3.2 Defining the State

State is, and has been throughout history, one of the most frequently used terms. But, at the same time, it is one of the least understood and defined concepts. Despite the ignorance as to what it really entails, analyzing the concept state remains a fundamental issue in order to move beyond the social crisis. it is not only important to analyze the concept in historical context; the contemporary state must be analyzed as well. The worst aspect concerning the ignorance surrounding the concept is that even those who are running the state do not know what kind of vehicle it is they are driving. As for those who are excluded from the state (if there are any), they have misunderstood what the state is (the disaster of real-socialism is a good example of this). This lack of true understanding has led to a dead-end reminiscent of the state of confusion after the destruction of the Tower of Babel. More often than not, the state is seen as the area where problems are resolved. It is assumed that, if you have a state, you have rid yourself of all problems. But this type of reasoning is only one step away from envisaging the state as god-like.

A deep sociological insight will reveal that the historical development of divinity has been intertwined with becoming a state. The intertwined development of state and God resulted from the contribution the priest made to state formation. In the Sumerian temple, the pantheon of gods acquired an identity with an ideological component. In the construction of the state, the priests used this pantheon as the ideological mask of the political administrators. One step up from priest-king is the god-king. Originating in the Sumerian temple, this concept of the god-king or emperor was used until the time of the Roman Empire. The Abrahamic religions successfully turned this concept into that of the god-prophet or god-envoy, thereby incorporating a human figure.

The distinction made between divinity and humanity in Greek mythology (the third version of the Sumerian mythology) is also quite interesting. For example, Hesiod’s Theogony is organized as a narrative telling how the gods came to exist; it is as if he prohibits any link to be made between the gods and humans, considering it to be shameful. He insists on keeping the relationship of gods and goddesses distinct and separate, placing it above humans-like a caste system. The Brahmin caste in the Hindu faith is a faint image of the god-king but the gods are stricter about this separation. They do not easily accept a god becoming human or having any relations with humans. Expressed scientifically: It is never admitted in ideologies that the state is a human construct. This is quite clear in mythology and religion, and partially in philosophy. The protagonists of these ideologies are trying to shield the state and maintain its divinity through a rigidity of belief. The conceptualizations, such as the state is sublime, sacred, and a fundamental vehicle of salvation, have their roots with the Sumerian priests, who were the initial builders of state. The state was constructed inside the temple’s womb.

Hegel described the nation-state, which he believed Napoleon had set in motion, as God descending on earth. To him Napoleon symbolized the nation-state, calling him God’s march. Hegel’s observations are quite insightful and instructive in the light of our discussions above. Nation-state is not only the final form of god-state, it is also the most dangerous form of state. On the other hand, in the socio-scientific interpretation, defining state in terms of this web of relations is very new. Sharing my long held thoughts on this matter is a fundamental duty and I hope that it will open new horizons. It may be a good start to define state with reference to power. We can describe power that has been turned into various forms of legal order as a state. A concentrated power within the entirety of institutions, whose rules are determined and are set in a framework, define the state well, at least in terms of law. But such a definition is not sufficient. However, if we unite this approach with that of historical and social development, then we shall attain a definition that is broader and more meaningful. This will present a more complementary view of what the state is because it deals with scope and form at the same time.

I am aware of the various definitions of state. But it is not instructive to repeat the cliche’ definitions that have been memorized both in the liberal and socialist camps. Let me first of all point out what state is not:

* Its role is not to silence or stabilize the class conflict. The commonly repeated definition of it being mostly a tool for class coercion is also not enlightening.

* Its role is not to remove the state of chaos either. Its claim that it is there to ensure security and order is far from the truth.

* It is definitely not the area to resolve problems; on the contrary, it is a platform to turn problems into a crisis and to ensure their continuation.

* Its relationship with divinity and sacredness is nothing but ideological and mythological.

* It means nothing in terms of being the administrative and creative power of nation, religion, and culture.

