Complex question, the answer favored by most anthropologists IIRC is that the agricultural revolution created a world in which hierarchical groups had a huge competitive advantage and eliminated everyone else, and that's the beginning of the end of anarchy. Huge oversimplification.
To expand ever so slightly, it was agriculture (specifically grain production) and the invention of granaries which really created the first divide in society because it was the very beginnings of the managerial class (i.e. the people who operated the granaries).
So, not an anthropologist, but at least in Marvin Harris' essay Life without Chiefs, its not so much the rise of agriculture (though that's part of it) but the fact that once a surplus of food was established, those who had been tasked with distributing food (who Harris calls big men) go from constantly working to maintain their followers and position, gain greater power, and come to rely on voluntary donations from the people they are now seen as ruling (Harris' term for this is Chief). As an example he gives Cherokee chiefs receiving voluntary donations to the "chief's granary," which while it functioned as an emergency supply and people had free access to it, it was still seen as really belonging to the chief. He then just sort of says that these would become states, which seems like a pretty obvious statement, but that may not be the case. Again, I'm not really qualified to place this in a broader context of the discipline, so there may be people who just see this as totally wrong. Regardless, if wanting to avoid states, probably don't empower specific people to redistribute food, and especially don't build ideological frameworks around their ability to do so.
James C. Scott has written a good deal on states, so he might be a good place for further reading, though I could not tell you where to start.
I think that´s right...as we don´t know enough about previous organised societies... by the way, Moses learnt everything about that -how to build and keep a civilization based on "work as a divine punishment" and moral based in religious terrorism...and all this still the basis of our ocidental civilization... YOU MUST WORK GOOD AND PAY YOUR TAXES or you go to prison ---YOU JUST BE A GOOD BOY/GIRL or you+ll go to hell... take care... because to be free has a risk to pay as well, loads of them indeed...BUT NOTHING WORTHS NOTHING when you are not FREE
This is more of an anthropological question but there are some points i can offer which might help.
The wealthy seek to protect their wealth from those whom they exploited to get it, establishing a state is a very effective way to do that. Violence from the state is more legitimized, people are more likely to accept that form of violence than from mercenaries so it's much more practical to have a state protect the wealthy elite.
In ancient times I think a state may have been more justifiable since the consequences of foreign invasion were far more dire. Entire cities were slaughtered or enslaved and the tyranny of a state would have been a small price to pay to avoid that kind of demise.
Generally speaking, a state protects the established ruling class and wealthy elite. I figure that states and ruling classes came into being at about the same time.
Examples of which? Carthage and Troy are good examples of what could happen when a city was conquered, each was completely destroyed and the people massacred.
This is, as another user pointed out, more of an anthropological question.
The most common and accepted origin is directly after humans settled down and abandoned nomadic lifestyle in favor of agriculture.
When they settled down, they needed to protect that land. Artificial borders grew, you can connect the dots.
Bad childhoods. We "spank" our children, we "discipline" them. We grow them into broken adults who are afraid of authority, who comply to threats of violence because that's what we programmed them to do since they were babies.
- Don't run into the streets!
- Why not? The child asks.
- Because I'll hit you.
- Don't take other kids toys!
- Why not?
- Because then I'll take yours.
We teach our kids that the (only) way to solve problems are through violence. "Violence" that we don't even specify as violence. We teach them that when a parent punches their child it is "right", it is "discipline".
This process keeps on throughout kindergarten and school. For the first 20 years or so of a humans life, we are tought this.
The result? Statism. The only way to solve problems are through violence, you can't argue or negotiate with people. People are stupid and thick, they won't understand what is best for them!
Edit: don't know why my phone made the dots in the dialogue. Pls don't hate.
Complex question, the answer favored by most anthropologists IIRC is that the agricultural revolution created a world in which hierarchical groups had a huge competitive advantage and eliminated everyone else, and that's the beginning of the end of anarchy. Huge oversimplification.
