The Rise of State Societies

[Redistribute the Rep]

Why did nation states arise? In what ways are they preferable to just having private armies for capitalists?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why did nation states arise? In what ways are they preferable to just having private armies for capitalists?

nation states in the 1800s (and sometimes today) did use armed forces for hire. But I think nation states in general did not come about in relationship to private or state armies, but in relation to feudal arrangements of smaller provincial rule by princes and estate rule by lords.

My impression is that in places like France or Germany there was a more conscious effort to create a united nation out of these smaller political rulerships because the needs of capital are different than the needs of feudal exploitation. Feudal rulers ruled through control of specific areas of land and specific groups of peasants. Capitalism works better with a pool of mobile workers and wealth not tied to land but to the ability to exchange and move capital. But a nation state is utilized by capitalists in order to aid competition with other groups of capitalists, to create favorable conditions for production within a geographical area, to create favorable conditions for creating proletarians (moving people off the commons, creating a national language and later for schooling that can create certain skills or ability to be wage-laborers that can work but aren't specialized).

National armies came about differently in different places. But generally they were needed by capitalists to ensure trade routes, to enforce and project national interests of the ruling capitalists, to put down resistance (to capitalist modernization) by the peasent and uprisings by laborers.

This is my general and crude impression of this. None of it developed in a vaccume so a lot depended on when and where capitalism developed. But once one group of capitalists had organized their own national power feudal powers could not compete as well economically (and so in some places -japan or Germany - the state was organized to help usher in capitalist relations, whereas in other places capitalists developed the state to suit their interests as they developed) and other groups of capitalists needed to similarly organize their rule or else fall behind or stay weak.

[Blake's Baby]

The Boss will no doubt be along soon to offer a different interpretation, but capitalism developed the nation-state first in England, France and the Low Countries. I see the Hundred Years War as being crucial to this process.

Over a century or so, the nations of England and France emerged from the dynastic holdings of the Plantagenets and the Capetins, armies moved from being based on the levies of Lords to being professional paid soldiers, and 'at home' in both countries capitalist relations in the countryside advanced bringing cash economies with wage labour and commodity production in place of the previous 'feudal dues'. Indeed, with its beginnings in the trade relationships England and France had with the Flemish wool-processing industries, it can be regarded as an earlier example of a capitalist 'war for profit' (though at the time it was more seen as a matter of pride and legality between two competing dynasties).

But, none of that explains 'the rise of state societies' which happened from about 6,000BC.

[Luís Henrique]

The Boss will no doubt be along soon to offer a different interpretation, but capitalism developed the nation-state first in England, France and the Low Countries. I see the Hundred Years War as being crucial to this process.

The Boss will certainly be late on this, but nation states, in Western Europe, were a product of feudal social relations, not of capitalism.

But, none of that explains 'the rise of state societies' which happened from about 6,000BC.

Indeed. "State" and "capitalism" are different entities, that have very different histories, the former being much, much older than the latter.

Luís Henrique

[Dagoth Ur]

Feudalism set the stage but it was the bougeoisie revolutions that erased regional boundaries and consolidated every modern nation-state.

[Blake's Baby]

Quote doesn't see, to be working.

Luis said: "The Boss will certainly be late on this, but nation states, in Western Europe, were a product of feudal social relations, not of capitalism..."

I disagree. Nation states - indeed the whole ideological superstructure we see around us - are the product of capitalism.

In feudal Europe, various classes existed alongside the aristocracy and peasants who embodied the main social forces, due to their relations to the means of production (ie, primarily, land).

The nascent bourgeoisie and the nascent proletariat also existed in feudal Europe, and they were engaged in capitalist relations (if not in a fully-developed capitalist system) - ie they were producing commodities through exploitation of wage labour.

It was the rising economic power that this gave the bourgeoisie that enabled them to take political power in the 17th-19th centuries throughout Europe.

From the 1300s onwards, the nascent bourgeoisie became more and more important and so did the proletariat (first agricultural and then industrial workers) in the national economies.

So it was the beginnings of capitalist relations, engendering the bourgeoisie, that brought about 'the nation state' as we understand it, out of the dynastic states of the feudal period.

[Redistribute the Rep]

What makes nation states more efficient at maintaining capitalist relations though?

[Blake's Baby]

More efficient than feudal holdings?

Unified economic systems (eg the same money in all parts of the state); unified legal systems; unified weights and measures; property based on wealth not favour of king; state run by representatives of bourgeoisie not descendants of warlords; existence of proletariat (who must sell labour power) not peasantry owing dues... do I need to go on?

