S; II THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES The State ITS HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT VIEWED SOCIOLOGICALLY By FRANZ OPPENHEIMER, M.D., Ph.D. Professor of Political Science in the University of Frankfort-on-Main Authorized Translation By JOHN M. GITTERMAN, Ph.D., LL.B. (Of the New York County Bar) New York VANGUARD PRESS Copyright, 1914 The Bobbs-Merrill Company Copyright, 1922 B. W. HuEBSCH, Inc. VANGUARD PRINTINGS First — August, 1926 Second — February, 1928 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'ASS College 33(o THE MAN (1864—): Franz Oppenheimer, one of a fairly large number of British, French and German physicians who aband- oned their medical pursuits and rose to fame as political economists, was born in Berlin. He studied and practiced medicine, became private Lecturer of Economics at the Berlin University in 1909, and Pro- fessor of Sociology at the Frankfort University in 1919. His libertarian views made him, for many years, the target of academic persecutions, \intil the growing fame of his masterpiece, The State, effec- tively silenced his detractors. THE BOOK (1908): The organic history of the State is a long and ex- citing adventure, usually rendered dull in learned accounts. Not so in Oppenheimer's The State which extracts that history, in a highly stimulating manner, from the sharp necessities and homicidal conflicts of all sorts and conditions of men, from the Stone Age to the Age of Henry Ford. The easy flow of import- ant information derivable from this German volume has rendered it highly acceptable to American readers. ^ ^ ^ .i;:i7533 OTHER BOOKS BY DOCTOR FRANZ OPPENHEIMER Die Siedlungsgenossenachaft . . • . 1896 Grossgrundeigentum und Soziale Frage . . 1898 Das Grundgesetz der Marxschen Gesellschaflslehre 1903 Robertus' Angriff auf Ricardos Renten-theorie und der Lexis-Diehl'sche Rettungsversuch . 1908 David Ricardos Grundrententheorie . . . 1909 Theorie der Reinen und Politischen Okonomie . 1910 AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND AMERICAN EDITION This little book has made its way. In addition to the present translation into English, there are author- ized editions in French, Hungarian and Serbian. I am also informed that there are translations published in Japanese, Russian, Hebrew and Yiddish; but these, of course, are pirated. The book has stood the test of criticism, and has been judged both favorably and un- favorably. It has, unquestionably, revived the discus- sion on the origin and essence of the State. Several prominent ethnologists, particularly Holsti, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Finnish Free State, have attacked the basic principle formulated and demonstrated in this work, but they have failed, because their definition of the State assumed the very matter that required to be proven. They have brought together a large array of facts in proof of the existence of some forms of Government and Leadership, even where no classes obtained, and to the substance of these forms they have given the name of "The State." It is not my intention to controvert these facts. It is self- evident, that in any group of human beings, be it ever so small, there must exist an authority which deter- mines conflicts and, in extraordinary situations, assumes the leadership. But this authority is not "The State," Hi iv PREFACE in the sense iu which I use the word. The State may be defined as an organization of one class dominating over the other classes. Such a class organization can come about in one way only, namely, through conquest and the subjection of ethnic groups by the dominating group. This can be demonstrated with almost mathe- matical certainty. Not one of my critics has brought proofs to invalidate this thesis. Most modern sociol- ogists, among whom may be named Albion Small, Al- fred Vierkandt and Wilhelm Wundt, accept this thesis. Wilhelm Wundt, in particular, asserts in unmistakable language, that "the political society (a term identical with the State in the sense employed in this book) first came about and could originate only in the period of migration and conquest," whereby the subjugation of one people by another was efiPected. But even some of my opponents are favorably in- clined to my arguments, as in the case of the venerable Adolf Wagner, whose words I am proud to quote. In his article on "The State" in the Handwbrterhuch der Staatswissenschaften, he writes: "The sociologic con- cept of the State, to which I have referred, particularly in the broad scope and treatment of it given by Op- penheimer, deserves careful consideration, especially from political economists and political historians. The vista opened out, from this point of view, of the eco- nomic development of peoples and that of the State dur- ing historic times, should be attractive even to the op- ponents of the concept itself." The "sociologic concept of the State," as Ludwig Gumplowicz termed it, is assured of ultimate general acceptance. Its opponents are strenuous and persever- PREFACE V ing, and I once called them "the sociologic root of all evil;" but the concept, none the less, is the basic prin- ciple of "bourgeoisie" sociology, and will be found of value in the study, not only of economics and history, but in that of Law and Constitutional History. I per- mit myself to make a few remarks on this point. The earliest evidence of the recognition of the idea underlying the law of previous accumulation, may be traced back, at the latest, to the period of the decay of classical civilization, at the time when the capitalistic slave economy brought the city states to ruin as though their peoples had suffered from a galloping consump- tion. As in our modern capitalistic age, which re- sembles that period in many respects, there occurred a breach in all those naturally developed relations in which the individual has found protection. What Fer- dinand Toennies calls the "community bonds" were loosened. The individual found himself unprotected, compelled to rely on his own efforts and on his own reason in the seething sea of competition which fol- lowed. The collective reason, the product of the wis- dom of thousands of years of experience, could no longer guide or safeguard him. It had become scattered. Out of this need for an individual reason, there arose the idea of nationalism. This idea had its justification at first, as a line of development and a method in the newly born science of social government; but when later it became what Rubenstein (in his work Romantic Socialism) calls a "tendency," it was not justified. The community, to use Toennies' term, changed into a "soci- ety." "Contract" seemed to be the only bond that held men together — the contract based on the purely ration- vi PREFACE alistic relation of service for service, the do ut des, the "Contrat Social" of Rousseau. A "society" would thus appear to be a union of self-seeking individuals who hoped through combination to obtain their per- sonal satisfactions. Aristotle had taught that