Why are states strong?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

The main argument I hear from marxists against anarchism is that a state would be needed to defend the revolution. What I want to know is why, exactly, a state would provide better defense than non-state workers organisations.

Of course, Marx defined the state as the institutions used by one class to supress another. By this definition, then of course a state would be needed to defend the revolution - as otherwise the bourgeois and counterevolution could not be supressed. However anarchists (and just about everyone except marxists) don't use this definition. The most commonly held definition of a state is Max Webers; an institution which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given teritory. Why does doing this make organisations for the defense of the revolution stronger? All I can see this achieving is alienating potential allies.

If we look at historical organisations for the defense of revolutions - adjusting for the resources they had at their command - the revolutionary insurgent army of ukraine was clearly one of the most effective. And it wasn't a weberian state.

[Dimentio]

The main argument I hear from marxists against anarchism is that a state would be needed to defend the revolution. What I want to know is why, exactly, a state would provide better defense than non-state workers organisations.

Of course, Marx defined the state as the institutions used by one class to supress another. By this definition, then of course a state would be needed to defend the revolution - as otherwise the bourgeois and counterevolution could not be supressed. However anarchists (and just about everyone except marxists) don't use this definition. The most commonly held definition of a state is Max Webers; an institution which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given teritory. Why does doing this make organisations for the defense of the revolution stronger? All I can see this achieving is alienating potential allies.

If we look at historical organisations for the defense of revolutions - adjusting for the resources they had at their command - the revolutionary insurgent army of ukraine was clearly one of the most effective. And it wasn't a weberian state.

The state is a fairly new invention as well. Before 1648, there were no states in the modern sense.

[ComradeOm]

However anarchists (and just about everyone except marxists) don't use this definition. The most commonly held definition of a state is Max Webers; an institution which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given teritory. Why does doing this make organisations for the defense of the revolution stronger? All I can see this achieving is alienating potential alliesYour argument is badly flawed by the simple fact that, as you yourself note, Marxists do not use this definition. Why are they not concerned about "alienating potential allies"? Because they do not believe that the state is far more than "an institution which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force". You see the problem there?

(In fact I don't believe Weber himself ever tried to boil the state down to such a simple sentence. The monopoly of violence is simply one characteristic, albeit a defining one, that he identified in the state)

Now speaking with my Marxist hat on, I disagree with Weber, and many others, on the nature of the state. Not surprising given that I'm a big fan of Marx's class analysis. There are those who believe that the state is some neutral arbitrator and those who believe that any hierarchy is inherently evil. I have little time for either


If we look at historical organisations for the defense of revolutions - adjusting for the resources they had at their command - the revolutionary insurgent army of ukraine was clearly one of the most effective. And it wasn't a weberian state.:Blinks: You are choosing a failed insurgency as the model for future states? There are far more long-lived, if less romantic, examples of anarchist efforts to pick from. Very well though, I'll bite: what is it that you find so admirable about the Ukrainian effort?


The state is a fairly new invention as well. Before 1648, there were no states in the modern sense.The caveat at the end of this sentence really renders the rest moot though. The modern state is obviously... modern but feudal/ancient state structures can be identified for millennia prior to 1648 and for centuries afterwards. Incidentally one great weakness of an evaluation of the state that omits class analysis is that no distinction is made between these very different institutions

[Dimentio]

The caveat at the end of this sentence really renders the rest moot though. The modern state is obviously... modern but feudal/ancient state structures can be identified for millennia prior to 1648 and for centuries afterwards. Incidentally one great weakness of an evaluation of the state that omits class analysis is that no distinction is made between these very different institutions

Well, the state before 1648 was most often a loosely knit territory which paid taxes to an overlord. It had no monopoly on legislation or the use of force.

