THE TENDENCY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE
We have endeavored to discover the development of the state from its
most remote past up to present times, following its course like an
explorer, from its source down the streams to its effluence in the
plains. Broad and powerfully its waves roll by, until it disappears
into the mist of the horizon, into unexplored and, for the present-day
observer, undiscoverable regions.
Just as broadly and powerfully the stream of history--and until the
present day all history has been the history of states--rolls past
our view, and the course thereof is covered by the blanketing fogs of
the future. Shall we dare to set up hypotheses concerning the future
course, until “with unrestrained joy he sinks into the arms of his
waiting, expectant father”? (Goethe’s _Prometheus_.) Is it possible to
establish a scientifically founded prognosis in regard to the future
development of the state?
I believe in this possibility. The tendency[141] of state development
unmistakably leads to one point: seen in its essentials the state
will cease to be the “developed political means” and will become “a
freemen’s citizenship.” In other words, its outer shell will remain in
essentials the form which was developed in the constitutional state,
under which the administration will be carried on by an officialdom.
But the content of the states heretofore known will have changed its
vital element by the disappearance of the economic exploitation of one
class by another. And since the state will, by this, come to be without
either classes or class interests, the bureaucracy of the future will
truly have attained that ideal of the impartial guardian of the common
interests, which nowadays it laboriously attempts to reach. The “state”
of the future will be “society” guided by self-government.
Libraries full of books have been written on the delimitation of the
concepts “state” and “society.” The problem, however, from our point of
view has an easy solution. The “state” is the fully developed political
means, society the fully developed economic means. Heretofore state and
society were indissolubly intertwined: in the “freemen’s citizenship,”
there will be no “state” but only “society.”
This prognosis of the future development of the state contains by
inclusion all of those famous formulæ, whereby, the great philosophical
historians have endeavored to determine the “resulting value” of
universal history. It contains the “progress from warlike activity to
peaceful labor” of St. Simon, as well as Hegel’s “development from
slavery to freedom”; the “evolution of humanity” of Herder, as well as
“the penetration of reason through nature” of Schleiermacher.
Our times have lost the glad optimism of the classical and of the
humanist writers; sociologic pessimism rules the spirit of these latter
days. The prognosis here stated can not as yet claim to have many
adherents. Not only do the persons obtaining the profits of dominion,
thanks to their obsession by their class spirit, regard it as an
incredible concept; those belonging to the subjugated class as well
regard it with the utmost skepticism. It is true that the proletarian
theory, as a matter of principle, predicts identically the same result.
But the adherents of that theory do not believe it possible by the path
of evolution but only through revolution. It is then thought of as a
picture of a “society” varying in all respects from that evolved by the
progress of history; in other words, as an organization of the economic
means, as a system of economics without competition and market, as
collectivism. The anarchistic theory makes form and content of the
“state” as inseparable as heads and tails of the coin; no “government”
without exploitation! It would therefore smash both the form and the
content of the state, and thus bring on a condition of anarchy, even
if thereby all the economic advantages of a division of labor should
have to be sacrificed. Even so great a thinker as the late Ludwig
Gumplowicz, who first laid the foundation on which the present theory
of the state has been developed, is a sociological pessimist; and from
the same reasons as are the anarchists, whom he combated so violently.
He too regards as eternally inseparable form and content, government
and class-exploitation; since he however, and I think correctly,
does not consider it possible that many people may live together
without some coercive force vested in some government, he declares the
class-state to be an “immanent” and not only an historical category.
Only a small fraction of social liberals, or of liberal socialists,
believe in the evolution of a society without class dominion and
class exploitation which shall guarantee to the individual, besides
political, also economic liberty of movement, within of course the
limitations of the economic means. That was the _credo_ of the old
social liberalism, of pre-Manchester days, enunciated by Quesnay and
especially by Adam Smith, and again taken up in modern times by Henry
George and Theodore Hertzka.