the State had developed, by gradual growth, from the family group. The Stoics and Epicureans held that individ- uals formed the State — with this difference, that the former viewed the individual as being socially inclined by nature, and the latter that he was naturally anti- social. To the Stoics, therefore, the "State of Nature" was a peaceful union; to tlie Epicureans it was a war of each against the other, with Society as a compelling means for a decent modus vivendi. With the one a Society was conditioned "physei" (by nature) ; with the other it was "nomo" (by decree). In spite, however, of this fundamental difference be- tween these schools, both assumed the premise that, at the beginning, individuals were free, equal politically and economically, and that it was from such an original social order there had developed, through gradual dif- ferentiation, the fully developed State with its class hierarchy. This is the law of previous accumulation. But we should err if we believed that this thesis was originally intended as a historical account. Rational- ism is essentially unhistoric, even anti-historic. On the contrary, the thesis was originally put forward as a "fiction," a theory, a conscious unhistorical assumption. In this form it acquired the name of natural law. It was under this name that it came into modern thought, tinctured stoically in Grotius and PufFendorf, and epi- cureanally in Hobbes. It became the operative PREFACE vii weapon of thought among the rising third estate of the capitalists. The capitalists used the weapon, first against the feudal state with its privileged class, and, later against the fourth estate, with its class theory of Socialism. Against the feudal domination it argued that a "Law of Nature" knows and permits no privileges. After its victories in the English Revolution of 1648, and the great French Revolution of 1789, it justified, by the same reasoning, its own de facto pre-eminence, its own social and economic class superiority, against the claims of the working classes. According to Adam Smith, the classes in a society are the results of "natural" de- velopment. From an original state of equality, these arose from no other cause than the exercise of the ec- onomic virtues of industry, frugality and providence. Since these virtues are pre-eminently those of a bour- geoisie society, the capitalist rule, thus sanctioned by natural law, is just and unassailable. As a corollary to this theorem the claims of Socialism cannot be ad- mitted. Thus, what originally was put forward as a "fiction," became first, a hypothesis and finally the axiom of all bourgeoisie sociology. Those who support it accept the axiom as self-evident, as not requiring proof. For them, class domination, on this theory, is the result of a gradual differentiation from an original state of gen- eral equality and freedom, with no implication in it of any extra-economic power. Robert Malthus applied this alleged law to the future, in his attempt to demon- strate any kind of Socialism to be purely Utopian. His celebrated Law of Population is nothing but the law of viii PREFACE original accumulation projected into the future. He claims that if any attempt were made to restore the state of economic equality, the workings of the law would have the effect — because of the difference in economic efficiency — of restoring modern class conditions. All orthodox sociology begins with the struggle against this supposed law of class formations. Yet every step of progress made in the various fields of the science of sociology, has been made by tearing up, one by one, the innumerable and far-spreading roots which have pro- ceeded from this supposed axiom. A sound sociology has to recall the fact that class formation in historic times, did not take place through gradual differentia- tion in pacific economic competition, but was the result of violent conquest and subjugation. As both Capitalism and Socialism had their origins in England, these new ideas were certain to find their first expression in that country. So that we find Ger- rard Winstanley, the leader of the "true levellers" of Cromwell's time, arraying the facts of liistory against this anti-historical theoretical assumption. He showed that the English ruling class (the Squirearchy) was composed essentially of the victorious conquerors, the Normans, and that the subject class were the conquered English Saxons. But his demonstration had little in- fluence. It was only when the great French Revolution brought the contrast out sharply that the thought sunk in. No less a person than Count St. Simon, acknowl- edged as the founder of the science of modern sociology, and the no less scientific Socialism, discovered in the dominant class of his country tlie Frankish and Bur- gundian conquerors, and in its subject population, the PREFACE ix descendants of the Romanized Celts. It was the pub- lication of this discovery that gave birth to Western European sociology. The conclusions drawn from it were carried further by St. Simon's disciple, August Comte, in his Philosophy of History, and by the Saint Simonists, Enfantin and Bazard. These thinkers had great influence on the economic development of the next century; but their chief contribution was the elabora- tion of the sociologic idea of the State. Among the peoples of Western Europe, the new so- ciology found a readier acceptance than it did among those of Eastern Europe. The reason for tliis can easily be seen when it is remembered that in the East the contrast between the "State" and "Society," had not been so definitely realized, as it had been in the West. Even in the West, this contrast was only fully appre- ciated, as a social fact, in England, France, the Nether- lands and Italy, because in these countries only the class of mobile wealth which had worked its way up as the third estate, had succeeded in ousting the feudal "State." In France, the league of the capitalists with the Crown against the then armed and active nobility had succeeded in subjecting the Frondeurs under the absolute power of the King. From this time on, this new estate represented itself as the Nation, and the term "National Economy" takes the place of the older term "Political Economy." The members of this third estate felt themselves to be those subjects of the State whose rights and liberties had been curtailed by the piivileges of the two dominant estates of the nobility and the clergy. Henceforth, the Third Estate pro- claims the rights of "Society" and against the "State," X PREFACE opposes the eternal Law of Nature — that of original equality and freedom — against the theoretic-historical rights of the Estates. The concept of Society as a con- trast to the concept of the State, first appears in Locke, and from his time on this contrast was more and more defined, especially in the writings of the physiocrat school of economists. In this struggle between classes and ideas, neither ?'fiddle nor Eastern Europe played any important part. In Germany there had once developed a