The State is, then, the legal form of power in a class society and not simply a form of power whose existence can be explained from a generic “evolution of power”. The fact that forms such as the so-called "headquarters" or "chiefdoms" have various attributes in common with the State does not mean that this implies precedence. Such common attributes can be social expressions that configure power itself and do not necessarily have to be antecedents of each other. This means that the appearance of a form of "cacical power" must be considered as a self-explanatory process and not as part of an evolutionary chain that necessarily leads to the State. Vice versa, the existence of the State does not have to derive from a “chief” phase or state; instead, it must presuppose the existence of an “incipient state” state, whose phases surely are various and can be recorded within a potential evolutionary record. In other words, there will be "chiefdoms" or chiefdoms whose evolution does not have to lead to state forms, but, and in any case, to more complex forms of this or another type of power relations.
Periodization elaborated by Luis G. Lumbreras, relating the Stages of Development In other words, it makes no sense to try to understand and explain "power" by itself, apart from the social and historical conditions to which it is linked. Likewise, it does not make sense to look for an evolution of social classes apart from their concrete connection with the regime of relations that corresponds to them and that is expressed socially in terms of differential property. That means that "social classes" are not a return form of another type of "social stratification" either; a product of a particular process of social differentiation, which does not depend on "status" or "inheritance" of any other gender. It is an economic differentiation that is based on a legal foundation:"property", in the same way as the State, ultimately, is an institution whose main function is to guarantee the rights that derive from this legal-economic institution. That is why the "classes" as we try to demonstrate appear as part of the economic and social development - that is, material - of society, independent of all the legal "support" of their existence, or of the will of the people. Its existence implies the formation of the institutions that support it socially, which operate at levels of varying degrees of recognition and representation in the collective consciousness. For this purpose, the study is organized from a delimitation of its sphere of influence (government) in the jurisdictional field of property (territory), organizing and sustaining itself with the support of the necessary repressive apparatuses (force) be they ideological (eg religion) or physical (armed force). The coercive nature referred to by all social scientists who try to define the State as opposed to other forms of political organization derives from this close relationship between the State and property.
Therefore, the identification of a State, as well as the determination of its causes and conditions of existence, must begin by establishing the nature and character of social class relations, whose legal expression – property – should allow us, in turn, to qualify its differential nature. For this purpose, the research process - with evolutionary intentions or not - must begin by recognizing the historical conditions and the development of the property in order to derive from there towards the type of differential relations that derive from them. If the stated questions of principle are valid, this will allow us to identify the State and fix its conditions of existence. In terms of what matters to this essay, it will allow us to organize a discussion about its origins.From:About the Emergence of the State Luis Guillermo Lumbreras