[ComradeOm]

Well, the state before 1648 was most often a loosely knit territory which paid taxes to an overlord. It had no monopoly on legislation or the use of force.Hence the obvious flaws in that particular definition. Or was pre-1648 Europe in effect a stateless society? ;)

(As an aside, 1648 is an extremely arbitrary year to pick. It makes sense for students of European diplomacy but the actual evolution of centralised states was an ongoing process that occurred over a number of centuries)

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Your argument is badly flawed by the simple fact that, as you yourself note, Marxists do not use this definition. Why are they not concerned about "alienating potential allies"? Because they do not believe that the state is far more than "an institution which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force". You see the problem there?No. When marxists critique anarchisms rejection of the state, they should use the anarchist definition of the state. If they use their own special one then they are arguing a straw man. What feature of the modern state, which anarchist organisation would necessarily lack, do you believe is necessary to succesfully defend a revolution - or would make doing so easier?


:Blinks: You are choosing a failed insurgency as the model for future states? There are far more long-lived, if less romantic, examples of anarchist efforts to pick from. Very well though, I'll bite: what is it that you find so admirable about the Ukrainian effort?Its ability to wage war. Enlighten me about these longer lived efforts - spain isn't one.

[ComradeOm]

No. When marxists critique anarchisms rejection of the state, they should use the anarchist definition of the stateThen what would they disagree about? Marxists do not argue with anarchists for shits and giggles, they do so because they do not agree with anarchist theories (including the definition of the state). The whole clash of ideologies (of any ideology for that matter) is first and foremost a difference in definitions


Its ability to wage warThat is what impresses you most about the Makhnovists - their ability to wage war? In which case I suggest that you might find more to admire in the Red Army or the later Wehrmacht

There are many reasons to criticise Makhno and many reasons to admire his efforts - as always that particular episode in history remains swathed in propaganda. However the various merits of his rule are rendered tangential by your extremely narrow definition of the state. What is the difference between the forces wielded by Makhno, Trotsky, or Denikin? None according to you. When the state is defined solely by its monopoly on violence then distinguishing features (such as the Ukrainian communes) are lost


Enlighten me about these longer lived efforts - spain isn't one.You're right. If I was being particularly nasty I would point out that this reflects extremely poorly on anarchism. But I'm trying to avoid that sort of sectarian commentary these days

[apathy maybe]

Then what would they disagree about? Marxists do not argue with anarchists for shits and giggles, they do so because they do not agree with anarchist theories (including the definition of the state). The whole clash of ideologies (of any ideology for that matter) is first and foremost a difference in definitions
If you are having an argument about what is the definition of the state, then yes it is expected that there be disagreement about that definition.

However, if you wish to criticize a rejection of the idea of the state, by claiming that the state is actually something different, then your discussion will get no where.

To have a discussion requires agreement on definitions, even if that agreement is only for the purposes of the discussion.

Besides, what some "Marxists" talk about when they say "workers state" is a state by the anarchist definition. And as such, something that can be discussed using the anarchist definition.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The most commonly held definition of a state is Max Webers; an institution which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given teritory. Why does doing this make organisations for the defense of the revolution stronger? All I can see this achieving is alienating potential allies.

Alright, I will argue against anarchism using Weber's definition for a moment. Without this monopoly, the proletariat cannot be united in liquidating outright class enemies, class traitors (here unfortunately I would include MILITANT anarchists as class traitors, as opposed to wishy-washy ones who just talk the talk), serial non-political criminals, etc. The aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism is necessary, and can only occur through the employment of THE STATE.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-anti-t76849/index.html

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Then what would they disagree about?How to organise society? Anarchists say we shouldnt have a state. When they as this they mean the anarchist definition of the state. A meaningful disagreement with this position would be an argument why the anarchist definition of a state is needed. What would be idiotic is saying that anarchists are wrong because the marxist definition of the state is needed - when thats not what anarchists are rejecting. Thats would be a straw man logical falacy.

I can't believe I had to explain that.


