Anarchism's conception of the State (and Switzerland)

[ska invita]

I'm hoping someone can clear this one up for me - something i've never managed to get my head around.

Anarchism seems to place the (creation of the) state at the heart of the political problem, arguing for a dismantling of the state in favour of...well Im not 100% sure I know what.

What most often comes up as an alternative for the state is some kind of federal model. It seems to me that Switzerland is a pretty good example of the ideal in practice.

Ive never studied politics, so turning to wikipedia here, Switzerland has three legal jurisdictions with direct democracy seemingly at the heart of the overall system: the commune, canton and federal levels. Certain villages also have Landsgemeinde - village moots. All sounds good, but there is no denying that Switzerland is a State.

If an anarchist way of organising Britain were realised, with multiple layers of direct democracy implemented, into an overarching federalised system, wouldn't the overall political unit still create something called a State? And if not, what are the differences that characterise Switzerland a State and not Future-Anarchist-Britain?

 

[ska invita]

Anyone?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Yes Switzerland is a State. I don't think it is an example of what anarchists are about. As that is not what I am you must wait while an anarchist comes along.

 

[ska invita]

never an anarchist around on the boards when you need one (three will come along in a row now, just watch)

 

[camouflage]

I'm not an anarchist either but I like lecturing them about why their crazy ideas will never work. I respect them though, not the American ones anarcho-capitalist ones though because they're tossers.

 

[ska invita]

im going to ask on libcom.

 

[8ball]

I'm not an anarchist either but I like lecturing them about why their crazy ideas will never work.

I like to do the same with capitalists. I'm not sure what this 'overarching federalised system' has to do with anarchism.

 

[jakethesnake]

You have to work it out your self... that is kinda the point of anarchism

 

[Random]

If an anarchist way of organising Britain were realised, with multiple layers of direct democracy implemented, into an overarching federalised system, wouldn't the overall political unit still create something called a State? And if not, what are the differences that characterise Switzerland a State and not Future-Anarchist-Britain?

I'm not really into discussing future what-ifs any more. But the Swiss state is clearly a political bureaucratic machine, run by a ruling class for the benefit of capitalists and in order to preserve its own state authority. Local areas in Switzerland may be able to vote on certain things, but they're not voluntarily part of some federation that is created from the ground up, even though that may have been part of their history. There is an organised ruling class in Switzerland that makes sure the local areas are part of the big project to hold onto power. Some future anarchist community would have destroyed class power.

 

[DotCommunist]

and all that nazi gold what they hoard

 

[The39thStep]

You have to work it out your self... that is kinda the point of anarchism

Individualism rather than reaching a collective understanding by the working class. That to me is where the anarchist scene falls down.

 

[Random]

Individualism rather than reaching a collective understanding by the working class. That to me is where the anarchist scene falls down.

Some anarchists are certainly individualists, but the main way anarchist organising differs from Social Democracy or Leninism, is that it rejects the idea that any working class collective understanding can be summed up, or articulated by a single party. Especially since many socialist political parties' leaders think that their "understanding" needs to be developed by experts and handed down to the working class. There is a tradition of self-organised working class socialism, that the worthwhile part of anarchism is also part of.

 

[camouflage]

Some future anarchist community would have destroyed class power.

I disagree with this, power accumulates in human societies like lactic acid or something. 'Class' will always bubble-up somehow like a bi-product of the life-process iyswim. In a population of millions, there's always going to be a need for some sort of mediating mechanism to deal with the accumulation of power. The state isn't just a cage to keep the working man constrained, it's also a cage to keep the powerful man constrained as well, otherwise the whole thing explodes in revolution etc.

In an anarchist society there's no formal mechanism to keep accumulations of power from growing to dominate everyone. Anarchist culture might mean every individual resists this tendency, but eventually... power accumulates somewhere in the system, corrupting as it does so, and the rest of society would have no defense against this, no communal mechanism to mediate such things. If anything the anarchist culture would become a form of camouflage preventing anarchists from even being able to perceive what was happening. In my opinion states are serious machines and we need to do the hard work of owning them, and not allowing them to become captured by the accumulations of power that like entropy, always arise somehow, state or no state. Maybe it's a doomed project though, maybe there should be a compulsory revolution every few years just to pull the rug out from under whatever political or economi 'polyps' are occuring in the system having worked out how to indulge their own narrow advantage at the expense of others, but revolution sucks, especially if you're old or a parent of young children or just trying to manage a hospital or whatever. Maybe we're just doomed.

 

[Random]

I disagree with this, power accumulates in human societies like lactic acid or something. 'Class' will always bubble-up somehow like a bi-product of the life-process iyswim.

Well, if you've already decided, there's no point in trying to convince you.

But for everyone else's benefit: you might just as well say that communism bubbles up all the time. The class elites work constantly to maintain their power, hold onto their artificially accumulated concentrations of wealth. Ending class society for one and for all means ending the mechanisms that allow elites to dominate. Ending their ownership of the means of production and control of armed forces. The workers who've won, they control the factory and the land and run their local area. They aren't going to "spontaneously" hand over power to some capitalist, who wants to pay them. They're already getting full value from what they're producing!

What could happen is that someone tries to re-enslave people. Dispossess them and turn them into labourers again. And this will be fought using the same old methods that we've used in the working class struggle for centuries.

 

[jakethesnake]

Individualism rather than reaching a collective understanding by the working class. That to me is where the anarchist scene falls down.