This prognosis may be substantiated in two ways, one through history
and philosophy, the other by political economy, as a tendency of
the development of the state, and as a tendency of the evolution of
economics, both clearly tending toward _one_ point.
The tendency of the _development of the state_ was shown in the
preceding as a steady and victorious combat of economic means against
political means. We saw that, in the beginning, the right to the
economic means, the right to equality and to peace, was restricted
to the tiny circle of the horde bound together by ties of blood, an
endowment from pre-human conditions of society;[142] while without the
limits of this isle of peace raged the typhoon of the political means.
But we saw expanding more and more the circles from which the laws of
peace crowded out their adversary, and everywhere we saw their advance
connected with the advance of the economic means, of the barter of
groups for equivalents, amongst one another. The first exchange may
have been the exchange of fire, then the barter of women, and finally
the exchange of goods, the domain of peace constantly extending its
borders. It protected the market places, then the streets leading to
them, and finally it protected the merchants traveling on these streets.
In the course of this discussion it was shown how the “state” absorbed
and developed these organizations making for peace, and how in
consequence these drive back ever further right based on mere might.
Merchants’ law becomes city law; the industrial city, the developed
economic means, undermines the feudal state, the developed political
means; and finally the civic population, in open fight, annihilates the
political remnants of the feudal state, and re-conquers for the entire
population of the state freedom and right to equality, _urban_ law
becomes public law and finally international law.
Furthermore, on no horizon can be seen any force now capable of
resisting effectively this heretofore efficient tendency. On the
contrary, the interference of the past, which temporarily blocked the
process, is obviously becoming weaker and weaker. The international
relations of commerce and trade acquired among the nations a
preponderating importance over the diminishing warlike and political
relations; and in the intra-national sphere, by reason of the same
process of economic development, movable capital, the creation of the
right to peace, preponderates in ever increasing measure over landed
property rights, the creation of the right of war. At the same time
superstition more and more loses its influence. And therefore one is
justified in concluding that the tendency so marked will work out to
its logical end, excluding the political means and all its works, until
the complete victory of the economic means is attained.
But it may be objected that in the modern constitutional state all the
more prominent remnants of the antique law of war have already been
chiseled out.
On the contrary, there survives a considerable remnant of these
institutions, masked it is true in economic garb, and apparently no
longer a legal privilege but only economic right, _the ownership of
large estates--the first creation and the last stronghold of the
political means_. Its mask has preserved it from undergoing the fate of
all other feudal creations. And yet this last remnant of the right of
war is doubtless the last unique obstacle in the pathway of humanity;
and doubtless the _development of economics_ is on its way to destroy
it.
To substantiate these remarks I must refer the reader to other books,
wherein I have given the detailed evidence of the above and can not in
the space allotted here repeat it at large.[143] I can only re-state
the principal points made in these books.
There is no difference in principle between the distribution of the
total products of the economic means among the separate classes of a
constitutional state, the so-called “capitalistic distribution,” from
that prevailing in the feudal state.
All the more important economic schools coincide in finding the cause
in this, that the supply of “free” laborers (i. e., according to Karl
Marx politically free and economically without capital) perpetually
exceeds the demand, and that hence there exists “the social relation of
capital.” There “are constantly two laborers running after one master
for work, and lowering, for one another, the wages”; and therefore the
“surplus value” remains with the capitalist class, while the laborer
never gets a chance to form capital for himself and to become an
employer.
Whence comes this surplus supply of free laborers?
The explanation of the “bourgeois” theory, according to which this
surplus supply is caused by the overproduction of children by
proletarian parents, is based on a logical fallacy, and is contradicted
by all known facts?[144]
The explanation of the proletarian theory according to which the
capitalistic process of production itself produces the “free laborers,”
by setting up again and again new labor-saving machines, is also
based on a logical fallacy and is likewise contradicted by all known
facts.[145]
The evidence of all facts shows rather, and the conclusion may be
deduced without fear of contradiction, _that the oversupply of “free
laborers” is descended from the right of holding landed property in
large estates_; and that emigration into towns and oversea from these
landed properties are the causes of the capitalistic distribution.