That is what impresses you most about the Makhnovists - their ability to wage war? In which case I suggest that you might find more to admire in the Red Army or the later Wehrmacht
What interests me for the purposes of this discussion is the effectiveness of the methods of organisation. To determine this, you need to adjust for the resources the organisation in question had at its command. When you do this, the makhnovists massively outclassed the red army.


the various merits of his rule are rendered tangential by your extremely narrow definition of the state. What is the difference between the forces wielded by Makhno, Trotsky, or Denikin? None according to you. When the state is defined solely by its monopoly on violence then distinguishing features (such as the Ukrainian communes) are lost
Que? The makhnovists never claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Plus there is a lot more to anarchism than just rejecting the state. And makhno didnt 'rule'. The insurgent army was subordinate to the free soviets, to which he was most fo the time not even a delegate.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Without this monopoly, the proletariat cannot be united in liquidating outright class enemies, class traitors (here unfortunately I would include MILITANT anarchists as class traitors, as opposed to wishy-washy ones who just talk the talk), serial non-political criminals, etc.
Why does the proletariat have to be united? I can't see how a state will achieve this anyway. By trying to unite the proletariat by force it will create enemies and division - see all the worker and peasant uprisings agaisnt the bolsheviks for example.


The aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism is necessary, and can only occur through the employment of THE STATE.
Of course the aggravation of the class struggle is needed. But why on earth can this only occur through the employment of a state? The makhnovists and spanish anarchists aggravated the class struggle pretty well in a revolutionary situation. And all revolutionary organisations have to aggravate the class struggle without the benefit of a state to get to a revolutionary situation.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Alright, I will argue against anarchism using Weber's definition for a moment. Without this monopoly, the proletariat cannot be united in liquidating outright class enemies, class traitors (here unfortunately I would include MILITANT anarchists as class traitors, as opposed to wishy-washy ones who just talk the talk), serial non-political criminals, etc. The aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism is necessary, and can only occur through the employment of THE STATE.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-anti-t76849/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../anarchism-and-anti-t76849/index.html%5B/quote) Sorry to put this off topic, but I would class myself as a 'militant anarchist.'

On what grounds do I deserve to be 'liquidated?'

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I wasn't referring to the current struggle. Suppose groups of anarchists after the social-proletocratic revolution decide to, naturally, fight the revolutionary Marxists who have "captured" the organs of workers power and who have, along with the proletarian masses, smashed the state organs of bourgeois power.

[By that time, you and I will be on opposite sides. On the one hand, if you and your buddies just talk the talk, you'll probably be OK. If, on the other hand, you and your buddies decide to pull off a Fanny Kaplan, well... at least a new Cheka will be needed in any event. :) ]

[apathy maybe]

Alright, I will argue against anarchism using Weber's definition for a moment. Without this monopoly, the proletariat cannot be united in liquidating outright class enemies, class traitors (here unfortunately I would include MILITANT anarchists as class traitors, as opposed to wishy-washy ones who just talk the talk), serial non-political criminals, etc. The aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism is necessary, and can only occur through the employment of THE STATE.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-and-anti-t76849/index.html

By the typically used anarchist definition of the state, you can not have a state that is controlled by all the working class. Therefore, any anarchist that fights your state is fighting against something that is inherently anti-working class. They would then only be a "traitor" to the few who manage to be in control of the new "working class" state.

States are controlled by a minority.

Oh yeah, and fuck the state. States perpetuate themselves, and thus can't lead to communism.

[Dimentio]

Hence the obvious flaws in that particular definition. Or was pre-1648 Europe in effect a stateless society? ;)

(As an aside, 1648 is an extremely arbitrary year to pick. It makes sense for students of European diplomacy but the actual evolution of centralised states was an ongoing process that occurred over a number of centuries)

It was pre-statist at least, as authority over territory was not an absolute. Actually, Europe during the feudal age was more communitarian than bureaucratic, and often, we had local assemblies resisting various forms of spiritual and wordly power bases. Often, a kingdom could have several laws within its own borders.

In 1648, the state became an absolute, as most European rulers recognised it as such.