Capitalist class (in the period of the Fuggers of Augsburg) which at- tained to almost American magnitude. But it was crushed by the Religious Wars and the various French invasions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which left Germany a devastated, depopulated desert. At the end of the period there remained a few cities and small states under the absolute domination of princes. Within the cities the artisans were bound together in their craft-leagues, and the rest consisted of those of educa- tional pursuits and academic officials. In a large de- gree all these were dependent on the State — the mem- bers of the craft-guilds because they accepted a priv- ileged condition, the officials because they were servants of the State, and the professional men, because they be- longed to the upper estate of the society. For this rea- son there was no economic or social movement of the third estate in Germany; there was only a literary move- ment influenced by the flow of ideas from the West. This explains why the contrast between the two ideas of the State and of Society was not present in the minds of the German people. On the contrary, the two terms PREFACE 3d were used as synonyms, both connotating an essentially necessary conformity to nature. But there is still another cause for this difference in the mental attitude between Western and Eastern Eu- rope. In England and France, from the time of Des- cartes, the problems and inquiries of science were set by men trained in mathematics and the natural sciences. Especially in the new study of the philosophy of history, the beginning of our modern sociology, did these men act as guides. In Germany, on the contrary, it was the theologians and especially the Protestant theologians who were the leaders of thought. In their hands the State came to be looked upon as an instrument of Divine fashioning, and, indeed, of immanent divinity. This thought resulted in a worship of the State, which reached its height in the well-known Hegelian system. It thus happened that two rivers of thought flowed for a time side by side — the Sociology of Western Europe, and the philosophy of History of Germany — with occa- sional intercommunicating streams, such as Althusios and PufFendorf into the French, English and Dutch teaching of natural law, and that of Rousseau into Hegel. In 1840, however, a direct junction was ef- fected through Lorenz Stein, one of Hegel's most gifted pupils who, later, became the leading German teacher of administrative law, and influenced generations of thinkers. He came to Paris, as a young man, for the purpose of studying Socialism at the fountain head. He became acquainted with the celebrated men of that heroic time — with Enfintin and Bazard, with Louis Blanc, Reybaud, and Proudhon. xii PREFACE Lorenz Stein absorbed the new thought with enthu- siasm, and in his fertile mind there was precipitated the creative synthesis between the Western Europe scientific sociological thought and the metaphysical German phil- osophy of history. The product was called by him the Science of Society {Gesellschaftswissenschaft). It is from the writings of Stein that almost all the important developments of German sociologic thought received their first impulses. Karl Marx, especially (as Struve has shown), as well as SchaeflBe, Othmar Spann and Gumplowicz are largely indebted to him. It is not my purpose to develop this historical theme. I am concerned only in tracing the development of the sociologic idea of the State. The first effect of this meeting of the two streams of thought was a mischie- vous confusion of terminology. The writers in Western Europe had long ago lost control of the unification of expressions in thinking. As stated above, the Third Es- tate began by thinking itself to be "Society," as op- posed to the State. But when the Fourth Estate grew to class consciousness and became aware of its own the- oretic existence, it arrogated to itself the term "Society" (as may be seen from the selection of the word Social- ism), and it treated the Bourgeoisie as a form of the "State," of the class state. There were thus two widely differing concepts of "Society." Yet here was an un- derlying idea common to both Bourgeoisie and Socialist, since they conceived the State as a collection of priv- ileges arising and maintained in violation of natural law, while Society was thought of as the prescribed form of human union in conformity with natural law. They dif- fered in one essential only, namely, that while the Third PREFACE xiii Estate declared its capitalistic Society to be the result of the processes of natural law, the Socialists regarded their aims as not yet attained, and proclaimed that the ideal society of the future which would really be the product of the processes of natural law, could only be realized by the elimination of all "surplus value." Though both were in conflict with regard to fundamen- tals, both agreed in viewing the "State" as civitas diaboli and "Society" as civitas dei. Stein, however, reversed the objectives of the two concepts.- As an Hegelian, and pre-eminently a wor- shipper of the State, he conceived the State as civitas coelestis. Society, which he understood to mean only the dominant bourgeoisie Society, he viewed through the eyes of his Socialist friends and teachers, and con- ceived it as civitas terrena. What in Plato's sense is the "pure idea," the "ordre naturel" of the early physiocrats and termed by French- men and Englishmen "Society," was to Stein, the "State." What had been contaminated and made im- pure by the admixture of coarse matter, they termed the "State," while the German called it "Society." In real- ity, however, there is little difference between the two. Stein realized with pain, that Hegel's pure concept of a State based on right and freedom, was bound to re- main an "idea" only. Eternally fettered, as he assumed it must be, by the forces of property and the culture proceeding from them, it could never be a fact. This is his conclusion regarding "Society," so that its effective development is obstructed by the beneficent association, of human beings, as Stein conceived that association. Thus was attained the very pinnacle of confused xiv PREFACE thinking. All German sociologists^ with the single excep- tion of Carl Dietzel, soon realized that the Hegelian concept of the State was impotent, existing only in the "Idea." In no point did it touch the reality of his- torical growth, and in no sense could it be made to stand for what had always been considered as the State. Long ago both Marx and Bakunin — respectively the founders of scientific collectivism and practical anar- chism — and especially Ludwig Gumplowicz, abandoned the Hegelian terminology and accepted that of Western Europe and this has been generally accepted every- where. In this little book I have followed the Western Eu- ropean terminology. By the "State," I do not mean the human aggregation which may perchance come about to be, or, as it properly should be. I mean by it that