----------------
This has been the path of suffering and of salvation of humanity, its Golgotha and its resurrection into an eternal kingdom - from war to peace, from the hostile splitting up of the hordes to the peaceful unity of mankind, from brutality to humanity, from the exploiting state of robbery to the Freemen's Citizenship. (Oppenheimer; 'The State'p.108)
What is the State? Everyone seems to make an idol of it. Some regard it as the most beneficent of deities, which men should worship with all their heart and with all their soul, while to others it is the worst of devils, the curse of mankind, and deserves to be sent back to the hell from which it came. - (Oppenheimer; 'The Idolatory of the State'.)
-----------------------------------------
Some interesting questions are raised from reading Oppenheimers 'The State', such as:
- if the state is 'formed from conquest' then does that mean it is sustained by conquest and in fact thrives on conquest?
- if this is so then are we to meekly assent to it and be 'good obedient citizens'? Is civil disobedience an option if we think the state is ethically bankrupt or corrupt or if we disagree with the idea of the state on principle?
- what of the size of the state? Is that a factor in its cruelty? It is obvious that it is easier to get consensus and to manage a small state than a large one (e.g. compare New Zealand with Russia)
Cuba also is (although authoritarian and centralist) to some degree a success as a communist 'state'. Tolstoy then was correct in his observation: "The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel is its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded."
- if a state becomes ethically bankrupt or corrupt how did this occur? Did a blind subsevience to it by its citizens in fact help to bring this about? Or is it opposition to the state which turns it into a vicious monster?
- if the state is in some way 'perfectible' and thus desirable then does that mean we should NOT seek to limit its power? Should we then all co-operate with the state and assent to its authority?
- what effect would this have on the characteristics of the state and on its citizens? Would an extreme form of nationalism come into existence? Would our beloved state (even a 'freemens citizenship') then go out and conquer other less 'enlightened' states? What would be the final end result of this? Would this be an 'idolatory of the state' by mutual assent?
- what would happen to people who opposed the state? (threat to internal stability) Would they be allowed to peacefully co-exist or would they be sacrificed for the 'good of the many'? (i.e. sacrificed on the new idol?)
- what about the issue of 'client states'? Although seemingly small they are in alliance with a larger imperialist state and so in effect not really small.
- Is there really such a thing as a 'minimalist' state?
- Of course writing in 1907 Oppenheimer could not forsee the potential development of the state as an all-encompassing war-machine with numerous technologies to help it along its merry way. And although perhaps forseeable he did not predict the danger of numerous forms of concentrated power (military, nuclear, informational, biological etc). Yet from the perspective of the year 2004 the state and its never-ending expansion on a global scale is seen by many to be a very serious threat - not only to individual freedom but for the future of the planet. Today we not only have 'the state' in the old sense of the word, we also have the 'hidden state', the 'secret state' the 'cyber-state', the nuclear state, the corporate state, the technocratic state etc. Most of us do not want to live as a bunch of robots or manipulated minions. A certain number of people will always demand to retain their humanity and freedom - a continuing (perhaps mounting) casualty of 'the state as conquest'?
- what of the dangers of an ever-expanding state in league with a virulent capitalism as a form of domination? This could result in at the least massive environmental problems and at the worst the end-game of the 'state as conquest' = the extinction.
- Oppenheimers 'the State as Conquest' theory, brilliant though it was, relied overly on an economic explanation of evolution of the state. This is no doubt true and seriously calls into question the role of modern capitalism in the drive of the state. Yet economic factors are probably not the only ones driving 'the state as conquest' - as Rocker suggested, the 'will to power' and numerous other social factors are perhaps as important as economic factors.
- in his conclusion Oppenheimer sees the state almost as inevitable and a necessary evil which is in the end capable of 'reforming' itself: "...from brutality to humanity, from the exploiting state of robbery to the Freemen's Citizenship. p108" (he gives the examples of NewZealand and Utah as these "freemans citizenships"). This idea of the state as perfectible and a 'pinnacle of humanity' is an optimistic one which today is increasingly called into question.
