CHAPTER 5

THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

Various theories concerning the primary or prehistorical origin of the
State hate been propounded by historical and political writers. These thieo
ries are:

(1) The Divine Origin Theory;

(2) The Social Contract Theory:
(8) The Force Theory:
(4) The Patriarchal and Matriarchal Theories; and
(5) The Historical or Evolutionary Theory

. The Theory of Divine Origin

This is the oldest theory concerning the primary origin of the State, Ac
cording to it. the State is established and governed by God himself or by some
superhuman Power. God may rule the State directly or indirectly through
some ruler who is regarded as the agent or viceregent or
vicar of God. Such
a theocratic or God-ruled State. The Divine Origin or
the
a State is known as
uni-
theocratic conception is almost as old as the State itself and is found
fact that carly forms
versally among early peoples. It is a well authenticated
of political authority were believed to be connected with the unseen powers.
and king or the magic man
The earliest rulers were a combination of priest
and king. According to Maciver, the magic man in early society was the priest

and king all combined into one.

in the carly times
The chief exponents of the Divine Origin Theory
were the Jews.
The theory of Divine Origin found some of its most earnest supporters

among the early Church Fathers.

and the Church Fathers profoundly
The teaching of the Old Testament
between the Church and
infuenced the mediaeval writers in the controversy
used the Divine Origin Theory to establish
the empire. Some of these writers
the State and others to estabish the
the supremacy of the Church over
over the Church.
supremacy of the State to the Divine Origin
The Protestant Reformation gave great impetus
a
non-resistance to
doctrine of passive obeience or
Theory and to the related
in religious matiers it stood for individual
governmental authority, although
individual conscience. The Divine Origin
of
liberty and the supremacy
the forn of the thcory of the Divine Right
Theory hore .and more took sixteenth and seventeenth centùry
true of the
of Kings. This is particularly
of he latter doctrine were James I. he
England. The leading exponents Fiimer. Bousset in France elaborated this
Robert
irst Stuart king, and Sir
71
 rOLITICAL THEORY
72
Louis XIV, who proudly declared
theory in supporting the despotism of
am the State".

The Divine Right of Kings

In his work alled The Law of Free Monarchies, James I gives a clear
has derived his autho.
exposition of this doctrine.He claims that the king
the people as well as above
Tity directly from God. Therefore, he is above
the law. He is subject to God and his conscience alone. He owes no leeal
obligation to the people. The only obligation that he has is a moral oblia.
tion to God to govern the people well. Kings make laws; laws do not make
kings. The king 'is master over every person, having power over life and

death.
Even if the king be wicked, the subject has no right to rebel against
him. To rebel against the king is to rebel against God Himself, for the king
is God's chosen vass:
To quote the forcible words of James I: "Kings are justly called gods
they exercise a manner of resemblance of divine power upon carth: 'As
it is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do, so it is presump
tion and high contempt in a subject to dispute what a king cannot do or to
say that a king cannot do this or that. "Kings are breathing images of God
upon earth.'
The salient features of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings
are

(1) Monarchy is divinely ordained;

(2) Hereditary right is indefeasible;
(3) Kinge are accountable to God alone; and
(4) Resistance to a lawful king is sin. (G. P. Gooch).
It is more than likely that even the supporters of this doctine did not
fully believe in all its extravagant cdaims. In supporting it, people failed to
consider the danger of the king becoming a Lyrant. Later, the theory was used
against the growing political consciousness of the people and the rise of
democratic ideas, and was made to support royal despotism. It was not until
the end of the eighteenth century that it. was rejected as unsound in theory
and angerous in practice. In countries like Austria, Germany, and Russia 1
lasted for a still longer time.
Today both the Divine Origin Theory and the Divine Right of keng
are without
supporters among political thinkers. To relute them in great
details is to fHog a dead horse.
Some of the principal causts which brought about the decline of the
theory are the rise of the contract theory, which rests political growth of
authority on the idea of consent, the democracy which is
ism, particularly royal absolutism and the secular opposed to absolut
outlook of the modern
man which seeks, as lar as
possible, to separate religious and politca
1SSues.
As a doctrine of political philosophy, the Divine Origin Theory T
 THE ORIGIN OP 73
THE STATE

ceived its death blow at the hands of Grotius, Hobbes, and Locke. Yet ine
pivine Origin Theory had certain
values, some of which are stuggestive
(1) At a time when man was
emerging from semi-civilized conditios
and was not accustomed to
obedience to a secular authority or to a sel
imposed law, the
imposed the doctrine of the Divine origin of the State must have becn a
DOwerful factor in preserving order. It was a bulwark against anarchy and did
much to strengthen the respect of man for person, and
ment.
property, goveTn
(2) It may be interpreted to mean that the instinct for order and
cipline is deep-seated in man and that it reveals itself in political organiza
tion.

2. The Social Contract Theory

I. Statement of the Theory. This theory holds. that the State is the
result of a deliberate and voluntary agreement on the part of primitive men
emerging from a state of nature. It assumes that there was a period in human
history when there was no State at all and no political" Ilaw. This precivil
or pre-political period is regarded by some writers as pre-social as well. In
this state of nature the only law which governed human relations was the
Law of nature. Advocates of the Social Contract Theory are not agreed upon
what exactly this law of nature was, The state of nature was either too idy
with
lic to last long or too inconvenient and unbearable for man to put up
it. Hence men in this primitive state soon abandoned the state of nature
and set up a political society through the instrumentality of a covenant. As
each man lost his natural libertyin part or in whole,
a result of the cowenant
and in its place he obtained the security and protection of the State pro.

vided by political law.

The contract is interpreted in various ways by ts' advocates. According

to some, it is responsible for

the institution of civil society alone, while
betwcen the rulers an'l iheir
others regard it in addition as an agrecement
first
institution of a particular government. The
subjects, resulting in the
the social contract, the second is the political
type of contract is known as
or governmental contract. The contracting
parties of the original, or the
from the State of
social, are the individuals themselves, emerging
contract
another and with all. The parties
to the secontl,
nature agreeing with one
the people in their corporate capacity
on
or the governmental contract are
difference which
the one hand, and an agent or
ruler on the other. A further
that while
the Social Contract Theory is
we find among the advocates of
hitsorical fact, others consicler
it as a historical
Some regard it as an actual
truth. An example of the former con-
hction which conveys a philosophical
the latter conception. To
while Kant illustrates
ception is found in Locke differcnce to be
'idea of reason'. One other
Kant the consract is merely an varied use to which they
of the theory is the
noted among the propounders
absolutism; Locke to support constitu
put it. Hobbes uses it to justify royal Rousseau to the doctrine
uphold
tional government or limited monarchy;
 POLITICA THEORY
74

theory hasthe been used

On the whole, to
of popular sovereignty (45:13). if it 1s to be legitimat
authority,
justify the conception that governmental The weight of itn ine.
consent of the governed.
must rest ultimately on the
the rights and liber.
ence in been in the direction of safeguarding
general has
and of the arbitrariness of rulers. It has also
checking
ties of the people
towards the State because of its assumn
engendered a general irreverence
areation and that governmental autho
tion that the State is an artificial
restraint upon man's natural freedom.
rity isIL. a Criticism of the Social Contract Theory. The Social Contrart
Contract
has been attacked from three different angles,
the historical, the leeal
Theory
and the philosophical or rational.
In the words of Kranenburg, it employs too much deductive and ton

littde inductive reasoning (45:8)