sum- mation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra economic power. And in contrast to this, I mean by Society, the totality of con- cepts of all purely natural relations and institutions be- tween man and man, which will not be fully realized un- til the last remnant of the creations of the barbaric "ages of conquest and migration," has been eliminated from community life. Others may call any form of leader- ship and government or some other ideal, the "State." That is a matter of personal choice. It is useless to quarrel about definitions. But it might be well if those other thinkers were to understand that they have not controverted the sociologic idea of the "State," if a con- cept of the "State" grounded on a different basis, does not correspond to that which they have evolved. And they must guard themselves particularly against the PREFACE XV danger of applying any definition other than that used in this book to those actual historical products which have hitherto been called "States/' the essence, develop- ment, course and future of which must be explained by any true teaching or philosophy of the State. Franz Oppenhkimer. Frankfort-on-Main, April 1922. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE Authoh's Preface . <, iii I Theories of the State ..... o 1 The Sociologioil Idea of the State .... 15 II The Genesis of the State 22 (a) PoUtical and Economic Means .... 24 (b) Peoples Without a State : Huntsmen and Grubbers 27 (c) Peoples Preceding the State : Herdsmen and Vikings 33 (d) The Genesis of the State 51 III The Primitive Feudal State 82 (a) The Form of Dominion 82 (b) The Integration 89 (c) The DiflFerentiation : Group Theories and Group Psychology 92 (d) The Primitive Feudal State of Higher Grade 105 IV Tbce Maritime State 121 (a) Traffic in Prehistoric Times . . . .122 (b) Trade and the Primitive State .... 135 (c) The Genesis of the Maritime State . . .140 (d) Essence and Issue of the Maritime States . . 155 V The Development of the Feudal State . . . 174 (a) The Genesis of Landed Property . . . 174 (b) The Central Power in the Primitive Feudal State 182 (c) The Political and Social Disintegration of the Primitive Feudal State . . . .191 (d) The Ethnic Amalgamation . . . .213 (e) The Developed Feudal State . . . .221 VI The Development of the Constitutional State . . 229 (a) The Emancipation of the Peasantry . . .231 (b) The Genesis of the Industrial State . . .236 (c) The Influences of Money Economy . . . ^43 (d) The Modern Constitutional State . . .257 VII The Tendency of the Development of the State . 274 Notes ..,..••••• 293 THE STATE CHAPTER I THEORIES OF THE STATE This treatise regards the State from the sociological standpoint only, not from the juristic — sociology, as I understand the word, being both a philosophy of history and a theory of economics. Our object is to trace the de- velopment of the State from its socio-psycho- logical genesis up to its modern constitutional form ; after that, we shall endeavor to present a well-founded prognosis concerning its future development. Since we shall trace only the State's inner, essential being, we need not con- cern ourselves with the external forms of law under which its international and intra-na- tional life is assumed. This treatise, in short, is a contribution to the philosophy of State de- 2 THE STATE velopment ; but only in so far as the law of de- velopment here traced from its generic form affects also the social problems common to all forms of the modern State. With this limitation of treatment in mind, we may at the outset dismiss all received doc- trines of public law. Even a cursory exami- nation of conventional theories of the State is sufficient to show that they furnish no expla- nation of its genesis, essence and purpose. These theories represent all possibly shadings between all imaginable extremes. Rousseau derives the State from a social contract, while Carey ascribes its origin to a band of robbers. Plato and the followers of Karl Marx endow the State with omnipotence, making it the ab- solute lord over the citizen in all political and economic matters; while Plato even goes so far as to wish the State to regulate sexual re- lations. The Manchester school, on the other hand, going to the opposite extreme of liberal- ism, would have the State exercise only need- ful police functions, and would thus logically have as a result a scientific anarchism which THEORIES OF THE STATE 3 must utterly exterminate the State. From these various and conflicting views, it is im- possible either to establish a fixed principle, or to formulate a satisfactory concept of the real essence of the State. This irreconcilable conflict of theories is easily explained by the fact that none of the conventional theories treats the State from the sociological view-point. Nevertheless, the State is a phenomenon common to all history, and its essential nature can only be made plain by a broad and comprehensive study of uni- versal history. Except in the field of soci- ology, the king's highway of science, no treat- ment of the State has heretofore taken this path. All previous theories of the State have been class theories. To anticipate somewhat the outcome of our researches, every State has been and is a class State, and every theory of the State has been and is a class theory. A class theory is, however, of necessity, not the result of investigation and reason, but a by-product of desires and will. Its arguments are used, not to establish truth, but as weapons 4 THE STATE in the contest for material interests. The re- sult, therefore, is not science, but nescience. By understanding the State, we may indeed recognize the essence of theories concerning the State. But the converse is not true. An un- derstanding of theories about the State will give us no clue to its essence. The following may be stated as a ruling con- cept, especially prevalent in university teach- ing, of the origin and essence of the State. It represents a view which, in spite of manifold attacks, is still affirmed. It is maintained that the State is an or- ganization of human community life, which originates by reason of a social instinct im- planted in men by nature (Stoic Doctrine); or else is brought about by an irresistible im- pulse to end the "war of all against all," and to coerce the savage, who opposes organized effort, to a peaceable community life in place of the anti-social struggle in which all budding shoots of advancement are destroyed (Epi- curean Doctrine) . These two apparently ir- reconcilable concepts were fused by the in- THEORIES OF THE STATE 5 termediation of medi£eval philosophy. This, founded on theologic reasoning and behef in the Bible, developed the opinion that man, originally and by nature a social crea- ture, is, through original sin, the fratricide of Cain and the transgression at the tower of Babel, divided into innumerable tribes, which fight to the hilt, until they unite peace- ably as a State. This view is utterly untenable. It confuses the logical concept of a class