The book challenge the traditional narrative of human history that posits a linear progression from small, egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands to larger, more complex, and hierarchical societies. Instead, they argue that human societies in the past were much more diverse and experimented with various forms of social and political organization. They highlight the existence of large, complex societies that predate agriculture and the state, suggesting that agriculture and urbanization did not necessarily lead to social stratification or the loss of freedom

The book use the example of North American indigenous societies to illustrate the diversity of social organization and the rejection of traditional evolutionary frameworks. They contrast the hierarchical societies of the Northwest Coast, which practiced slavery, with the more egalitarian societies of California, which actively rejected the institution of slavery78. This comparison highlights the role of cultural choices and values in shaping social structures, rather than viewing them as predetermined stages in a universal evolutionary process.

The book emphasize the concept of "schismogenesis," where neighboring societies deliberately adopt contrasting social structures. This is exemplified by the comparison between Northwest Coast societies, where chiefs maintained their status by avoiding menial tasks like chopping wood, and Californian societies, where chiefs performed these tasks as a public duty813. This concept underscores the active role of social actors in shaping their societies and challenges the notion that social structures evolve solely through passive adaptation to environmental or economic pressures.

The book propose three "elementary principles of domination": control of violence, control of knowledge, and charismatic politics. They use these principles to analyze various forms of social and political organization, including those that resemble states but may not fit traditional definitions. They argue that these principles can manifest in different ways and combinations, leading to a diversity of power structures throughout human history.

The book critique the tendency to view history through the lens of "growth and decay," arguing that this metaphor introduces political biases. They point out that terms like "post," "proto," "intermediate," or "terminal" imply a linear trajectory and obscure the possibility of alternative paths of development. Instead, they advocate for a more nuanced understanding of history that recognizes the cyclical nature of social and political change and the potential for societies to move in different directions