Anarchism's conception of the State (and Switzerland)

[Random]

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?

He quoted me, and it got your quote tag on it by mistake.

 

[The39thStep]

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.

Well I am all for a united front to fuck the centrists out. You can be the leader and I will take the role of political consigliere .

 

[The39thStep]

He quoted me, and it got your quote tag on it by mistake.

Easily done

 

[The39thStep]

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.

Yup classic substitutionalism.Even the more advanced sections of the working class, never mind those tied to labourism were far too backward for them.

 

[Random]

Well I am all for a united front to fuck the centrists out. You can be the leader and I will take the role of political consigliere .

Icepick, Kropotkin, Bakunin and ... SpookyFrank

 

[danny la rouge]

Well I am all for a united front to fuck the centrists out. You can be the leader and I will take the role of political consigliere .

I'm sorry, but you're not a war-time consigliere. Things may get rough. We need you in Vegas.

 

[camouflage]

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

I could say the same of you, no need we can't discuss things.

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.

That's exactly what I am saying, that regardless of the system, capitalist or communist or anarchist... power disparities will build up and divert resources towards themselves regardless. All anarchy means is that the process is less inhibited, but also has fewer ready made tools to co-opt.

I think it's quite naive thinking the world could be reduced to such self-sufficient blocks anyway. Besides, some localities would just generate more surpluses than others, tending towards further power inbalances etc.

 

[Drei]

Anarchism is a wishful way for many but realistically unachievable i think

 

[camouflage]

Anarchism is a wishful way for many but realistically unachievable i think

Anarchy is the rejection of the space in which the state exists, my thinking is that its not possible to abolish that space without abolishing the large populations that create that space... if that makes sense. As a result any culture that claimed to be anarchist would be inherently self-delusional, in a similar way to how the US with its thousands of bases across the globe and its never ending wars likes to beleive it is not an empire.

 

[Drei]

Anarchy is the rejection of the space in which the state exists, my thinking is that its not possible to abolish that space without abolishing the large populations that create that space... if that makes sense. As a result any culture that claimed to be anarchist would be inherently self-delusional, in a similar way to how the US with its thousands of bases across the globe and its never ending wars likes to beleive it is not an empire.

& then how would people feel safe without any order whatsoever, how would they trade or operate... Just like living without Money, the idea is great!!! But we are too evolved (or the opposite in some peoples oppinion) to actually be able to live in an anarchist society & be happy.

 

[camouflage]

& then how would people feel safe without any order whatsoever, how would they trade or operate... Just like living without Money, the idea is great!!! But we are too evolved (or the opposite in some peoples oppinion) to actually be able to live in an anarchist society & be happy.

Security isn't the level of my criticism for the concept actually. And I'm reading a book at the moment that has shown me that actually there were many ways of working with concepts of credit and debt before money. When you think about it it's obvious that money's just a relatively modern token system that represents ideas deeper than coins or notes or numbers in a database. What we call money is just one implementation of an underlying form. Life without money wouldn't necessarily mean life without abstractions of obligation, credit and debt. I just think that a population of millions inherently forms a space into which something we call a state usually fits itself. Some other form of organisation born in an anarchist culture would still form itself in that space, not calling that form of organisation a state because the people call themselves anarchists strikes me a silly. Maybe a state doesn't have to levy taxes and create markets and wage wars and operate prisons and protect elites... I dunno, just a question realy.

 

[Drei]

Security isn't the level of my criticism for the concept actually. And I'm reading a book at the moment that has shown me that actually there were many ways of working with concepts of credit and debt before money. When you think about it it's obvious that money's just a relatively modern token system that represents ideas deeper than coins or notes or numbers in a database. What we call money is just one implementation of an underlying form. Life without money wouldn't necessarily mean life without abstractions of obligation, credit and debt. I just think that a population of millions inherently forms a space into which something we call a state usually fits itself. Some other form of organisation born in an anarchist culture would still form itself in that space, not calling that form of organisation a state because the people call themselves anarchists strikes me a silly. Maybe a state doesn't have to levy taxes and create markets and wage wars and operate prisons and protect elites... I dunno, just a question realy.

which book are you reading? sounds interesting

 

[camouflage]

which book are you reading? sounds interesting

This: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2012/08/13/david_graeber_-_debt__the_first_5_000_years.pdf

 

[Drei]

This: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2012/08/13/david_graeber_-_debt__the_first_5_000_years.pdf

cool, i'm printing that for my bedside cabinet

 

[ska invita]

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.

no, thats exactly how i relate to anarchism, as a critical lense only.