(a) Historical
(1) The most obvious criticism that suggests itself to one is that the
theory has no basis in fact. To assume that primitive men came together at
some particular time and established a political society by means of a con
tract is to read history backwards. The idea too advanced for primitive man.
No one has vet been able to give a single instance of a State coming into
being as the 1esult of a deliberate and voluntary agreement between indivi.
duals emerging fron a state of nature.
(2) There have been historical examples of governmental or political
contracts, but such contracts are contracts among people already living in
the civil state. They do not by any means explain the historical origin of
the State. They only define the rights and duties ol the rulers and sub-
jects. Governmental contract is a lact; social contract is a fiction.
(3) The theory assumes that primitive man was much of an indivi.
dualist. It assurnes that he was a free man who could enter into voluntary
agreements with other free men. This is not what research into early times
shows. Early law was more communal than individual. The individual was
of litle importance. The family was the unit. Property was held in common.
Law took the form of customs. The individual had his prescribed place in
society. In these circumstances the free contracting of individuals with one
another, in so important a mater as the institution of the State. is an absiur
dity.
(b) Legal
(1) Even if we assume for the sake of agrument that primitive man
had advanced far enough in his social consciousness to enter into a contrac
the fact remains that such a contract has no legal binding force wlhatever. *

Contract, in order to be valid, requires the force or sanction of the State

But for this contract there is no such sanction, for it precedes, and es

not follow, the establishment of the State.

(Thus, if the original contract has no legal meaning and is inva
 THE ORIGIN OF THE STATB 75

all subsequent contracts based upon it are equally invalid, and the rights
derived from it have no legal foundation.
(8) A contract has binding effect upon only those who accept it vou
arily. But the social contract is supposed to bind generations of men who
ta
haye had no say in the matter at all.

(c) Philosophical:
Philosophical objections to the Social Contract Theory are even more
important than the historical and legal objections. As said already, several
of the contract supporters admit that the contract notion is only a historical
hiction and yet they use it in order to convey certain philosophical principles.
The objections are-
(1) The theory assumes that the relation between the individual and
the State is a voluntary one. This is a position which will not stand careful
scrutiny. We are members of a state in the same way in which we are mem-
bers of a family. The State is not an artiicial creation of man. Membership
in it is not voluntary. If the State were a voluntary organization like a com-
or firm, the individual would be at liberty to enter it or leave it at
pany
will. The obligations of the citizen to the State are not contractual at all. To
use the oftquoted and striking words of Edmund Burke: The State ought
not to be considered as better than a partnership agreement in a
nothing
trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low con
and to be dissolved by
cern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest,
the fancy of the parties" If the State is a partnership at all, it is a partner

ship in a higher and permanent sense.

more
nature and of the laws of
(2) The entire conception of the state of
nature is urisound. It assumes that
whatever preceded the institution of the
it (including the institu-
State is 'natural' and that whatever has followed
into
tion of the is artificial. There is no warrant for dividing history
State)
to speak. Civilization is today
as natural as was
two parts with a hatchet, so is the highest
and the State
barbarism in the past. Man is a part of
nature

State is a growth and not a manufac-

expression of his nature. The
ture
State of nature governed by laws of
Even if grant that there was a
we
of a State
of inherent morality, the setting up
nature, meaning thereby laws
but the opposite. To exchange
in such a situation is not a progressive step,
force of the State is a backward step.
laws of inward morality for the contract could be
nature is one in which a
Furthermore, if the state of
there was a consciousness of a com-
have been a state where
tormed, it must
and individual obliga
mon good, implying the
ideas of social authority
does not materially differ from a civil or
ion. But such a one, we claim,
not in name. a political state. The
political state. It is virtually, though
constituting a political sOCiety
are alreadv preset
necessary elements
there. false notion of
Contract Theory implies a rights. T. H.
(3) The Social
 76 POLITICAL THEORY

Green aptly remarks: The real faw in the theory of conträct is not that it
is unhistorical, but that it implies the possibility of rights and obligations
independently of society. According to any sound view of rights, the basis
ot nghts is social recognition, ie., the part ot
recognition on
society of a
common good of which the individual good is an intrinsic part
III. Elements of Truth in the Theory. Although as a theory
the origin of the State or the right relations between man and man
explaining
in
society, the Social Contract Theory is defective and finds no support today,
it contains certain elements of truth. If we are to understand
the theorv
properly, as it was elaborated in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries
especially, we should know the practical aim which
impelled its adherents
to enunciate it,
namely, give
to a more satistactory and human explanation
of the fact of
political authority
and the duty of obedience rather than ex.
planations based upon divine fiat. In the
place of the Divine Right Theory
which called upon
subjects to render unquestioning obedience to the 'powers
that be', the Social Contract
Theory laid down the fundamental truth that
obedience rested upon the consent of the
had no right to act governed and that the sovereign
arbitrarily. working out this truth, the Social
In
Theory served as the basis for modern democracy. It Contract
tance of the
incividual, the possibility of emphasized 'the impor.
by direct human effort, and the fact that molifying political institutions
at least
ultimate politjcal anthority lies,
potentially, in the people (24:85)
3. The Force Theory
According to this theory, the State is the result
force; it
originates in the subjugation of the weaker of superior physical
natural to
suppose that in primitive times the by the stronger. lt is
strength was able to overawe his man of
fellowmen exceptional
and to exercise some physical
authority over them. The same is kind of
clans in their probably true also of
superior tribes and
relatiouships to other tribes and clans. On the basis of this
supposition. advocates of the force
into bcing through pl1ysical theory contend that all States have
come
cocrcion
Stale, Oppenheimer,compulsion.
or
In his book The
theory, traces the origin of the who is a keen advocate of this
State through various stages. Jenks, who s
another prominent
that there is not supporter of the theory, in his
History
dificulty in proving that all of Politics, holds
the
ities of the modern slightest
ding to this theory, it type owe their
cxistence to successful
political commu-
begets the State. Advocateswarfare.
is war that
argue that what Accor
they regard to he of the theory
society-military fundamental features of modern
tion between allegiance and territorial political
the war chieí character-are based the
under the and bis followers and on on rela
authority of a single ruler
different races. conquest which bring"
people of different countries and
1.
Voltaire's aphorism is The first king wan a fantu
 THE ORGIN OF 77
THE STATE

Some Writers use the term "force' so very to include not on

hysical prowess
prow ess but also power derived from broadly-a5
intellectual and religious
physical

factors.

