Stefan Blankertz

Has the State Always Been There?

How Tribal Anarchy Works

I.

When radical libertarians make the proposition that human society can do better without a state, they often are confronted with the following objections:

1. As long as human societies have existed, there has always been some kind of state. In the early days of mankind there were chiefs who ruled their tribes like tyrants with absolute power. How much better off are we today as we can decide on who rules us. Therefore "anarchy" can be nothing but »utopia«. I call this objection the »conservative one«.

2. In past times when society wasn’t organized by any kind of state, the »law of the jungle« ruled the land. How much better off are we today as our state enforces civil law and social welfare. Therefore »anarchy« is the ideology of the strong who want to have their hand free to exploit the weak. I call this objection the »progressive one«.

3. Absolute communism existed in tribal societies, because people lacked self-consciousness. This kind of tribal communism was based upon what the sociologist Emile Durkheim called “mechanical solidarity”.

The notion of tribal communism is oddly shared by most Marxists and by many classical liberals as well. With one difference: The Marxists appreciate it, the liberals detest it.

A. The Marxists look of it as the “original communism”, leading to the coming “fully developed communism”. To them “anarchy” is an obstacle on the way to “mature communism”.

B. In contrast the classical liberals see in tribal communism the horror of the past which we luckily have left behind us. “Anarchy” in their opinion will degenerate into “primitive communism”.

I give you an example of how tribal societies are looked upon by the standard philosophy of our times:

The tribal premise […is…] that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it [the tribe] owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own good. Unable to conceive of any social principles, save the rule of brute force, they believe that the tribe’s wishes are limited only by its physical power.

(Ayn Rand, The Roots of War, in: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 36).

By the way, this quotation is taken from an essay written by Ayn Rand. It shows a deeply rooted ignorance which you find on both sides of the political spectrum.

The intention of my speech is to rectify the false assumptions about the origins of human society. My intention is not to advertise the tribal organization as the model for modern societies. But to know that the root of all our societies is a well functioning, self-conscious anarchy changes the question whether anarchy is possible to the question how anarchy is possible.

If you have any doubts about the cultural relevance of the tribes, because you have learned at school that all cultural achievements of mankind are due to the existence of a state, think of the following: Cultural documents like the pyramids in Egypt indeed are impressive witnesses of a statist organization. The invisible achievements of the tribes, however, are much more impressive as they have exercised more influence on the development of society:

1) The tribes have achieved the so-called “Neolithic revolution” which was the invention of agriculture. This invention made it possible for mankind to leave behind the level of nomadic life.

2) The tribes have invented and refined the way of processing and preparing food. They have invented natural and psycho-somatic medicine. They have invented the procession of metals including gold.

3) The tribes have invented trade and the use of money.

I’m not going to dwell on these achievements but I will go into detail of two achievements which have played a dominant role in the present libertarian discussion:

4) The tribes have invented the concept of property rights which is the basis of our today’s property rights and

5) they have invented the concept of justice which still dominates our feeling of what is “just” despite the long efforts of states to undermine this feeling by terrorizing its people.

II.

Scientists have a special term for the tribes I want to speak about: They call them “centreless segmental societies”. As far as we know, all human societies have their origins in this form of organization. In every religion or myth this origin is referred to as the »golden age« or “paradise”.

The basic principle of organization in centreless segmental societies is kinship. Kinship can either be defined by descendent lines of the fathers or by descendent lines of the mothers, or a mixture of both descendent lines. We do not know what makes a society to decide for either line. As far as evidence can be produced, the decision whether to take the descendent lines of the fathers or the descendent lines of the mothers does not affect the character of the tribes. It is not true, for instance, that tribes which take the lines of the fathers are more aggressive or more inclined to degenerate into statism.

The largest society organized in a centreless segmental way have been the African Tiv who in their best times counted 800,000 people.

The most important feature of the centreless segmental societies is what my professor, the German ethnologist Christian Sigrist, calls “segmental opposition”. Professor Sigrist declares himself to be a Marxist, although he admits that his ethnological views do not fit smoothly into the Marxist ideology. What I am going to tell you is, to be sure, my own interpretation, not the one of Professor Sigrist.

