Barbaric community is stateless community . Clatres says barbaric community devoid to government and Government is indispensable for barbaric community like others..so this community uncompleted to development. ı mean real sense they don't to become civilized .. moreover they feel pain devoid to government passionately. According to Clatres, stateless community can't be thougth, so the government is the reason of existence of all society. Besides according to Clatres, puissance isn't from supervisor to society, it is from society to supervisor. Supervisors are people who don't give orders, must talk good and must be generous, are void of power and authorization
Demet Gecebeği 150.21 According to Clastres, the state is only seen in the societies that couldn’t obtain the autonomy. If the power becomes despotic in a society, the state cannot be obstructed. While Clastres observes Guayaki tribes in Paraguay, he deduce that the chief only have a representative authority in his tribe. He is only the spokesman for his people who represent them towards other tribes. Besides, if he misuses his role, he will be excluded from his society. Hereby, he can never turn himself to a leader who owns all the authority. For Clastres, living without a state is necessary and required. Also, the societies shouldn’t have rules and kings, winners or losers or any competitions according to him. The authority should be given by the society itself to the chief. The societies shouldn’t waste their times by working aimless, they should have “reasonable” goals such as dancing, resting and having fun. If a society doesn’t have these qualifications they are depend on a state. Overall, Clastres only ambition is to explain that the societies actually doesn’t require for a state and there are some societies who has made it without a state until today.
The thing Clastrein has defined as foreign policy means to be half in war.Actually it was not a real war.it was accepted as a social classes' war. The citizens had been in this war to protect themselves from the bad affects of the social discriminations.In fact it became a longer period war because of the discriminations in the classes and the recreated power and government relationship in every other situations,but the society was exactly against to this situation which was called ''class discrimination'' This social formation is very close to today's 2 groups of people. The ones who are underestimated and mostly humiliated and the others who underestimate and humiliate. For this reason it can be concluded that primitive people gave the first examples of the discriminations,which are presented us as a must, to us in those days. The thing clastrein has defined as foreign policy means to be half in war.actually it was not a real war..it was accepted as a social classes' war. The citizens had been in this war to protect themselves from the bad affects of the social discriminations.In fact it became a longer_period war because of the discriminations in the classes and the recreated power and government relationship in every other situations,but the society was exactly against to this situation which was called ''class discrimination'' This social formation is very close to today's 2 groups of people. The ones who are underestimated and mostly humiliated and the others who underestimate and humiliate.for this reason it can be concluded that primitive people gave the first examples of the discriminations,which are presented us as a must, to us in those days.
According to Engels, society improves step by step. Firstly society then simple state etc. He thought that law can exist and progress with this steps. Against to him, Clartres thought that society doesn't need to become a state. Accordng to Clartres, some societies are agains to being a state. Because, Becoming a state means that inequality for them. So they try to control population. They think that If the population increases, a state can occur. They try to give limited authorization to their chiefs because they don't want their chiefs to achieve dominance. He did research in South America. He used North America, Africa and Australia examples for proving his thoughts.
The thing Clastrein has defined as foreign policy means to be half in war.Actually it was not a real war.it was accepted as a social classes' war. The citizens had been in this war to protect themselves from the bad affects of the social discriminations.In fact it became a longer period war because of the discriminations in the classes and the recreated power and government relationship in every other situations,but the society was exactly against to this situation which was called ''class discrimination'' This social formation is very close to today's 2 groups of people. The ones who are underestimated and mostly humiliated and the others who underestimate and humiliate. For this reason it can be concluded that primitive people gave the first examples of the discriminations,which are presented us as a must, to us in those days. The thing clastrein has defined as foreign policy means to be half in war.actually it was not a real war..it was accepted as a social classes' war. The citizens had been in this war to protect themselves from the bad affects of the social discriminations.In fact it became a longer_period war because of the discriminations in the classes and the recreated power and government relationship in every other situations,but the society was exactly against to this situation which was called ''class discrimination'' This social formation is very close to today's 2 groups of people. The ones who are underestimated and mostly humiliated and the others who underestimate and humiliate.for this reason it can be concluded that primitive people gave the first examples of the discriminations,which are presented us as a must, to us in those days.
According to Clastres, society can be stateless. Primitive society, people lived together without law. They had chief but chief didn’t have any power over the society. They didn’t give permission that chief turned to despotism. Moreover chief must be bountiful and chief must do everything which society wanted. Everybody was equal in this system. They produced something as much as their demand. So no one was rich more than the other, prosperity mean nothing according to this society.
For Clastres, state has ability. State is just legal despotism. People could be more happy without state because state means classifying society, people don’t equal on this system. State apply sanctions on society. We think that every society must have state because of ethnocentrism. But stateless society is equal and happy.
The state is the institutionalized division between political power and the social body. The state enshrines a division between those who dominate, those who are endowed with the privilege of knowledge and enforcing their commands over the bodies of others, and the dominated who are denied knowledge, and by virtue of this ignorance must obey these commands. State is problematic. It is not a part of nature and its coming to be in societies must not be assumed as a natural given, but must be explained. The relationship of command and obedience backed by violence and the separation of the political and the social are historical contingencies that are not necessarily desirable.
The stateless societies are regarded as incomplete, but according to histories and premises that are alien to them. To a person living in one of these societies the teleology according to which they are thought about is quite nonsensical, and runs counter to their desires and ideas of what social life should be. Clastres claims that evolutionism constitutes a "neo-theology of history" in its confused idea that what has happened in some areas of the world must of necessity be destined to happen in all areas of the world. All in all, Clastres thinks that state is not an obligation for societies, and he states his observations for his arguments(South American Indian groups)
According to Clastres, there is no obligation to defend the progress based on the historical relations of production. In primitive societies don't produce as much of the U.S. southern community that will encourage/force structure is not a political ties. Because men are working 2-3 hours per day, more work right to hoard food as possible. One of the men next to the extra production if the slave is not his servant, it helps to consume the extra production of. about the society's chief political power in question is over. Considering the expectations of society can't take him from office, often they kill.
according to clastres,not only possible to live without government, is necessary in. In this way,On the basis of Western culture creates its own development "State of absolute therapeutic, evolutionary" model attempts to invert and looks back to the primitive society.In this communal,needs of the production was made up,the winner and no loser,are race-free society.not from the chief to the community, the society is to the chief.communities purposely does not take the time to work.instead,games, dancing, entertainment, recreational purposes such as the smarter approach.
For Clastres, the society is against the states. He defines the state as the regulation of violence; it may be the origin of it and the economics and politics are inconsistent with the character of the society. Primitive societies are societies without a State. That means that societies need "something" , they have "something" missing. That "something" is the State. Societies are incomplete without a state. They are incomplete without when they are not civilized. The societies don't need rules. They don't need hierarchy. They don't need rules, slaves, kings etc. because they shouldn't have competetion in them. The society needs to choose a chief that they trust. Clastres throughout the 1960s,he lived with Indian groups in Paraguay and Venezuela. In the book he offers examples of South American Indian groups that, although without hierarchical leadership, were both affluent and complex. And for him, The state is seen as but a specific constellation of hierarchical power peculiar only to societies who have failed to maintain these mechanisms which prevent separation from happening.