Like the Divine Origin and the Social Contract theories, this
theory
advocated both as an explanation of the historical origin of the State and
is
a Tational justification of the State ta
be; and like them, also, it is
tive o both counts. In 1s practical form, it reduces itself to the position
delec
that government 1s the outcome of human aggression. Such a view is iouna
the earlier
in the earlier works of Herbert Spencer where he says, 'Government is the
offspring of evil, bearing about it the marks of its parentage. We admit that
force must have been an important factor in the evolution of' the State,
hut to regard it as the one and only factor is a clear mistake. Several other
factors must have entered into the composition of early political societies.
The State must have grown as much by voluntary amalgamation as by force
and conquest. Atter conquest the State must have grown more as a result
of conciliation and agreement than as a result of coercion. The force theory
minimizes the element of co-operation and other such peaceful agencies
which must have played an important part in the. evolution of the
State.
Force is an essential element of the State both for internal unity and
for security against external attack. Without the element of force, the State
would become a prey of disruptive factors and would soon cease to be. But
force alone cannot account for the historical origin of the State or for its
continuance in modern times.(Might without right can at best be only tem-

porary. might with right is a permanent basis for the State (28:79)
used
The Foice Theory, like the Social Contract Theory, has been
is the out-
for a variety of purposes. Some have argued that since the State
come of force, people should obey it absolutely.
Such a position seems alto-
out clearly, (67: Bk. 1, Ch. 1),
gether illogical. As Rousseau has pointed
based upon might lasts
the right of the strongest is no right at all. Right
what kind of right is that which perishes
only as long as might lasts. But
Force is a physical power....
when force fails? To quote Rousseau again,
not of will-at the most, an act
To yield to force is an act of necessity,
well as the socialists, have also employed
of prudence.' The individualists, as
doctrine. The individualist
the Force Theory to support their respective
is the result of superior strength, so within
argument is that just as the State
race should go to
the swiftest. This means unrestricted com-
SOciety itself the
individual efforts. The socialists attack this
petition and unlimited scope for
individualism means an improper use of force
argument on the ground that
and that the State, by means of
its superior force, should check the exploi-
and mete out justice to the work
tation of the weaker by the stronger
ers.

Marx, wrote:
"Without foree and iron ruthlesa
Engels, the colleague of in
is achieved history.
ness nothing
 78 POLITICAL THBORY

MacIver who 'brings a fresh point of view to bear on political questions

adopts the Hobbesian viey that on man is not much stronger than the
other
He. therefore, discredits the theory that the State originated in
arm. Even such a man had to have the support of others. To use
the stron
own words: The notion that force is the creator of
Maclver'
government is one ot
those part-truths that begets total
errors".. (142:15) "Force alone never holda
group together". (142:16)
4. The Patriarchal and Matriarchal Theories
While there is general agreement that the
be understood in terms of evolution, there is
origin of the State
should
considerable difference of opi.
nion as to the stages in this evolution.
across the
It is in this connection that we come
patriarchal and matriarchal theories.
The Patriarchal Theory
Sir Henry Maine is a chief advocate of the
it as 'the theory of the patriarchal theory. He defines
origin of society in separate families, held together
the authority and by
protection of the eldest male descendant. He believes that
the State is the
family writ large. He assumes that the original
sisted of a man and his wife and
children and that this group con
rise to several families and that
the original father or the
family soon gave
oendant became the eldest male des.
protector and ruler of this common patriarchal
Relationahip is traced in such a family.
family through males, and from the same
ancestor. The State is simply a further
family. To state this development of the
patriarchal
is
development
the lamily connected
in Maine's own words:
The elementary
group by common
ascendant. The subjection to the
highest male
aggregation of families forms the Gens
or House. The
gation of Houses makes the Tribe. The aggre-
Commonwealth (28:85) aggregation of Tribes constitutes the
The theory rests on three
archal family was based on fundamental assumptions: (1) That the patri-
permanent marriage and kin
That the State is a
collection of persons descended relationships. (2)
an
original family, and (3) That the ultimate from the progenitor ot
source of all
rity is to be
found in the extensive and political autho
head of the unlimited power exercised by the
patriarchal family, who on his death-bed
cessor all the
legal rights that he enjoyed. bequeathed to his suc
Criticism of the Theory.
man shows that the (1) Modern research into the
history of cary
patriarchal system was by no means universal.
are some who
contend that the "There
traced through the matriarchal system, where
mother, was earlier, in relationship 15
a staunch
advocate of the matriarchal point of time. Mclennan, who
matriarchal family were the
theory, claims that polyandry and tne
developed primary social facts and that
into the
the patriarchal state.monogamous family, and the polyandry
later
matriarchal family into
(2) Jenks, who is another strong
supporter of the matriarchal theory
 THB ORIGIN OP
THE STATB 79
aserts that
asserts that the process by which families expand into clans and dans into
ribes according to Maine's
conception is, in fact, the reverse (22:118). Accor
Ai 0Jess, the mbe is the earlieu and dhe primary goup, then coe
he clan, and inally comes the family. In support of his contention
Jen
es the examples of certain societies among primitive races such as those o
gives

and the Malay

Australia
Archipelago.
(3) The existence of polyandry and transient marriage relationships ana
tinship throigh temales in uncivilized
communities shows that the patriar
chal family did not exist continuously.
(4) The most serious criticism of the theory is that it does not account
for the origir of the State. It is simply a speculation into the beginnings or
early society, particularly those of the family.
Adopting a slightly diferent point of view, Maclver holds that the family
is the matrix of government, rather than of the State (142:24) . Government,
he says, may be regarded as "the continuation and expansion of the regula-
ion developed within the family" (142:24). "Wherever the family exists
and it exists everywhere in society-government already exists (420)
The elements which lead to the formation of the State are, according to
Maclver, the family, property, customary law, war and conquest.

The Matriarchal Theory

This theory is suggested by the institutions of savdges still in existence
such as the aborigines of Australia and certain communities in India.
Savage life discloses a type of society which appears to be more primitive
than the patriarchal society. The fundamental features of this society are:
(1) Transient marriage relationships,
() Female kinship,
() Maternal authority, and
4) Succession of only females to property and power.
Some writers on the matriarchal theory consider all these four features
as essential while others mean by the theory only 'mother-right' and 'mother

relationship', and 'mother rule'. It is the latter of these two views which
not

seems more reasonable, according to which the mother does not rule herself
but the right to rule on the part of a male is
traced through the mother
or the eldest female descendant.