Nah, thats not what i'm saying... anarchism actively seeks collective understanding... what it does not do is offer some sort of ideological blueprint for the future. Anarchism is an anti-ideology, a way of critiquing ideology and power; the failure to grasp this is what has led to the op's confusion.

 

[Random]

Nah, thats not what i'm saying... anarchism actively seeks collective understanding... what it does not do is offer some sort of ideological blueprint for the future. Anarchism is an anti-ideology, a way of critiquing ideology and power; the failure to grasp this is what has led to the op's confusion.

Even if you don't want to offer a "blueprint" you can still talk about how people currently organise, say what you think a state is all about. Not saying you're doing this, but I'm tired of anarchist embracing "anti-ideology" and people working things out for themselves because they're simply unwilling to do the thinking required to hammer out a political argument and a consistent method of organising. This leads to wishy washy "anarchism" that is, at best, unsustainable action.

 

[Random]

Great. I've become a fucking platformist in my middle age.

 

[cesare]

Great. I've become a fucking platformist in my middle age.

 

[Pickman's model]

Great. I've become a fucking platformist in my middle age.

you can still get better.

 

[ReturnOfElfman]

platformism ftw!

 

[Random]

you can still get better.

No, from here the pathology is clear. I'll end my days gibbering in the ICC.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, from here the pathology is clear. I'll end my days gibbering in the ICC.

you mean the ICCICC: the international communist current intensive care centre.

 

[mk12]

What could happen is that someone tries to re-enslave people. Dispossess them and turn them into labourers again. And this will be fought using the same old methods that we've used in the working class struggle for centuries.

What are these "same old methods"?

 

[Pickman's model]

What are these "same old methods"?

not working

 

[Random]

What are these "same old methods"?

Strike, occupy, demonstrate. Open armed rebellion. Liking pictures on Facebook.

 

[The39thStep]

Some anarchists are certainly individualists, but the main way anarchist organising differs from Social Democracy or Leninism, is that it rejects the idea that any working class collective understanding can be summed up, or articulated by a single party. Especially since many socialist political parties' leaders think that their "understanding" needs to be developed by experts and handed down to the working class. There is a tradition of self-organised working class socialism, that the worthwhile part of anarchism is also part of.

That may be the way that you as an individual anarchist sees it ( and fair play to you) but the anarchist scene throughout history is full of individuals who do things 'in the name of the class' and is currently full of well meaning types going through an activist phase whereby they substitute themselves for the working class. I would question whether the majority of those in the anarchist scene even think that the working class is the motor for change. Most of them have learnt to add on working class to a list of isms or niche scenes just to appear to be a bit more cagey.

 

[The39thStep]

Nah, thats not what i'm saying... anarchism actively seeks collective understanding... what it does not do is offer some sort of ideological blueprint for the future. Anarchism is an anti-ideology, a way of critiquing ideology and power; the failure to grasp this is what has led to the op's confusion.

Collective understanding with who? Like those that turned up to that May Day rally and tried to no platform the Labour party? or the ones painting slogans on the wall at Bristol zoo? They are examples of precisely a lack of collective understanding.

 

[Random]

I would question whether the majority of those in the anarchist scene even think that the working class is the motor for change. Most of them have learnt to add on working class to a list of isms or niche scenes just to appear to be a bit more cagey.

This is possibly true for the UK, and for the USA, but not for the rest of Europe and for Latin America, I think. But I agree that this kind of activism is a problem. For some they come to anarchism in the 1990s and 200s through a break with the methods of various single issue campaigns, like environmentalism and anti-war activism and carry a certain liberal sensibility with them. They are centrists, who really never got the perspective and we're better off without them.

 

[The39thStep]

I disagree with this, power accumulates in human societies like lactic acid or something. 'Class' will always bubble-up somehow like a bi-product of the life-process iyswim. In a population of millions, there's always going to be a need for some sort of mediating mechanism to deal with the accumulation of power. The state isn't just a cage to keep the working man constrained, it's also a cage to keep the powerful man constrained as well, otherwise the whole thing explodes in revolution etc.

In an anarchist society there's no formal mechanism to keep accumulations of power from growing to dominate everyone. Anarchist culture might mean every individual resists this tendency, but eventually... power accumulates somewhere in the system, corrupting as it does so, and the rest of society would have no defense against this, no communal mechanism to mediate such things. If anything the anarchist culture would become a form of camouflage preventing anarchists from even being able to perceive what was happening. In my opinion states are serious machines and we need to do the hard work of owning them, and not allowing them to become captured by the accumulations of power that like entropy, always arise somehow, state or no state. Maybe it's a doomed project though, maybe there should be a compulsory revolution every few years just to pull the rug out from under whatever political or economi 'polyps' are occuring in the system having worked out how to indulge their own narrow advantage at the expense of others, but revolution sucks, especially if you're old or a parent of young children or just trying to manage a hospital or whatever. Maybe we're just doomed.

Where did that quote that you posted up of me come from.I am not saying I necessarily didn't say it but i would like to know where I said it because it wasn't on this thread?

 

[Random]

Collective understanding with who? Like those that turned up to that May Day rally and tried to no platform the Labour party? or the ones painting slogans on the wall at Bristol zoo? They are examples of precisely a lack of collective understanding.

Remind me, is that May Day thing where people stood up with whistles, etc? I think we've already gone over that one and my objection is not that they obstructed the Labour Party, but that they did so in a way that failed to even try to appeal to the others at that meeting. If I'm even right about what happened.