Clastres thought that there is no obligation to defend the progress which are based on the historical relations of production. for him, state has ability and it's just a legal despotism. he said that people would be more happy if there aren't states, because state means "classifying the society". ıf we classify the society, we made the hierarchie with our hands. that means people are not equal to eachother.
Eylül Topanoğlu Law 150.22 According to Clastres state is built upon a relation between the governer and the governed. The need for the state is a result of composing this relation between the one who gives orders and the one who obeys them. Laws regulize this hierarchy and state applies them. Force and state are together because force is the way to make people obey laws. This is why as Clastres says we can't think force and state separately. This is the standart model according to the western world however it is not the only example and there is no standart description for state. Society on the otherhand works like a machine and there is no need for an organization to govern. It has it's own rules and punishments. People know that society will isolate them if they do not obey the rules. So there is an instinct in people which says they should be the part of the society. It is a natural act of humanbeings to live in a society therefor society is like a mechanism which governs itself. There is no need for regulations created by people and so there is no need for a state. Another important thing that Clastres states in his book is state which creates the hierarchy between people ,also creates unequality between them. This is againts the nature of society and causes wars, pain and happiness. In conclusion Clastres thinks that society can live without the guidence of a state.
According to Clastres, stateless societies are irregular and kingless; these are the race-free societies, where only needs of the production is done, the winner and losers are unclear. The ruling is not from the chief to society, but from the society to chief. Chefs are someone who are without orders, has to talk nicely and be generous and are deprived of power and authority. The chefs who are attempting to become chief are abandoned.
He bears to show that, states are not necessary for social life. His purpose is not explaining the political change, but explaining the political stability; expressing the history of struggling against the state. But in a society without such state, does everything happen as desired? I think not, because the society needs order for living, and the institution to meet this need is state. Because every human being in society is not the same, each individual may not be satisfied with his/her own work and win, if we are to say more clearly; individuals always want more. This ambition to win directs people to commit crimes. And, right that point, the government comes in and eliminates all problems which would disrupt the social order. To achieve this, it operates the law enforcement and judicial system. As these kinds of organizations would not exist in non-governmental societies, weak are doomed to be crushed.
If we look at the stateless society by economic aspect, if primitive societies can not produce surplus value, it is because they are lack of the power to produce this surplus value; so, by abundance of occupation, they only can live, produce the least necessary amount. Technological opportunities in a society without government would not be, factory will not occur, therefore, there would be very limited production and would be for necessery needs.
In stateless societies, the individuals who want to have power will replace the state. And the people with this power will direct the society, take the freedom away. They will act iniquitously and will prevent the development of society.
As a result, in stateless societies, people will not be able for self-improvement, as a result, society will not develop. Such a society would be a primitive society. And is ultimately doomed to extinction.
Clastres thinks that the society is against the state. Primitave societies had chiefs, but they didn't want a state system. They didn't want a crowded population, they sometimes killed their children before they were born. They think that if population increases, then there will be a state. Their chifs were people who knows to talk very well. They were generous and benovelent people. That's why the people admire. They composed people's differences. For Clastres the state means classifying the society, and he thinks like J.J.R.: stateless society is better, everybody is happy and equal. But I think there was always a difference and there will be. There was difference between women and men; women couldn't touch a men's arc because of fear. I think it is a discrimination too.
Clastres thinks that the society is against the state. Primitave societies had chiefs, but they didn't want a state system. They didn't want a crowded population, they sometimes killed their children before they were born. They think that if population increases, then there will be a state. Their chifs were people who knows to talk very well. They were generous and benovelent people. That's why the people admire. They composed people's differences. For Clastres the state means classifying the society, and he thinks like J.J.R.: stateless society is better, everybody is happy and equal. But I think there was always a difference and there will be. There was difference between women and men; women couldn't touch a men's arc because of fear. I think it is a discrimination too.
Clastres thinks that the society is against the state. Primitave societies had chiefs, but they didn't want a state system. They didn't want a crowded population, they sometimes killed their children before they were born. They think that if population increases, then there will be a state. Their chifs were people who knows to talk very well. They were generous and benovelent people. That's why the people admire. They composed people's differences. For Clastres the state means classifying the society, and he thinks like J.J.R.: stateless society is better, everybody is happy and equal. But I think there was always a difference and there will be. There was difference between women and men; women couldn't touch a men's arc because of fear. I think it is a discrimination too.
Mehveş Erdem Law 150.22 Clastres, believes that the derivation of the state lies in the three basics; chaos, nature and power. Primitive societies define the state or the power as the nature which will lead the society in to the chaos, but societies with states defines it as the power which will stop the chaos that the nature creates and controls. Nietzsche and Max Webber believed that state relies on force and the state can not exist without force. Clastres believes that we can not divide societies as the societies who have states and who have not, he believes that political power is universal. State shows itself in two ways: compulsive state which is based on order and obedience; this is seen as the general example because of the western states however it’s just a special situation. The second one is the power which is not compulsive. When Clastres analyzed primitive societies, he figured that the chiefs do not have power and the policies that rely on force and hierarchy. So a society does not have to be built upon these two elements (force and hierarchy), if we acknowledge these two as the definition of state (as the western world) then it’s clear that there were societies which lived without it.
According to Clastres, state is a tool for the powerful to control the powerless.In this context, the weapon of the state is law. States use this weapon to manipulate the powerless. The more it manipulates, the more it gains force. This is the link between states and force. When states form up in a society, it brings inequalities and social classes along with itself. However, in stateless societies there is no sign of inequality and social classes. Stateless societies work only for surviving in nature and nothing more. Therefore no one tries to earn more than they need. This leads to an equal society, where everyone gets only what they need. But when states form up, people start to work for more than they need, they work for the state or someone else who holds the power in his/her hand. Another point that Clastre makes is that stateless societies has their own rules which comes as an intinct. They have a chief in control, but this doesn't mean that they must obey the chief or do everything the chief says. Chief is there because people show respect. Even though they don't have a state or a king on top of everything, they have their own arrangements. For example, they stick to their ritual rules, even though there is not a place where they will be judged. According to the western point of view, these stateless societies are not civilized and they are the 'seeds' of states. However, Clastres defend the opposite. He thinks that there is not a standard for labeling societies as civilized or not. The fact of having a state or not having a state is not a way to show that a society is civilized. Also the metaphor of "seeds" is wrong because stateless societies are still living in todays world and they don't have to grow up to be a state.
The book concentrates on a primitive societies and gives as an example some groups in South-America. Clastres underlines the fact that the supervisors in these societies had very limited power.They were admired because of their generosity and better way of talking.This admiration gave a kind of influence to these supervisors. Accordingly, as per Clastres these societies were resisting the creation of modern state.
Clastres believes that a society without a state is required. In order to obtain justice and equality, societies need to survive without some force ruling them. He defines the idea of state as the regulation of violence; law makes violence possible under the name of government. According to him, we can not distinguish the societies which have states and which have not, in all of them there is a need for authority and order, but states misuses this power and use society as a servant; people get to believe that they don’t work for themselves but for their powerful states. He uses the Guayaki tribes as an example. In these tribes, there is a spokesman who represents them. The society respects him, but if he misuses his authorization he gets excluded from the society. The hierarchy and force is a need for all the societies, but the states make this more like an imposition.