According matriarchal theory, in the above restricted sense, the

to the
matriarchal family precedes the patriarchal family. It is natural to suppose
were more common in
that polyandry and transient marriage relationships
The Veemah marriage also
primitive society than monogamy or polygamy.
is incorporated into his wife's
existed, according to which the husband
descent is traced through the mother; for, as
tamily. In these circumstances
cases is a fact, while paternity is only
Jenks points out, motherhood in such
an opinion. The woman here, says
Maclver, is regarded as the agent of
or even the participant of power." The
transmission, not the active wielder
and mother, a social rather than a personal
system 'gave the woman, the wife
 80 POLITICAL THBORY

standing (5:29). It was at a later stage that 'mother right' gave place
the patriarchal to
society 'through the adoption of settled pastoral and agri.
cultural habits in place of the purely wandering or hunting life of
tive men (5:4) primi.
Criticism of the Theory. (1) Although examples can be. found of the
Polyandrous type of
society in various parts of the world, there i5 no proof
that it was universal or necessary to the beginning of society.
(2) Other forces and elements besides
patriarchal and matriarchal rela
tionship must have entered into the
process of political
tion. organiza
(3) Both the
patriarchal and matriarchal theories undertake to perform
too big a task.
They seek to enquire into the beginning of human society,
Centuries must separate the most archaic
ourselves from the actual
society which we can picture to
origin mankind.
of
(4) Botlh theories are more
sociological than political. They seek to
explain the origin of the family raeher than that of the
State. The nature
of the
family and that of the State are different in
essence,
functions and purpose. organization,
The conclusion to which we are led
with regard to both the
summed up in the words ofpatriarchal
and matriarchal
theories,
No single form of the
can best be
Leacock:
primitive family
matriarchal relationship, and there a o group can be asserted.'
Here the
been the rule either of
which
patriarchal regime, is found to have
deed one has to admit the may perhaps be displaced by the other.
fact that there is no such In-
of human thing
society. All that can be asserted is that in course
as a
"beginning
gamic family tended to become the dominant of time the mono-
form,
it has not
altogether supplanted other forms of though even until today
organization.
THE HISTORICAL OR EVOLUTIONARY
OF THE STATE
THEORY
5. The Evolutionary
Theory: Factors in State
Over against the above five Building
theories which are
in character, more or less speculative
is advanced the Historical or
nishes a correct
explanation of the origin of Evolutionary
State is a historical the State.
theory which fur
growth
the result of a
or According to it, the
tinuous
development.
It cannot be gradual evolution. It is a con-
As Burgess referred back to
puts it: 'It is the gradual any single point of time.
ciples of the human nature. It is futile to realization...
. of the universal prin
will explain the seek to discover just ane cause wtich
origin of all States. The State must have come into existence
owing to a variety of causes, some
operating
places. Whatever it is, the State is not the in one place and
some in other
more than deliberate creation of man any
have taken a
language is a conscious
invention. Political consciousness must
very long time to
grown along with the develop and the
primitive State must have
development
of this
consciousress.
 THB ORIOIN OP THB 81
STATB
More prohtable than speculation, which seeka to reduce to a ingle
cory the origin of all States, is enquiry into the factors which have gne

the
into the
into building of the early State. As seen already, the State have must
isen from various causes and under varying conditions. Its emergence is
arisen

almost imperceptible. The chief actors which have infuenced its forma
tion are:

I. Kinship,
II. Religion, and
II. Political consciousnes.
I. Kinship. There can be little doubt that social organization had its
origin in kinship. Bloocd relationship, either real assumed, was
or mostthe
important bond of union. It knit together cdans and tribes and gave them
unity and cohesion. But kin-relationship by itself could not have led to the
formation of the State. People had to develop a common consciousness, com

mon interest and common purpose. Kin-relationship must with great dit-
quley have given place to social relationship. "Kinship', says Maclver, 'creates
society and society at length creates the State (55:33)'.
The earliest kinship to be recognized was probably through the mother
rather than the father. Man must have been a hunter and wanderer. Poly
andry and transient marriage relationships must have been common. Yet
mothers and children must have stuck, closely together primarily for the
As autho
sake of the security of children and because of economic necessity.
dominance of groups largely
rity developed organization grew, men gained
the establishment
through physical superiority. Other factors which went to
wild animals, increased
of such a patriarchal society were the domestication of
and the institu-
wealth. contiol of property, pursuit of pastoral industry,
wealth was probably the most
tion of slavery. Of these factors, control of
and disposed of in an
important. Property had to be possessed securely
social dominance of the male.
orderly manner. This meant the increasing males.
Patriarchal society was organized on the basis of kinship through
as a form of property. Wives
Women came to be regarded more and more
became
had to be sought outside one's own group. Marriage relationships
more permanent and polygamy
became ocommon. The Patriarch or the House
lives and persons of his descendants
Father had complete control over. the
to the eldest male descen-
in the male line. When he died, authority passed
to contitue the male line was wide
dant. The practice of adoption in order
did not go on growing and developing
spread. This patriarchal community
several patriarchal groups, all re-
till it became a nation. It broke up into
to the original group. The
heads of these
cognizing some form of allegiance councii of elders
assisting the Patriarch,
gToups or clans probably formed
a
and this chieltain combined mili.
who later became the tribal chieftain,
The rulers or chieís were more con
tary, judicial and religious authority.
CErned with the privileges and powers
of the dominant few tban with the

welfare of the community.

