about this and am still learning, you seem to have a greater understanding of the subject so would welcome any different opinions/facts.

[Hexen]

Human Nature is a capitalist secularization of the previous "Divine Right to Kings/Original Sin" which is another example that the west is deeply rooted in Christianity.

[cyu]

there must have been one point where hierarchies and governments, and exploitation took over, where the power went from the majority to a minority.


I would say it was the point at which these communities allowed the concept of property to trump everything else in their societies. Property as a concept does have its uses in some situations - instead of having to argue everyday over who uses what spear, it's already been decided, so there's a level of efficiency to be had by introducing primitive concepts of property. However, the problem arises when these concepts of property starts accumulating power in people that have no real excuse to deserve such power - once they have that power, they can hire mercenaries, buy land, make weapons, build armies, and thus establish feudal empires.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry I've been on a bit of a spree of just posting links to books that I think will address folks' questions, but as far as dealing with the state and human nature, I admit I was rather fond of Fredy Perlman's Against His-Story, Against Leviathan (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan). I know this is marked by many more Marxian folks as the point where Perlman jumped the shark and followed Camatte in to the primitivist abyss, but it's extremely readable and useful insofar as it puts more emphasis, by a long shot, on tracing the genesis of centralized authority than on ideological preaching.

[Rafiq]

Whenever you have a discussion about anarchism, there's one phrase that's pretty sure to come up sooner or later: "That's against human nature!". Well, I guess there are two simple arguments against this:
- Life's not Hobbes' war of each against all ( Kropotkin's Mutual Aid)
- Human nature is strongly shaped by the society it exists in

Still, there remains one problem I'd like to know a little bit more about: For a couple thousand years now we have "states" all over the place, so, where did they come from? Why did people accept lords? And why did some people become lords? (I'd especially like to argue from a philosophical point of view, except of course if you think that this development was inseparable from political, economical or other factors)

My thoughts so far:
In their early history, humans lived in libertarian communist families, tribes, communities, etc... Today only a few do. So, there must have been one point where hierarchies and governments, and exploitation took over, where the power went from the majority to a minority. An opponent of anarchism will of course argue that these are characteristics of human nature and thus unavoidable. In that case though, I'd think that we were a pretty pathetic species. So, probably we just have one minor flaw that led to all this misery. And if I had to name it, I'd say fear.

The existence of lords is a relatively new phenomena as far as human civilization goes. Though Feudalism was not built upon 'popular consent'. Mass populaces were coerced into serfdom and the peasantry under the guise of protecting European lands from viking invaders (or something along those lines). As far as the emergence of class society goes: It was not sinister. It was merely an accident. It wasn't the result of some asshole, but of the discovery of agriculture and the division of labor. And if you're an Anarchist, seeing to a return to our oh so glorious hunter-gatherer past is at best something which should be avoided. It isn't hard to recognize that pre-neolithic society was much worse than even Feudalism.

And while we can recognize that humans were coerced into this new social formation, (a coercion which did not happen overnight) there is no eternal battle between the ruling classes and the "underdogs" or whatever. Though genuine slave insurrections / emancipation campaigns are ideological gems for the Communists and should remain as such.

[cyu]

there is no eternal battle between the ruling classes and the "underdogs" or whatever.

This is probably not what you mean, but I thought it needs to be said that if an employee is fired, gets evicted because he can't afford his rent, and doesn't feel resentment against the capitalist class, then it is merely a sign of just how enslaved his class has become.

[RedMaterialist]

Whatever happened to the idea of the state as an armed gang used for the suppression of a working class?

[Fnord]

"Human nature" is subjective, while people's core nature/personality/energy/soul (whatever you want to call it to fit your philosophy) can be the same, there is potentially an infinite amount of "natures", even ones that no one has seen yet. Even as such, there are numerous other factors which play into an individual's selves and what things that individual identifies with at that point in time. As a collective, as time goes on, a butterfly effect would take place in which from the initial conditions branch out unpredictably. When placed in the nature of order for whatever reasons or occurrence for any reasons, a hierarchy is formed, which can develop into what you might know as a state.