According to Clastres, society always tried to stop the power which is capable of dominate them. That’s why they didn’t give power to their chiefs. Chief’s duty was to ensure the peace. When the chief tried to use the power for his benefits, the society dismissed him. This was their internal policy: Don’t let anyone to take the power and control the society. Everbody was equal but there were differerent responsibilities of women and men. Society was producing what they need, nothing more. They were not ambitious. Their external policy was fighting with another communities to protect their internal structure. They sometimes need to make agreements too. Society always ran away from the state but state is the unavoidable end of a society. The society who is against to state, always gives up. State takes the control and separates the society into pieces as rich and poor. To conclude, a community who doesn’t have a history fights idea of state but a community who has a history, is in a struggle of classes.
According to Clastres, the society can live without the state how the primitive societies had been lived for ages. There is an opinion about the emergence time of the state which Clastres always objects: “for the emergence of the state, the society must be divided different classes which depend on each other with their exploitation relationship. So the structure of the society (classifying) should be borned before the emergence of the state apparatus.” Clastres says that the reasons of the emergence of classifying is the oppressiveness (the essence of state).
Primitive societies don’t allow the state apparatus. Each tribe has a chief, but the chief doesn’t have an authority over the tribe. Members of the tribe doesn’t give chief a power to manage them. Clastres believes that the state appears when the authority rises. But when the society keeps on their living without an authority and inequality, they will achieve to be saved from the oppressiveness of the state power.
For Clastres, the society against to the state. Clastres thought that live without the state is required.Clastres thought that the society doesn’t need to become a state. According to Clastres, some societies are against to being a state. For Clastres, the state has an ability. All of the people could be more happy without a state.Because Clastres thought that a state is giving damage to people. But stateless society is equal.For Clastres, stateless socities are irregular.
According to Clastres society without a political power is unthinkable and living without a state is not abstinence for the primitive societies. He believes that there is a law without state and he uses the spokesman to explain this. In the Guayaki tribes there is a spokesman and expression is the only power which they have. They don’t establish authority against the people who live in the tribe because they do not have power. Also Clastres believes that we can not divide the societies according to their political power. He said that there are a two political power (actually this is state) which are compulsive state and not compulsive. When hierarchy begin to appear people which is wealthy need law. And at last he mentions the source of the state is allegation and there is a state in this allegation which is said by prophet.
In primitive societies, there is no state.It is reel every society have a leader but not despot. Primative people don't give permission to somebody is othority so there is equality between people.However,when the state come,it ruined equality. Before the state,people didn't have to produce that more over needs so there was no hardworking,people were happy.After state borned,people became busy for somebody who is greedy, not themselves.Greedy people take control the power thanks to state and they have established world of slavery. Do Politicians,speakers of the state,work for us?of course not.They work only for rich people to make them richer like wall-street men in USA. We are slaves of this system.I have to defeat my rivals to survive.I chose this life?the state forces me I work for it.If I don't work for it,I can not live in trust.It is true if there isn't state,there will be chaos people kill themselves.Therefore it is neccesary to be state but it shouldn't make people slave,it should protect fredoom of us from greedy monsters.
According to Clastres, the ideal form of society is the primitive society because there is no political authority. There is no hierarchy between people since there are no inequalities. In this society people don’t produce surplus because they don’t think about the future; their only aim is to seize the day. There is only a chief who can be called as a leader. He is only maintaining peace within the society but lacks any political authority. To Clastres, this form is what human nature requires and to leave it for political authority would corrupt human beings. Therefore he thinks of the state as a corruption. He says that the state would create hierarchy among people and this would require some people to work harder for producing what other people needs. The primitive people who didn’t produce surplus lived happy because they didn’t have to work more than they need. If there is a state, people will work harder to produce surplus and this would make them unhappy. The chief who lacked political authority was not able to form a small form of state but if he had any authority, this would be called as the primitive state. Then the corruption would begin with the desire of having more than people actually need.
according to clastres, society is against the states which means society doesnt need any rules or kings, doesnt have any winners or losers,in short doesnt have hierarchy, and no competition, they just work for a reasonable goal. but in state there is a competition and this cause classification of the society. everyone works to belong more and more. some loses some wins. this classification means it is a tool to control the powerless so this shows the system is not equal for everyone.
According to Clastres primitive societies were stateless. They didn’t allow any kind of competition, they didn’t let the manufacturing beat them, they preferred a difficult freedom to a comfortable servitude. So they forbade inequality without formulating. It is obvious that a society can live without state because a society can constitute their own balance . So how did states founded? According to Clastres, the anwser of this question isn’t about economical reasons like personal property. Population increase involved many consequences. Because everything started to get out of society’s control. And with this some religious formations started. This situtation distracted many people and society seperated in different ways. There is always inequalitys in everything but with states inequalitys became offical. For Clastres we will never know the exact reason that why did we turn into societies with state but we know one thing wery well : we will never go back to that state of nature again.
In primitive societies people were equal. Clastres thought that primitive societies -maybe without formulating- banned the inequality by not enslaving the working, by producing food amount of consuming because by producing enough to consume, they obstructed the rivalty. And in an equal place, they didn’t need to have a state. According to Clastres primitive societies were stateless, but this doesn’t mean that their developments haven’t finished yet, a state is not an essential thing for a society, even today the existence of the barbaric communities is a proof of that. The essential part is the need of an authority, an order. Example of an barbaric community in the book shows that altough they lived in a great equality, for foreclosing the chaos they needed a representer, that’s why they chose a spokesman. But this didn’t destroy their equality because they gave the spokesman no power,there were no sanction.
Çiğdem Yılmaz Law 150.22 The state necessitates hierarchy and forcing. That's why there is no general equality and there are rules which are required to obey with sanctions in the state. Discrimination of governing and governed is clear and sine qua non whereas there is a chief of primitive assemblages. The differences of governer of state and chief of primitive colloctivity are the governer has authority on public and the right to apply sanctions. On the other hand the power of chief on assamblage is almost nothinhg. The other disparity between state and barbaric collevticity is the features of their people. The people of state need to be governed and to be forced. They got used that. Per contra the people of primitive assamblages are more self contained and equal.