-17 149
 POLITICAL THEORY
82
In the patriarchal society custom played a very important
nt nas
part, taking
the place of law. As yet there was no conception of
morality
morality or
or a
definite
and responsibhi.ite
individual inituauve
sense legality. The sense of
of
ility wa
was
law was enforced by the
altogether lacking. The patriarchal
the House Father who was both the judge and executioner, Custom Patriarch
ustom governedor o
both him and the acused. Custom was the king of men and
and wa
was
dualy transformed into law. As yet there was no State in any accent only ta
gra
of the term, but some of its constituent elements were present, Mact. sense
says that it is a mistake to think 'that wherever we find a "headman"aptly
savage tribe we are in the presence of the State. We cannot sau in a
where the State begins. It is implicit in the universal tendency to whe or
and subordination, but it emerges only when authority becomes goven leadership
and custom is translated into law (55:42). To quote Maclver nment, again : "Cus
tom is always at work turning example into precedent and precedene to
institution".
Patriarchalsociety differed fundamentally from modern society in the
following ways (39: Ch. VII) : the
() It was personal, rather than teritorial. Membership in the
nity was based upon kinship-real or hctitiousather than on commu.
entire group might migrate without locality.. The
were kings of their
disturbing its
organization. Early kines
people, and not of their land.
(2) It was exclusive. It had no lust for numbers,
outside the ancient city walls. Strangers had to live
They could be admitted into the
by adoption or as slaves. group only
(3) It was
noncompetitive.
Its ife was based on
custom. It
alike and fxed the scale of
social duties and rewards. The idea bound all
of progres was looked of change or
upon with disfavour.
(4) It was
communal, not
concentric groups, necessarily communistic. It was a series of
village or guild, finally
beginning with the single
household, ascending to the
to the tribe or
dependence was the ideal. Laissez
city. Interdependence
rather than it
Tepress individual effort and to faire was
wholly alien to it. It tended to
freedom of restrict the free play of
patriarchal
the freedom the society meant the intelligence.
freedom of the group rather than
The
individual.
The transition
from the
rharked by feudalism, patriarchal society to modern
patriarchal ideas long existed after thesociety
ws
and
well developed.
State a
TI.
Religion. A second
important factor
sciousness and, in turn, in in the creation of
Gettell the
emergence of the State is soCzal
observes, early religo As
thing. Common kinship and
religion were simply two same
ing early man to worship was even more aspects stom
of social authority and disciplineessential
and in
than kinship In custom
a
and even solidarity developing a kngers
sense

and cohesion.
as Those outside were
enemies. regardea a
angers

Patriarchal religion,
says Jenks, was
almost universally ancestor-wors
ances
 83
THE ORIOIN OF THE TATR

in
have believed
he cult
of Patriarchal man must
deceased ancestots.
i t continua! eexistence of his ancestor, because he conti to see
him in his
ral
the
m H e offered him sactihces and worship and he adhered to all an
d r e a m s .

Thus, offering
edents lest
he should in any way offend the deccased.
characteristic feature of patriarchal religion. The patriar
prorh

a
t h e d e a d became
edead ony. Patri

chalmeal gradually
came to occupy the pface of a religious ceremony.
rigidly enforced all members of the group.
hal religion was
ar
on

intertwined that the Patriarch, wn

relgion were o closely
Kinship and
head of
was the
the tribal chiet, was alo the high priest. He
ter became
Jater bec
of customs,
(later of the tribe), the guardian and interpreter
the family m a n . Such
a ruler
and often the magic man or the medicine
riest
high priest a rod
He ruled with
naturally looked upon with awe and reverence.
was in those early
and in this, religion his powerlul ally. Despotism
was
and
ion,
an unmixed evil. It strengthened the tribal
organization
was not
das was the best
friend of pro
men to authority and obligation. It
accCustomed how religion
and
in the early stages. All of this explains
and liberty even
gress
went together for a long time and are not completely separated
Po politics
or con-
today
When the patriarchal
ribe expand by incorporation
began to
new situ2
to meet the
religion was not quite adequate
quest, pariarchal Nature worehip,
in the
at this point that nature worship began.
tion. It was
times. But it now
even in primitive
animism, was present
form of crude with ancestor
somewhat advanced form and easily mingled
appeared in a for goverment and
law. Religious
and
served as a sanction
worship and differentiated, and obedience
to law and to
autho
little
political ideas were
of the ruler and in
the
the belief in the divine power
rity rested largely
on

immemorial institution (24:45).

sacredness of of the
Consciousness. A third factor in the development
IIL Political time for order and protec
felt at a very early
State is the need that
man
the part of those who
were
the lusi for power on
tion, and along with it
went

strong and clever. and took

his hunting and wandering habits
Once early man gave up The ponu-
several changes took place.
to the pastoral and agriculture life, increased.
with neighbouring peoples
lation began to multiply. Contacts
took root. The economic
lil
idea of property
Wealth accumulated. The which would en
some form of organization
advanced. All this necessitated Such an
to person and property.
sure internal order and give protection
the need that man felt for
an

received further support from

organization those of the family
social relationships such as
authoritative hody to regulate
action for purposes
the need for concerted
and of marriage, as also from
of common defence and aggression,
was no doubt a strong motive in thhe forma-
The ambition for power
furnished the best opportunity
tion of State-institutions. Military activity
for the realiration of such ambition.
In some cases at begot the
least 'war

king. Earlier family organizations

were gradually replaced by more purely
 84 POLITICAL THEORY

politial forms. Successful war leaders became kings and nobles, a

was stratifed into classes. Fower pased more and more
bles, and ociety
select classes who daimed prerogatives and
into
into the
the hands ciy
superior rights.
Thus kinship, religion and the
need
buted the organization from which the state
for order and
protection
usually emerged Contri.
necessita ted some form of law and a government to enforce that (2(24). They
State was the next step in this
political evolution. law, andTDey
the
MACIVER ON THE EVOLUTION OF
THE STAT
Looking the question
at
primarily from the sociological point
Maclver traces the State
through the family, the institution of property,
of .
view,
tomary law, and war and
ists government conquest. He,argues that wherever
property ecus
already exists. The earliest type of the familu
nomy. In course of time, the-heads of economy is family ex
families become the
community. "The family was the locus of the council of
shop of the school as well as of altar as well as
the of the
tribunal". work.
Customary law is another
It
precedes judges of oourts ofimportant
law.
factor in the
But if custom is
evolution of the State
"must be hallowed and to have
tom sanctioned by myth. If the authority it
colapses (142:38) ". myth is rejected, the cus
War and
extension of conquest, says Maclver, have
the area of played their role not only in
Power. government but also in the the
consolidation of political
MARXIST THEORY OF
The Primitive Commune STATE ORIGIN
Acording to Marx, Engels and
as a
dissolution of the Lenin, the early state gradually evolved
result of the
less
communities organized on the primitive communes
primitive commune was the basis of
tribal, gentile which were state
a
of blood,
language primeval natural group based constitution. The
and custom.
o as hunting, The material
basis
on common ties
a
temporary fiahing, fruit-gathering and of the commune's eco
communal
ornginally social and
a appropriation
of land.
tribal being, a herd Man,
cattle-graring.
It abo impea
vidual only
through the animal, according
and he
to Marx,
New forms process of history. became an inadi-
settled evolved from the
of the agriculture,
stockfarmingprimitive commune with the
forces of and transition
to which production. When the craftsmanship
i.e. with
on
the
original character people finally settled
a
ettled down,
wn, the extentdevelopme
various external, of the
the ended
as on
their internal climatic,
geographicalcommunity
was
modiied ca
Marx
sex
reiations and
physical conditionsdepea5
Asiatic
and
Engels mention within the cdaa.
the commune, the several
types of
Germanic communepolis of the Greek and primitive cominu he
gave rise to and the Roman world in its rly form,
Slav
dation for themore complex commune. These ca"ime
of state. socioeconomic
in time
rise
The most
commun
formations preparing
important point in this is the
the
 THE ORIGIN OF THE
STATE
85