The “segmental opposition” explains the most important political features of tribal anarchy:

1) It explains how a society without a centre gets stability,

2) it explains how the tribal concept of property rights have been evolved, and

3) it explains how justice is possible in a centreless society.

Look at the following picture. Each ball represents an individual, female or male. The lines stand for the kinship relations. Imagine that what is shown in the picture is only the one side of a sphere. Therefore what seems to be the border is no border at all. The balls at the edge stand in relation to the averted side of the sphere. As you can see, everyone is related to everyone else. Of course, it is likely that there are even more kinship relations. Take this picture as a simplified model. Otherwise it would have become too busy.

Let’s look at the two balls marked with number 1. Each represents a member of the society. They have a quarrel. The red 1 took a cow from the blue 1, or at least the blue 1 says so. The blue 1 is weaker than the red 1, so the blue 1 calls very close relatives, the two blue persons marked with 2 to help him. But now being stronger, the three persons of the blue family in turn take more than the stolen cow from the red 1: as a revenge they take two cows. Now the red 1 feels victimized and calls his red relatives marked with number 2 including another one, the red 3, for support. To hinder the four persons of the red family to overcompensate in turn, the three persons of the blue family ask another relative - blue 3 - to support them.

The first and most important principle of the segmental opposition becomes visible in this example:

1. In every conflict segments of equal strength oppose each other. It is not possible for one segment to dominate or even conquer another segment because the victimized segment gets help from the next relatives as long as the segment indeed is victimized.

To show you why the segmental opposition is limited to the case of defence, let us first turn to the red 3 and the blue 3. Their relation to the persons of the original quarrel is not as close as the relation of the four persons with the number 2. The persons marked with number 3 will come to help only if the quest for support is plausible and convincing.

But this is not the only principle of justice in the segmental opposition. Look at the violet balls marked with A and B. The blue 3 probably gives the blue 1 the advice to turn to the violet A« to get help, violet A being a much closer relative. But violet A will hesitate to help blue 1, because he also has a strong relationship to red 1. If red 1 turns to violet B to get help, A and B, who are very closely related to each other, would fight against each other, one on the side of the red family, the other on the side of the blue family.

Thus, the second principle of the segmental opposition is the preservation of conquest and power-seeking:

2. Because every one is related to every one else in some way, it is only possible to get support in the case of defence (but not in the case of attack). If someone would help another one to victimize a third person, he would help to victimize a relative - which is impossible to think about in tribal ethics.

Instead of carrying on an endless quarrel, something else happens within the structure of segmental opposition. In our consideration we have left out the violet C. The violet C is equally close to red 1 and blue 1, closer than every one else. Due to his position in the kinship net it is impossible for the violet C to decide which one to support. Such a decision would be even more impossible for him than for the violet A and B. So, violet C turns to a Wise Woman or Man, marked with W, to settle the matter between the blue 1 and the red 1.

And this is the third principle of the segmental opposition which is the origin of the juridical system:

3. Because in the segmental opposition no individual and no party can “win over”, the incentive to arrange matters peacefully by applying to a specialist in mediation is strong. This specialist in early times was called a “judge”.

Now there is a system of balanced power, which ethnologists call “segmental opposition”. This balance of power logically calls for a peaceful solution to end quarrels. Winning a victory in a battle would destroy the balance of power and would thus produce losers. But how can a Wise Woman or Man restore quarrelling parties or individuals to friendship? Who determines what is right and what is wrong? Precondition is that the judge has an accepted theory of justice according to which he can solve the problems he is consulted for. And this is the fourth principle of the segmental opposition:

4. The accepted theory of justice in tribal societies is best described by the words “property”, “contract” and “consent”. There is no other way. There is no law and no police available for the judges. It’s their understanding, reason and intelligence or wisdom, if you prefer this term, which qualifies them for their role.

To understand why property and contract is the only possible standard according to which judges in tribal anarchy can solve problems, let us take a closer look of the nature of quarrelling. I said that the red 1 has taken a cow which the blue 1 considers to be his own.