But the process towards states had begun alredy 300 years earlier, in the Black Death of 1346-1351.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The decentralized situation in feudal Europe, among other factors, led to a need for centralization in order to surpass the Asiatic mode of production that was so prevalent among Europe's neighbours (and that Black Death note of yours is interesting ;) ). :)


By the typically used anarchist definition of the state, you can not have a state that is controlled by all the working class. Therefore, any anarchist that fights your state is fighting against something that is inherently anti-working class. They would then only be a "traitor" to the few who manage to be in control of the new "working class" state.

Yes, because the revolutionary mass vanguard party is inherently anti-proletarian. :rolleyes:

Please learn to differentiate between state power (to be smashed), workers' power (to be "captured"), and state administration (to be supervised, and only NON-voting party members should be in state administration (http://proletarism.org/hm_2_4.shtml), except for the prestigious head-of-government and senior deputy positions).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm


The mere presentation of the question—"dictatorship of the party or dictatorship of the class; dictatorship (party) of the leaders, or dictatorship (party) of the masses?"—testifies to most incredibly and hopelessly muddled thinking. These people want to invent something quite out of the ordinary, and, in their effort to be clever, make themselves ridiculous. It is common knowledge that the masses are divided into classes, that the masses can be contrasted with classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, regardless of division according to status in the social system of production, with categories holding a definite status in the social system of production; that as a rule and in most cases—at least in present-day civilised countries—classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions, and are called leaders. All this is elementary. All this is clear and simple.

...

Classes still remain, and will remain everywhere for years after the proletariat’s conquest of power. Perhaps in Britain, where there is no peasantry (but where petty proprietors exist), this period may be shorter. The abolition of classes means, not merely ousting the landowners and the capitalists—that is something we accomplished with comparative ease; it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be ousted, or crushed; we must learn to live with them. They can (and must) be transformed and re-educated only by means of very prolonged, slow, and cautious organisational work. They surround the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat, and constantly causes among the proletariat relapses into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, and alternating moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralisation and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organisational role of the proletariat (and that is its principal role) may be exercised correctly, successfully and victoriously. The dictatorship of the proletariat means a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative -- against the forces and traditions of the old society. The force of habit in millions and tens of millions is a most formidable force. Without a party of iron that has been tempered in the struggle, a party enjoying the confidence of all honest people in the class in question, a party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, such a struggle cannot be waged successfully. It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralised big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions upon millions of petty proprietors; however, through their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive and demoralising activities, they produce the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie. Whoever brings about even the slightest weakening of the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during its dictatorship), is actually aiding the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.

[apathy maybe]

Yes, because the revolutionary mass vanguard party is inherently anti-proletarian.
*Yawn*.
The Labor Party is in control in Australia, therefore all those working class members actually have a say in how the country is run... Actually, no.

Your "mass vanguard party" is controlled by a minority, and where that minority is in control of the state, they run the state, not the party.

And so yeah, it is "anti-proletarian", because those people in power aren't going to want to give it up.

Please learn from history, power corrupts, and states don't disappear. Where you have a state, you have a ruling class, and ruling classes don't whither away. They need to be destroyed.


Please learn to differentiate between state power (to be smashed), workers' power (to be "captured"), and state administration (to be supervised, and only NON-voting party members should be in state administration, except for the prestigious head-of-government and senior deputy positions).
State power, to be smashed. Worker's power, the workers have the power, nothing needs to be captured.
State administration, well, part of the state, to be smashed.

The workers can administer stuff well enough without an army, police force, prisons, judges and the other crap that comes with a state.

We don't need a head of government, of what use is it? Why does there need to be any senior deputy positions?

Basically, you are trying to justify something that can't be justified. And using an anarchist definition of the state doesn't help you justify it any more then using a Marxist definition.

Anarchists don't like states because we have learnt from history. Looks like you haven't.

To quote Lenin,

classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions, and are called leaders.
Yes, and don't you see. Anarchists don't like that. We don't think that these parties, these leaders, this shit is needed or desired.
We don't want a leader, a ruler or any such bullshit, and we think that society can operate without them.