ture of private property that tends to emerge withiu the communal sy»
when the social forces of
sem
production
uction have developed a beyond
As Engels says:
tain level. As Engels "A civilised
says: "All with owie
peoples begin common
ship of the land. Wilh all peoples who have passed a certain primitive stage,
in the course ot the development of agriculture this common ownersp
hecomes a fetter on production." (196:154).
In the Asiatir commune individual property is an immediate par
communal property, and should, therefore, he described as posession rather
than private property. In the Greek or Roman ommune, private pro
perty is definitely established, and the individual breaks some of his ties with
the community. t s social base is no longer the countryside but the city, as

the seat of the landowning agriculturists. The Germanic commune dliters

markedly from both the Asiatic and the Graeco-Roman forms. Here the
s
member of the commune does not share as such in communal property,
in the Asiatic form,
nor is he
simultaneously a private proprietor and inte
restholder in the communal property, as in the Greek and Roman forms.
who
The commune exists solely through the assembly of its members
are separate and autonomous landholders. In Asia there is an undileren
In Greece
tiated union between town and country with emphasis on rusticity.
with em
and Rome the city with its rural enclave is the economic totality
dwel-
urbanism. In the Germanic world the individual family
phasis on
in forest surroundings, is economically
ling, his rura' home almost isolated more or less like an Asiatic commune
self-suficient. The Slav commune was
commune in a limited development
of prjvate
but it resembled the Greek
property.
and Serfdom
Emergence of Slavery
as a result of the rise ol
The dissolution of the primitive communes

rise to new socio-economic for

and division of labour gave
private property the "general slavery of the
the Asiatic society based
on
mations such as
Greece and Rome slavery
based on under pri
East" the classical society of transition is marked
based on serfdom. This
vate law, and the feudal society relations bet
demarcated social groups, exploitative
by the growth clearly
of
State.
and ultimately the
ween these classes of the forces of production
leads to signi-
The extensive development and religion, social orga-
and arts, philosophy
hcant progress in the sciences
and political and ideological
superstructures
nisation and legal structures, which increasingly tend to
assume
socio-economic formations,
of the various
Thus, the so-called "civilized
world.
divergent forms in various parts of the
and drawbacks. Obviously, the impact
is born with all its benefits
society" most dynamic communities,
the greatest in the
of these developments is between the common and
contradiction
a basic
where there is inherently
private ownership of property. in a hostile environment. The
communities is survival
The aim:of these
and tribal wars of conquest. As
leads to colonisation
advance of population
 POLITICAL THBORY
86
is one of the earliest occupations of
eachr of
Marx puts it: "Warlare
for the defence of their property
and
heste
naturally arisen communities,sboth for
property... Ifhuman beings
conquered
themselves are

are equall along

obtaining new .

organic accessories, en they

then they are
with the land and soil as. its
and in this
equally con
of procduction, way arise.
qucred as one of the conditions avery
and serfdom, which soon corrupts and
modifies the original form.
forms of all
communities, and then itself becomes their basis." (224:414).
The more complex socio-economic formations which replaced the co
com
munes were based on slavery or serfdlom as the mode of production, Wh
slaves constituted the primitive property of their master, the status of the
serf was relatively more vague and could be described as varying degrees of
semislavery. As Rodinson says: "While slavery can be defined fairly clearly.
serfdom is rather a vague notion which contains an inhnite range of grada.
tions and variations around the exploitation of a peasane enjoying varying
legal rights, in particular over the land that he cultivates, by a landowner
wlho also enjoys variable rights, which are never absolute, over this peasant
and his land". (233:23).
It is possible to move imperceptibly from the status of a slave or that
of a free
contracting party such as larmer, sharecropper etc. to serfdom. Fur
ther, exploitation by the land-owner, the lord, is in many cases hard to dis
tinguish from exploitation by the State through its officials. The pure con.
cept of private property as an absolute right to use and abuse, as it was
defined by Roman laws, was rarely to be seen elsewhere.
Everywhere, there
was a
hierarchy, a
variety to multiple rights of the various communities,
families, lineages, political and religious authorities etc. over the land and
its produce
Marx and
Engels did not attach much importance to legal fictions
about property but always considered
property relations as a
pression of relations of production or relations between social significant
ex
classes. They
also did not subscribe to the unilinear idea that
serfdom or that serídom
slavery invariably preceded
erfdom and bondage were not
necessarily followed
slavery. As Engels pointed out,
necessarily medieval-feudal form and co
existed with slavery in classical Rome
as well as semi-feudal
Russia in modern times. Turkey and
cxisted with serfdom
Similarly, slavery arose in classical Greece but co
during the Middle Ages and the plantation cconomy
of America in modern times.
When Marx contrasts
slavery with serfdom, serís with îree workers, or
the 'general slavery of Asia' with
classical private law slavery of
he is only analysing broad
general categories. Actual historical Europem
particular countries may differ from them in specific matters, instances
the distinction between neverthere
slavery and serfdom or other forms of personal
ordination has a precise economic, su
Asiatic com1nune is transformed intosociological and historical meaning.
a
general slavery of village comn
nities, which are subordinated to and
exploited by a hierarchy of state
cials. Here, the socio-economic formation
leads to the creation of an orie
 87
THB ORIGIN OF THB STATE
states

tal despotic state. Private law slavery gave rise to slave-ow6

of Greece ant slave-owning, imperial state of Rome. Germanic commu
on any
with heir independent household cconomies, did not practise slavery
with the dis- after the
grand scale and were instrumental
gTand in founding the feudal state

integration of the Roman empire.

