Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

con t r a s t toth0 searea s suehas the Ama z 0 n basin wh i c h
,h a dna 1m0 stun1 imit ed 8 grIcu 1t uralland • " Wh i 1e the r e
was f r e que n t wa r far e ins uc h pIa c es, he says, t his did
not lead to the rise of the state, for the defeated
groups merely fled to another part of the forest.
Hen c e the e f fee t 0 f war far e ins u c h P I ace s wa s t 0
" dis per s e villa g e s 0 verawide area, and to ke e p them
autonomous."
By contrast, fl ight and re-settlement in an area
1 ike the coastal valley of Peru, which was surrounded
by mountains to the back, the sea to the front, and
deserts on both sides, was impossible. As population
pressure increased, so did the demand of each independent
village for more land. Such pressure culminated
i n 1and war sand "a village de f eat edin wa r t h us fa c e d
g rim pro s pee t s ," says Ca r n e i r 0 • " Ifit wa s a II owed to
rem a i non its 0 wn 1and, ins tead 0 f be i ng ex termina ted
or expelled, this concession came only at a price. And
the price was political subordination to the victor."
The d e f eat e d v i I I age wasincor porat e d wit h t hat 0 f the
victor's, forming chiefdoms. As land shortages continued,
the warring units now became large chiefdoms, and
the process was begun anew. Hence, "autonomous neolithic
villages were succeeded by chiefdoms, chiefdoms by
kingdoms and kingdoms by empires."
From the point of view of the individualist anarchi
s t, the d ifferenees betwe e n Oppen he i mer and Ca r n e i r 0
are far overshadowed by the agreement of these two notable
scholars on one vital issue: the coercive origin
of the state. As Carneiro says, "there is littlequest
ion that, in one way or another, war played a decisive
role in the rise of the State."(2) But coercion, ipso
facto, entails exploitation. It is the method by
wh i ch the dominant group in society is able, by use of
the "political means," to institutionalize its socioe
con 0 mi e posit ion a t the ex pen s e 0 f the sub0 r dina te
group.
It should be pointed out that the conflict theory
has been cr i tic i zed as being one-sided. "There is no
doubt that conquest played a part in most if not all
processes of state formation," Lawrence Krader remarks.
But" the conquest theory fai led as a general theory of
t he or i gin of the state because it introduced only ext
ern a I f act 0 r s, and fa i I ed tota ke i n t 0 a c c 0 un tin t e r ­
nalprocessesin the for rna t ion 0 fag i ven s tat e • " P r i ­
o r t 0 con que s t, h e rna i n t a ins, theremus t ha veexis ted
" a tIea s t the ge r m 0 f soc i a1strat i f i cat ion, 0 fan ad-
77