p The question of the essence of the state is a complex one, and has been the centre of a fierce ideological struggle. This is because it affects the interests of classes more than any other.

p To give a clearer picture of the confusion of views on the state, we shall briefly discuss some pertinent bourgeois theories or, rather, viewpoints.

p The neo-Thomists, for example, advocate the socalled theological theory of the state, the main provisions of which were formulated by the 13 thcentury scholastic Thomas Aquinas. According to this theory, the state is of divine origin. Since the state represents the Deity on Earth, they claim, it stands above social classes, uniting them into a single whole and administering its powers over this entirety, sanctioned by the Lord. Since state power originates in God, assert the advocates of this theory, it must be revered.

p The reactionary nature of this theory is evident. Its exponents are trying to make the working people believe that a bourgeois state is non-class, that it expresses and protects the interests of all members of society, and that, taking account of its divine origin, it should therefore be treated with special respect, and all its demands obediently fulfilled.

p The supporters of another-the patriarchaltheory allege that the state emerged as a result of the development of the family, which first turned into a clan, then into a tribe, and later into a state. State power, they claim, is thus none other than the transformed power of fathers, since the father, of course, treats all members of the family in an equal manner.

p In Lenin’s words, the patriarchal theory of the origin and essence of the state is “childish 392 nonsense".  [392•1  It is patently contrary to the actual state of affairs. The family is not at all the original unit of human society, but appeared at a later stage in society’s development. Originally people lived in clans and even tribes, and it was much later that families separated off from these as a result of economic development and, in particular, of the invention of instruments of labour making it possible to work alone. The state is based not on blood relationships between people, but on the territorial principle. All the people who live on the territory of the state, irrespective of the place of their birth, are considered its citizens.

p The theory according to which the state arose as a result of a social compact concluded by people in the remote past, is also rather popular. Its champions (Spinoza, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others) claimed that the emergence of the state was conditioned by people’s desire to prevent mutual hostilities and regulate existing relations. After setting up the state, people, acting in accordance with the compact, vested in it some of their rights and entrusted it to protect their freedom.

p In the period of its rise (the 17th to 18th centuries), this theory played a progressive, role since it advocated the temporal origin of the state and acknowledged the right to change it if it ceased to perform its function of protecting the freedom of all citizens. On the whole, however, this theory is not scientific. Nobody concluded any compact to form a state. Though many supporters of this 393 theory admitted that, in reality, there was no social compact and that the thesis was advanced only to explain theoretically the essence of state power and people’s sovereignty. The compact itself could not serve as such a basis either, since it represented a phenomenon dependent on the consciousness of the people who concluded it. The reasons for the emergence of the state lie not in the realm of consciousness, but in the people’s material condition which takes shape irrespective oi: their consciousness.

p Many bourgeois sociologists trace the emergence of the state to force. According to them, the state arose as a result of the subjugation of one tribe or people by another. The conquerors seized the property of the subdued and began administering them with the help of an apparatus especially set up for the purpose. This is, for example, how one of the protagonists of the theory of force, Karl Kautsky, explains the rise of the state: “A victorious tribe subjugates the subdued tribe, appropriates all their land and then forces the subdued tribe to regularly work for the victor, to pay him tributes or taxes.... The repressive apparatus which the victors set up for the subdued, becomes the state.”  [393•1 

p This theory of the origin of the state does not reveal what actually happens. Sheer violence cannot engender the state. In order for a special 394 group of armed men, called upon systematically to suppress the population, to exist, there must be certain material goods supplied to them regularly. But violence alone cannot create them. There must be the necessary economic conditions, in particular the means of labour, making it possible to produce more means of subsistence than are required to sustain the physical existence of the producers. Force has nothing to do with the emergence of these conditions.

p Some bourgeois sociologists attempt to relate the necessity for the emergence of the state with the psyche. They claim that, in psychological terms, people are divided into two directly opposite groups: strong-willed, active and energetic people, and weak-willed, passive people who are ill adjusted to life. The former are in need of people whom they can organise and force to act, while the latter desperately need leaders and mentors, without whom they can neither function nor survive. These two groups of people, according to the supporters of this theory, join ranks and form a state, in which the former take power and force the latter to perform definite functions.

p This so-called psychological theory at present enjoys wide currency among some bourgeois sociologists who try to substantiate and justify the rule of capitalist tycoons. The ideologists of the imperialist bourgeoisie constantly emphasise that, without strong personalities to guide the state policy, organise and develop production, the nation could not survive and would starve to death due to lack of initiative, passiveness and helplessness. 395 History, however, refutes these conjectures. In socialist countries the rule of capitalist tycoons has been abolished, but the working people have achieved a level of production development over only a few decades that would have taken much more time for the capitalist countries to reach.

p The psychological theory of the state is essentially idealistic, since it considers psychic factors to be the ultimate cause for the rise of the state, while these are, of course, neither determining in society as a whole nor in any individual’s life.

p Thus, there is one general shortcoming in the above theories of the origin of the state-they search for it not in the economic realm of the life of society but in the other world, or in subjective and psychic human acts.

It was historical materialism that, for the first time, provided a scientific explanation of the origin and essence of the state.