Doubtless there is a growing tendency in economic development whereby
the ruin of vast landed estates will be accomplished. The system
is their bleeding to death, without hope of salvation, caused by
the freedom of the former serfs--the necessary consequence of the
development of the cities. As soon as the peasants had obtained the
right of moving about without their landlords’ passport (German
_Freizuegigkeit_), there developed the chance of escape from the
countries which formerly oppressed them. The system of emigration
created “the competition from oversea,” together with the fall,
on the Continent, of prices for farm products, and made necessary
perpetually rising wages. By these two factors ground rent is reduced
from two sides, and must gradually sink to the zero point, since here
too no counterforce is to be recognized whereby the process might be
diverted.[146] Thus the system of vast territorial estates falls apart.
When, however, it has disappeared, there can be no oversupply of “free
laborers.” On the contrary “two masters will run after one laborer and
must raise the price on themselves.” There will be no “surplus value”
for the capitalist class, because the laborer himself can form capital
and himself become an employer. By this the last remaining vestige
of the political means will have been destroyed, and economic means
alone will exercise sway. The _content_ of such a society is the “pure
economics”[147] of the equivalent exchange of commodities against
commodities, or of labor force against commodities, and the political
_form_ of this society will be the “freemen’s citizenship.”
This theoretical deduction is moreover confirmed by the _experience
of history_. Wherever there existed a society in which vast estates
did not exist to draw an increasing rental, there “pure economics”
existed, and society approximated the form of the state to that of the
“freemen’s citizenship.”
Such a community was found in the Germany of the four centuries[148]
from about A. D. 1000, when the primitive system of vast estates was
developed into the socially harmless dominion over vast territories,
until about the year 1400, when the newly arisen great properties,
created by the political means, the robber wars in the countries
formerly Slavic, shut the settlers from the westward out of lands
eastward of the Elbe.[149] Such a community was the Mormon state of
Utah, which has not been greatly changed in this respect, where a
wise land legislation permitted only small and moderate sized farm
holdings.[150] Such a community was to be found in the city and county
of Vineland, Iowa, U. S. A.,[151] as long as every settler could obtain
land, without increment of rent. Such a commonwealth is, beyond all
others, New Zealand, whose government favors with all its power the
possession of small and middle-sized holdings of land, while at the
same time it narrows and dissolves, by all means at its command the
great landed properties, which by the way, owing to lack of surplus
laborers, are almost incapable of producing rentals.[152]
In all these cases there is an astoundingly equalized well-being, not
perhaps mechanically equal; but there is no wealth. _Because well-being
is the control over articles of consumption, while wealth is the
dominion over mankind._ In no such cases are the means of production,
“capital,” “producing any surplus values”; there are no “free laborers”
and no capitalism, and the political form of these communities
approximates very closely to a “freemen’s citizenship,” and tends to
approximate it more and more, so far as the pressure of the surrounding
states, organized from and based on the laws of war, permit its
development. The “state” decomposes, or else in new countries such as
Utah or New Zealand, it returns to a rudimentary stage of development;
while the free self-determination of free men, scarcely acquainted
with a class fight constantly tends to pierce through ever more
thoroughly. Thus in the German Empire there was a parallel development
between the political rise of the unions of the imperial free cities,
the decline of the feudal states, the emancipation of the crafts, then
still comprising the entire “plebs” of the cities, and the decay of the
patrician control of the city government. This beneficent development
was stopped by the erection of new primitive feudal states on the
easterly border of the former German Empire, and thus the economic
blossom of German culture was ruined. Whoever believes in a conscious
purpose in history may say that the human race was again required to
pass through another school of suffering before it could be redeemed.
