Development of the State

[Johann]

So lately i have come across the idea that the development of the state, and the concentration of power that accompanies it, allowed humans to advance beyond tribal society. Does this make the early form of the state more progressive in nature than it is today? :unsure:

In light of this would the argument that "communism worked for the first 30-40 thousand years of our existence" prove less valid, since the form of primitive communism that existed failed to significantly advance human society? Is it even a good idea to compare the kind of communist society that would exist in the future with this society of the past?

[BobKKKindle$]

The state did not 'allow' for anything - rather, the existance of a state is indicative of the development of class antagonisms (the division of society into classes defined by their relationship to the means of production) which in turn was the result of economic - particuarly technological - change.

This is why Engels wrote in 'The Origin of Private Property, the Family, and the State'


The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without...it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. Emphasis mine.

and Lenin said in 'State and Revolution'


The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

In Marxist terms, the state forms part of the superstructure. Marxists feel that the economic relations of society form other aspects of life, including political institutions - those aspects of life not directly concerned with economics are called the 'superstructure', super in this context meaning 'above'.

It could be said, though, that the state is 'progressive' because the existence if the state shows that society has, as you point out, progressed beyond a tribal state. Some marxists would contend that it is necessary for a society to 'move' through all the 'modes of production' in order to reach Communism. From this perspective, a society that is no longer tribal, but a slave or feudal society, would be 'closer' to Communism.

[Johann]

So you're saying I had it the wrong way around, and the existance of the state is more an effect than a cause of advanced society, I guess that makes sense. So the development away from tribal society marked the beginnings of the use of land as private property (i think), this gave rise to reasonably well defined classes and so state is a manifestation of the special power that this afforded to the small proportion of society who found themselves at the top. Does that sound about right?

[BobKKKindle$]

Sounds like an excellent description to me. If you want to learn more about how classes and the state came to exist and how societies have changed over time from a Marxist perspective, I recommend Chris Harman's 'People's History of the World' which can be found here at http://www.istendency.net/node/view/7. In particular, chapter 3 might be a good idea. I think this book is a lot easier to read than Engels' book on the same general subject. Harman writes in chapter 3:


The emergence of civilisation is usually thought of as one of the great steps forward in human history—indeed, as the step that separates history from prehistory. But it was accompanied wherever it happened by other, negative changes: by the development for the first time of class divisions, with a privileged minority living off the labour of everyone else, and by the setting up of bodies of armed men, of soldiers and secret police—in other words, a state machine—so as
to enforce this minority’s rule on the rest of society...

Harman goes on to write:


Classes began to arise out of certain of these changes in making a livelihood. Methods of production were open to the group that could enable it to produce and store a surplus over and above what was needed to subsist. But the new methods required some people to be freed from the immediate burden of working in the fields to coordinate the activities of the group, and to ensure that some of the surplus was not immediately consumed but set aside for the future in storehouses.

[Johann]

Thanks for the help.
Harman's book looks interesting, I was checking out "A People's History of England" and that may also be worth a read.

[BreadBros]

For the early development of a stratified class-based society and it's scientific relation to agricultural and animal development I HIGHLY suggest Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel". Its an awesome book.