Sidal Karaman Law 150.22 Social relation of power to a significant, depending on the order- obedience relationship emerges. Here, on this basis is not relationship societies, we can conclude that the absence of power.The essence of power and this power is based on the presence and severity of the violence can not be considered separately. When we examine primitive societies, these societies and their economic livelihood of writings that they know are in the process. Also almost all primitive societies were ruled by chiefs, but it lacks the power to be chefs, one of the important features of this community. These communities as they are deprived of power, coercion and violence that is for from any kind of politics, as they do not have any command- obedience relationship. Exceptin special circumstances such as war, or to offer to take orders far for a local think something is inconsistent. Most of the indigenous communities of the USA's most important features of democracy an equality is found. Moreover, these communities differ from state law or the law of kings have. Law of written on the top. In this way , do not forget who they are and where they come.primitive societies are societies without states, because it is impossible for society to enarge in the state, but this community is skeptical of the politics of power in society ungrammatical and kingless been. But state is seen as a force that can be requested. The essence of the state uses violence. thus state societies manage and managed and as a result manage managed pressure to establish a special property out.State's societies rich and poor separation when primitive societies one neighboor in earning more is not such a distinction is not. The most important difference between society and state , arising from a state authority, hierarchy , when there is power relations , demination over the people in the community tı ensure there is no such mechanism.
umur varat 150.02 Clastres thought is he thinks that there is no equality between people. Because there is two side one of them is government other one is people because of this there is no equality. He discovered the south of America and he know their life. They pick one person he controls the other ones but there is a rule he must do what ever others want. there is no hierarchy thats shy they are equal
Clastres believe that all the people in the society must feel that they are all equal. So no one will try to rule another one. The leader of the society, is not the leader in reality. He can only rule people during war times.In peace, he can only make unimportant speeches and help the people in the society. The economic life is also a factor that defends the equality. The state that clastres portrates is a place with equality, constant economy,and war for sport.
Esra Anadol 150.02 According to Pierre Clastres, We can not think the society which has no state.The state is destiny of all of society.The primitive societies is without state.The primitive societies have chefs.The chef is architect of peace.And he can not have authority. but the chef has a lot of rights.The chef represents state. If the primitiv society obey chef,they can be happy.Although they can not have state, they live in peace.Although women and men has no same rights,they don't fight. Sometimes we think that the state is for society.The state which don't have state,have no history and market.The primitiv society doesn't refuse economy.The primitiv societies which are without rules and kings.When the society has state,civilazition and ferocity happened in society.
cansu karakoç law150.21 said... Barbaric community is stateless community . Clatres says barbaric community devoid to government and Government is indispensable for barbaric community like others..so this community uncompleted to development. ı mean real sense they don't to become civilized .. moreover they feel pain devoid to government passionately. According to Clatres, stateless community can't be thougth, so the government is the reason of existence of all society. Besides according to Clatres, puissance isn't from supervisor to society, it is from society to supervisor. Supervisors are people who don't give orders, must talk good and must be generous, are void of power and authorization
According to Pierre Clastres there is two important points. First one is the state is against to society and second one is there is no equality between people. This equality starts with “privite property”. Society can live with their own rules and everbody has to obey these rules to protect their satute in that society. Actually there is no need to a state. People require a leader but this doesn't mean that they need states directions. In primitive societies there is no state and everbody is equal and happier. They have a chef but he has no power and abnormal authority. He just has to provide peace, has to be generous and do a good elocution. Besides in primitive societies there is no thing like private property. Pierre Clastres defend societies without states can survive too.
Deniz Selin Ersin Law 150.21 According to Pierre Clastres there is two important points. First one is the state is against to society and second one is there is no equality between people. This equality starts with “privite property”. Society can live with their own rules and everbody has to obey these rules to protect their satute in that society. Actually there is no need to a state. People require a leader but this doesn't mean that they need states directions. In primitive societies there is no state and everbody is equal and happier. They have a chef but he has no power and abnormal authority. He just has to provide peace, has to be generous and do a good elocution. Besides in primitive societies there is no thing like private property. Pierre Clastres defend societies without states can survive too.
Clastres says that society don't need a state. Primitive societies are societies without a state. They were living together without law. Also they didn't have any authority. There was a chief but, the chief had no power over the society. In fact he must do everything that society want. Everybody was equal at that times. They were producing as much as they need so no one was richer than the others. State means legal despotism for Clastres.People could be happier without state because when state exist it brings difference between classes.
Clastres thinks that becoming a state gives a small group of people or one person gives complete dominance over everybody else . he thinks that state is not necessary to live a good life, when their is a state everybody is treated different according to their class , laws effect the way everybody acts because when their is laws it causes violence and hate towards the people and or the person at the top.
According to Clastres society ment that everybody was equal nobody had more power then the other, chiefs had to do everything society wanted chief did not have power over society . Clastres thinks that state is not an obligation for society.
For Clastres, the society was better against the state. Clastres thought that life without the state is required.Clastres thought that the society doesn’t need to become a state. According to Clastres, some societies are against to being a state. All of the people could be more happy without a state. But stateless society is equal.In conclusin Clastres thinks stateless society is better.
Clastres thinks that becoming a state gives a small group of people or one person gives complete dominance over everybody else . he thinks that state is not necessary to live a good life, when their is a state everybody is treated different according to their class , laws effect the way everybody acts because when their is laws it causes violence and hate towards the people and or the person at the top.
According to Clastres society ment that everybody was equal nobody had more power then the other, chiefs had to do everything society wanted chief did not have power over society . Clastres thinks that state is not an obligation for society. For Clastres, the society was better against the state. Clastres thought that life without the state is required.Clastres thought that the society doesn’t need to become a state.
According to Clastres, some societies are against to being a state. All of the people could be more happy without a state. But stateless society is equal.In conclusin Clastres thinks stateless society is better.
Idea of Clastres is quite simple and understandable. He thinks that every society needs liberty and convenience little bit. But also every society has to need some leader (called chief or something else) to shape their decisions. They need some decision-maker. They made their rules and lived together for years. They didn't need any state or something like this ever. Because they had no privacy or no private property. They are all equal and supporter of equality.
Idea of Clastres is quite simple and understandable. He thinks that every society needs liberty and convenience little bit. But also every society has to need some leader (called chief or something else) to shape their decisions. They need some decision-maker. They made their rules and lived together for years. They didn't need any state or something like this ever. Because they had no privacy or no private property. They are all equal and supporter of equality.
Primitive societies are societies without state. This point of view also means that societies need a state and they are incomplete without it. Only a society with state is civilized. But according to Clastres, a society without a state is also a civilized society. They don’t need to have a state or strict rules to complete their development. Also there are some societies that are against to be a state. Becoming a state isn’t the only ideal way for societies. All the people could be more happy and peaceful without a state. Ironically the “primitive” society is more equal than a state. Because there was no meaningless power struggle or cupidity in these societies. They lived together without law. Also they didn’t have a strict authority. They only had a chief, who had no power over the society. In todays world we are producing and working to be richer and we think that it will make us happy. But “primitive” societies were producing as much as they need and it was enough to make them happy. They didn’t use bootless effort. In conclusion, Clastres thought that life without a state is better for human nature and psychology.
Barbaric community is stateless community . Clatres says barbaric community devoid to government and Government is indispensable for barbaric community like others..so this community uncompleted to development. ı mean real sense they don't to become civilized .. moreover they feel pain devoid to government passionately. According to Clatres, stateless community can't be thougth, so the government is the reason of existence of all society. Besides according to Clatres, puissance isn't from supervisor to society, it is from society to supervisor. Supervisors are people who don't give orders, must talk good and must be generous, are void of power and authorization
ReplyDeleteDemet Gecebeği
ReplyDelete150.21
According to Clastres, the state is only seen in the societies that couldn’t obtain the autonomy. If the power becomes despotic in a society, the state cannot be obstructed. While Clastres observes Guayaki tribes in Paraguay, he deduce that the chief only have a representative authority in his tribe. He is only the spokesman for his people who represent them towards other tribes. Besides, if he misuses his role, he will be excluded from his society. Hereby, he can never turn himself to a leader who owns all the authority. For Clastres, living without a state is necessary and required. Also, the societies shouldn’t have rules and kings, winners or losers or any competitions according to him. The authority should be given by the society itself to the chief. The societies shouldn’t waste their times by working aimless, they should have “reasonable” goals such as dancing, resting and having fun. If a society doesn’t have these qualifications they are depend on a state. Overall, Clastres only ambition is to explain that the societies actually doesn’t require for a state and there are some societies who has made it without a state until today.
