The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically — John Shaqi
The State: Its History and Development Viewed SociologicallyOppenheimer, Franz
History
The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically
Oppenheimer, Franz
State, The
Growth in itself conditions important changes; and the young state must
grow. The same forces that brought it into being, urge its extension,
require it to grasp more power. Even were such a young state “sated,”
as many a modern state claims to be, it would still be forced to
stretch and grow under penalty of extinction. Under primitive social
conditions Goethe’s lines apply with absolute truth: “You must rise or
fall, conquer or yield, be hammer or anvil.”
States are maintained in accordance with the same principles that
called them into being. The primitive state is the creation of warlike
robbery; and only by warlike robbery can it be preserved.
The economic want of the master group has no limits; no man is
sufficiently rich to satisfy his desires. The political means are
turned on new groups of peasants not yet subjected, or new coasts
yet unpilfered are sought out. The primitive state expands, until a
collision takes place on the edge of the “sphere of interests” of
another primitive state, which itself originated in precisely the same
way. Then we have for the first time, in place of the warlike robbery
heretofore carried on, true war in its narrower sense, since henceforth
equally organized and disciplined masses are hurled at one another.
The object of the contest remains always the same, the produce of the
economic means of the working classes, such as loot, tribute, taxes
and ground rent; but the contest no longer takes place between a group
intent on exploiting and another mass to be exploited, but between two
master groups for the possession of the entire booty.
The final result of the conflict, in nearly all instances, is the
amalgamation of both primitive states into a greater. This in turn,
naturally and by force of the same causes, reaches beyond its borders,
devours its smaller neighbors, and is perhaps in its turn devoured by
some greater state.
The subjected laboring group may not take much interest in the final
issue of these contests for the mastery; it is a matter of indifference
whether it pays tribute to one or the other set of lords. Their chief
interest lies in the course of the particular fight, which is, in any
case, paid for with their own hides. Therefore, except in cases of
gross ill treatment and exploitation, the lower classes are rightly
governed by their “state-consciousness” when, with all their might they
aid their hereditary master group in times of war. For if their master
group is vanquished, the subjects suffer most severely from the utter
devastation of war. They fight literally for wife and children, for
home and hearth, when they fight to prevent the rule of foreign masters.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account