they use violent methods: torture and warfare. Moyn said that Clastres "reinterpret[ed] the violence in primitive society as internal and essential to its self immunization against the rise of the state" and "compare[d] it favorably to the grandiose horrors of the statist, modern world." To the first topic, he dedicated "Of Torture in Primitive Societies"; Clastres did not think on it as cruel practice and using Soviet Union penal tattoos on Anatoly Marchenko as example, Clastres affirmed: "It is proof of their admirable depth of mind that the Savages knew all that ahead of time, and took care, at the cost of a terrible cruelty, to prevent the advent of a more terrifying cruelty." Instead he argued torture in rites of passage had the function of prohibiting inequality: On a similar fashion, Clastres argued that war could not be seen as a problem but that it had a political reason. He pointed it was not a constant state of war like the Hobbesian proposition but that it occurred only between different groups. He argued that internal war was purposeful and kept the group segmented, non-hierarchized; according to Viveiros de Castro: "perpetual war was a mode of controlling both the temptation to control and the risk of being controlled. War keeps opposing the State, but the crucial difference for Clastres is that sociality is on the side of war, not of the sovereign." Clastres stated: On the State For Clastres, primitive societies possessed a "sense of democracy and taste for equality," and thus intentionally discourage the rise of a State. That is why these societies are not merely characterized as societies without a State, but societies against the State. Viveiros de Castro explained the meaning of "Society against the State" as "a modality of collective life based on the symbolic neutralization of political authority and the structural inhibition of ever-present tendencies to convert power, wealth and prestige into coercion, inequality and exploitation." By affirming it, Clastres criticised both the evolutionist and Marxist ("especially Engelsian") notion that the State would be a necessity and the ultimate destiny in all societies. For him, the State does not emerge because of the complexification of productive or political forces but it rises when a community reaches a certain number of members. On the other hand, his vision of tribal societies without conflict was deemed "romantic" by critics such as Marcus Colchester and Samuel Moyn. Moyn