The red 1 states: “I took your cow because I wanted it. The blue 1 states: “It is my cow.” So they ask the Wise Woman or Man, who is right and who is wrong.

If the Wise Woman or Man says that the red 1 is right, of course the blue 1 can take back the cow from the red 1 in turn, because it would be considered to be the right of anyone to take what he likes. Therefore such a word would not end the quarrel. It would be the starting point of an endless fighting.

The only way to end the quarrel is to state that no one is allowed to take what is the property of someone else without his consent. Only than both parties can keep what is theirs.

The task of the judge is to establish whether the cow taken by the red 1 indeed is the property of the blue 1. That means, the judge has to find out whether the blue 1 took possession of that cow while it hadn’t belonged to anyone, or raised it, or bought it from someone. And this is the fifth principle of segmental opposition:

5. It is a universal truth that in a state of anarchy the only reasonable way of thinking of a right is the reversibility of action, which means that everything which goes for one person goes for every one else as well. This natural law or natural rights theory has been found out by experiment in tribal societies.

Still today all spontaneous judgements of what is right depend on the notion of reversibility or equality of rights. I give you two examples, one taken from every day life and one taken from today’s political discussions.

First, the example taken from every day life. When you witness a scene in which one man beats up another man, everyone - and most likely yourself, too - will expect that you rush to help to stop the beating. It will be only after you have restored the equality of strength between the two men that you ask what’s the matter and decide what to do in case the beaten man indeed has done wrong to the other man.

Second, the example taken from today’s political discussions. Take a look of what even the socialists think about rights: They do not hold the view that taking away someone’s property is a universal right. They have, however, one reservation: In case a property owner is considered to be harmful to others, that is, when he does damage to the property rights of others, he should be expropriated. This is obvious in the famous statement of Karl Marx: “Communists should expropriate the expropriators.”

Let me summarize the principles that characterize the political structure of centreless segmental societies:

1) Balancing the use of power: Segments of equal power oppose each other. This is the principle of “segmental opposition”.

2) Limiting the use of power to defence: Helping someone to victimize a third person would mean to help him to victimize one’s own relative.

3) Installing judges: The balance and limitation of power is a strong incentive to settle quarrels peacefully by experts in mediation.

4) Limiting the power of judges: There is no law or police available for judges but only the power of their word to convince the quarrelling parties.

5) Enforcing property rights: The only way to solve quarrels by the judges has been to refer to the equality of rights. Because without property rights there could have been no rights at all, this meant to accept property rights as the basis for justice.

III.

The anarchy of the tribal societies is stable in itself. The Wise Woman or Man cannot become a tyrant. This is because the Wise Woman or Man is part of the segmental opposition. If the Wise Woman or Man should harm someone, the harmed person is supported by the closest relatives. This starts a quarrel by which the Wise Woman on Man looses her or his reputation as a judge.

Unfortunately the segmental opposition has a flaw which led to the evolution of the state. The precondition of segmental opposition is kinship. Imagine two tribes clash. Of course, the segmental opposition wouldn’t come into force.

In the majority of cases, the inferior tribe in forced out of the territory. There are, however, cases where natural obstacles lead to another result. This is, for instance, the case when a nomad tribe clashes with an agricultural tribe: The nomad tribe is flexible, not bound to a territory whereas the agricultural tribe naturally is bound to the land. Therefore strong nomads have some good chances to conquer an agricultural tribe.

The theory that the state evolves out of a conquest of agricultural tribes by nomad tribes is first formulated by the German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer. This theory is convincing but unfortunately it is too simple. Therefore it has been rejected by many ethnologists and sociologists.

But to my view there is no need to reject the Oppenheimer theory completely. The theory rather needs refining. Conquest of one tribe by another is not the only way a state can evolve. The other way is what I call “internal conquest”.