The above statements can be multiplied, but it must be underlined that they are nothing but propaganda. The state does deal with the situations described; however, history shows us that the state has not really played any other role than that of turning the world into a slaughterhouse, assimilating and creating a lazy society, and turning the human into the fool of speculative intelligence. I do not deny the role the state plays in administrating society. I do not find the definition of state and the forms of being without a state as formulated by the anarchists very meaningful and implementable either. The reality of a hundred and fifty years of socialist practice showed that neither of them was successful. The fact that they made many correct statements regarding state does not eliminate their mistakes about fundamental issues. The liberal’s proclamation of “reducing the state as much as possible” is in a way more meaningful. They have realized that the state is the imposition of economic monopolies. But the fact that they passionately defend capitalism as the most productive economic system shows their true face and reveals their dishonesty-even though they leave all those who incorrectly define state far behind.

It is more revealing to define state, in a narrow sense, as being the economic monopoly that is based on surplus product and value. The state organizes and monopolizes itself as a superstructure over society through the use of various ideological and coercive tools in order to squeeze the surplus product and value from society. If viewed from this narrow definition of state, politics is the art of administering the realization of surplus product and value. Then, roughly formulated, state is the sum of surplus product and value together with ideological tools, instruments of coercion, and the art of administration. If we are to evaluate the state throughout its historical development, then all these factors can be determined. If these factors are not considered as a whole, any attempt to define state as any one of these tools will not allow us to decipher this web of relations called the state.

* It is correct, but insufficient, to call the state the extortion of surplus-value.

* The state may be defined as an ideological divinity. sacred entity, or the descent of God’s shadow on earth. But this only serves as an ideological cover for all its tyranny.

* The dictum “the state is tyrannical” is the weakest moral judgment of all and has the least scientific value since it excludes all the other factors.

* The definition of the state as an art of administration and management is as dangerous as moral interpretations because it ignores all the other factors and disguises the real essence of the state.

Undoubtedly, though each and every factor mentioned has an inevitable place in the existence of the state, it cannot be said to define the state alone. Most definitions of state highlight a specific factor and inevitably define it inadequately. It is possible to classify states throughout history in various ways:

Distinctions in terms of the social classes that derives the surplus product and value

1. The slave-owning state

The form of state in which the human being belongs to the state and to the special masters of the state, not only with their labor but with their body and soul in return for food. It is the main mode of exploitation of the ancient civilization. The slaves are the fundamental tools of production.

2. The feudal state

It embodies a limited softening of enslavement. The difference between serf and the old slave is that the serf has now the right to establish a family. Because it gives way to more surplus product and value, it is the method employed during medieval civilization.

3. The capitalist state

It is the mode of state that bases itself upon the social class of the worker, who sells his labor in the labor market like a commodity. It may be more appropriate to call it a section or structure instead of a form. It is the state of the age of capitalist civilization.

Distinctions in relation to the ethnicity of the administrative elite

1. The priest-state

This designation is used because it carries the stamp of the initial creators, the priests. Concepts such as temple, sacred state, and god-state all belong to this category.

2. The dynastic state

Here, state is defined according to the dynasty in power. We can call it a family state. It is a mode of state administration that has had widespread influence throughout the different eras of civilization and even in today’s administration of states. It is a state where a family or dynasty constitutes the real administrative group.

3. The tribal or people’s state

Such a state is more under the influence of a tribe or a people. Its existence is felt more during “medieval” times when consciousness of being a tribe or a people develops. The status of the state in religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and in terms of peoples like those of India and China may allow for such a definition.

4. The national state

This is a state based on societies that have become nations. It is not just the state of the new era (the capitalist era in the strictest sense). The democratic era too bases itself on it, or rather, state and democracy each take on a role in the administration by way of reaching a compromise. When they govern together (that is when the regime of the state and democracy is effective), then one can call it a national state. It is quite different from the nation-state because there may be different nations in a national state.

5. The nation-state

This is a state consisting of a single nation, and all the members of the nation are integrated with the state on the basis of the religion of nationalism. The nation and the state have almost become one. It is capitalist civilization’s main mode of state. The fascist state is the counter-revolutionary form, or a continuous regime of crisis, that the nation-state becomes in capitalism. Therefore, it is difficult to differentiate between the nation-state and the fascist state.