The thing Clastrein has defined as foreign policy means to be half in
ReplyDeletewar.Actually it was not a real war.it was accepted as a social
classes' war. The citizens had been in this war to protect themselves
from the bad affects of the social discriminations.In fact it became a
longer period war because of the discriminations in the classes and
the recreated power and government relationship in every other
situations,but the society was exactly against to this situation which
was called ''class discrimination'' This social formation is very
close to today's 2 groups of people. The ones who are underestimated
and mostly humiliated and the others who underestimate and
humiliate. For this reason it can be concluded that primitive people
gave the first examples of the discriminations,which are presented us
as a must, to us in those days.
The thing clastrein has defined as foreign policy means to be half in
war.actually it was not a real war..it was accepted as a social
classes' war. The citizens had been in this war to protect themselves
from the bad affects of the social discriminations.In fact it became a
longer_period war because of the discriminations in the classes and
the recreated power and government relationship in every other
situations,but the society was exactly against to this situation which
was called ''class discrimination'' This social formation is very
close to today's 2 groups of people. The ones who are underestimated
and mostly humiliated and the others who underestimate and
humiliate.for this reason it can be concluded that primitive people
gave the first examples of the discriminations,which are presented us
as a must, to us in those days.
Zeynep Aslıhan SARI Law 150.23
ReplyDeleteAccording to Engels, society improves step by step. Firstly society then simple state etc. He thought that law can exist and progress with this steps. Against to him, Clartres thought that society doesn't need to become a state.
Accordng to Clartres, some societies are agains to being a state. Because, Becoming a state means that inequality for them. So they try to control population. They think that If the population increases, a state can occur. They try to give limited authorization to their chiefs because they don't want their chiefs to achieve dominance.
He did research in South America. He used North America, Africa and Australia examples for proving his thoughts.
The thing Clastrein has defined as foreign policy means to be half in
ReplyDeletewar.Actually it was not a real war.it was accepted as a social
classes' war. The citizens had been in this war to protect themselves
from the bad affects of the social discriminations.In fact it became a
longer period war because of the discriminations in the classes and
the recreated power and government relationship in every other
situations,but the society was exactly against to this situation which
was called ''class discrimination'' This social formation is very
close to today's 2 groups of people. The ones who are underestimated
and mostly humiliated and the others who underestimate and
humiliate. For this reason it can be concluded that primitive people
gave the first examples of the discriminations,which are presented us
as a must, to us in those days.
The thing clastrein has defined as foreign policy means to be half in
war.actually it was not a real war..it was accepted as a social
classes' war. The citizens had been in this war to protect themselves
from the bad affects of the social discriminations.In fact it became a
longer_period war because of the discriminations in the classes and
the recreated power and government relationship in every other
situations,but the society was exactly against to this situation which
was called ''class discrimination'' This social formation is very
close to today's 2 groups of people. The ones who are underestimated
and mostly humiliated and the others who underestimate and
humiliate.for this reason it can be concluded that primitive people
gave the first examples of the discriminations,which are presented us
as a must, to us in those days.
Aybüke Çakırel
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.21
According to Clastres, society can be stateless. Primitive society, people lived together without law. They had chief but chief didn’t have any power over the society. They didn’t give permission that chief turned to despotism. Moreover chief must be bountiful and chief must do everything which society wanted. Everybody was equal in this system. They produced something as much as their demand. So no one was rich more than the other, prosperity mean nothing according to this society.
For Clastres, state has ability. State is just legal despotism. People could be more happy without state because state means classifying society, people don’t equal on this system. State apply sanctions on society. We think that every society must have state because of ethnocentrism. But stateless society is equal and happy.
The state is the institutionalized division between political power and the social body. The state enshrines a division between those who dominate, those who are endowed with the privilege of knowledge and enforcing their commands over the bodies of others, and the dominated who are denied knowledge, and by virtue of this ignorance must obey these commands. State is problematic. It is not a part of nature and its coming to be in societies must not be assumed as a natural given, but must be explained. The relationship of command and obedience backed by violence and the separation of the political and the social are historical contingencies that are not necessarily desirable.
ReplyDeleteThe stateless societies are regarded as incomplete, but according to histories and premises that are alien to them. To a person living in one of these societies the teleology according to which they are thought about is quite nonsensical, and runs counter to their desires and ideas of what social life should be. Clastres claims that evolutionism constitutes a "neo-theology of history" in its confused idea that what has happened in some areas of the world must of necessity be destined to happen in all areas of the world. All in all, Clastres thinks that state is not an obligation for societies, and he states his observations for his arguments(South American Indian groups)
Serkan Temizel
ReplyDeleteLaw150.21
According to Clastres, there is no obligation to defend the progress based on the historical relations of production. In primitive societies don't produce as much of the U.S. southern community that will encourage/force structure is not a political ties. Because men are working 2-3 hours per day, more work right to hoard food as possible. One of the men next to the extra production if the slave is not his servant, it helps to consume the extra production of. about the society's chief political power in question is over. Considering the expectations of society can't take him from office, often they kill.
according to clastres,not only possible to live without government, is necessary in. In this way,On the basis of Western culture creates its own development "State of absolute therapeutic, evolutionary" model attempts to invert and looks back to the primitive society.In this communal,needs of the production was made up,the winner and no loser,are race-free society.not from the chief to the community, the society is to the chief.communities purposely does not take the time to work.instead,games, dancing, entertainment, recreational purposes such as the smarter approach.
ReplyDeleteSevgi AKYOL CEVIRIR
ReplyDeleteLAW 150.21
For Clastres, the society is against the states. He defines the state as the regulation of violence; it may be the origin of it and the economics and politics are inconsistent with the character of the society. Primitive societies are societies without a State. That means that societies need "something" , they have "something" missing. That "something" is the State. Societies are incomplete without a state. They are incomplete without when they are not civilized. The societies don't need rules. They don't need hierarchy. They don't need rules, slaves, kings etc. because they shouldn't have competetion in them. The society needs to choose a chief that they trust. Clastres throughout the 1960s,he lived with Indian groups in Paraguay and Venezuela. In the book he offers examples of South American Indian groups that, although without hierarchical leadership, were both affluent and complex. And for him, The state is seen as but a specific constellation of hierarchical power peculiar only to societies who have failed to maintain these mechanisms which prevent separation from happening.