But there are those (not me) who follow the critique through to an ideal (or ideology), and if you are an anarchist who believes that The State is The Problem and commit to that you must be able to imagine a Stateless organisation of a mass population. Ive seen such organisational models proposed.

My problem is that I cant see how an anarchist 'state' would differ from a currently existing state - with Switzerland posited as one model to compare against.

Im afraid the "Some future anarchist community would have destroyed class power." convinces me none. Human power relations are unavoidable. I gather Weber has written some good stuff on Power <not read it myself, but it sounds like it might be the kind of thing I have on my mind (if anyone can recommend something Im all ears).

Having a conception of an ideal model of human organisation seems like an important foundation on which to build your political ideas on and its something im thinking about a fair bit at the moment, hence this thread

 

[Athos]

Why just anarchism? What about other political traditions that envisage the withering away of the state?

 

[Athos]

no, thats exactly how i relate to anarchism, as a critical lense only.

But there are those (not me) who follow the critique through to an ideal (or ideology), and if you are an anarchist who believes that The State is The Problem and commit to that you must be able to imagine a Stateless organisation of a mass population. Ive seen such organisational models proposed.

My problem is that I cant see how an anarchist 'state' would differ from a currently existing state - with Switzerland posited as one model to compare against.

Im afraid the "Some future anarchist community would have destroyed class power." convinces me none. Human power relations are unavoidable. I gather Weber has written some good stuff on Power <not read it myself, but it sounds like it might be the kind of thing I have on my mind (if anyone can recommend something Im all ears).

Having a conception of an ideal model of human organisation seems like an important foundation on which to build your political ideas on and its something im thinking about a fair bit at the moment, hence this thread

If human power relations are inevitable, and if you accept that those with power exercise it in their own interests, what better model than one which prevents the concentration of any such power in the hands of a minority, for them to exercise it 'downwards' against those from whom it was derived?

Do you think that a 'top down'model of power is inevitable? Necessary?

 

[Athos]

Security isn't the level of my criticism for the concept actually. And I'm reading a book at the moment that has shown me that actually there were many ways of working with concepts of credit and debt before money. When you think about it it's obvious that money's just a relatively modern token system that represents ideas deeper than coins or notes or numbers in a database. What we call money is just one implementation of an underlying form. Life without money wouldn't necessarily mean life without abstractions of obligation, credit and debt. I just think that a population of millions inherently forms a space into which something we call a state usually fits itself. Some other form of organisation born in an anarchist culture would still form itself in that space, not calling that form of organisation a state because the people call themselves anarchists strikes me a silly. Maybe a state doesn't have to levy taxes and create markets and wage wars and operate prisons and protect elites... I dunno, just a question realy.

It's not just a matter of nomenclature; it's about where power is derived from, and how it is used and in who's interest.

I'm interested in the idea of the inevitability of the state. You suggest that will necessarily appear in any group of millions. What causes it to appear? And what, in your opinion, is the critical mass? How many people must there be for a state to be an inevitability?

 

[camouflage]

It's not just a matter of nomenclature; it's about where power is derived from, and how it is used and in who's interest.

I'm interested in the idea of the inevitability of the state. You suggest that will necessarily appear in any group of millions. What causes it to appear? And what, in your opinion, is the critical mass? How many people must there be for a state to be an inevitability?

In my opinion the critical mass would be population so large that most people within it are not directly acquainted. States play a role in conflict resolution, enforcing communal obligations and in underpinning the distribution structure (capitalism in our case, property money and markets). A bottom-up organization of more people than could possibly know each other directly (a society of strangers) even where everyone had the best will in the world would still devise strategies to coordinate itself and permit specialisations.