Categorized in terms of being elected or appointed to power, or power being handed down from father to son, or seized by force

1. The monarchical state

This is a state where a single person symbolizes the state. There is no distinction between the state and the ruler: they are one. This person may be a monarch, a king, or an emperor. One could become a monarch either as a result of the crown being passed from father to son or by obtaining it through force. This mode of state has existed in all ages of civilization and reflects the weakness in the institutionalization of the state.

2. The republic

This is where the main administrative group attains office through elections. It does not really matter whether it is one person or many people because its essence remains unchanged. At times democracy and republic are confused. It is a terrible mistake to make. Republic is a mode of state. The elections are done in order to choose the administration of the strongly constructed institutions of the state-not an election for democracy as the people’s governance. Democracy is a totally different system, a mode of administration that is not state-like. Democracy, too, has institutions and requires elections to fill them. But democracy and state diverge from one another in terms of their essence. All the intellectuals of the Enlightenment, including the Marxists, confused these notions. This even pertains to Lenin. There is a qualitative difference between the official civilizations –with the state being their nucleus– and the condition of having democracy.

Therefore, it is quite important not to confuse democratic governance with that of state rule (whether there are elections or not). Moreover, the state is a method for ruling more than for anything else. It is the institutionalization of rule that rests on many thousands of years. The role of elections in this is quite limited. What is being achieved through elections is that various monopolistic cliques (such as agrarian, commercial, industrial, or financial) within the state will try to outmaneuver each other. The stronger om will be elected. Thus. there is no such situation where there is democracy or the victory of democracy.

There is also no such situation in any democracy where everyone shall be given assignments through elections. Those who have not been elected can also play a role in the administration of the democracies. But it is fundamental that the democratic society determines its own administration through elections in short intervals, so that there is a chance for various improvements and productivity, creativity, rights, as well as freedom and equalities.

Distinctions based on the groups that seize the surplus-value

1. The agrarian state

It is quite revealing to call it as such. When it was first established it was organized as the administrative authority which would seize the surplus agricultural product. There were many such states or agrarian states where the power of agrarian cliques was present.

2. The mercantilist state

This is where the state bases its method of surplus value and product appropriation on commercial organization. Assyrian and Phoenician states are two examples of this, and today there are states with very strong commercial cliques within them.

3. The financial state

This is a state basing itself upon money-power. Switzerland is an example of this. More importantly though, if we call the last global era of capitalism the age of finance, we can say that the financial cliques or monopolies have grown extremely strong in all the states to the extent that it has a decisive influence on the administration.

4. The industrial state

There are many states that can be called industrial states due to the industrial production that played a leading role in economy since the Industrial Revolution. To be an industrial state was the ideal in the beginning of the 19th century. Industrialization equaled becoming wealthy. The main aim of all the states was to become industrialized as quickly as possible. Therefore, the strongest state clique consisted industrialists. The fundamental monopolist cliques that nested within the state were the large merchants (mercantilism) in the eighteenth century, industrialists (industrialism) in the nineteenth century, and the financiers from the twentieth century up until today. They are the ones who really manage the web of relations called the state.

Fake designation of state distinctions in order to disguise the capitalist state monopolies

These designations make the concept of state unrecognizable. Therefore, it may be instructive to re-consider the various models of such states that are nothing but ideological constructions. This is also necessary since our daily lives are bombarded by such concepts.

1. The liberal state

This is the favorite ideological concept of the political-economists. It can be translated as the free state but there is nothing in common between freedom and state. Instead, there is a total contrast between these two concepts. State in its essence represents the restriction of freedoms. The biggest problem of all throughout history has been to defend an individual’s or group’s freedom against the state. This has been one of thefundamental political and legal battles. It is also defined as the state that interferes least with economy. But a state can only exist if it is an economic monopoly. Therefore, the proclamation that it is a state that interferes least is nothing but a fallacy. It is against the essence and identity of being a state. It just may be that through such a concept capitalist economic monopolies wish their paths to be paved and their share multiplied.

