On the other hand, the State is an anti-social organization, originating in conquest and concerned only with the confiscation of property. The State began with the practice of nomadic tribes swooping down on some agricultural community, confiscating the movable wealth and, after slaying the less productive inhabitants, carrying off to slavery a number of others. Slavery is the first institution of the State.

The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient.

To begin with, if man, since his origin, has always lived in societies, the State is but one of the forms of social life, quite recent as far as regards European societies. Men lived thousands of years before the first States were constituted; Greece and Rome existed for centuries before the Macedonian and Roman Empires were built up, and for us modern Europeans the centralized States date but from the sixteenth century. It was only then, after the defeat of the free mediæval Communes had been completed that the mutual insurance company between military, judicial, landlord, and capitalist authority which we call "State," could be fully established.

It is a proof that the state is not an arbitrary invention, but is established by nature and reason, when we actually find that, in places where men have lived together for a time and have become educated, states are erected, although the people in the one such place know not that the same thing has been done in other places. Each people, which does not live in a condition of nature, but has a government, no matter how constituted, has a right to compel its recognition from all adjoining states.

En el fondo, la conquista no sólo es el origen, es también el fin supremo de todos los Estados grandes o pequeños, poderosos o débiles, despóticos o liberales, monárquicos o aristocráticos, democráticos y socialistas también, suponiendo que el ideal de los socialistas alemanes, el de un gran Estado comunista, se realice alguna vez.

Que ella fue el punto de partida de todos los Estados, antiguos y modernos, no podrá ser puesto en duda por nadie, puesto que cada página de la historia universal lo prueba suficientemente. Nadie negará tampoco que los grandes Estados actuales tienen por objeto, más o menos confesado, la conquista. Pero los Estados medianos y sobre todo los pequeños, se dirá, no piensan más que en defenderse y sería ridículo por su parte soñar en la conquista.

Todo lo ridículo que se quiera, pero sin embargo es su sueño, como el sueño del más pequeño campesino propietario es redondear sus tierras en detrimento del vecino; redondearse, crecer, conquistar a cualquier precio y siempre, es una tendencia fatalmente inherente a todo Estado, cualquiera que sea su extensión, su debilidad o su fuerza, porque es una necesidad de su naturaleza. ¿Qué es el Estado si no es la organización del poder? Pero está en la naturaleza de todo poder la imposibilidad de soportar un superior o un igual, pues el poder no tiene otro objeto que la dominación, y la dominación no es real más que cuando le está sometido todo lo que la obstaculiza; ningún poder tolera otro más que cuando está obligado a ello, es decir, cuando se siente impotente para destruirlo o derribarlo. El solo hecho de un poder igual es una negación de su principio y una amenaza perpetua contra su existencia; porque es una manifestación y una prueba de su impotencia. Por consiguiente, entre todos los Estados que existen uno junto al otro, la guerra es permanente y su paz no es más que una tregua.

Está en la naturaleza del Estado el presentarse tanto con relación a sí mismo como frente a sus súbditos, como el ob

". . . that the State is, or ought to be, founded on contract." This would be true if the words which I have italicized should be omitted. It was the insertion of these words that furnished the writer a basis for his otherwise groundless analogy between the Anarchists and the followers of Rousseau. The latter hold that the State originated in a contract, and that the people of to-day, though they did not make it, are bound by it. The Anarchists, on the contrary, deny that any such contract was ever made; declare that, had one ever been made, it could not impose a shadow of obligation on those who had no hand in making it; and claim the right to contract for themselves as they please. The position that a man may make his own contracts, far from being analogous to that which makes him subject to contracts made by others, is its direct antithesis.

[The state is] never a contract among peaceful men but always a conquest of one group over another.

The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.

The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. It not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies. It implies some new relationships between members of society which did not exist before the formation of the State. A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others. This distinction, which at first sight might not be obvious, emerges especially when one studies the origins of the State.

The individualistic conception of the State as some external authority exercising a malign influence upon the life of the community is a travesty of fact. The State is that form of organised society which has evolved through the process of the ages, and represents the aptitude for freedom and self-government to which any people has attained. The policeman and the soldier, for example, who are at the call of the landlord or the employer when tenant or workman becomes turbulent, exist by the will and under the express authority of those same tenants and workmen, who constitute a preponderating majority in the State, and without whose consent neither soldier nor policeman could continue to exist.

Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.

Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.

I do not know if the doctrine that the nation-state arose in the 19th century was still being taught ... but it is erroneous. The nation-state reaches back far into the origins of Europe itself and perhaps beyond. If Europe was not always a Europe of nations, it was always a Europe in which nations existed, and were taken for granted, as a basic form of the State.

Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.