The State: Its History and Development Viewed SociologicallyOppenheimer, Franz
History
The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically
Oppenheimer, Franz
State, The
The psychology of the townsman, and especially of the dweller in the
maritime commercial city, is radically different from that of the
countryman. His point of view is freer and more inclusive, even though
it be more superficial; he is livelier, because more impressions strike
him in a day than a peasant in a year. He becomes used to constant
changes and news, and thus is always _novarum rerum cupidus_. He is
more remote from nature and less dependent on it than is the peasant,
and therefore he has less fear of “ghosts.” One consequence of this is
that an underling in a city State is less apt to regard the “taboo”
regulations imposed on him by the first and second estates of rulers.
And as he is compelled to live in compact masses with his fellow
subjects, he early finds his strength in numbers, so that he becomes
more unruly and seditious than the serf who lives in such isolation
that he never becomes conscious of the mass to which he belongs and
ever remains under the impression that his overlord with his followers
would have the upper hand in every fight.
This in itself brings about an ever progressive dissolution of the
rigid system of subordinated groups first created by the feudal state.
In Greece the territorial states alone were able to keep their subjects
for a long time in a state of subjection: Sparta its Helots, Thessaly
its _Penestæ_. In all the city States, on the other hand, we early
find an uprising of the proletariat against which the master class was
unable to oppose an effective resistance.
The economic situation tends toward the same result as the conditions
of settlement. Movable wealth had far less stability than landed
property: the sea is tricky, and the fortunes of maritime war and
piracy not less so. The rich man of to-day may lose all by a turn of
Fortune’s wheel; while the poorest man may, by the same swing, land
on top. But in a commonwealth based entirely on possessions, loss
of fortune brings with it loss of rank and of “class,” just as the
converse takes place. The rich Plebeian becomes the leader of the
mass of the people in their constitutional fight for equal rights and
places all his fortune at risk in that struggle. The position of the
patricians becomes untenable; when coerced they have ever conceded
the claims of the lower class. As soon as the first rich Plebeian has
been taken into their ranks, the right of rule by birth, defended as a
holy institution, has forever become impossible. Henceforth it follows
that what is fair for one is fair for the other; and the aristocratic
rule is followed first by the plutocratic, then by the democratic,
finally by the ochlocratic régime, until either foreign conquest or
the “tyranny” of some “Savior of the Sword” rescues the community from
chaos.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account