Order simply organizes things into a hierarchy and automation to boost efficiency as material/environmental conditions call for it, order is intimately prone to corruption because of this over time, as things become automated there must be someone behind the curtains, be it a dictator, king/queen, president, or general. This is the origin of the state, not the cause; there is a huge difference, the cause is the shifting of material conditions in this particular situation. The argument that large groups of people are inherently prone to hierarchy and order is only as true as the individuals who make it up and which traits are most predominate of the mainstream popular culture and potential counter cultures which arise from the rejection of traits in parts of a collective which are dominant at that point in time.

[Rafiq]

This is probably not what you mean, but I thought it needs to be said that if an employee is fired, gets evicted because he can't afford his rent, and doesn't feel resentment against the capitalist class, then it is merely a sign of just how enslaved his class has become.

There is definitely a battle between the bourgeois class and the proletariat, however, this is quite exclusive to capitalism, which has existed for only a minor fraction of human history.

[robbo203]

As far as the emergence of class society goes: It was not sinister. It was merely an accident. It wasn't the result of some asshole, but of the discovery of agriculture and the division of labor. And if you're an Anarchist, seeing to a return to our oh so glorious hunter-gatherer past is at best something which should be avoided. It isn't hard to recognize that pre-neolithic society was much worse than even Feudalism.
.

That is a bit of strange comparison to make since feudalism was a subsequent elaboration of class society which probably commenced in the form of ancient slavery. But, in any case, in what sense was "pre-neolithic society" - i.e. paleolithic society - "much worse" than even feudalism? If what you are trying to say here is that the lifestyle of hunter-gatherer bands was inferior to that of sedentary agriculturists then the forensic evidence would not back you up. They lived longer and ate better than the former and enjoyed a much more varied diet. Not only that, the evidence also suggests hunter gatherers resisted incorporation into farming as long as they could and seemed to have positively valued the freedom and eqalitarianism that went with such a way of life. If it was so dire as you contend why would they have done that?

I dont know of any anarchists - barring the rare primitivist - who would welcome a return to a hunter gatherer way of life. Obviously that is simply not sustainable given current levels of population. However, it is important not to misrepresent our hunter-gatherer forebears such as people like Stephen Pinker et al do. Rousseau's romanticised notion of the "noble savage" may well have been wide of the mark but so to is the Hobbesian notion, promoted by our bourgeois conmentators, with their veneration of the state and its alleged "civilising" influence, that life in those days was nasty brutish and short.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A more recent archaeological study doesn't support Engels' thesis that the state came after class stratification & class struggle had begun to occur. As Michael Taylor talks about in "Community, Anarchy, Liberty", people who have studied the very first states in Mesopotamia & Egypt etc that emerged nearly 6,000 years ago have not found evidence of class conflict. It seems, rather, that class stratification emerged through the state. Once chiefs or headmen in some villages persuaded their people to let them create the new institutions, with tax powers & a professional army, then class stratification began to develop, with wealth accumulated around the palace, the ruling family & court, and the emergence of a bureaucratic elite of officials and army chiefs.No, I think this is based on a misconception of the "class before state" argument: that the state was the result of consious intent to rule by the ruling class.

From what I've read - marxist and non-marxist/radical - state features began gradually and tended to be adopted because they had a certain benifit for that society. People who were agricultural producers agreed that some specilization was needed, some common store and accounting. So the first agricultural rulers were the more sucessful farmers who had a bit of surplus and then could spread that around a bit (even after these sorts of chiefdoms became intrenched and the chifs no longer functioned as just another farmer, they were often known as the "gift-givers" and would award some of the surplus they held onto others for support). But once this intitial division is created, informal or fairly organic divisions become the way that society functions and become institutionalized. Additionally, if such a type of organization gives one population an advantage, then it necissarily needs to be adopted and countered by the near-by populations. So if one group raises an army, then the neighboring ones need to as well. This creates a situation where the only real way for these kinds of agricultural producers to safeguard themselves is to have something like a chifdom - if there is a bad ruler, farmers can outs them, but then they are only replaced by someone else who will need to fill the same role (maybe benificently at first, but the same dynamics remain meaning that a generation or two later, nothing much probably would have changed).

So class and state are intertwined - one doesn't come into society fully formed, it's a process and a development which is determined maily by how society is divided up and the conflicts within that society as well as with neighboring or intersecting societies. In societies where the economic divisions are low - such as in the Iriquoi, there are classes, but a "chief" isn't all that far removed from everyone else, so by our standards it seems fairly egalitarian. More entrenched economic systems with more divisions means that a state can act more autocratically, and if it is begining to be outmoded and loose it's grip, then the fangs will come out. The more inequality, the more the exploitation, the more the society will be brutal and ridged. But ultimately, it's the development of class - of a group of people who have a different set of interestes for how society should be organized and band together to defend that organization that creates the more developed and recognizable forms of "state".