with some subor- dinate species thereof. Granted that the State is one form of organized political co- hesion, it is also to be remembered that it is a form having specific characteristics. Every state in history was or is a state of classes, a polity of superior and inferior social groups, based upon distinctions either of rank or of property. This phenomenon must, then, be called the "State." With it alone history oc- cupies itself. We should, therefore, be justified in desig- nating eveiy other form of political organiza- tion by the same termj without further diff eren- 6 THE STATE tiation, had there never existed any other than a class-state, or were it the only conceivable form. At least, proof might properly be called for, to show that each conceivable politi- cal organization, even though originally it did not represent a polity of superior and inferior social and economic classes, since it is of neces- sity subject to inherent laws of development, must in the end be resolved into the specific class form of history. Were such proof forth- coming, it would offer in fact only one form of political amalgamation, calling in turn for differentiation at various stages of develop- ment, viz., the preparatory stage, when class distinction does not exist, and the stage of maturity, when it is fully developed. Former students of the philosophy of the State were dimly aware of this problem. And they tried to adduce the required proof, that because of inherent tendencies of development, every human political organization must grad- ually become a class-state. Philosophers of the canon law handed this theory down to philosophers of the law of nature. From THEORIES OF THE STATE 7 these, through the mediation of Rousseau, it became a part of the teachings of the econo- mists ; and even to this day it rules their views and diverts them from the facts. This assumed proof is based upon the con- cept of a "pHmitive accumulation," or an origi- nal store of wealth, in lands and in movable property, brought about by means of purely economic forces; a doctrine justly derided by Karl Marx as a "fairy tale." Its scheme of reasoning approximates this: Somewhere, in some far-stretching, fertile country, a number of free men, of equal status, form a union for mutual protection. Grad- ually they differentiate into property classes. Those best endowed with strength, wisdom, capacity for saving, industry and caution, slowly acquire a basic amount of real or movable property; while the stupid and less efficient, and those given to carelessness and waste, remain without possessions. The well-to-do lend their productive property to the less well-off in return for tribute, either ground-rent or profit, and become thereby con- 8 THE STATE tinually richer, while the others always remain poor. These differences in possession grad- ually develop social class distinctions; since everywhere the rich have preference, while they alone have the time and the means to de- vote to public affairs and to turn the laws ad- ministered by them to their own advantage. Thus, in time, there develops a* ruling and property-owning estate, and a proletariate, a class without property. The primitive state of free and equal fellows becomes a class-state, by an inherent law of development, because in every conceivable mass of men there are, as may readily be seen, strong and weak, clever and foolish, cautious and wasteful ones. This seems quite plausible, and it coincides with the experience of our daily life. It is not at all unusual to see an especially gifted mem- ber of the lower class rise from his former sur- roundings, and even attain a leading position in the upper class; or conversely, to see some spendthrift or weaker member of the higher group "lose his class" and drop into the proletariate. THEORIES OF THE STATE 9 And yet this entire theory is utterly mis- taken; it is a "fairy tale," or it is a class theory used to justify the privileges of the upper classes. The class-state never originated in this fashion, and never could have so origi- nated. History shows that it did not; and economics shows deductively, with a testimony absolute, mathematical and binding, that it could not. A simple problem in elementary arithmetic shows that the assumption of an original accumulation is totally erroneous, and has nothing to do with the development of the class-state. The proof is as follows: All teachers of natural law, etc., have unanimously declared that the differentiation into income-receiving classes and propertyless classes can only take place when all fertile lands have been occupied. For so long as man has ample opportunity to take up unoccupied land, "no one," says Tur- got, "would think of entering the service of another;" we may add, "at least for wages, which are not apt to be higher than the earn- ings of an independent peasant working an 10 THE STATE unmortgaged and sufficiently large property;" while mortgaging is not possible as long as land is yet free for the working or taking, as free as air and water. Matter that is obtain- able for the taking has no value that enables it to be pledged, since no one loans on things that can be had for nothing. The philosophers of natural law, then, as- sumed that complete occupancy of the gi'ound must have occurred quite early, because of the natural increase of an originally small popula- tion. They were under the impression that at their time, in the eighteenth century, it had taken place many centuries previous, and they naively deduced the existing class aggi'oup- ment from the assumed conditions of that long- past point of time. It never entered their heads to work out their problem ; and with few exceptions their error has been copied by soci- ologists, historians and economists. It is only quite recently that my figures were worked out, and they are truly astounding.* * Franz Oppenheimer, Theorie der Beinen und Politischen (Ekonomie. Berlin, 1912. — Translator. THEORIES OF THE STATE 11 We can determine with approximate ac- curacy the amount of land of average fertility in the temperate zone, and also what amount is sufficient to enable a family of peasants to exist comfortably, or how much such a family can work with its own forces, without en- gaging outside help or permanent farm serv- ants. At the time of the migration of the bar- barians (350 to 750 A. D.), the lot of each able-bodied man was about thirty morgen (equal to twenty acres) on average lands, on very good ground only ten to fifteen morgen (equal to seven or ten acres) , four morgen be- ing equal to one hectare. Of this land, at least a third, and sometimes a half, was left un- cultivated each year. The remainder of the fifteen to twenty morgen sufficed to feed and fatten into giants the immense famihes of these child-producing Germans, and this in spite of the primitive technique, whereby at least half the productive capacity of a day was lost. Let us assume that, in these modern times, thirty morgen (equal to twenty acres) for the average peasant suffices to support a family. 