From Matriarchy to Pauriarchy

The main contribution to Marxist theory of the nature and origin or

the State has from Engels in his essay, The Origin of the Family, Prt-
come

ate Property and the State. While Maclver and other liberal writers em
phasize that the state emerged due to certain changes in man's consciousness,
Engels gives primary importance to material factors such as próduction and
as the priests o
reproduction. The desire for domination in one group such
the warriors and the desire for protection in another group such as peasants
and craftsmen created the condition for the rise of State. This is the general
offered liberal writers
by Maclver for the origin of the
including
explanation
state. Fngels, however, puts forward a different point of view: "According
to the materialistic conception, the determining
factor in history is, in the
immediate life. But this
last resort, the production and reproduction of
of the
itself is of a twofold character. On the one hand, the production
means of subsistence, of food, clothing and shelter and the tools requisite,
of human beings themselves, the
therefore; on the other, the production
institutions under which men of a
propagation of the species. The social
live are conditioned by
definite historical epoch 'and of a definite country
of development of labour,on the
both kinds of production: by the stage
on the other. The less
the development of
one hand, and of the family,
the
volume of production and, therefore,
labour, and the more limited its
does the social order appear
wealth of society, the more preponderatingly
sex. However, within
this structure of society
to be dominated by ties of
of labour power and others, and
based on ties of sex, the productivity
class antagonisms: new social
elements, which strive in
thereby the basis of
the old structure of society to the
new
the course of generations to adapt
of the two leads to a complete
conditions, until, fnally, the incompatibility asunder in the col-
The old society based on sex groups bursts
revolution. new society appeats,
ksion of the newly developed social classes; its placea
in
but
units of which are no longer sex groups
constituted in a state, the lower dominated
which the family syslem is entirely
teritorial groups, a society in and das strug
system, and in which the class antagonisms
by the property written history, now freely
make the content of all hitherto
Bles, which up
develop." (146:156). transformation from
new dimension to social
Thus Engels introduces a certain pres
order bascd on sex equality and a
primitive matriarchal social
political order based on subordi.
tige for the female sex into patriarchal
a

women. Both Morgan and Engels

believe that
nation and enslavement of
controlled the affairs of the family
the women during the matriarchal age
 POLITICAL THEORY
88
real authority over men. T men. The communi
and the commune. They enjoyed
tic household implied the supremacy
of women in the commune
clusive recognition of a natural mother, in a situation
commune. Thei ex.
where
a
father could not be identifed with certainty, signified high esteem atural
ior the
women. In the matriarchal dans, the women controlled the comme
and employed men as servants to gather truits, to graze cattle or stores
te
land. Women were often worshipped and ritually caried on
men's
ers on festive occasions. Engels says h a t woman was the slave shoula
of t
at the commencement of society is one of the most absurd notions s h a
e
come down to us from the of Enlightenment of the eiehteem
period
tury. Women occupied not only a free but also highly respected na
among all savages and all barbarians of the lower and middle star
tion
partly even of the upper stage." (146:189).
Arthur Wright testifies to the role which woman exercised in a n
archal Iroquois clan: "The female portion ruled the house; the stores were
in common; but woe to the luckless husband or lover who was too
shitles
to do his share of the
providing. No matter how many children or whatever
goods he mipht have in the house, he might at any time be ordered to pack
up his blanket and budge; and after such orders it would not
ful for him to attempt to disobey.... The women were the
be health
great power
among the clans, as everywhere else. They did not hesitate, when occasion
required, to knock off the horns, as it was technically called, from the head
of the chief and send him back to the ranks of the
warriors." (146:190).
Engels, agreeing with the above view, adds: "The communistic house
hold, in which most of the women or even all the women
and the sare belong to one
gens while the men came from various other
material foundation .of that gentes is the
ned in primitive times."
predominancy women which generally obtak
of

wife literally meant the

(146:191) In the old Anglo-Saxon language, the
.

mistress of the house and the husband literaly

meant a servant who
looked after the cattle or
his wife's command. cultivated the land under
This situation
changed with the transformation of group and
marriage customs into a durable painng
monogamous
determination of paternity easier and relationship which ma0e
resulted in the establishment ot
linear families and
pariarchal pa of
gens. As Engels "The
mother right was the uorld.historic defead the says: overu ed
he reins in the house of female sex. The
also, the woman was nat af
of the man's lust, a
mere
degraded, enthrallea, u slave
Marx adds that the instrument for breeding children." (l46:190
family is the mirror of society: "The family
contains in embryo modern
not only slavery but serfdom al:o, since from the en very
beginning it connected
with sincero
agricultural
tself

in miniature all the services. It contains

contains within
antagonisms which later on aa wide scale witbin
vithin
society and its state." develop on
(146:199). In the patriarchal family wiu chief

owns his wife or or

wives as his
the wife, that is, the property. order
In
clan, dlity o
the fhdelity
toguarantec
paternity of the children and inheritors his pro
of
o
 THE ORIOIN OF THE STATE 89

perty the woman is now placed in the absolute power of her husband.
he beats her or even kills her, he is merely exercising his right. LIke
emergence of private property, slavery and serfdom, the cnslavement o
women under patriarchy was also a factor in the rise of the state. The state

was par excellence a patriarchal institution. As Engels says, the state guarat
teed that the wife remained the first domestic servant, pushed out of partic
pation in public production and civic and political life. In the modern
and
family, according to Engels again, the husband was the bourgeois
wife represented the proletariat.

Origin and Nature of the State

According to Engels, the state in ancient Greece represented the purest,
most classical form of evolution from the tribal polis.. There the state arose
within the Greek
directly and mainly out of the class struggles that developed exclusive aris-
communes. In Rome, the tribal, gentile society became an

tocratic group amidst a large group of common people standing outside

the commoners
victory of
of it, having only duties but no rights. Later the
which absorbed both the
broke up the gentile constitution created a state
invaders oí the Roman
sorial classes. Finally, among the Germanic barbarian
result of the conquest of large foreign
empire, the state emerged as a direct means of ruling.
territories, which the gentile construction had no
The gentile constitution had no coercive power except
public opinion.
into masters and slaves, into
But now a society arisen that had
had split up
could' not reconcile class
exploiting rich and exploited, poor. This society
éxist either in of continuous, open strug
a state
antagonisms and could only
one another or under
the rule of a third power
gle of these classes against
which apparently stood above the classes,
suppressed their open conflict allow
economic sphere within the bounds
struggle to take place in the
ing the class outlived its use-
"The gentile constitution had
of law. As Engels put it: the
the division of labour and by its result,
fulness. It had burst asunder by State" (239:119).
Its place was taken by the
division of society into classes.
and Lenin, is neither the reality
The state, according to Marx, Engels forced on society from
said, nor it is a power
of the ethical idea, as Hegel
writers argue. It not was alsoa
produced by
without, as some bourgeois
consent as its basis. Rather, it was a pro.
contract and cannot claim popular When
socio-economic transformation.
of its
duct of society at a certain stage internal contradiction, which could
into an
the gentile society was entangled on the historical scene
framework, the appeared state
not be solved within its
class struggles. Engels ex-
to save the community
from the intensity of the
in these words: "In order that these antagon
plains the origin of the state
economicC interests, might not consume then-
isms, classes with conflicting
a power seemingly standing above
selves and society in sterile struggle,
the purpose of moderating the conflict, of keep-
society became necessary for
'order; and this power, arisen out of society. but
ing it within the bounds of itself from it; is the
placing itself above it, and increasingly alienating
90 POLITICAL THORY