If we accept that state then allows for classes to emerge, then where did the "state" ruling class come from? Why did thousands of years of pesant revolts never do anything but replace one lord with a new insurgent lord whose dynasty had to be overthrown all over again at some point in the future? Why do we see states arise in similar conditions throughout the world if it was just because some group of people decided to institutionalize their power over everyone else for the sake of power? Why did the ruling class become the ruling class, were they just luckier or smarter than all the other farmers? Was it (bad) "great" men of history who created states out of their own desire and will and that's why we have class rule? I think the logic of this view leads towards anti-revolutionary conclusions fairly quickly.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Jimmy, I want to say that your above post is pretty "On". The one point I would dispute is that specialization necessarily implies class, more specifically in your example of the Iroquois. Chiefs have certain distinct roles, and represent a sort of specialization, but I don't think they had any particular power vis- production/distribution, or any ability to constitute themselves as a class-proper.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Class conflict was as inherent in pre-capitalist hierarchical societies as it is in Capitalism.
If there is hierarchical superstructure, especially economic superstructure, you have class conflict.

[Let's Get Free]

If we accept that state then allows for classes to emerge, then where did the "state" ruling class come from? Why did thousands of years of pesant revolts never do anything but replace one lord with a new insurgent lord whose dynasty had to be overthrown all over again at some point in the future? Why do we see states arise in similar conditions throughout the world if it was just because some group of people decided to institutionalize their power over everyone else for the sake of power? Why did the ruling class become the ruling class, were they just luckier or smarter than all the other farmers? Was it (bad) "great" men of history who created states out of their own desire and will and that's why we have class rule? I think the logic of this view leads towards anti-revolutionary conclusions fairly quickly.

I don't think the state can simply be considered as an instrument of rule by economic classes. It can be quite an effective parasitical force in its own right, as both anthropological and historical evidence suggest. The former raises the possibility that the state arose before economic classes and that its roots are in inequalities in power (i.e. hierarchy) within society, not inequalities of wealth. The latter points to examples of societies in which the state was not, in fact, an instrument of (economic) class rule but rather pursued an interest of its own.


As regards anthropology, Michael Taylor summarizes that the "evidence does not give [the Marxist] proposition [that the rise of economic classes caused the creation of the state] a great deal of support. Much of the evidence which has been offered in support of it shows only that the primary states, not long after their emergence, were economically stratified. But this is of course consistent also with the simultaneous rise . . . of political and economic stratification, or with the prior development of the state - i.e. of political stratification - and the creation of economic stratification by the ruling class." [Community, Anarchy and Liberty, p. 132]

[Rafiq]

Not only that, the evidence also suggests hunter gatherers resisted incorporation into farming as long as they could and seemed to have positively valued the freedom and eqalitarianism that went with such a way of life. If it was so dire as you contend why would they have done that?

What existing evidence could possibly compel anyone to come to this conclusion? I've always been skeptical of this form of anthropology. How can, with the resources we have today, make such precise and detailed conclusions about societies before (and during) not only the neolithic revolution, but societies in which there are no documented records of? This is not an offensive question. Rather I have always been curious and time and time again no one has been able to adaquetly respond to this question.


I dont know of any anarchists - barring the rare primitivist - who would welcome a return to a hunter gatherer way of life. Obviously that is simply not sustainable given current levels of population. However, it is important not to misrepresent our hunter-gatherer forebears such as people like Stephen Pinker et al do. Rousseau's romanticised notion of the "noble savage" may well have been wide of the mark but so to is the Hobbesian notion, promoted by our bourgeois conmentators, with their veneration of the state and its alleged "civilising" influence, that life in those days was nasty brutish and short.