The Middle Ages had discovered the system of free labor, but had not
developed it to its full capacity or efficiency. It was reserved for
the new slavery of capitalism to discover and develop the incomparably
more efficient system of coöperating labor, the division of labor in
the workshops, in order to crown man as the ruler of natural forces, as
king of the planet. Slavery of antiquity and of modern capitalism was
once necessary; now it has become superfluous. According to the story,
every free citizen of Athens disposed of five human slaves; but we
have supplied to our fellow citizens of modern society a vast mass of
enslaved power, slaves of steel, that do not suffer in creating values.
Since then we have ripened toward a civilization as much higher than
the civilization of the time of Pericles, as the population, power and
riches of the modern communities exceeds those of the tiny state of
Athens.
Athens was doomed to dissolution--by reason of slavery as an economic
institution, by reason of the political means. Having once entered that
pathway, there was no outlet except death to the population. Our path
will lead to life.
The same conclusion is found by either the historical-philosophical
view, which took into account the tendency of the _development of the
state_, or the study of political economy, which regards the tendency
of _economic development_; viz., that the economic means wins along
the whole line, while the political means disappears from the life of
society, in that one of its creations, which is most ancient and most
tenacious of life; capitalism decays with large landed estates and
ground rentals.
This has been the path of suffering and of salvation of humanity, its
Golgotha and its resurrection into an eternal kingdom--from war to
peace, from the hostile splitting up of the hordes to the peaceful
unity of mankind, from brutality to humanity, from the exploiting State
of robbery to the Freemen’s Citizenship.
NOTES
[1] “History is unable to demonstrate any one people, wherein the first
traces of division of labor and of agriculture do not coincide with
such agricultural exploitations, wherein the efforts of labor were
not apportioned to one and the fruits of labor were not appropriated
by some one else, wherein, in other words, the division of labor
had not developed itself as the subjection of one set under the
others.”--Robertus-Jagetzow, _Illumination on the social question_,
second edition. Berlin, 1890, p. 124. (Cf. _Immigration and Labor. The
economic aspects of European Immigration to the United States_, by Dr.
Isaac A. Hourwich. Putnam’s, N. Y., 1912.--_Translator._)
[2] Achelis, _Die Ekstase in ihrer kulturellen Bedeutung_, vol. 1 of
_Kulturprobleme der Gegenwart_, Berlin, 1902.
[3] Grosse, _Formen der Familie_. Freiburg and Leipzig, 1896, p. 39.
[4] Ratzel, _Völkerkunde_. Second Edition. Leipzig and Wien, 1894-5,
II, p. 372.
[5] _Die Soziale Verfassung des Inkareichs._ Stuttgart, 1896, p. 51.
[6] _Siedlung und Agrarwesen der Westgermanen, etc._ Berlin, 1895, I,
p. 273.
[7] l. c. I, p. 138.
[8] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 702.
[9] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 555.
[10] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 555.
[11] For example with the Ovambo according to Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 214,
who in part “seem to be found in slavelike status,” and according to
Laveleye among the ancient Irish (_Fuidhirs_).
[12] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 648.
[13] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 99.
[14] Lippert, _Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit_. Stuttgart, 1886, II,
p. 302.
[15] Lippert, l. c. II, p. 522.
[16] _Römische Geschichte._ Sixth Edition. Berlin, 1874, I, p. 17.
[17] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 518.
[18] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 425.
[19] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 545.
[20] Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 390-1.
[21] Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 390-1.
[22] Lippert, l. c. I, p. 471.
[23] Kulischer, “The history of the development of interest from
capital.” _Jahrbücher für National Œkonomie._ III series, vol. 18, p.
318, Jena, 1899: (Says Strabo: “Plunderers and from the scant supplies
of their native land covetous of the lands of others.”)
[24] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 123.
[25] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 591.
[26] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 370.
