It evolved by degrees as civilization progressed. But the religious influences that played a part in the most primitive forms of society invalidate the view that the State arose solely by force. The most primitive religion contains an ethical element. It is true that the primitive society was no democracy but rather an aristocracy and a form of monarchical absolutism; yet, however strong a single leader may have been, he could never have made a State by his own strength alone if his community had not in some way agreed with him.
Nor do I accept the so-called patriarchal theory—so often upheld by Slav politicians and theorists—according to which the State arose as an extension of the family and was, as such, justified and good in itself. With the family the State had nothing in common. Other forces engendered it. The State is but the organizer of social life, which is something essentially different from family life. The latest studies of primitive peoples convincingly confirm this view. Aristotle said that man is by nature a political creature. Into this political “nature,” by which theorists explain the State, elements of reason entered from the first; and the functions and organization of the State vary according to time and circumstances. Now and again, one “estate of the realm” or social class monopolizes power and uses the State for its own ends; at other moments special economic conditions or a particular form of culture set their stamp upon the State, which ever seeks the support of the most powerful social forces, religious, scientific or financial. A strong personality may even get the power of the State into his own hands. Each of these contingencies implies misuse of the State. Indeed, its whole history proves its imperfection; but its imperfection is no better warrant for anarchism or “astatism” than a defective school system would prove the worth of illiteracy. Social life is impossible without some central, centralizing and controlling authority. If anybody wishes to call this authority by some other name than that of “the State” he is welcome to do so. It is the thing that matters, not the word; though, in politics, the part played by words, “round words,” is by no means small.
Certain it is that the State, even the democratic State, is no divine, omniscient, omnipotent institution such as Hegel conceived. It is human, sometimes very human, with all the weaknesses and imperfections of the men who organize and direct it. It is neither so bad and unreasonable as the anarchists say, nor so good and lovely as its semi-official