12 THE STATE We have then assumed a block of land suffi- ciently large to meet any objection. Modern Germany, populated as it is, contains an agri- cultural area of thirty-four million hectares (equal to eighty-four million, fifteen thousand, four hundred and eighty acres ) . The agricul- tural population, including farm laborers and their families, amounts to seventeen million; so that, assuming five persons to a family and an equal division of the farm lands, each family would have ten hectares (equal to twenty-five acres). In other words, not even in the Germany of our own day would the point have been reached where, according to the theories of the adherents of natural law, differentiation into classes would begin. Apply the same process to countries less densely settled, such, for example, as the Dan- ube States, Turkey, Hungary and Russia, and still more astounding results will appear. As a matter of fact, there are still on the earth's surface, seventy-three biUion, two hundred million hectares (equal to one hundred eighty billion, eight hundred eighty million and four THEORIES OF THE STATE 13 hundred sixteen thousand acres) ; dividing into the first amount the number of human beings of all professions whatever, viz., one billion, eight hundred million, every family of five persons could possess about thirty morgen (equal to eighteen and a half acres), and still leave about two-thirds of the planet unoccu- pied. If, therefore, purely economic causes are ever to bring about a differentiation into classes by the growth of a propertyless labor- ing class, the time has not yet arrived; and the critical point at which ownership of land will cause a natural scarcity is thrust into the dim future — if indeed it ever can arrive. As a matter of fact, however, for centuries past, in all parts of the world, we have had a class-state, with possessing classes on top and a propertyless laboring class at the bottom, even when population was much less dense than it is to-day. Now it is true that the class- state can arise only where all fertile acreage has been occupied completely ; and since I have shown that even at the present time, all the 14 THE STATE ground is not occupied economically, this must mean that it has been preempted politically. Since land could not have acquired "natural scarcity," the scarcity must have been "legal." This means that the land has been preempted by a ruling class against its subject class, and settlement prevented. Therefore the State, as a class-state, can have originated in no other way than through conquest and subjugation. This view, the so-called "sociologic idea of the state," as the following will show, is sup- ported in ample manner by well-known his- torical facts. And yet most modern histo- rians have rejected it, holding that both groups, amalgamated by war into one State, before that time had, each for itself formed a "State." As there is no method of obtaining historical proof to the contrary, since the beginnings of human history are unknown, we should arrive at a verdict of "not proven," were it not that, deductively, there is the absolute certainty that the State, as history shows it, the class- state, could not have come about except through warlike subjugation. The mass of THEORIES OF THE STATE 15 evidence shows that our simple calculation ex- cludes any other result. THE SOCIOLOGICAL IDEA OF THE STATE To the originally, purely sociological, idea of the State, I have added the economic phase and formulated it as follows: What, then, is the State as a sociological concept? The State, completely in its gene- sis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social insti- tution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of reg- ulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors. No primitive state known to history orig- inated in any other manner.^ Wherever a re- liable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully de- veloped primitive states into one body of more ^ 6 THE STATE complete organization; or else it is an adapta- tion to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became pre- ciselj'' the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately "wolf states." The little history learned in our school-days suffices to prove this generic doctrine. Every- where we find some warlike tribe of wild men breaking through the boundaries of some less warlike people, setthng down as nobility and founding its State. In Mesopotamia, wave follows wave, state follows state — Babylon- ians, Amoritans, Assyrians, Arabs, Medes, Persians, Macedonians, Parthians, Mongols, Seldshuks, Tartars, Turks ; on the Nile, Hyk- sos, Nubians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks; in Greece, the Doric States are typical examples; in Italy, Romans, Ostro- goths, Lombards, Franks, Germans; in Spain, Carthaginians, Visigoths, Arabs; in Gaul, Romans, Franks, Burgundians, Normans: in THEORIES OF THE STATE 17 Britain, Saxons, Normans. In India wave upon wave of wild warlike clans has flooded over the country even to the islands of the In- dian Ocean. So also is it with China. In the European colonies, we find the selfsame type, wherever a settled element of the population has been found, as for example, in South America and Mexico. Where that element is lacking, where only roving huntsmen are found, who may be exterminated but not sub- jugated, the conquerors resort to the device of importing from afar masses of men to be ex- ploited, to be subject perpetually to forced labor, and thus the slave trade arises. An apparent exception is found only in those European colonies in which it is forbid- den to replace the lack of a domiciled indige- nous population by the importation of slaves. One of these colonies, the United States of America, is among the most powerful state- formations in all history. The exception there found is to be explained by this, that the mass of men to be exploited and worked with- out cessation imports itself, by emigration in 18 THE STATE great hordes from primitive states or from those in higher stages of development in which exploitation has become unbearable, while lib- erty of movement has been attained. In this case, one may speak of an infection from afar with "statehood" brought in by the infected of foreign lands. Where, however, in such col- onies, immigTation is very limited, either be- cause of excessive distances and the conse- quent high charges for moving from home, or because of regulations hmiting the immigra- tion, we perceive an approximation to the final end of the development of the State, which we nowadays recognize as the necessary outcome and finale, but for which we have not yet found a scientific terminology. Here again, in the dialectic development, a change in the quantity is bound up with a change of the quality. The old form is filled with new contents. We still find a "State" in so far as it represents the tense regulation, secured by external force, whereby is secured the social living together of large bodies of