Consider the following case: An agricultural tribe is attacked constantly by a nomad tribe. But the nomad tribe is not strong enough to conquer the agricultural tribe. So, for its defence the agricultural tribe builds up an army. Part of the tribe becomes professional soldiers while the other part of the members remain peasants in order to keep up the agriculture. This professional army acquires the means to conquer the own tribe: They are professional fighters, the others are not. Furthermore, the professional soldiers get alienated from their feelings of loyalty to their relatives. Any professional army is grounded on the loyalty of the soldiers to the command. Therefore it will become unlikely that the group of soldiers split to fight against each other even if in the logic of segmental opposition it would be necessary.

To be sure, when we count the numbers of tribes we have knowledge of and also count the years they have existed in stable anarchy, the evolution of a state has to be considered an exception. Moreover, when we compare anarchist tribes to statist tribes, the anarchist tribes do better than statist tribes in regard of the accumulation of wealth and the peace of life.

On the one hand, we have to admit that in the last two or three thousand years statist systems have become a success story, have turned out to be standard. The success of the state was based upon its strength to comprise more tribes and a greater territory, whereas the tribal anarchy was limited to just one tribe.

On the other hand I recommend a closer look of the evolution of states. It is not true that states with a distinct statist structure were more successful and superior. Quite to the contrary: States with remaining features of tribal anarchy were more successful in the long run. Let me produce evidence:

1) The Chinese empire. The Chinese emperor was looked upon more or less as a Wise Man, not a tyrant. An emperor who ruled by enforcing laws was said to be weak, whereas he who gave a good example in his own behaviour was highly respected. In this respect the communist dictator Mao Ze Dong did not stand in the tradition of Chinese emperors. He was totally alienated from the Chinese tradition.

2) The civilization of ancient Greece and Rome which laid down the patterns for the whole world today was not based upon strict leadership but upon democracy among the ruling tribe. The Roman empire is a good example of the refined Oppenheimer theory: The ruling tribe resumed freedom, property rights, and democracy among its own members, whereas it repressed the tribes it conquered. Those tribes which successfully fought against the Romans afterwards unfortunately copied the state. As a consequence they suffered from internal conquest.

3) The European societies during the middle ages - which developed the structure of today’s world - to some extend can be regarded as a relapse to tribal anarchy. There was no central government, and the political structure consisted of rivalling aristocrats and more or less free associations.

4) In the clash between the USA and the USSR, the state which was less strict, less organized, less centralized won over in the end. The USA itself evolved out of some sort of anarchy. Again, the evolution of the statist system in America is closely related to the wars she fought. The outcome of the first and the second world war which America won is another perfect example of »internal conquest«.

I don’t mean to hold up these historical examples as a model. But history shows that only those states succeed in the long run which allow a considerable amount of freedom, of respect for rights and property, and of anarchy.

In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism opens the possibility of renewing the principles of tribal anarchy on the level of global civilization and economy. The “tribes” of rivalling security agencies with no central authority would be the best way to enforce peace and respect for property all over the world.

IV.

Let me come back to the objections to anarchy I mentioned at the beginning. Now we are able to make a convincing repartee:

1) The “conservative” objection is: “Some kind of state has always been there. Therefore anarchy is nothing but utopia.” The answer is very easy: It is simply not true that the state has always been there. Anarchy was for real.

2) The “progressive” objection is: “Without the state, the law of the jungle rules the land. This has always been the case and will be the case in the future.” Again, we have to say: No! The experience with anarchy has shown that anarchy has brought forth a structure which is characterized by the balance of limited power and by the respect for justice.

3) The third objection (with two opposing valuations) is: “Total communism based on mechanical solidarity is true for tribal societies.” This notion is not true either, neither in the valuation of Marxists nor in the valuation of some classical liberals. So we can say:

§ The centerless segmental tribes were not communist in the meaning of the absence of property rights. Equality to them meant equal rights and equal defensive power.

§ The “solidarity” of the centerless segmental tribes was not “mechanical”. They choose to have a political structure to equalize differences in individual power and at the same time to prevent the development of a central power. They achieved this political aim by segmental opposition.

§ The centerless segmental societies cannot be considered as “primitive” forerunners of the “fully developed communism”, but as pioneers of the coming of the global libertarian society.

Paper presented at the Conference of the International Society For Individual Liberty,

London, Ontario, July 2000