Özge Oğuz law 150.23
ReplyDeleteClastres thought that there is no obligation to defend the progress which are based on the historical relations of production. for him, state has ability and it's just a legal despotism. he said that people would be more happy if there aren't states, because state means "classifying the society". ıf we classify the society, we made the hierarchie with our hands. that means people are not equal to eachother.
Eylül Topanoğlu Law 150.22
ReplyDeleteAccording to Clastres state is built upon a relation between the governer and the governed. The need for the state is a result of composing this relation between the one who gives orders and the one who obeys them. Laws regulize this hierarchy and state applies them. Force and state are together because force is the way to make people obey laws. This is why as Clastres says we can't think force and state separately. This is the standart model according to the western world however it is not the only example and there is no standart description for state.
Society on the otherhand works like a machine and there is no need for an organization to govern. It has it's own rules and punishments. People know that society will isolate them if they do not obey the rules. So there is an instinct in people which says they should be the part of the society. It is a natural act of humanbeings to live in a society therefor society is like a mechanism which governs itself. There is no need for regulations created by people and so there is no need for a state. Another important thing that Clastres states in his book is state which creates the hierarchy between people ,also creates unequality between them. This is againts the nature of society and causes wars, pain and happiness.
In conclusion Clastres thinks that society can live without the guidence of a state.
According to Clastres, stateless societies are irregular and kingless; these are the race-free societies, where only needs of the production is done, the winner and losers are unclear. The ruling is not from the chief to society, but from the society to chief. Chefs are someone who are without orders, has to talk nicely and be generous and are deprived of power and authority. The chefs who are attempting to become chief are abandoned.
ReplyDeleteHe bears to show that, states are not necessary for social life. His purpose is not explaining the political change, but explaining the political stability; expressing the history of struggling against the state. But in a society without such state, does everything happen as desired? I think not, because the society needs order for living, and the institution to meet this need is state. Because every human being in society is not the same, each individual may not be satisfied with his/her own work and win, if we are to say more clearly; individuals always want more. This ambition to win directs people to commit crimes. And, right that point, the government comes in and eliminates all problems which would disrupt the social order. To achieve this, it operates the law enforcement and judicial system. As these kinds of organizations would not exist in non-governmental societies, weak are doomed to be crushed.
If we look at the stateless society by economic aspect, if primitive societies can not produce surplus value, it is because they are lack of the power to produce this surplus value; so, by abundance of occupation, they only can live, produce the least necessary amount. Technological opportunities in a society without government would not be, factory will not occur, therefore, there would be very limited production and would be for necessery needs.
In stateless societies, the individuals who want to have power will replace the state. And the people with this power will direct the society, take the freedom away. They will act iniquitously and will prevent the development of society.
As a result, in stateless societies, people will not be able for self-improvement, as a result, society will not develop. Such a society would be a primitive society. And is ultimately doomed to extinction.
Clastres thinks that the society is against the state. Primitave societies had chiefs, but they didn't want a state system. They didn't want a crowded population, they sometimes killed their children before they were born. They think that if population increases, then there will be a state. Their chifs were people who knows to talk very well. They were generous and benovelent people. That's why the people admire. They composed people's differences.
ReplyDeleteFor Clastres the state means classifying the society, and he thinks like J.J.R.: stateless society is better, everybody is happy and equal. But I think there was always a difference and there will be. There was difference between women and men; women couldn't touch a men's arc because of fear. I think it is a discrimination too.
İrem Peker
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.23
Clastres thinks that the society is against the state. Primitave societies had chiefs, but they didn't want a state system. They didn't want a crowded population, they sometimes killed their children before they were born. They think that if population increases, then there will be a state. Their chifs were people who knows to talk very well. They were generous and benovelent people. That's why the people admire. They composed people's differences.
For Clastres the state means classifying the society, and he thinks like J.J.R.: stateless society is better, everybody is happy and equal. But I think there was always a difference and there will be. There was difference between women and men; women couldn't touch a men's arc because of fear. I think it is a discrimination too.
İrem Peker
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.23
Clastres thinks that the society is against the state. Primitave societies had chiefs, but they didn't want a state system. They didn't want a crowded population, they sometimes killed their children before they were born. They think that if population increases, then there will be a state. Their chifs were people who knows to talk very well. They were generous and benovelent people. That's why the people admire. They composed people's differences.
For Clastres the state means classifying the society, and he thinks like J.J.R.: stateless society is better, everybody is happy and equal. But I think there was always a difference and there will be. There was difference between women and men; women couldn't touch a men's arc because of fear. I think it is a discrimination too.
Mehveş Erdem
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.22
Clastres, believes that the derivation of the state lies in the three basics; chaos, nature and power. Primitive societies define the state or the power as the nature which will lead the society in to the chaos, but societies with states defines it as the power which will stop the chaos that the nature creates and controls. Nietzsche and Max Webber believed that state relies on force and the state can not exist without force. Clastres believes that we can not divide societies as the societies who have states and who have not, he believes that political power is universal. State shows itself in two ways: compulsive state which is based on order and obedience; this is seen as the general example because of the western states however it’s just a special situation. The second one is the power which is not compulsive. When Clastres analyzed primitive societies, he figured that the chiefs do not have power and the policies that rely on force and hierarchy. So a society does not have to be built upon these two elements (force and hierarchy), if we acknowledge these two as the definition of state (as the western world) then it’s clear that there were societies which lived without it.
Bensu Aydın
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.22
According to Clastres, state is a tool for the powerful to control the powerless.In this context, the weapon of the state is law. States use this weapon to manipulate the powerless. The more it manipulates, the more it gains force. This is the link between states and force. When states form up in a society, it brings inequalities and social classes along with itself. However, in stateless societies there is no sign of inequality and social classes. Stateless societies work only for surviving in nature and nothing more. Therefore no one tries to earn more than they need. This leads to an equal society, where everyone gets only what they need. But when states form up, people start to work for more than they need, they work for the state or someone else who holds the power in his/her hand.
Another point that Clastre makes is that stateless societies has their own rules which comes as an intinct. They have a chief in control, but this doesn't mean that they must obey the chief or do everything the chief says. Chief is there because people show respect. Even though they don't have a state or a king on top of everything, they have their own arrangements. For example, they stick to their ritual rules, even though there is not a place where they will be judged. According to the western point of view, these stateless societies are not civilized and they are the 'seeds' of states. However, Clastres defend the opposite. He thinks that there is not a standard for labeling societies as civilized or not. The fact of having a state or not having a state is not a way to show that a society is civilized. Also the metaphor of "seeds" is wrong because stateless societies are still living in todays world and they don't have to grow up to be a state.
Lizan Kittani
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.23
The book concentrates on a primitive societies and gives as an example some groups in South-America.
Clastres underlines the fact that the supervisors in these societies had very limited power.They were admired because of their generosity and better way of talking.This admiration gave a kind of influence to these supervisors.
Accordingly, as per Clastres these societies were resisting the creation of modern state.
Sabahat Elif İPEK
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.22
Clastres believes that a society without a state is required. In order to obtain justice and equality, societies need to survive without some force ruling them. He defines the idea of state as the regulation of violence; law makes violence possible under the name of government. According to him, we can not distinguish the societies which have states and which have not, in all of them there is a need for authority and order, but states misuses this power and use society as a servant; people get to believe that they don’t work for themselves but for their powerful states. He uses the Guayaki tribes as an example. In these tribes, there is a spokesman who represents them. The society respects him, but if he misuses his authorization he gets excluded from the society. The hierarchy and force is a need for all the societies, but the states make this more like an imposition.