Anarchists tend to subconsciously see the "future society" as a return to our natural, harmonious order (admittedly this is a post 90's phenomena). I was never under the impression this was intrinsic to Anarchism, rather, it is an erroneous ideological inclusion drawn from several forms of "evidence" we have found through anthropology and, to top it all off, the existing intellectual degeneration experienced post 90's (this glorification of Eastern spiritualism, worship of the balanced "nature" etc.). It is a tendency not only persistent with Anarchists, but Communists in general. Anarchists (or non Marxists) really do not have the same strong, and erect theoretical basis Marxists have, as far as an understanding of Communism goes (and in this sense, ideologically non Marxists are 'purer' Communists). As a result, there is this zero-level, untainted ideological manifestation of Communism, as an eternal struggle between the ruling classes and the forces which seek to destroy it, i.e. That Communism constantly re invents itself historically (none the less this trend persists upon Marxist-communists, Marx himself and even Kautsky in his famous book about the history of Communism in Europe, but this is an exclusively Communist trend, not intrinsic to marxism). Since Anarchists are without this Marxist theoretical basis, they tend to be more prone to this ideological pre supposion. Of course nobody wants to do away with agriculture, of course nobody serious wants to run around in the woods to collect berries, to embody this as the basis for life, a mode of production of sorts. But there is this ideological tendency, especially on this site, to regard Communism as "the ride down to our roots", as if history has been going upwards, linear, and through Communism descends as abruptly as it did shoot upwards (neolithic revolution).

[Rafiq]

For the record, I do not hold that as Communists, or on an organizational, tactical level it is necessary we do away with Communisms ideological foundations. Be they ideological, they still represent existing class interests, they are like a form of art, they represent the unconscious expressions of the proletarian class and it's struggle for emancipation. We should never cease to romanticise Spartacus and the "champions of Communism", however, we should divorce this from an objective form of historical analysis, an objective or scientific understanding of humans and their social relations. We should recognize these as ideological. Let us show the world our glorification of people like Spartacus, let it be a message to the enemy classes, of what the Communists are and what they represent.

[bcbm]

What existing evidence could possibly compel anyone to come to this conclusion? I've always been skeptical of this form of anthropology. How can, with the resources we have today, make such precise and detailed conclusions about societies before (and during) not only the neolithic revolution, but societies in which there are no documented records of? This is not an offensive question. Rather I have always been curious and time and time again no one has been able to adaquetly respond to this question.

we have a great deal of archeological remains from gatherer-hunter societies. obviously this isn't a 'documented record' in the sense you mean but it can still provide a great deal of information about how those people lived and what their groups looked like in a loose sense. this also makes it possible to know their diet, life expectancy and so on. when this is combined with what evidence exists today, namely the study of still existing gatherer-hunters, we can form a more or less accurate guess about what prehistorical human life was like. and in historical times those who adopted civilization have kept records of their interactions with gatherer-hunter people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think the state can simply be considered as an instrument of rule by economic classes. It can be quite an effective parasitical force in its own right, as both anthropological and historical evidence suggest. The former raises the possibility that the state arose before economic classes and that its roots are in inequalities in power (i.e. hierarchy) within society, not inequalities of wealth. The latter points to examples of societies in which the state was not, in fact, an instrument of (economic) class rule but rather pursued an interest of its own.To be frank I am very skeptical of this in a knee-jerk sort of way just because I don't think it holds up on a logical basis. Having people with different levels of social control implies some sort of existing division in relations to production - to have a state beurocracy at all means that some people are not farming or gathering full-time for a living: there has to be some kind of class division in order to divert some surplus to non-producing potential exploiters.