[27] Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 390-1.
[28] Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 388-9.
[29] Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 103-04.
[30] Thurnwald, _Staat und Wirtschaft im altem Ægypten. Zeitschrift für
Soz. Wissenchaft_, vol. 4 1901, pp. 700-01.
[31] Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 404-05. (Gumplowicz, _Rassenkampf_, p. 264:
“Egypt, rich and self-sufficient, says Ranke, invited the avarice
of neighboring tribes, who served other gods. Under the name of the
Shepherd peoples, foreign dynasts and foreign tribes ruled Egypt for
centuries.
“Truly, the summary of universal history could not be begun with more
characteristic words than those of Ranke. For in the words applied
to Egypt the quintessence of the whole history of mankind is summed
up.”--_Translator._)
[32] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 165.
[33] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 485.
[34] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 480.
[35] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 165.
[36] Buhl, _Soziale Verhältnisse der Israeliten_, p. 13.
[37] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 455.
[38] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 628.
[39] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 625.
[40] Cieza de Leon, “Seg. parte de la crónica del Peru.” P. 75, cit. by
Cunow, _Inkareich_ (p. 62, note 1).
[41] Cunow, l. c. p. 61.
[42] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 346.
[43] Ratzel, l. c. II, pp. 36-7.
[44] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 221. (Cf. remarks by Hon. A. J. Sabath,
M. C., _Sociological Argument on Workman’s Compensation Bill_, p. 498,
Senate Document 338, Sixty-second Congress, Second Session, Volume
I. See also _Congressional Record_ for March 1, 1913, Sixty-second
Congress, Third Session, pp. 4503, 4529, _et seq._--_Translator._)
[45] “Among the Wahuma women occupy a higher position than among the
negroes, and are watched carefully by their men. This makes mixed
marriages difficult. The mass of the Waganda even to-day would not
have remained a genuine negro tribe ‘of dark chocolate colored skin
and short wool hair’ were it not that the two peoples are strictly
opposed to one another as peasants and herdsmen, rulers and subjects,
as despised and honored, in spite of the relations entered into among
the upper classes. In this peculiar position, they represent a typical
phenomenon, which is found repeated at many other points.”--Ratzel, l.
c. II, p. 177. [46] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 178.
[47] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 198.
[48] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 476.
[49] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 453.
[50] Kopp, _Griechische Staatsaltertümer_, 2, _Aufl._ Berlin, 1893, p.
23.
[51] Uhland, _Alte hoch und niederdeutsche Volkslieder_ I (1844), p.
339 cited by Sombart: _Der moderne Kapitalismus_, Leipzig, 1902, I, pp.
384-5.
[52] Inama-Sternegg, _Deutsche Wirtsch.-Gesch._ I, Leipzig, 1879, p. 59.
[53] Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, London, 1891, p. 368.
[54] Cf. Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 81.
[55] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 156.
[56] Ratzel, l. c. I, pp. 259-60.
[57] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 434.
[58] I. Kulischer, l. c., p. 317, where other examples may be found.
[59] Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, p. 400, which contains a
number of ethnographical examples. [60] Westermarck, l. c., p. 546.
[61] Cf. Ratzel, l. c. I, pp. 318, 540.
[62] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 106.
[63] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 335.
[64] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 346.
[65] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 347.
[66] Buecher, _Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft_, Second Edition,
Tübingen, 1898, p. 301.
[67] Cf., Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 271, speaking of the islanders of
the Pacific Ocean: “Intercourse from tribe to tribe is carried on
by inviolable heralds, preferably old women. These act also as
intermediary agents in trades.” See also page 317 for the same
practises among the Australians.
[68] German Translation by L. Katscher. Leipzig, 1907.
[69] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 81.
[70] Ratzel, l. c. I, pp. 478-9.
[71] A. Vierkandt, _Die wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse der Naturvölker.
Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft_, II, pp. 177-8.
