Apparatus of Capture (7000 B.C.)
Political Sovereignty and Its Poles
Two distinct poles of political sovereignty exist: the Fearsome Magician-Emperor and the Jurist-Priest-King. The former operates through capture by utilizing mechanisms like bonds, knots, and nets, while the latter engages through treaties, pacts, and contracts. Notable pairs illustrating these roles include Varuna-Mitra, Odin-Tyr, and Romulus-Numa.
The Functions of the State Apparatus
The state is animated by the rhythm of the "Binder-Gods" (magic emperors) and jurist-kings, distinguishing the war function as separate from the political sovereignty itself. In warfare, the Magic Emperor is characterized by sending warriors into battle who are not his own and capturing them, whereas the Jurist-King organizes war in accordance with laws, transforming it into a military institution that is subordinate to the state. Violence, under each respective authority, manifests differently: the Magic Emperor’s violence is symbolized through binding and nets, while the Jurist-King’s violence emphasizes structure, discipline, and legality.
The War Machine's Position
The war machine exists in the intermediary space between the two poles, facilitating transitions between different forms of sovereignty. Examples include the magic sovereign who possesses binding powers contrasted with the king who utilizes legal frameworks for resolving conflicts. Myths, such as the Horatius Codes and Mucius Scaevola, illustrate this conflict and explore themes of war and the nature of capture.
The Archaic Imperial State and its Characteristics
Archaic States emerge from overcoding primitive agricultural communities, where the despot organizes labor and manages surplus resources. The concept of nexum (bond) reflects the nature of exchanges that do not entail complete ownership transfers. Public ownership, signifying communal land ownership, exists through community membership, whereas private property arises later, marking a departure from the archaic State's emphasis on public ownership.
Internal Dynamics of State Formation
The politicization of surplus labor and the formation of public functions are crucial in the evolution of states. Archaeological evidence denotes the presence of stratified societies and private property systems influenced by archaic states. The transformation from communal regimes to hierarchical structures sets the foundation for future political forms.
Interactions Between Primitive Societies and the State
Archaic States act as agents for creative processes that shift relationships connected to resources and labor. Capitalism and states develop in close interrelation, significantly shaped by ancient power dynamics. The historical delineation between states and empires spans both the East and West.
Modern Capitalism and Its Relation to State Formation
Today, contemporary states serve as embodiments of capitalism while preserving the complexity of their internal power structures. Modern mechanisms within states enable the capture and regulation of various economic flows, revealing intricate connections between outdated models and emerging frameworks. Minority movements illustrate this diversity, pushing back against assimilation into majority frameworks, thus reinforcing the significance of counter-hegemonic movements and identities that transcend state structures.
Conclusion
The examination of state formation elucidates the intersections of political power, legal systems, and capitalism, merging historical insights with contemporary implications. It underscores the necessity for further inquiry into systems of capture, arrangement, and deterritorialization to fully comprehend social complexity in both historical and modern contexts.