men; but it is no longer the "State" in its older sense. It is no longer the THEORIES OF THE STATE 19 instrument of political domination and eco- nomic exploitation of one social group by an- other; it is no longer a "State of Classes." It rather resembles a condition which appears to have come about through a "social contract." This stage is approached by the Australian Colonies, excepting Queensland, which after the feudal manner still exploits the half en- slaved Kanakas. It is almost attained in New Zealand. So long as there is no general assent as to the origin and essence of states historically known or as to the sociological meaning of the word "State," it would be futile to attempt to force into use a new name for these most ad- vanced commonwealths. They will continue to be called "states" in spite of all protests, especially because of the pleasure of using confusing concepts. For the purpose of this study, however, we propose to employ a new concept, a different verbal lever, and shall speak of the result of the new process as a "Freemen's Citizenship." This summary survey of the states of the 20 THE STATE past and present should, if space permitted, be supplemented by an examination of the facts offered by the study of races, and of those states which are not treated in our falsely called "Universal History." On this point, the assurance may be accepted that here again our general rule is valid without exception. Everywhere, whether in the Malay Archipel- ago, or in the "great sociological laboratory of Africa," at all places on this planet where the development of tribes has at all attained a higher form, the State grew from the subjuga- tion of one group of men by another. Its basic justification, its raison d'etre, was and is the economic exploitation of those subjugated. The summary review thus far made may serve as proof of the basic premise of this sketch. The pathfinder, to whom, before all others, we are indebted for this line of investi- gation is Professor Ludwig Gumplowicz of Graz, jurist and sociologist, who crowned a brave life by a brave self -chosen death. We can, then, in sharp outlines, follow in the suf- ferings of himianity the path which the State THEORIES OF THE STATE 21 has pursued in its progress through the ages. This we propose now to trace from the primi- tive state founded on conquest to the "free- men's citizenship." CHAPTER II THE GENESIS OF THE STATE One single force impels all life ; one force de- veloped it, from the single cell, the particle of albmnen floating about in the warm ocean of prehistoric time, up to the vertebrates, and then to man. This one force, according to Lippert, is the tendency to provide for life, bifurcated into "hunger and love.'* With man, however, philosophy also enters into the play of these forces, in order hereafter, together with "hun- ger and love, to hold together the structure of the world of men." To be sure, this philos- ophy, this "idea" of Schopenhauer's, is at its source nothing else than a creature of the pro- vision for life called by him "will." It is an organ of orientation in the world, an arm in the struggle for existence. Yet in spite of this, we shall come to know the desire for caus- GENESIS OF THE STATE 23 ation as a self-acting force, and of social facts as cooperators in the sociological pro- cess of development. In the beginning of human society, and as it gradually develops, this tendency pushes itself forward in various bizarre ideas called "superstition." These are based on purely logical conclusions from incomplete observations concerning air and water, earth aiid fire, animals and plants, which seem endowed with a throng of spirits both kindly and malevolent. One may say that in the most recent modern times, at a stage at- tained only by very few races, there arises also the younger daughter of the desire for causa- tion, namely science, as a logical result of com- plete observation of facts; science, now re- quired to exterminate widely branched-out superstition, which, with innumerable threads, has rooted itself in the very soul of mankind. But, however powerfully, especially in the moment of "ecstasy," " superstition may have influenced history, however powerfully, even in ordinary times, it may have cooperated in the development of human communal life, the prin- 24 THE STATE cipal force of development is still to be found in the necessities of life, which force man to acquire for himself and for his family nourish- ment, clothing and housing. This remains, therefore, the "economic" impulse. A socio- logical — and that means a socio-psychological — investigation of the development of history can, therefore, not progress otherwise than by following out the methods by which economic needs have been satisfied in their gradual un- folding, and by taking heed of the influences of the causation impulse at its proper place. (a) POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC MEANS There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for sat- isfying his desires. These are work and rob- bery, one's own labor and the forcible appro- priation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! These words convey to us ideas of crime and the penitentiary, since we are the contemporaries of a developed civi- GENESIS OF THE STATE 25 lization, specifically based on the inviolability of property. And this tang is not lost when we are convinced that land and sea robbery is the primitive relation of life, just as the war- riors' trade — which also for a long time is only organized mass robbery — constitutes the most respected of occupations. Both because of this, and also on account of the need of having, in the further development of this study, terse, clear, sharply opposing terms for these very important contrasts, I propose in the following ' discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the "economic means" for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited ap- propriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means." The idea is not altogether new ; philosophers of history have at all times found this contra- diction and have tried to formulate it. But no one of these formula has carried the premise to its complete logical end. At no place is it clearly shown that the contradiction consists 26 THE STATE only in the means by which the identical pur- pose J the acquisition of economic objects of con- sumption, is to be obtained. Yet this is the critical point of the reasoning. In the case of a thinker of the rank of Karl Marx, one mav observe what confusion is brought about when economic purpose and economic means are not strictly differentiated. All those errors, which in the end led Marx's splendid theory so far away from truth, were grounded in the lack of clear differentiation between the means of eco- nomic satisfaction of needs and its end. This led him to designate slavery as an "economic category," and force as an "economic force" — half truths which are far more dangerous than total untruths, since their discovery