I don't doubt arceological evidence or academics who claim something different (Jarred Diamond, for example, uses some data that confirms tradditional marxist theories about the development of societies, but his interpretation of that data is often colored by some of his mainstream assumptions about things). But I do think it's possible that the evidence of "state" prior to class is incomplete: as in there could be societies which did not develop internally but in relation to other societies where class divisions had been established - there's modern evidence of this in various groups of hunter gatherers who come into contact with class/state powers and retain some features of tradditional life, while also taking on features of the class society. Or that the arheological information just doesn't give an accurate picture of subtle social relations and a nuanced and dynamic process of development - no one could pinpoint the exact time when the bourgeoise was portentially capable of becoming dominaent, it was a development over time that ebbed and flowed with false-starts and dead-ends. Additionally, this view could also come from a specific interpretation of the evidence: what do these academics consider "state" and "class" to be - this could have an impact, because there can be different relations to production without much observable social inequality. So if they think that class means inequality, then yes we probably do see state structures arise first and then increase of inequality later. State power is one way to cement-in systems of inequality and once you can instiutionalize a role and relationship, then it is easier to exploit more because the relationship is more likely to be accepted as "just reality". But class difference, the ability for one to gain from another, the ability to create wealth in a different way, is a precondition IMO for the instututionalization of that relationship. So, for example, a society that is relatively egalitarian might need someone to keep track of stocks and stored grain - it's a full-time job, so people give him a "tax" in exchange for keeping the stores safe and making sure everyone's share is protected and exchanges are fair. At first this may still be a realtively equal society, but as it develops, maybe then the person in charge of the stocks isn't chosen because he was a trusted member of the community, but because his father taught him the special skills of accounting and gave him privite acess to the storehouses and then this person passes all that onto his own kid. To justify this relation maybe the special reading and accounting techniques are called magic and the role becomes that of a priest and one that is passed down - monopolizing this role then allows these people to rule over others as the commmunity comes to depend on the role. The priests add guards to defend the stocks which then can also be used as force against the community itself and so on. But again, the fundamental thing is not state, but class as the state is a tool to make sure those with one relationship to production that they benifit from remains unquestioned and untouched.

At any rate, even if historically it is proven that states developed before different relations to production, this doesn't fit with how we see modern states as they have developed and been utilized. Feudal and Capitalist states have reflected the desires and rule of particular classes - to ensure that the economic relations remain strong and favor the ruling class.

[robbo203]

What existing evidence could possibly compel anyone to come to this conclusion? I've always been skeptical of this form of anthropology. How can, with the resources we have today, make such precise and detailed conclusions about societies before (and during) not only the neolithic revolution, but societies in which there are no documented records of? This is not an offensive question. Rather I have always been curious and time and time again no one has been able to adaquetly respond to this question. .

Its a reasonable question - what evidence is there that hunter gatherer societies resisted incorporation into an agricultural mode of production? The answer involves a fair bit of detective work and some educated guesses thrown in for good measure

We do know from forensic evidence that some HG groups lived in close proximity to settled farming communities for sometimes hundreds of years and it is a reasonable inference that they retained a HG way of life as a matter of choice. That is to say, they clearly knew about agricultural techniques but declined to adopt a farming way of life. Robert Kelly has something to say about this in his book The Foraging Spectrum When HGs do eventually adopt farming it is usually becuase they have no option but to do so. In a modern context, restrictions on the movements of HG peoples occur as a result of the imposition of political boundaries or ill advised approaches to the management of game reserves or large scale logging by multinationals or the spread of farming etc etc - which restictions make it impossible to maintain a nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle - and it is then that you might well see them turning to faming as a last resort and under pressure from governments keen to push through a modernising agenda and promote agriculture for economic reasons


Incidentally, it is not out of dyed-in-the-wool conservatism either that HG groups resist farming. Afterall, they tend to be highly adaptable as a society in all sorts of ways. Some have to adopted a half way house solution - namely so called "slash and burn" horticulture - which requires minimal labour inputs and allows them to remain basically hunter gatherers in the face of increasing environmental constraints

R Lee in in Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader on Hunter Gatherer Economics and the Environment has a wonderful quote from a Kung bushman “Why should we plant, when there are so many mongomongo nuts in the world?” Why indeed. Forensic evidence has shown that HGs frequently ate better (and more), lived longer , had a larger body mass and because of a much varied diet, were generally healthier than than early agriculturalists (Cohen, M. N. 1994. “The osteological paradox reconsidered.” Current Anthropology 35(5): 629-631). They also worked less and socialised more (see Marshall Sahlins Stone Age Economics)

What could an agricultural way of life offer that they might have wanted? Possessions did not mean much to HGs because ,apart from anything else, possessions impeded movement and without the ability to move from one place to another in search of game such a way of life is not sustainable

The HGs were culturally adapted to this way of life and not to farming. It had to take some form of external factor - and ultimately this was environmental in the shape of the last ice age - to cause them to forsake it and opt for what, was on the face of it, a noticeably less desirable way of life in the form of early agriculture. Even then such an adjustment would take time - there is such a thing as a "cultural lag". Though I dont have much evidence for this. my own hunch is that some hunter's in the face of such pressures, rather than adopt farming, transmuted into marauders who preyed on early farmers who were effectively sitting targets with their storable food surpluses. It is this that may have planted the very first seeds of class division and the state