Assuming you want some form of communism, that is class-less, state-less and so on, assuming further more that you do not desire witch-doctors or similar fucks in your communism, then you too think that society can operate without such bullshit.

Why don't you take the obvious next step and fight for the abolishment of the bullshit sooner, rather then later?

[Die Neue Zeit]

*Yawn*.
The Labor Party is in control in Australia, therefore all those working class members actually have a say in how the country is run... Actually, no.

Your "mass vanguard party" is controlled by a minority, and where that minority is in control of the state, they run the state, not the party.

The "Labor" party in Australia is NOT a REVOLUTIONARY party. :glare:


State power, to be smashed. Worker's power, the workers have the power, nothing needs to be captured.
State administration, well, part of the state, to be smashed.

Ever heard of "soviets" and "factory committees"? :rolleyes:

Contrast these organs of workers' power (again, to be captured in an "electoral" way) to organs of state power (parliament, police, military, etc.) and to organs of state administration (civil government/bureaucracy).

Granted, the bourgeois state administration needs to be smashed, too, but it must be understood that a new state administration needs to be built.

Please read Lenin above. The authority division between LEADERS and FOLLOWERS/LED cannot be abolished overnight. That's the problem with anarchism and any other anti-vanguardist position.


Assuming you want some form of communism, that is class-less, state-less and so on, assuming further more that you do not desire witch-doctors or similar fucks in your communism, then you too think that society can operate without such bullshit.

Why don't you take the obvious next step and fight for the abolishment of the bullshit sooner, rather then later?

I refer you to my Theory thread on anarchism. Authority divisions cannot be abolished overnight. PTiT then made a self-confused "Leninist, you are going to have to come to terms with this: Never, ever, have anarchists said anything will happen over night" remark.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

No one has even attempted a serious answer...

Guys this is staggering.

[apathy maybe]

The "Labor" party in Australia is NOT a REVOLUTIONARY party. :glare:
No, but it is the party for the workers in Australia. And just like your "revolutionary party" it gives the actual workers (as opposed to party hacks and bureaucrats) very little power. Fuck parties, and fuck leaders.



"Leninist, you are going to have to come to terms with this: Never, ever, have anarchists said anything will happen over night" remark.
Yeah, and what is wrong with that statement? Never ever have any real anarchists said that there needs to be a state to transition to a classless society. States are antithetical to a classless society. They don't whither away. Ever. They have to be destroyed.

Of course, you might not get rid of hierarchy over night, but you can destroy the state, and wipe out the oppressing institutions (police, judges, prisons etc.) very quickly. You don't then replace it with more police (who will no doubt have experience), or more prisons (staffed by the same sadists who staffed the previous prisons).

Observe what happened in Iraq when the yanks went in. They destroyed the old state apparatus, built a new one, and staffed it people who had experience in the old regime (to a large extent anyway). (I accept that it isn't a direct parallel, after all the yanks aren't deluded or lying about wanting to move to a classless, stateless society in Iraq.)


No one has even attempted a serious answer...What answer would you like? That states are needed to bring about a stateless society? Yeah, JR is deluded about that, but even most Leninists don't really want a Webarian state (though that is the sort of state that Lenin et al. built...), they want decentralised federations etc. Well, at least the smart ones do. The ones who are ignorant or whatever, (or perhaps who favour themselves and feel that they'll be near the top of any party hierarchy) might say they want a centralised state. But those of us who have actually learnt from history ...

[Harry]

"The state is a fairly new invention as well. Before 1648, there were no states in the modern sense."


I would argue that there are many examples of ancient states.

The Roman Empire, The Macedonian Empire, etc.