[72] Kulischer, l. c. pp. 320-1.
[73] Lippert, l. c. I, p. 266, _et seq._
[74] Cf. Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_.
[75] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 27.
[76] Herodotus IV, 23, cited by Lippert, l. c. I, p. 459.
[77] Lippert, l. c. II, p. 170.
[78] Mommsen, l. c. I, p. 139.
[79] Similar conditions may be observed among the islanders near India.
Here the Malays are vikings. “Colonization is an important factor,
as conquest and settlement oversea ... reminding one of the great
rôle played in ancient Hellas by the roving tribes.... Every strip of
coast line shows foreign elements, who enter uncalled for and in most
instances spreading damage among the natives. The right of conquest was
granted by the rulers of Tornate to noble dynasts, who later on became
semi-sovereign viceroys on the islands of Buru, Serang, etc.” [80]
Mommsen, l. c. I, p. 132.
[81] Mommsen, l. c. I, p. 134.
[82] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 160.
[83] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 558.
[84] Buhl, l. c., p. 48.
[85] Buhl, l. c., pp. 78-79.
[86] Mommsen, l. c. II, p. 406.
[87] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 191; cf. also pp. 207-8.
[88] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 363.
[89] Mommsen, l. c., p. 46.
[90] Both cited by Kulischer, l. c., p. 319, from: Buechsenschuetz,
_Besitz und Erwerb im grieschischen Altertum_; and Goldschmidt,
_History of the Law of Commerce_.
[91] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 263.
[92] F. Oppenheimer’s _Grossgrundeigentum und soziale Frage_. Book Two,
Chapter I. Berlin, 1898.
[93] Nomadism is exceptionally characterized by the facility with
which, from patriarchal conditions, despotic functions are developed
with most far-reaching powers. Ratzel, l. c. Vol. II, pp. 388-9.
[94] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 408.
[95] Cunow, l. c. pp. 66-7. Similarly among the inhabitants of the
Malay Islands numerous examples are found in Radak (Ratzel, l. c. I, p.
267).
[96] Buhl, l. c., p. 17.
[97] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 66.
[98] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 118.
[99] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 167.
[100] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 218.
[101] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 125.
[102] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 124.
[103] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 118.
[104] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 125.
[105] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 346.
[106] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 245.
[107] Ratzel, l. c. I. pp. 267-8.
[108] Mommsen, l. c. III, pp. 234-5.
[109] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 167.
[110] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 229.
[111] Ratzel, l. c. I, p. 128.
[112] Weber’s _Weltgeschichte_, III, p. 163.
[113] Thurnwald, l. c., pp. 702-3.
[114] Thurnwald, l. c., p. 712; cf. Schneider, _Kultur und Denken der
alten ÆEgypter_, Leipzig, 1907, p. 38.
[115] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 599.
[116] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 362.
[117] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 344.
[118] Meitzen, l. c. II, p. 633.
[119] Inama-Sternegg, l. c. I, pp. 140-1.
[120] Mommsen, l. c. V, p. 84.
[121] Cf. the detailed exposition of this in F. Oppenheimer’s
_Grossgrundeigentum und die soziale Frage_, Book II, Chap. 3.
[122] Mommsen, l. c. III, pp. 234-5.
[123] Thurnwald, l. c., p. 771.
[124] Meitzen, l. c. I, pp. 362f.
[125] Inama-Sternegg, l. c. I, pp. 373, 386.
[126] Cf. F. Oppenheimer’s _Grossgrundeigentum_, p. 272.
[127] Thurnwald, l. c., p. 706.
[128] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 503.
[129] Ratzel, l. c. II, p. 518.
[130] Meitzen, l. c. I, p. 579: “At the time of the compilation of the
Lex Salica, the ancient racial nobility had been reduced to common
freemen or else had been annihilated. The officials, on the other
hand, are rated at threefold wergeld, 600 solidi, and if one be ‘_puer
regis_’ 300 solidi.”
