Brother Shikamaru : The Conquest Theory of the State

Shikamaru · Nov 5, 2011

The theory began with Ludwig Gumplowicz with further development by Franz Oppenhiemer.

Franz Oppenhiemer

Ideas

Origins of the State

Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the state:
"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating 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 originated in any other manner. Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation 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 precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)

The economic and political means

Oppenheimer also contributed a vital distinction by which human beings obtain their needs:

"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation 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 civilization, 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 warrior's 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 appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means." (pp. 24-25)

You will certainly want to read Albert J. Nock and his book, "Our Enemy, the State".

skuderjaymes · Nov 5, 2011

There's a free full-view of Nock's book on google books..

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fl...&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

you can download the PDF of the book HERE

Corvo · Nov 5, 2011

Shikamaru,

Are you saying that all states in the past were exploiting of the poor?
Or that even small African nations were not build on mutual benefit?

It is easy to see all modern states like this. but I don't believe it has always been like that.

Shikamaru · Nov 5, 2011

Corvo said: ↑

Shikamaru,

Are you saying that all states in the past were exploiting of the poor?

All states in the past and presently are built on exploitation.

Corvo said:

Or that even small African nations were not build on mutual benefit?

No state is designed for mutual benefit. It is designed for the benefit of its founders, directors, or the elite.

Corvo said:

It is easy to see all modern states like this. but I don't believe it has always been like that.

If you can find me an example of a state not founded on exploitation, I'll consider it.

What you are indirectly referring to is what has been defined by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau as the "social contract theory" of the state.

Gorilla · Nov 5, 2011

Shikamaru said: ↑

All states in the past and presently are built on exploitation.

No state is designed for mutual benefit. It is designed for the benefit of its founders, directors, or the elite.

If you can find me an example of a state not founded on exploitation, I'll consider it.

What you are indirectly referring to is what has been defined by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau as the "social contract theory" of the state.

This pretty much ties in with "conflict theory". It finds its way back to American shores in the ideas of C. Wright Mills.

It's an honest look at how things can be easily described in their current state, but the conflict theorists did actually offer some pretty good solutions.