Anarchists would still need doctors, engineers, trained nurses and biologists a d a host of other roles. Who wil e sure the obligations necessary to let one person spend lots of their time becoming specialised and yet still get to eat and live under a roof? I don't see living in an anarchy as being free of obligations and free to just come and go as you please. State as hard obliger.

 

[Random]

Im afraid the "Some future anarchist community would have destroyed class power." convinces me none. Human power relations are unavoidable. I gather Weber has written some good stuff on Power <not read it myself, but it sounds like it might be the kind of thing I have on my mind (if anyone can recommend something Im all ears).

This sounds like exactly the kind of well informed argument that it is worth my while countering

 

[Idaho]

People, in the main, prefer other people to do the bulk of decision making. If you've ever been involved in any group activity or event, you'll know that people who want to pitch in are a minority. A minority consisting of those who mean well, and those who want to impose their will. Both these types have to deal with the bulk of the group, who in turn can be split between those who moan and complain, and those who don't give a shit.

The idea that we as a species are anywhere near a place where we all participate equally for the collective good is a fantasy. I wish it wasn't, but I see no historical evidence to the contrary.

 

[Drei]

People, in the main, prefer other people to do the bulk of decision making. If you've ever been involved in any group activity or event, you'll know that people who want to pitch in are a minority. A minority consisting of those who mean well, and those who want to impose their will. Both these types have to deal with the bulk of the group, who in turn can be split between those who moan and complain, and those who don't give a shit.

The idea that we as a species are anywhere near a place where we all participate equally for the collective good is a fantasy. I wish it wasn't, but I see no historical evidence to the contrary.

agree

 

[ska invita]

'

This sounds like exactly the kind of well informed argument that it is worth my while countering

First of all much as id love to have read (and understood and remembered) all the books that need to be read to be enlightened i admit openly i haven't (rather than pretend to have done). I work full time and use my 'leisure' time constructively too. I do my best to read but am a pretty poor student who has had to work hard to get to the level i'm at today.

I haven't read Weber first hand, but I think Im right in saying that it is in the tradition that my thoughts on power are based. fair enough?

On the subject of the state I have tried to read anarchist books on it. Ive read Mutual Aid which has a bit about this and also Barclay's The State (Freedom Press), neither of which contained arguments that made me feel that anarchism could do away with the state. Both focused on pre-modern examples, which short of a Zerzan style back to the woods move isn't going to cut it.

Hence to understand it better im turning to urban for enlightenment. This isnt a fight so please play ball not man.

 

[Idaho]

It's a habit that leftists and Christians have in common. You can't criticise because you aren't familiar enough with the canon and they refuse to discuss on the basis of first principles.

Here comes the abuse...

 

[ska invita]

Why just anarchism? What about other political traditions that envisage the withering away of the state?

what are you thinking of exactly?

whithering away is an interesting phrase - i can imagine some of the organs of the state being whithered away and replaced with new ones, but im not sure that what would remain would satisfy those who believe The State needs Smashing. A good definition of State might help clear things up here. I'm thinking of State as the (inevitable) formation around a society of a certain size committed to organising the range of social needs it already does. Perhaps Ive just got my definitions very wrong, in which case let me know.

If human power relations are inevitable, and if you accept that those with power exercise it in their own interests, what better model than one which prevents the concentration of any such power in the hands of a minority, for them to exercise it 'downwards' against those from whom it was derived?

Do you think that a 'top down' model of power is inevitable?
Necessary?

I think top down and bottom up are both inevitable - its a false dichotomy in some respects. Even anarchists who talk about large models of organisation talk about elected and recallable officials and delegates. Once you have such a person they become 'executives' given common authority to execute actions on behalf of others. The physics of this action can only be called top down I think, despite the safety nets of recallability etc. etc.

I like my politics practical - what can be achieved today that would make it better today and open doors in the future, rather than holding out for some much bigger plan in the never-never. With that i'd like to see (and this is influenced by anarchist ideas) is more devolution, more regionalism, more localism, more federalism, proportional representation at the highest levels. All this along with heightened accountability, transparency etc, and real mechanisms to control wrong doing.