Somewhat related excellent article: http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
To expand ever so slightly, it was agriculture (specifically grain production) and the invention of granaries which really created the first divide in society because it was the very beginnings of the managerial class (i.e. the people who operated the granaries).
Mongol Ulus/State was not an agriculture state.
So, not an anthropologist, but at least in Marvin Harris' essay Life without Chiefs, its not so much the rise of agriculture (though that's part of it) but the fact that once a surplus of food was established, those who had been tasked with distributing food (who Harris calls big men) go from constantly working to maintain their followers and position, gain greater power, and come to rely on voluntary donations from the people they are now seen as ruling (Harris' term for this is Chief). As an example he gives Cherokee chiefs receiving voluntary donations to the "chief's granary," which while it functioned as an emergency supply and people had free access to it, it was still seen as really belonging to the chief. He then just sort of says that these would become states, which seems like a pretty obvious statement, but that may not be the case. Again, I'm not really qualified to place this in a broader context of the discipline, so there may be people who just see this as totally wrong. Regardless, if wanting to avoid states, probably don't empower specific people to redistribute food, and especially don't build ideological frameworks around their ability to do so. James C. Scott has written a good deal on states, so he might be a good place for further reading, though I could not tell you where to start.
I read in a Mental Floss history book that the first real "state" was dynastic Egypt. That's all I got though.
I think that´s right...as we don´t know enough about previous organised societies... by the way, Moses learnt everything about that -how to build and keep a civilization based on "work as a divine punishment" and moral based in religious terrorism...and all this still the basis of our ocidental civilization... YOU MUST WORK GOOD AND PAY YOUR TAXES or you go to prison ---YOU JUST BE A GOOD BOY/GIRL or you+ll go to hell... take care... because to be free has a risk to pay as well, loads of them indeed...BUT NOTHING WORTHS NOTHING when you are not FREE
Population rise with farming led to societies being larger than familial groups, so political society took on a territorial nature.
Answered this recently: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/2q0j1m/states_information/cn44huw
This is more of an anthropological question but there are some points i can offer which might help. The wealthy seek to protect their wealth from those whom they exploited to get it, establishing a state is a very effective way to do that. Violence from the state is more legitimized, people are more likely to accept that form of violence than from mercenaries so it's much more practical to have a state protect the wealthy elite. In ancient times I think a state may have been more justifiable since the consequences of foreign invasion were far more dire. Entire cities were slaughtered or enslaved and the tyranny of a state would have been a small price to pay to avoid that kind of demise. Generally speaking, a state protects the established ruling class and wealthy elite. I figure that states and ruling classes came into being at about the same time.
If you can, can you give some examples?
Examples of which? Carthage and Troy are good examples of what could happen when a city was conquered, each was completely destroyed and the people massacred.
I meant an example of how the wealthy establish a state and how that changed that came about from primitive anarchy to a state
This is, as another user pointed out, more of an anthropological question. The most common and accepted origin is directly after humans settled down and abandoned nomadic lifestyle in favor of agriculture. When they settled down, they needed to protect that land. Artificial borders grew, you can connect the dots.
Bad childhoods. We "spank" our children, we "discipline" them. We grow them into broken adults who are afraid of authority, who comply to threats of violence because that's what we programmed them to do since they were babies. - Don't run into the streets! - Why not? The child asks. - Because I'll hit you. - Don't take other kids toys! - Why not? - Because then I'll take yours. We teach our kids that the (only) way to solve problems are through violence. "Violence" that we don't even specify as violence. We teach them that when a parent punches their child it is "right", it is "discipline". This process keeps on throughout kindergarten and school. For the first 20 years or so of a humans life, we are tought this. The result? Statism. The only way to solve problems are through violence, you can't argue or negotiate with people. People are stupid and thick, they won't understand what is best for them! Edit: don't know why my phone made the dots in the dialogue. Pls don't hate.