There has been a debate in the press recently about whether the state (nation) is fundamentally a source of exploitation and war, or whether it's a civilizing influence on humans' natural brutal nature. The debate has echoes of Jean-Jacque Rousseau versus Thomas Hobbes, as well as echos of FDR versus the Koch brothers.
In short, was the Noble Savage noble or savage?
Anarchist and Yale political scientist James Scott has written a series of books critical of the state and nostalgic for the supposed peaceful and cooperative hunter-gatherer past. In a piece published in The Nation, political scientist and legal scholar Samuel Moyn reviews Scott's work and concludes that Scott both ignores the brutality of pre-state humans and understates the benefits of states and civilization. The very qualities of equality and freedom that Scott bestows are a product of states.
Other references suggesting that hunter-gatherers were relatively peaceful and egalitarian include:
Warfare was uncommon among hunter-gatherers: study "Warfare was uncommon among hunter-gatherers, and killings among nomadic groups were often due to competition for women or interpersonal disputes, researchers in Finland said Thursday." (Is it really war or just an interpersonal feud? Several researchers point out that organized war, with masses of troops probably required states, but feuds and minor killings sill occurred in hunter-gatherer society.)
But there are many scholars who think hunter-gatherers were war-like and treated woman poorly.
Hunter-gatherers were brutal and we have the state to thank for a decrease in violence and an increase in equality
Review of the book Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers, Journal of Anthropological Research. "LeBlanc develops a set of features common to hunter-gatherer warfare cross-culturally and argues that overwhelming ethnographic evidence shows intergroup violence was frequently dangerous but likely tied to resource stress between human populations." "The reader finishes the book with an understanding that interpersonal violence and warfare occurred at all levels of sociopolitical complexity, predated colonization, and were widely variable in intensity and frequency."
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker.
[Pinker] argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.The book contains a wealth of data simply documenting violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children. He highlights the role of nation-state monopolies on force, of commerce (making "other people become more valuable alive than dead"), of increased literacy and communication (promoting empathy), as well as a rise in a rational problem-solving orientation as possible causes of this decline in violence. He notes that, paradoxically, our impression of violence has not tracked this decline, perhaps because of increased communication, and that further decline is not inevitable, but is contingent on forces harnessing our better motivations such as empathy and increases in reason. (Source)No, hunter gatherers were not peaceful paragons of gender equality Lots of graphs. Violence is decreasing over time.
10,000-year-old massacre suggests hunter-gatherers went to war
Prehistoric Massacre Hints at War Among Hunter-Gatherers
Noble or Savage? "The era of the hunter-gatherer was not the social and environmental Eden that some suggest."
My concern with this is that many anarchists and bottom-up proponents on the Left are (perhaps unwittingly) aiding libertarians who want to destroy the New Deal and regulatory state crafted by progressive politics of the last 100 years. Yes, the state is often corrupted and used to harm people. Our task is to fix it so that it serves the many.