I post also here a thought from a topic in an other forum just as a suggestion for a reasoning.


Is just the development and the improvement of the society to force the political system to change. This is in the history of the last centuries. We could write a river of words about the causes of the development of the society [imagine just how much we could say about the influence of technological progress with the industrial revolution ...], but if we focus on the phenomenon itself we can limit the reasoning on how the political / administrative system has been substituted or reformed in "breaking periods" [even revolutions].

Society changes well before than the state and it needs one on these "breaking periods" to allow a change also of the whole system.

I think the society and the nation chare values and interact. Thw world changes all the time, we got new values all the time.

humans dont support lot of things and we use civil disobedience to keep up the fight for right and wrong.


The society is in lot a mirror of humans wish.
The nation maybe adopt these values, if not they will not stay in power in the long.

That's true, when the society cahnges, sooner of later also the state will follow.

This conflict probably is even the main engine of the change itself. It's when we realize that the state is "old" that we begin to fight [in the political sense or in the real sense of the word] to change it.

And without state? Today I read that Abbas is renouncing to run for Palestinian Presidency.

This make me wonder: how is the situation of a society without a state?

By state, do you mean elected politicians?

My view of state is when societys grow and being bigger and bigger, then we need a contreolmechanism for that
A state have power to set laws for the smaller societys.

Societys and nations grows hand in hand, and many use politicans to develope it, I dont see that as nessesary from my view of what a state are.

Danny and Gualtiero, great questions!

I tend to agree with Marko: politicians can exist or not in a state.

A state can be democratic or not, it can base the institutional functioning on parties and politicians [or a single party: China], or it can base the institutional functioning on a monarchy with noble Lords, or an the Army, or on a theocracy ...

The state is an entity, with a territory which detains the power and administrates the "public thing". Potentially a state can rule everything by law or using the force.

Also Nazi German was a state. Anyway we can limit this definition from an historical perspective, thinking to modern states, to a medieval origin.

But if we think to the nature of the entity "state", also the "State cities" of Ancient Greece were just states, little but states.

So, generally we can extend the definition to all entities which rule on a limited territory ["owning it"], having the "monopole of force".

Societies without state exist. Actually nomad population like Rome people have got an ancient and rich society, but no state. There are hierarchy and authority but they remind more the tribal organization that the state one.