ESRA MANZAK LAW 150.23
ReplyDeleteAccording to Clastres, society always tried to stop the power which is capable of dominate them. That’s why they didn’t give power to their chiefs. Chief’s duty was to ensure the peace. When the chief tried to use the power for his benefits, the society dismissed him. This was their internal policy: Don’t let anyone to take the power and control the society. Everbody was equal but there were differerent responsibilities of women and men. Society was producing what they need, nothing more. They were not ambitious. Their external policy was fighting with another communities to protect their internal structure. They sometimes need to make agreements too. Society always ran away from the state but state is the unavoidable end of a society. The society who is against to state, always gives up. State takes the control and separates the society into pieces as rich and poor. To conclude, a community who doesn’t have a history fights idea of state but a community who has a history, is in a struggle of classes.
Halis İPEK
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.02
According to Clastres, the society can live without the state how the primitive societies had been lived for ages. There is an opinion about the emergence time of the state which Clastres always objects: “for the emergence of the state, the society must be divided different classes which depend on each other with their exploitation relationship. So the structure of the society (classifying) should be borned before the emergence of the state apparatus.” Clastres says that the reasons of the emergence of classifying is the oppressiveness (the essence of state).
Primitive societies don’t allow the state apparatus. Each tribe has a chief, but the chief doesn’t have an authority over the tribe. Members of the tribe doesn’t give chief a power to manage them. Clastres believes that the state appears when the authority rises. But when the society keeps on their living without an authority and inequality, they will achieve to be saved from the oppressiveness of the state power.
Elif Koca
ReplyDeletelaw 150.22
For Clastres, the society against to the state. Clastres thought that live without the state is required.Clastres thought that the society doesn’t need to become a state. According to Clastres, some societies are against to being a state. For Clastres, the state has an ability. All of the people could be more happy without a state.Because Clastres thought that a state is giving damage to people. But stateless society is equal.For Clastres, stateless socities are irregular.
According to Clastres society without a political power is unthinkable and living without a state is not abstinence for the primitive societies. He believes that there is a law without state and he uses the spokesman to explain this. In the Guayaki tribes there is a spokesman and expression is the only power which they have. They don’t establish authority against the people who live in the tribe because they do not have power. Also Clastres believes that we can not divide the societies according to their political power. He said that there are a two political power (actually this is state) which are compulsive state and not compulsive. When hierarchy begin to appear people which is wealthy need law. And at last he mentions the source of the state is allegation and there is a state in this allegation which is said by prophet.
ReplyDeleteFatih Bakırcı
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.02
In primitive societies, there is no state.It is reel every society have a leader but not despot. Primative people don't give permission to somebody is othority so there is equality between people.However,when the state come,it ruined equality.
Before the state,people didn't have to produce that more over needs so there was no hardworking,people were happy.After state borned,people became busy for somebody who is greedy, not themselves.Greedy people take control the power thanks to state and they have established world of slavery.
Do Politicians,speakers of the state,work for us?of course not.They work only for rich people to make them richer like wall-street men in USA.
We are slaves of this system.I have to defeat my rivals to survive.I chose this life?the state forces me I work for it.If I don't work for it,I can not live in trust.It is true if there isn't state,there will be chaos people kill themselves.Therefore it is neccesary to be state but it shouldn't make people slave,it should protect fredoom of us from greedy monsters.
According to Clastres, the ideal form of society is the primitive society because there is no political authority. There is no hierarchy between people since there are no inequalities. In this society people don’t produce surplus because they don’t think about the future; their only aim is to seize the day. There is only a chief who can be called as a leader. He is only maintaining peace within the society but lacks any political authority. To Clastres, this form is what human nature requires and to leave it for political authority would corrupt human beings. Therefore he thinks of the state as a corruption. He says that the state would create hierarchy among people and this would require some people to work harder for producing what other people needs. The primitive people who didn’t produce surplus lived happy because they didn’t have to work more than they need. If there is a state, people will work harder to produce surplus and this would make them unhappy. The chief who lacked political authority was not able to form a small form of state but if he had any authority, this would be called as the primitive state. Then the corruption would begin with the desire of having more than people actually need.
ReplyDeleteaccording to clastres, society is against the states which means society doesnt need any rules or kings, doesnt have any winners or losers,in short doesnt have hierarchy, and no competition, they just work for a reasonable goal. but in state there is a competition and this cause classification of the society. everyone works to belong more and more. some loses some wins. this classification means it is a tool to control the powerless so this shows the system is not equal for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Clastres primitive societies were stateless. They didn’t allow any kind of competition, they didn’t let the manufacturing beat them, they preferred a difficult freedom to a comfortable servitude. So they forbade inequality without formulating. It is obvious that a society can live without state because a society can constitute their own balance . So how did states founded? According to Clastres, the anwser of this question isn’t about economical reasons like personal property. Population increase involved many consequences. Because everything started to get out of society’s control. And with this some religious formations started. This situtation distracted many people and society seperated in different ways. There is always inequalitys in everything but with states inequalitys became offical. For Clastres we will never know the exact reason that why did we turn into societies with state but we know one thing wery well : we will never go back to that state of nature again.
ReplyDeleteIn primitive societies people were equal. Clastres thought that primitive societies -maybe without formulating- banned the inequality by not enslaving the working, by producing food amount of consuming because by producing enough to consume, they obstructed the rivalty. And in an equal place, they didn’t need to have a state. According to Clastres primitive societies were stateless, but this doesn’t mean that their developments haven’t finished yet, a state is not an essential thing for a society, even today the existence of the barbaric communities is a proof of that. The essential part is the need of an authority, an order. Example of an barbaric community in the book shows that altough they lived in a great equality, for foreclosing the chaos they needed a representer, that’s why they chose a spokesman. But this didn’t destroy their equality because they gave the spokesman no power,there were no sanction.
ReplyDeleteÇiğdem Yılmaz Law 150.22
ReplyDeleteThe state necessitates hierarchy and forcing. That's why there is no general equality and there are rules which are required to obey with sanctions in the state. Discrimination of governing and governed is clear and sine qua non whereas there is a chief of primitive assemblages. The differences of governer of state and chief of primitive colloctivity are the governer has authority on public and the right to apply sanctions. On the other hand the power of chief on assamblage is almost nothinhg. The other disparity between state and barbaric collevticity is the features of their people. The people of state need to be governed and to be forced. They got used that. Per contra the people of primitive assamblages are more self contained and equal.