[ComradeOm]

What would be idiotic is saying that anarchists are wrong because the marxist definition of the state is needed - when thats not what anarchists are rejectingBut you're an anarchist and you've just rejected the Marxist definition of the state out of hand ;)

Again though you simply reject the concept that there are many different definitions of the state that are not compatible. What distinguishes Marxists and anarchists is their subscription to these different theories. If both groups accepted the same definition then they would not be Marxists and anarchists - they would be different types of anarchists arguing within the anarchist paradigm. Essentially you are berating Marxists for not being anarchists


What interests me for the purposes of this discussion is the effectiveness of the methods of organisation. To determine this, you need to adjust for the resources the organisation in question had at its command. When you do this, the makhnovists massively outclassed the red armyOh? This was not the fighting machine of '41 onwards but the Red Army of '18 onwards was certainly the most capable army during the Russian Civil War. If it benefited from greater resources than the Makhnovists then this is because it enjoyed a vastly broader base of popular support


And makhno didnt 'rule'. The insurgent army was subordinate to the free soviets, to which he was most fo the time not even a delegate.And here we stumble into the mass of propaganda that makes discussion on this point almost impossible. I will at least try given that the below piece appears to be well sourced (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml)

"The Makhnovists set monetary policy.62 They regulated the press.63 They redistributed land according to specific laws they passed. They organized regional legislative conferences. 64 They controlled armed detachments to enforce their policies.65 To combat epidemics, they promulgated mandatory standards of cleanliness for the public health.66 Except for the Makhnovists, parties were banned from organizing for election to regional bodies. They banned authority with which they disagreed to “prevent those hostile to our political ideas from establishing themselves.”67 They delegated broad authority to a “Regional Military-Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents.” The Makhnovists used their military authority to suppress rival political ideas and organizations.68"


It was pre-statist at least, as authority over territory was not an absoluteYou're confusing "state" with "central authority". The centralised state that we all know and love undoubtedly only began to take on an apparent shape during the 16th, 17th C but the state can hardly be said to have sprung, or crawled, into existence with absolutism. Complex state structures existed during medieval times, as they did before written history, but their nature was decentralised and, in a word, feudal.

Taxes were collected, laws enforced, soldiers maintained, land ownership governed... the major difference being that it was a local lord, rather than central authority, that administered these state structures. That does not make these any more of a state than the centralised bourgeois examples that we see today. Of course this is where class analysis is essential in understanding the differences

[Peacekeeper]

An interesting concept. Usually, the State is in control of the majority of military power in a nation. However, there are nations that exist where this is not true, such as in Lebanon, where the armed wing of the political party, Hezb'Allah, took control of Beirut in less than three days. Hezbollah has a very strong base of support among working class Lebanese peoples, mainly due to their network of humanitarian programs and giving aid directly to families in need. If a socialist organization could achieve this sort of support in, say, the USA, that group would most likely be able to stage a popular socialist revolution. But then that Party would replace the old, weak, bourgeois state with a stronger, socialist, revolutionary state. And it's pretty hard to dislodge a strong socialist state from the outside. Then it down the path towards communism and the withering away of the state, unless your revolution is hijacked by the revisionists!

EDIT: Following this to its logical conclusion: the state is only as strong as its popular base of support, it is not inherently strong. How many people are willing to fight for the bourgeois state, as opposed to for a new socialist order? When the revolutionary working class outweighs the bourgeois jingoists, then will come the revolution. Our job is to create those conditions.

[lombas]

States are strong because of paintings like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Peter_Paul_Rubens_051.jpg

[Peacekeeper]

^I'm too uncultured to know what that is. Please explain.

[lombas]

^I'm too uncultured to know what that is. Please explain.

It's one of the paintings of the Medici Cycle, a series of twenty four paintings in which Rubens had to glorify the life of the former queen of France, Maria de' Medici.

This painting hows how Maria got to be Regent of France after her husband, king Henry IV, was murdered by a catholic extremist (he was a convert from protestantism). On the painting, we can clearly see Maria being given an orb. It is the first time that "the world" is symbolized as a political power that can be "owned" by rulers.

Thus, the image of power becomes totalitarian. It was ideas like this that helped to shape a strong state.