The State Makes War, Because War Makes the State
The formation of early states can be divided into three stages.
Stage 1: Exploiting External Threat for Internal Consolidation of Power
In The Story of Civilization, Volume 1,. Will Durant wrote:
“It is war that makes the chief, the king and the state, just as it is these that make war. In Samoa the chief had power during war, but at other times no one paid much attention to him. The Dyaks had no other government than that of each family by its head; in case of strife they chose their bravest warrior to lead them, and obeyed him strictly; but once the conflict was ended they literally sent him about his business.”
Herbert Spencer said much the same thing, when he wrote:
“In small undeveloped societies where for ages complete peace has continued, there exists nothing like what we call Government: no coercive agency, but mere honorary headship, if any headship at all. In these exceptional communities, unaggressive and from special causes unaggressed upon, there is so little deviation from the virtues of truthfulness, honesty, justice, and generosity, that nothing beyond an occasional expression of public opinion by informally-assembled elders is needful. Conversely, we find proofs that, at first recognized but temporarily during leadership in war, the authority of a chief is permanently established by continuity of war; and grows strong where successful war ends in subjection of neighbouring tribes. And thence onwards, examples furnished by all races put beyond doubt the truth, that the coercive power of the chief, developing into king, and king of kings (a frequent title in the ancient East), becomes great in proportion as conquest becomes habitual and the union of subdued nations extensive. Comparisons disclose a further truth which should be ever present to us — the truth that the aggressiveness of the ruling power inside a society increases with its aggressiveness outside the society. As, to make an efficient army, the soldiers must be subordinate to their commander; so, to make an efficient fighting community, must the citizens be subordinate to their government. They must furnish recruits to the extent demanded, and yield up whatever property is required.”
War, as Randolph Bourne wrote, is the health of the State. It can also be said to be the birth of the State.
Stage 2: External Extension of Power
Through war, the chief is empowered, not only over his own people, but over the conquered peoples. Again, Durant:
“‘The state as distinct from tribal organization,’ says Lester Ward, ‘begins with the conquest of one race by another.’ ‘Everywhere,’ says Oppenheimer, ‘we find some warlike tribe breaking through the boundaries of some less warlike people, settling down as nobility, and founding its state.’ ‘Violence,’ says Ratzenhofer, ‘is the agent which has created the state.’ The state, says Gumplowicz, is the result of conquest, the establishment of the victors as a ruling caste over the vanquished. ‘The state,’ says Sumner, ‘is the product of force, and exists by force.’
He might have also added Herbert Spencer’s aphorism that:
“Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression and by aggression.”
Durant adds that:
“This violent subjection is usually of a settled agricultural group by a tribe of hunters and herders.”
However, according to Oppenheimer, it was generally herders and not hunters who subjugated peasants to forge the first states.
Stage 3: Indoctrinating Submission
But the laws of physics dictate that a permanent parasite must be smaller than its host. And so, as David Hume noted, a ruling class is necessarily numerically inferior to its subject population. There is always a danger of the people coming together and using their superior numbers to overthrow their oppressors. Thus, as Hume, Etienne de la Boetie, and Murray Rothbard argued, a conquered people must eventually be indoctrinated into desiring their own captivity and supporting their captors if rule is to be maintained. Tribute must be sublimated into taxation, slavery into national service, and mass murder into “protecting our country.” Again, Durant:
“In permanent conquest the principle of domination tends to become concealed and almost unconscious; the French who rebelled in 1789 hardly realized, until Camille Desmoulins reminded them, that the aristocracy that had ruled them for a thousand years had come from Germany and had subjugated them by force. Time sanctifies everything; even the most arrant theft, in the hands of the robber’s grandchildren, becomes sacred and inviolable property. Every state begins in compulsion; but the habits of obedience become the content of conscience, and soon every citizen thrills with loyalty to the flag.” (…)
“A state which should rely upon force alone would soon fall, for though men are naturally gullible they are also naturally obstinate, and power, like taxes, succeeds best when it is invisible and indirect. Hence the state, in order to maintain itself, used and forged many instruments of indoctrination — the family, the church, the school — to build in the soul of the citizen a habit of patriotic loyalty and pride. This saved a thousand policemen, and prepared the public mind for that docile coherence which is indispensable in war.”
Thus, the loop is closed. State-building is deemed indispensable for war-waging, which in turn, as discussed earlier, is indispensable for state-building. To paraphrase Durant’s aphorism above, the State makes war, because war makes the State, and vice versa.