Sidal Karaman
ReplyDeleteLaw 150.22
Social relation of power to a significant, depending on the order- obedience relationship emerges. Here, on this basis is not relationship societies, we can conclude that the absence of power.The essence of power and this power is based on the presence and severity of the violence can not be considered separately. When we examine primitive societies, these societies and their economic livelihood of writings that they know are in the process. Also almost all primitive societies were ruled by chiefs, but it lacks the power to be chefs, one of the important features of this community. These communities as they are deprived of power, coercion and violence that is for from any kind of politics, as they do not have any command- obedience relationship. Exceptin special circumstances such as war, or to offer to take orders far for a local think something is inconsistent. Most of the indigenous communities of the USA's most important features of democracy an equality is found. Moreover, these communities differ from state law or the law of kings have. Law of written on the top. In this way , do not forget who they are and where they come.primitive societies are societies without states, because it is impossible for society to enarge in the state, but this community is skeptical of the politics of power in society ungrammatical and kingless been. But state is seen as a force that can be requested. The essence of the state uses violence. thus state societies manage and managed and as a result manage managed pressure to establish a special property out.State's societies rich and poor separation when primitive societies one neighboor in earning more is not such a distinction is not. The most important difference between society and state , arising from a state authority, hierarchy , when there is power relations , demination over the people in the community tı ensure there is no such mechanism.
umur varat 150.02
ReplyDeleteClastres thought is he thinks that there is no equality between people. Because there is two side one of them is government other one is people because of this there is no equality. He discovered the south of America and he know their life. They pick one person he controls the other ones but there is a rule he must do what ever others want. there is no hierarchy thats shy they are equal
Murat Can Pehlivanoglu 150.02
ReplyDeleteClastres believe that all the people in the society must feel that they are all equal. So no one will try to rule another one.
The leader of the society, is not the leader in reality. He can only rule people during war times.In peace, he can only make unimportant speeches and help the people in the society.
The economic life is also a factor that defends the equality.
The state that clastres portrates is a place with equality, constant economy,and war for sport.
Esra Anadol 150.02
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pierre Clastres, We can not think
the society which has no state.The state is destiny of all of society.The primitive societies is without state.The primitive societies have chefs.The chef is architect of peace.And he can not have authority. but the chef has a lot of rights.The chef represents state. If the primitiv society obey chef,they can be happy.Although they can not have state,
they live in peace.Although women and men has no same rights,they don't fight. Sometimes we think that the state is for society.The state
which don't have state,have no history and market.The primitiv society doesn't refuse economy.The primitiv societies which are without rules and kings.When the society has state,civilazition and ferocity happened in society.
cansu karakoç law150.21 said...
ReplyDeleteBarbaric community is stateless community . Clatres says barbaric community devoid to government and Government is indispensable for barbaric community like others..so this community uncompleted to development. ı mean real sense they don't to become civilized .. moreover they feel pain devoid to government passionately. According to Clatres, stateless community can't be thougth, so the government is the reason of existence of all society. Besides according to Clatres, puissance isn't from supervisor to society, it is from society to supervisor. Supervisors are people who don't give orders, must talk good and must be generous, are void of power and authorization
According to Pierre Clastres there is two important points. First one is the state is against to society and second one is there is no equality between people. This equality starts with “privite property”. Society can live with their own rules and everbody has to obey these rules to protect their satute in that society. Actually there is no need to a state. People require a leader but this doesn't mean that they need states directions. In primitive societies there is no state and everbody is equal and happier. They have a chef but he has no power and abnormal authority. He just has to provide peace, has to be generous and do a good elocution. Besides in primitive societies there is no thing like private property. Pierre Clastres defend societies without states can survive too.
ReplyDeleteDeniz Selin Ersin Law 150.21
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pierre Clastres there is two important points. First one is the state is against to society and second one is there is no equality between people. This equality starts with “privite property”. Society can live with their own rules and everbody has to obey these rules to protect their satute in that society. Actually there is no need to a state. People require a leader but this doesn't mean that they need states directions. In primitive societies there is no state and everbody is equal and happier. They have a chef but he has no power and abnormal authority. He just has to provide peace, has to be generous and do a good elocution. Besides in primitive societies there is no thing like private property. Pierre Clastres defend societies without states can survive too.
Clastres says that society don't need a state. Primitive societies are societies without a state. They were living together without law. Also they didn't have any authority. There was a chief but, the chief had no power over the society. In fact he must do everything that society want. Everybody was equal at that times. They were producing as much as they need so no one was richer than the others.
ReplyDeleteState means legal despotism for Clastres.People could be happier without state because when state exist it brings difference between classes.
ELİF KOCA LAW 150.02
ReplyDeleteClastres thinks that becoming a state gives a small group of people or one person gives complete dominance over everybody else . he thinks that state is not necessary to live a good life, when their is a state everybody is treated different according to their class , laws effect the way everybody acts because when their is laws it causes violence and hate towards the people and or the person at the top.
According to Clastres society ment that everybody was equal nobody had more power then the other, chiefs had to do everything society wanted chief did not have power over society . Clastres thinks that state is not an obligation for society.
For Clastres, the society was better against the state. Clastres thought that life without the state is required.Clastres thought that the society doesn’t need to become a state. According to Clastres, some societies are against to being a state. All of the people could be more happy without a state. But stateless society is equal.In conclusin Clastres thinks stateless society is better.
ELİF KOCA LAW 150.02
ReplyDeleteClastres thinks that becoming a state gives a small group of people or one person gives complete dominance over everybody else . he thinks that state is not necessary to live a good life, when their is a state everybody is treated different according to their class , laws effect the way everybody acts because when their is laws it causes violence and hate towards the people and or the person at the top.
According to Clastres society ment that everybody was equal nobody had more power then the other, chiefs had to do everything society wanted chief did not have power over society . Clastres thinks that state is not an obligation for society.
For Clastres, the society was better against the state. Clastres thought that life without the state is required.Clastres thought that the society doesn’t need to become a state.
According to Clastres, some societies are against to being a state. All of the people could be more happy without a state. But stateless society is equal.In conclusin Clastres thinks stateless society is better.
Idea of Clastres is quite simple and understandable. He thinks that every society needs liberty and convenience little bit. But also every society has to need some leader (called chief or something else) to shape their decisions. They need some decision-maker. They made their rules and lived together for years. They didn't need any state or something like this ever. Because they had no privacy or no private property. They are all equal and supporter of equality.
ReplyDeleteIdea of Clastres is quite simple and understandable. He thinks that every society needs liberty and convenience little bit. But also every society has to need some leader (called chief or something else) to shape their decisions. They need some decision-maker. They made their rules and lived together for years. They didn't need any state or something like this ever. Because they had no privacy or no private property. They are all equal and supporter of equality.
ReplyDeletePrimitive societies are societies without state. This point of view also means that societies need a state and they are incomplete without it. Only a society with state is civilized. But according to Clastres, a society without a state is also a civilized society. They don’t need to have a state or strict rules to complete their development. Also there are some societies that are against to be a state. Becoming a state isn’t the only ideal way for societies. All the people could be more happy and peaceful without a state. Ironically the “primitive” society is more equal than a state. Because there was no meaningless power struggle or cupidity in these societies. They lived together without law. Also they didn’t have a strict authority. They only had a chief, who had no power over the society. In todays world we are producing and working to be richer and we think that it will make us happy. But “primitive” societies were producing as much as they need and it was enough to make them happy. They didn’t use bootless effort. In conclusion, Clastres thought that life without a state is better for human nature and psychology.
ReplyDelete