- if Oppenheimer had witnessed Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or todays perverted American Republic one wonders if he would have had the same attitude to the state. Perhaps he would have. Yet a certain Hegelian tendency to determinism tends to creep into his theory; this seems contradictory to what he writes earlier. On the one hand he discards the concept of the perfect Republic, yet in the next breath seems to admit its possibility (or some type of hybrid form with 'civil society'). It seems that in his final analysis Oppenheimer himself was also perhaps guilty of the 'Idolatory of the State'. But can a near-perfect State eventually be formed from conquest? The ironic thing about Oppenheimers 'The State' is that he spends 70 or so pages observing the attrocities of the state but then in the end seems to come down in favour of it as a desirable form of existence for humanity. The role of propaganda and the possibilty of the state as a coercive institution FOUNDED ON VIOLENCE is not really considered a problem. Simply the State WAS, the State IS and ALWAYS WILL BE. Any possibilty of an alternative to the state is then dismissed out of hand. He appears to dismiss anarchist ideas about the state as 'extremist':
"..it may be said here that the most extreme social doctrine of the lower classes, which is anarchism, is based on the opposite misconception. It sees nothing in the State but mastership and exploitation, and does not see its function as the protector of peace and justice. It therefore desires to get rid of the State altogether, and, grossly overestimating the goodness of human nature, believes that peace and justice will then automatically establish and maintain themselves." Oppenheimer; 'The Idolatory of the State' (Review of Nations, 2, 1927, pp. 13-26.)
One wonders how much of a grasp Oppenheimer had of anarchist theory of the day or of the existence of anarchistic tendencies, his observation of anarchism is really a misrepresentation. Anarchism is dismissed as an 'extremist ideology' yet Oppenheimer himself (in the guise of scientific analysis) obviously comes from an ideological statist position. Although talking about 'the state as conquest' for most of his long thesis Oppenheimer seems to in the end overlook the issue of violence, domination and the role of the state as an Institution of violence and coercion. The question of whether this continual war can be STOPPED is not really considered, the innate hierarchical structure of both the state and capitalism is of no consequence and is 'reformable'.(or is this a mis-reading on my part?) Perhaps his earlier descriptions of 'freemans citizenships' are actually closer to a form of anarchy than an actual state? In fact Oppenheimer may have had more in common with Kropotkin than he realised, as Kropotkin made similar observations about small states:
"It (Switzerland) offers, moreover, an immense field for the study of all sorts of small and large societies, formed for the satisfaction of all sorts of modern wants. In certain parts of Switzerland one finds in almost every village a number of associations--for protection from fire, for boating, for maintaining the quays on the shores of a lake, for the supply of water, and so on; and the country is covered with societies of archers, sharpshooters, topographers, footpath explorers, and the like, originated from modern militarism." - [Kropotkin; 'The State: Its Historic Role']
As for "..overestimating the goodness of human nature" - few anarchists would hold such a view of humanity; anarchists are if anything practical and realise the fallability of humanity - as Kropotkin had also said:
"Far from living in a world of visions and imagining men better than they are, we see them as they are; and that is why we affirm that the best of men is made essentially bad by the exercise of authority, and that the theory of the "balancing of powers" and "control of authorities" is a hypocritical formula, invented by those who have seized power, to make the "sovereign people," whom they despise, believe that the people themselves are governing." [Kropotkin]
Oppenheimer seemed to not grasp that anarchism, rather than a scientific theory, was more of a tendency in humanity - both a tendency to NOT want to be dominated by others as well as a tendency to co-operation, creativity and diversity. As Rudolph Rocker observed, this very HUMAN element cannot in the end be subject to pure science or prediction. The anarchistic tendency toward co-operation and mutual aid has run side-by-side with the state probably since the inception of the first ever state (whenever that was). In more recent times anarchist 'theory' has not only encompassed a resistance against the state but has been more coherently articulated as against all institutions of domination including capitalism, sexism, racism etc.
In the final analysis Oppenheimers 'The State' is a brilliantly written study in anthropology and social history. Yet it was in his own brilliance that Oppenheimer possibly overlooked the other more nuanced and unpredictable trends in historical development and in human nature in general. Oppenheimers 'The State' is, if you like, a telescopic look at a certain aspect of the development of humanity. It is looking at only one facet of the whole. It perceives 'truth' from one angle and reaches a logical linear conclusion from this one perspective. This is its great strength and at the same time its main weakness. Although 'The State' makes some very interesting (and even indisputable) observations, it only shows a part of the picture. This in no way detracts though from the intelligent insights and the most important theme; 'the State formed from Conquest'.
-------------------