by Franz Oppenheimer – (This text is an extract of Idolatry of the State)

1927

The primitive forms of human relationship are two: The first I have
called the »we« relationship, because in it the sense of »I« falls
into the background, or indeed entirely disappears, giving place to
the sense of »we«. In his sense of values, his judgement and his
actions the individual combines with his comrades in his group as
an indivisible unity, a whole of which he feels himself not a part,
but a member. In primitive times this collective consciousness and
collective interest existed within the tribe, in the relations between
the members of the same horde or clan. The second form of
relationship, the »not-we« relationship, existed between one tribe
and another, in the relations between the men of a clan and
strangers, or members of another horde or clan. In this relationship
the individual ego and the group ego stand in strong opposition to
the ego of the strange clan.

The »we« relationship stands for peace, morality and natural
justice. The group within which it prevails corresponds more or
less to what Tönnies calls the natural community, of which he
writes: “Communal life is reciprocal possession and enjoyment,
and possession and enjoyment of common goods. The will to
possession and enjoyment is the will to defence and unity.” Where
this is the case, the relationship of the members is that of cooperation.

The »not-we« relationship, on the other hand, is characterised by
the sense of foreignness. This means that the foreigner has no
rights for »us«, and »we« have no duties to him. This does not
however necessarily result, in primitive times, in that constant
warfare of all against all which the Epicureans and Hobbes held to
be the beginning of the history of mankind, or in that »absolute
hostility« which Ratzenhofer imagined. On the contrary, we have
evidence, in Australia for example, of numerous cases of peaceful
intercourse between different clans or tribes. At this stage war has
not yet become an end in itself; it is avoided as far as possible, not
out of any regard for the interests of the foreigner, but in the best
interests of the tribe itself. The clans are still so small that the loss
of even a few men in war may weaken them seriously, and in
some cases even endanger their existence. Thus, originally, it is
not hostility which constitutes the »not-we« relationship, but rather
that cold indifference which primitive man also feels towards
animals – a complete lack of interest in the weal or woe of the
stranger. Where »my« or »our« interests are at stake, his do not
count at all. The stranger can be deprived of his property or his life
without sin. Sin only comes into play in a man’s dealings with his
comrades.

The transition between prehistoric and historic times is the age of
migration and conquest. At this stage the clans have become
larger, and have either developed or combined so as to form
tribes, and in many cases even associated groups of tribes. Here
and there their own territory becomes too small for their primitive
methods of cultivation, and a tendency to expansion arises. A more
numerous or better armed tribe, or one which is capable of better
tactical co-operation or more perfect discipline, attacks and
conquers another tribe. This, in all parts of the world, is the origin
of the State. The active factors in the formation of the State are in
the Old World the pastoral peoples and the sea-faring peoples
which proceed from them; in the New World the active factors are
the more highly-developed hunting peoples. The passive factors
are as a general rule the less highly developed cultivators, those
who still cultivate their land by hoeing it by hand. The use of the
plough for cultivation only begins in the State, when the draught
animals introduced by the pastoral peoples – horses, oxen or
camels – are harnessed to the instrument used for tilling. The
object of conquest and the subjection of other clans is everywhere
the same: it is exploitation. The conquered are compelled to work
for their conquerors without recompense, or to pay them tribute.
The form assumed by exploitation is mastership, which
must [p. 15] not be confused with the leadership of earlier times,
which did not involve any kind of exploitation. Mastership is
leadership combined with exploitation.

Two institutions are created for the purposes of mastership: the
separation of classes and the large-sale ownership of land. Thes
two form an indivisible whole. The large-scale ownership of land
has no real economic meaning (because only then does it bring in
income), except where there is a dependent labouring class which
tills the land for the benefit of an owner who does not work himself.
Conversely, a labouring class can only exist where the large estate
as a legal form of land ownership exists to such an extent that it
makes large areas of land unavailable for free settlement, so that
there is a large landless population which is obliged to take service
on the land of a master in order not to starve. The identity between
land ownership and class superiority is reflected in language; in
the states created by the conquest of Germanic tribes the nobility
are called »Adel«; and »Adel« (Odal) means nothing else than
large-sale land ownership.

The whole process must be presented in terms of economics if it is
to be properly understood. It is an act of satisfaction of economic
needs on the part of the conquerors. They obtain control of the
subject populations by precisely the same means and for precisely
the same purpose as in earlier times, when they were predatory
nomads, they forcibly seized the herds of cattle or horses of their
neighbours in order to use them for their own benefit. Economy
requires, however, that acquired property should be carefully
administered so that it is not lost or spoiled. The human herd must
be protected just as the herds of cattle which were carried off were
protected from enemies who wished to seize them; and just as
care was taken to maintain and if possible to improve the state of
health and nutrition of the herd of cattle, so are must be taken that
the human herd does not decrease in numbers or lose its working
capacity. For this purpose the ruling class which has come into
existence since the creation of the State must at once undertake
two tasks: frontier defence and the maintenance of justice. The
frontier has to be defended against other warlike and predatory
tribes of the steppe or of the sea-board; justice has to be
maintained in the face of any attempt at revolt by those who are
now subjects, and not less in the face of excesses of other
members of the ruling class itself which might diminish the
productive capacity of the subjects. The State is thus a society
divided into classes and possessing institutions for the defence of
the frontier and the maintenance of justice; its form is mastership,
its content exploitation. In other words, the State is the vehicle of
exploitation and mastership.

Sociology has up to the present almost always seen only one
aspect of the historical State. It has only seen the State as the
guardian of peace and justice. Indeed it is commonly assumed that
peace and justice did not exist until the State came into being. This
is a great error; the community which preceded the State defended
its territory and the lives and property of its members to the utmost,
and was exceedingly energetic in maintaining internal equality of
rights. The State merely took over from the community these two
tasks, which must be carried out if any kind of society is to exist at
all. This misconception cherished by previous sociology is the
cause of its idolatry of the State, taking the form of State-worship.
Peace and justice are great benefits to society, and consequently it
is assumed, that the State, which is regarded not merely as the
guardian of peace and justice, but as the only possible means by
which they can be created, must be the greatest of all benefits. In
reality however the State is nothing but one community living as a
parasite upon another. The victorious group so to speak eats itself
into the subject group just as Baron von Münchhausen’s wolf eats
itself into the horse so that it finds itself in its harness and has to
draw the sledge. Similarly the victorious group has to draw the
vehicle of society as a whole by carrying out its most important
functions.