| > stateless (classless) These, as each is usually understood, are not even approximately the same thing, and any theory which posits that they are identical has either adopted nonuseful definitions of at least one of them to make that true, or is simply logically wrong. > Such a world actually existed for hundreds of thousands of years as technology didn't allow one set of people to produce so much surplus so that another set of people could live without directly producing Sets of people that don't directly produce have existed throughout all of human existence. > a requirement for a state. It's a requirement for the continuation of the species; infants aren't direct producers. How many total (and total-equivalent composed of part-time slices of sometime-direct-producers) non-direct-producers a society supports is a product of productivity, sure. But at almost any level of that where one can have continuity of the species one could also have (and, indeed, human societies have had) a state; agents and decisionmakers of the state can, after all, be direct producers as well, and historically largely have been. |