2. The socialist state

This concept, used a lot in the real-socialist camp, is a fallacy as much as the liberal state is. For one thing, true socialism has nothing to do with the state. The state is in contrast with socialism at least as much as it is with democracy. It is the biggest sin of opportunism to confuse the state, which is the sum of all the big historical economic monopolist cliques. with that of socialism. which is an egalitarian regime. Socialist state is the present day equivalent of the phenomenon conceptualized as the Pharaoh socialism. It is capitalism’s most obvious form of state and therefore very much related to proto-fascism. The counterpart of real socialism is nation-state (fascism). Nation-state is the real characteristic of both liberalism and real socialism (in terms of being state socialism). Thus, it is important to evaluate its relationship with fascism (in terms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism). It would be quite instructive to evaluate the liberal and social or socialist state to be proto-fascism in the path to fascism itself.

Those who are supporters of socialism must know that the state is the main institution through which surplus product and value has been appropriated throughout the five-thousand-year-old tradition of civilization, not simply the four hundred years of capitalist tradition. To deliberately defend the construction of socialism with the use of state is fascism but to be an instrument of it unknowingly is nothing but negligence and betrayal. I hope to discuss these topics in depth in my next book called The Sociology of Freedom.

3. The fascist state

It is a concept with not much meaning. Nation-state and fascism are similar in their essence. To define fascism to be an exception that has externally imposed itself on capitalism is the biggest misery of the liberal and socialist intellectuals. Capitalism, in terms of being the civilization and state, is the systematic expression of keeping the nation-state, and therefore fascism, at hand at all times. Fascism is the norm. What is an exception is reaching a compromise with democratic structures.

4. The democratic state

I have repeatedly explained why the state cannot be democratic. There can be no democratic state because the mentality, social structure, and manner of functioning in both are essentially different. However, due to the crisis inherent in the structures of civilization, but more so during the presently intensifying crisis in the structures of capitalist civilization, the necessity for the state to find a compromise with the system of democratic civilization has emerged. The state can no longer rule on its own. It has come to a position where it is compelled to a shared governance with the democratic forces, making it possible to find a compromise. There have been such examples in history. If the state (no matter what type) seeks and establishes a partnership with democratic principles and structures it may be meaningful to have a concept such as democratic state, provided this means the susceptibility of state to democracy. To me the best definition would be state plus democracy. I had already proposed that the most urgent duty of political philosophy is to focus on different state modes. This is because it is no longer possible to rule today’s societies with the classical state mentality. This is why NGO’s have come into play but they are quite insufficient. It does not seem possible for the moment that these organizations shall be able to fulfill the administrative vacuum and share governance.

The only way out seems to be the finding of a compromise between the structures of democratic society that are more radically organized and the state institutions that are more productive. At this current historical stage (no one can presume how long it shall take), neither capitalist civilization nor democratic civilization nor socialist system alone can bring about the desired results. What we are losing is the society, and the only achievement is to prolong the exploitation, spilling of blood, and pain.

There are other concepts in relation to state, such as the state of law. The state, being the economic monopoly, can only exist if it appropriates surplus product. Therefore, essentially it can neither be fair nor juridical. But it is called the state with rules or the state of law because it treats its members and citizens according to predetermined and equal rules. Although this is obviously more positive than the despotic states in which the rules change each day, its essence does not however constitute a separate definition of a state. For example, a religious state is also not very meaningful. The state has always been presented under the cover of sacredness because of the existence of priest-state. Religion, mythology, philosophy, and even scientism are the state’s ideological tools of propaganda. Secular state is thought to be the opposite of religious state but they mean the same. These kinds of definitions carry no serious meaning other than being used for propaganda.

In conclusion. the state has multiplied and carried itself to date as the nucleus of civilization and of the history of civilization. it has continuously intersected with numerous modes in order to disguise itself. In capitalist civilization, it has obtained the chance to be truly defined for the first time despite all the ideological counter-efforts. The chance to truly define the state is the most meaningful gain of the struggle against capitalism and is the end result of intellectual and practical efforts. However, the burning question is how to raise the efforts, in terms of organization and action, to enhance the development and success of democratic civilization in regards to its content and forms, and to make it permanent.