the ethnological notebooks of karl marx - Marxists Internet Archive

definition o f a Sovereign.101 D ’abord, er, wie Hobbes (whose little manhe is) fully allows that there is a state of anarchy. Wherever such a state is found,the question of Sovereignty is being actively fought out, u. er giebt als Beispielthat which was never absent from Hobbes’s mind, the struggle zwischenCharles I u. his Parliament. A n acute critic o f Hobbes u. Austin, dergewaltige Fitfyames102 Stephen, insists that there is a condition of dormantanarchy, z.B. United States (d. Beispiel v. Maine before the W ar of Secession.(377) Dies alles most characteristic of “ acute” English jurists!Grausser Maine seinerseits declares ... there may be deliberate abstinencefrom fighting out a question known to be undecided, and I (Maine himselber!) see no objection to call(ing) the temporary equilibrium thusproduced a state of dormant anarchy, (p. 377)Austin further admits the theoretical possibility of a state of nature;giebt ihm nicht d. Wichtigkeit wie Hobbes u. andre, aber allows hisexistence, wherever a number of men, or o f groups not numerous enoughto be political, have not as yet been brought under any common orhabitually acting community. (378)Austin sagt, p. 237, 1st vol., 3d ed.:“ Let us suppose that a single family of savages lives in absolute estrangementfrom every other community. And let us suppose that the father, thechief o f this isolated family, receives habitual obedience from the motherand children. N ow , since it is not a limb o f another and larger community,the society formed by the parents and children, is clearly an independentsociety, and, since the rest of its members habitually obey its chief, thisindependent society would form a society political, in case the number ofits members were not extremely minute. But since the number of itsmembers is extremely minute, it would, I believe, be esteemed a societyin a state of nature” ; that is, a society consisting of persons not in a state ofsubjection. Without an application of the terms, which would somewhatsmack of the ridiculous, we could hardly style the society a society politicaland independent, the imperative father and chief a monarch or sovereign,or the obedient mother and children subjects.” (Sehr tiefe!)Dies so far Wasser auf d. Mühle Maine’s, “ since, wie er sagt, the form ofauthority about which it is made, the authority of the Patriarch or Paterfamiliasover his family, is, at least according to one (Maine’s u. consorts)modern theory, the element or germ out of which all permanent powerof man over man has been gradually developed” . (379)Aber nun kommt Maine mit “ schwerem Geschütz” . D . Punjaub, afterpassing dch every conceivable phase of anarchy and dormant anarchy,195 fell, about 25 Jahre vor seiner Annexation, under the tolerably | consolidateddominion of a half military, half religious oligarchy, known asthe Sikhs, sie selbst reduced to subjection by a single chieftain belongingto their order, Runjeet Singh. Dieser allgewaltiger Despot. He took, ashis revenue, a prodigious share of the produce of the soil. He harried333