Essence ot State
and
state." (239:120). The Marxist theory of the origin
makes the following important
points: the state divides
n contradistinction to the old gentile organization
were destroyed and
to territorv, The bonds of kinship
s subjects according duties wherever they
Citizens were allowed to exercise their public
rights and
was accompanied
This transformation
SETTled irrespective of gens and tribe.
by long and arduous struggles. which
establishment of a public power no
2. The second point is the armed force. A
as an
coincided with the population organizing itself
onger become impossible because
had
self-acting armed organization of the people with
have trusted the slaves
ot class divisions. The slave-owners could not

arms. This public power included an army,

a police force and a system of
classes under
prisons and courts. The ruling class used it to keep the subject
its domination.
contributions from the
3. In order maintain this public power,
to
These were completely u
citizen become necessary in the form of taxes,
known in the tribal, communal society. The volume
of these taxes goes on
instruments of coercion. The state
increasing with the multiplication of the
may evenmake drafts on the future, contract loans and public debts.
4. The state creates a body of officials, who exercise the public power
and claim the right to levy taxes. This bureaucracy now stands above society
as a parasitical social stratum. The officials ensure respect for themselves by
means of exceptional laws by virtue of which they enjoy special sanctity and
inviolability. The shabbiest police constable of the state claims more "autho
rity' than all the organs of the gentile commune put together. The most
powerful prince and the greatest statesman or general of a cvilized state,
says Engels, cannot compare himself with the humblest gentile chief who gets
uncoerced and undisputed esteem from all members of his tribal commune.
While the leader of the commune stands in the midst of society, the prince
and the statesman have become alienated from their own
society.
5. As tte state arose from the need to hold class struggles under con-
trol, but as it arose, at the same time in the midst of the conflict of these
classes, it became. as a rule the state of the most
powerful, economically
dominant clas. This economically dominant class,
through the mediumof
the state also became the politically dominant class, and thus
means of holding down and exploiting the subject classes.
new acquired
6. Thecity-state of Greece or the imperial state of Rome was above
all the state of the slave-owners for
exploiting the oppressed class of slaves.
The feudal state was the organ of the
aristocracy for exploiting the oppres
sed class of serfs. The modern
bourgeois state is, similarly, an instrunicnt ot
exploitation of the working-class by the capitalists. The modern capitalist
state, as Marx said, is an executive
committee for managing the common
affairs of the entire bourgeois class, which owns the
in modern society.
means oi
production
7. By way of exception, there are
periods in history in which the war
 THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE 91

ring classes reach a balance so that the state temporarily becomes indepen-
dent of both. lt acquires the character of a parasite, such was the absolute
monarchy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which held the balance
between the nobility and the bourgeois class. The French Empires under
Napoleon I and still more under Napoleon III and the German Empire
Napoleon
under Bismarck played off the bourgeoisie and the proletariat against eacn
other.
8. .In most of the historical states, the rights of citizens are apportioned
according to their status and class expressing the fact that the state 1 a
ot the class for das.
organisation possssing ruling over the non-possessing
It was so already in the Athenian and Roman classification aecording to pro
in the was
perty. It was o medieval feudal state, in which political power
granted in with the amount of land owned. It is found in the
conformity
electoral qualifications based on property in the modern representative
state.
9. Yet this political recognition of property qualifications is by no ncans
absolutely necessary. On the contrary, it marks a low stage of the develop
ment of state and politics. The highest form of the state is the democratic
which recognizes no distinctions. In it wealth exercises
republic, property
its power indirectly, but all the more surely. This may be done by corrup
ting the bureaucracy or through an alliance between governmment and Stock
Exchange. Under universal sufrage, the proletariat either forms a tail of
the capitalist class or sets up its own revolutionary party and utilizes elec
tions to spread çlass consciousness.
10. The state has not existed from all eternity. There were societjes
which had no conception of state or state power. The proletariat, after the
socialist revolution, will establish a transitional state known as dictatorship
of the proletariat. At this stage, the existence of classes and class divisions
may bécome a positive obstacle to further development of the forces of pro
duction. The classes will, then fall as inevitably as they arose at an earlier
stage. Along with them, the state will also decdine and disappear. Under
the fiaal phase of communism based on a classless society, the state will
not be needed i.e. it will wither away.

A Liberal Critique of the Marxist Theory

MacIver and Plamenatz do not accept the Marxist theory as propound-
ded by Engels and Lenin as a valid explanation of the origin and nature
of the state.
1. They reject the concept of primitive communism as thè correct des-
Caiption of the pre-political tribal society. Maclver does not agree with
Engels that matriarchal societies which were based on mother-right, actually
implied any greater authority of women over men. There was no common
ownership of the means of production; there was only common
use of consumable articles. Neither communism and
common ownership nor
matriarchal authority can be accepted as adequate concepts
to describe the
 POLITICAL THBORY
92
has the state evolved
out of which
nature of the tribal and clan systems
labour does not necessarily
create anes
The increasing division of
2 Marxian sense. It only
creates numerous occupation.
gonistic classes in the
other. As Plamenatz points out, Engel.
which need not be hostile to each if there were.
state will still
be required even no
does not realize that the
settle non-antagonistic
disputes between diferen.
ent
antagonisic classes: to
arise in society.
occupational groups which structures arise atter the tate
sta
class
Plamenatz feels that the real
3 The antagonistic slave-owners and
classes of
has already come into existence. la bourers emeree
of capitalists and wage
slaves, of feudal lords and serfs, socal classes are, there
into existence. The
when the state has already come
The class structures have the cre:
followed
fore, post-state phenomenon.
a
it.
tion of the state instead of preceding
element of consent in the evolution of
4 Marx and Engels ignore the
ate in promoting the common good,
the state as well as the role of the st
instrument of class domination in
The state could have functioned as an
ancient or feudal society or even under early capitalistic system. With the
arrival of political democracy based on universal suffrage; the state has really
the collective well-beingof all social
emerged as an institution promoting
therefore, cannot be described is an
groups. The modern democratic state,
instrument of class domination.
5. The example of the Soviet State suggests that abolition of social
classes in the Marxian sense does not lead to the weakening of the state
as an instrument of domination. The state in all communist countries shows
no signs of withering away, as Marx had predicted, but, on the, contrary,
has transformed itself into a totalitarian institution of regimentation and
repression.
6.The state is not an organ of class rule in a liberal democracy. It is
an organ thar exists for the conciliation ol
divergent socio-economic inte
rests. The liheral-democratic state creates a pluralist society in which both
labour and capital can equally infuence the decision-making process at the
level of government.

In the words of aleading exponent of this democratuc pluralist view, Robert Dah1,
here is a political system in which "all the active and
legitimate groups in the popula
tion canmake themselves heard at some crucial
stage in the process of decision
(188: 137). This view of the state now dominates "political science and
political
sociology and.. political life itself, in all..capitalist countries" (236:5).