[Return_Of_The_Mac]

To ask why nations-states came about, we need to first look at why the nation and the state, as separate concepts, evolved.

The concept of a centralised, differentiated, autonomous extensive political organisation like the state was not intentional. It didn't exist until around the 16th and 17th centuries. Charles Tilly argues that the state initially came about via war. Making war requires money and materials. These are obtained through taxes, which needed to have an effective administration to collect them. With the conquest of new lands came the collection of more taxes and the control of the usually hostile newly conquered populace.

From this, rulers were keen to officially demark where thier rule reached. The protection for those inside and the supression of those outside had to be carried out by the ruler/official bodies. This centralised, demarked autonomous method of tax extraction and monopolisation of violence is one reason how the state came about.

People who share a system of signs, idead, associations and ways of behaving and commuinicating = nation. Nationalism = political principle which holds that politics and the nation should be combined.
Ernst Gellner asserts that nationalism is not the awakening of an old, latent force. Nationalism only could have existed in the time during and after the Industrial Revolution: certain social conditions based on homogenity of the population, literacy and anonymity.


This was hastily written based of my revision notes from university that I haven't looked at since the start of the year, so go easy on me! Plus this is the first thing I have written that is of this complexity for a little while; it might be too low brow for this forum?

[tuwix]

Why did nation states arise? In what ways are they preferable to just having private armies for capitalists?

Nation states are indeed an side-effect of capitalist revolution but it wasn't planned. Bourgeoisie wanted parliamentary 'democracy' to rule but they don't predicted that one of factors of joining in political parties will be a belonging to certain nation. Thusly, a nation states arose. In feudalism it was irrelevant to monarch what people he rules. However, monarchs started to build nations in order to get a value to risk being killed on wars...

[RedMaterialist]

To ask why nations-states came about, we need to first look at why the nation and the state, as separate concepts, evolved.

According to Engels the nation is an association of tribes and clans, as for instance, the ancient Greek tribes/nation and the 18th century Native American tribes and nations. Later, the state developed as a class structure for the suppression of slaves, etc.

Is the nation-state really any longer a useful concept? For instance, what is the difference between "America" and the "United States of America," or between "France" and the "French Republic." We have the "United Nations" which is really a group of states. We have a "national ID card," which is really a political identity card, it identifies you as a citizen or as an alien legally present in the state.

Although it would be odd if someone identified herself as a "citizen of the U.S." rather than an "American."

[Redistribute the Rep]

How where the nation states of the industrial era different from the 'nation states' of Ancient Greece and Rome?

[Blake's Baby]

Greece and Rome weren't 'nation states'.

For a start the 'Greek nation' was divided into hundreds of states with vastly different constitutions that kept fighting each other. There was no 'Greece' until the 1800s.

The Roman Empire was a multinational-state, not a nation-state, because Romans and Syrians and Greeks (who may well have thought of themselves as Athenians or Corinthians or Ionians or whatever) and hundreds of other ethnicities lived in the Roman Empire.

[Sewer Socialist]

I don't disagree that they were different, but don't modern nation-states typically contain multiple ethnicities as well?

[Blake's Baby]

If you mean, 'don't Vietnamese people live in Britain and Turkish people live in Germany?' then of course. But a whole lot of countries are relatively homogenous and there aren't many ethnicities that are spread over massive numbers of countries. There were probably nearly as many city-states in 'Greece' as there are countries now. There were more ethnicities in the Roman Empire than there are countries now.

[Return_Of_The_Mac]

According to Engels the nation is an association of tribes and clans, as for instance, the ancient Greek tribes/nation and the 18th century Native American tribes and nations. Later, the state developed as a class structure for the suppression of slaves, etc.

Ancient Greek tribes/city-states are not nations. A nation has to include common language, customs, history, and an education that is organised offered to people as long as they associate themselves within the nation. Many Greek city-states spoke different dialects, focused on worshipping different gods, education was private.

The nation cannot be a loose association of tribes and clans, as any group of tribes can associate together, but be entirely differing cultures, lanuages, etc.

[Return_Of_The_Mac]

Is the nation-state really any longer a useful concept? For instance, what is the difference between "America" and the "United States of America," or between "France" and the "French Republic."

Well, America/American is a nation. The people who are American share common symbols, history, culture, etc. USA is a state: you can live in the US without being American, and vice-versa.

Same with France. The French Republic is the administrative, organisational and political body. France is the "idea".

Perhaps I have misunderstood. Also, apologies in advance if this turns into a double-post.