is more dif- ficult, and false conclusions from them are in- evitable. On the other hand, our own sharp differenti- ation between the two means toward the same end, will help us to avoid any such confusion. This will be our key to an understanding of the development, the essence, and the purpose of the State ; and since all universal history here- GENESIS OF THE STATE 27 tofore has been only the history of states, to an understanding of universal history as well. All world history, from primitive times up to our own civilization, presents a single phase, a contest namely between the economic and the political means ; and it can present only this phase mitil we have achieved free citizenship. (b) PEOPLES WITHOUT A STATE: HUNTSMEN AND GRUBBERS The state is an organization of the politi- cal means. No state, therefore, can come into being until the economic means has created a definite number of objects for the satisfac- tion of needs, which objects may be taken away or appropriated by warlike robbery. For that reason, primitive huntsmen are with- out a state ; and even the more highly developed huntsmen become parts of a state structure only when they find in their neighborhood an evolved economic organization which they can subjugate. But primitive huntsmen live in practical anarchy. 28 THE STATE Grosse says concerning primitive huntsmen in general: " There are no essential differences of for- tune among them, and thus a principal source for the origin of differences in station is lack- ing. Generally, all grown men within the tribe enjoy equal rights. The older men, thanks to their greater experience, have a cer- tain authority; but no one feels himself bound to render them obedience. Where in some cases chiefs are recognized — as with the Boto- kude, the Central Calif ornians, the Wedda and the Mincopie — their power is extremely limited. The chieftain has no means of en- forcing his wishes against the will of the rest. Most tribes of hunters, however, have no chief- tain. The entire society of the males still forms a homogeneous undifferentiated mass, in which only those individuals achieve prom- inence who are believed to possess magical powers." ^ Here, then, there scarcely exists a spark of "statehood," even in the sense of ordinary GENESIS OF THE STATE 29 theories of the state, still less in the sense of the correct "sociologic idea of the state." The social structure of primitive peasants has hardly more resemblance to a state than has the horde of huntsmen. Where the peas- ant, working the ground with a grub, is living in liberty, there is as yet no "state." The plow is always the mark of a higher economic condition which occurs only in a state ; that is to say, in a system of plantation work carried on by subjugated servants.^ The grubbers live isolated from one another, scattered over the country in separated curtilages, perhaps in vil- lages, split up because of quarrels about dis- trict or farm boundaries. In the best cases, they live in feebly organized associations, bound together by oath, attached only loosely by the tie which the consciousness of the same descent and speech and the same belief imposes upon them. They unite perhaps once a year in the common celebration of renowned ancestors or of the tribal god. There is no ruling authority over the whole mass; the various chieftains of a village, or possibly of a district, may have 30 THE STATE more or less influence in their circumscribed spheres, this depending usually upon their per- sonal qualities, and especially upon the magical powers attributed to them. Cunow describes the Peruvian peasants before the incursion of the Incas as follows : "An unregulated living side by side of many independent, mutually warring tribes, who again were split up into more or less autonomous territorial unions, held together by ties of kinship." ^ One may say that all the primitive peasants of the old and new world were of this type. In such a state of society, it is hardly con- ceivable that a warlike organization could come about for purposes of attack. It is sufficiently difficult to mobilize the clan, or still more the tribe, for common defense. The peasant is always lacking in mobility. He is as attached to the ground as the plants he culti- vates. As a matter of fact, the working of his field makes him "bound to the soil" {glehce adscriptus) , even though, in the absence of law, he has freedom of movement. What purpose, moreover, would a looting expedition effect in GENESIS OF THE STATE 31 a country, which throughout its extent is oc- cupied only by grubbing peasants ? The peas- ant can carry oif from the peasant nothing which he does not already own. In a condition of society marked by superfluity of agricul- tural land, each individual contributes only a little work to its extensive cultivation. Each occupies as much territory as he needs. More would be superfluous. Its acquisition would be lost labor, even were its owner able to con- serve for any length of time the grain products thus secured. Under primitive conditions, however, this spoils rapidly by reason of change of atmosphere, ants, or other agencies. Ac- cording to Ratzel, the Central African peas- ant must convert the superfluous portion of his crops into beer as quickly as possible in order not to lose it entirely! For all these reasons, primitive peasants are totally lacking in that warlike desire to take the ofl*ensive which is the distinguishing mark of hmiters and herdsmen : war can not better their condition. And this peaceable attitude is strengthened by the fact that the occupation of 32 THE STATE the peasant does not make him an efficient war- rior. It is true his muscles are strong and he has powers of endurance, but he is sluggish of movement and slow to come to a determina- tion, while huntsmen and nomads by their methods of living develop speed of motion and swiftness of action. For this reason, the prim- itive peasant is usually of a more gentle dis- position than they.* To sum up: within the economic and social conditions of the peasant districts, one finds no differentiation working for the higher forms of integration. There exists neither the impulse nor the possibility for the warlike sub- jection of neighbors. No "State" can there- * This ps3"chological contradiction, though often expressly stated, is not the absolute rule, Grosse, Forms of the Family, says (page 137): "Some historians of civilization place the peasant in opposition to the warlike nomads, claiming that the peasants are peace-loving peoples. In fact one can not state that their economic life leads them to wars, or educates them for it, as can be said of stock raisers. Nevertheless, one finds within the scope of this form of cultivation a mass of the most warlike and cruel peoples to be found anywhere. The wild cannibals of the Bismarck archipelago, the blood- lusting Vitians, the butchers of men of Dahome and Ashanti — they all cultivate the 'peaceable' acres; and if other peas- ants are not quite as bad, it seems that the kindly disposition