[131] Thurnwald, l. c. p. 712.
[132] Inama-Sternegg, l. c. II, p. 61.
[133] Thurnwald, l. c., p. 705.
[134] “The larger camps of the army of the Rhine obtained their
municipal annexes partly through army suttlers and camp followers,
and particularly through the veterans, who after the completion of
their services remained in their accustomed quarters. Thus there arose
distinct from the military quarters proper, a distinct town of cabins
(_Canabæ_). In all parts of the Empire, and especially in the various
Germanias, there arose in the course of time, from these camps of the
legionaries, and particularly from the headquarter stations, cities in
the modern sense.”--Mommsen, l. c. V, p. 153.
[135] Eisenhardt, _Gesch. der National Oekonomie_, p. 9: “Aided by the
new and more liquid means of payment in cash, it became possible to
call into being a new and more independent establishment of soldiers
and of officials. As they were paid only periodically it became
impossible for them to make themselves independent (as the feudatories
had done) and then to turn on their paymaster.” [136] Thurnwald, l.
c., p. 773.
[137] Thurnwald, l. c., p. 699.
[138] Thurnwald, l. c., p. 709.
[139] Thurnwald, l. c., p. 711.
[140] Cf. with this F. Oppenheimer’s _Grossgrundeigentum etc._, Book
II, Chap. 3.
[141] “Tendency, i. e., a law, whose absolute execution is checked by
countervailing circumstances, or is by them retarded, or weakened.”
Marx, _Kapital_, vol. III, p. 215.
[142] Cf. the excellent work of Peter Kropotkin, _Mutual Aid in its
Development_.
[143] Cf. F. Oppenheimer, _Die Siedlungsgenossenschaft etc._, Berlin,
1896, and his _Grossgrundeigentum und soziale Frage_, Berlin, 1898.
[144] Cf. F. Oppenheimer, _Bevölkerungsgesetz des T. R. Malthus_.
_Darstellung and Kritik_, Berlin-Bern, 1901.
[145] Cf. F. Oppenheimer, _Grundgesetz der Marxschen
Gesellschaftslehre, Darstellung und Kritik_, Berlin, 1903.
[146] Cf. F. Oppenheimer, _Grundgesetz der Marxschen
Gesellschaftslehre_, Part IV., particularly, the twelfth chapter:
“Tendency of the Capitalistic Development.”
[147] Cf. F. Oppenheimer, _Grossgrundeigentum und soziale Frage_,
Berlin, 1898. Book I, Chapter 2, Section 3, “Philosophy of the Social
Body,” pp. 57 _et seq._
[148] Cf. F. Oppenheimer, _Grossgrundeigentum_, Book II, Chap. 2, Sec.
3, p. 322.
[149] Cf. F. Oppenheimer, _Grossgrundeigentum_, Book II, Chap. 3, Sec.
4, especially pp. 423 _et seq._
[150] Cf. F. Oppenheimer, “Die Utopie als Tatsache,” _Zeitschrift für
Sozial-Wissenschaft_, 1899, Vol. II, pp. 190 _et seq._
[151] Cf. F. Oppenheimer, _Siedlungsgenossenschaft_, pp. 477 _et seq._
[152] Cf. André Siegfried, _La démocratie en Nouvelle Zelande_, Paris,
1904.
Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not
changed.
The spelling of non-English words was not checked.
Simple typographical errors were corrected.
Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.
Page 100: Closing quotation mark added after “valuable consignments.”
Page 126 or 127: Missing footnote anchor “62”.
Page 128 or 129: Missing footnote anchor “67”.
Pages 134-138: Missing footnote anchor “75”.
Pages 207-208: Missing footnote anchors “123” through “127”.
Pages 220-225: Missing footnote anchor “132”.
Page 254: Paragraph beginning “The external reason” probably should be
“The internal reason”.