At work levels id like to see more co-ops, more workers control including that of re-nationalised industries, a general building of meaningful participation in civic life. To bring it back to anarchism although ive read a bit of Michael Albert's Parecon ive seen he's also written a book which discusses 'pare-' participation in all aspect of life, not just economics. Its a culture that needs to be grown, and I think there is growing public appetite for it, matched by new technology that also stimulates it, and might enable it.



The big question is how can this be implemented against an elite careful to protect its own interests? I can think of 3 key ways: directly via the ballot box (either with new parties or existing parties), via grassroots campaigning (which in terms of legislature would have to influence existing parties or form their own), or through armed revolution, which would also at some point require a new party or other to take control.

Smash The State Anarchism suggests that you can somehow bypass the state in order to create something new (what? how is it not a state?) in its place. To me this seems an impossibility - a fight with a mirror. I struggle to understand the reluctance of anarchism to engage in party politics and the state - where does it leave you other than in a warm glow of righteous purity?

Parties (another word for a group or collective really) can be formed on anarchist lines. The state can be reformed on anarchist lines in theory. So why avoid it?

Reform has a lot of negative connotations, but short of destroying all institutions to Ground Zero and building them up again everything else is reform. In fact even that Ground zero version is a form of reform.

Personally where I'm at at the moment is the desire to see in the short/medium term something along the lines of, for want of a better term, a Chavez-style model (nationalisation, redistribution of wealth, promotion of co-ops and workers control, active program of engaging the populace with these politics as outlined above) though without the Chavez focus on the charismatic leader. This won't make capitalism disappear of course, but seems practical steps on the path, taken with consciousness of the fact that you have to bring the majority with you alongside and willing. Long post, stopping now.

 

[camouflage]

It's a habit that leftists and Christians have in common. You can't criticise because you aren't familiar enough with the canon and they refuse to discuss on the basis of first principles.

Here comes the abuse...

It's a habit that leftists and Christians have in common. You can't criticise because you aren't familiar enough with the canon and they refuse to discuss on the basis of first principles.

Here comes the abuse...

And vegetarians

Or at least one around here that seemed to take particular offense at the idea that I should dare to consider becoming a vegetarian myself.

 

[Athos]

In my opinion the critical mass would be population so large that most people within it are not directly acquainted. States play a role in conflict resolution, enforcing communal obligations and in underpinning the distribution structure (capitalism in our case, property money and markets). A bottom-up organization of more people than could possibly know each other directly (a society of strangers) even where everyone had the best will in the world would still devise strategies to coordinate itself and permit specialisations.

Anarchists would still need doctors, engineers, trained nurses and biologists a d a host of other roles. Who wil e sure the obligations necessary to let one person spend lots of their time becoming specialised and yet still get to eat and live under a roof? I don't see living in an anarchy as being free of obligations and free to just come and go as you please. State as hard obliger.

Not sure about your critical mass. I'm not directly acquainted with most people in my village, but it's not a state. And I'm not directly acquainted with most people in the world, so why not one big state? Doesn't stack up.

I don't think anyone thinks that an anarchist society doesn't need doctors. Or they it would be some disorganised chaos, free of any responsibilities.

 

[Athos]

what are you thinking of exactly?

whithering away is an interesting phrase - i can imagine some of the organs of the state being whithered away and replaced with new ones, but im not sure that what would remain would satisfy those who believe The State needs Smashing. A good definition of State might help clear things up here. I'm thinking of State as the (inevitable) formation around a society of a certain size committed to organising the range of social needs it already does. Perhaps Ive just got my definitions very wrong, in which case let me know.

I think top down and bottom up are both inevitable - its a false dichotomy in some respects. Even anarchists who talk about large models of organisation talk about elected and recallable officials and delegates. Once you have such a person they become 'executives' given common authority to execute actions on behalf of others. The physics of this action can only be called top down I think, despite the safety nets of recallability etc. etc.

I like my politics practical - what can be achieved today that would make it better today and open doors in the future, rather than holding out for some much bigger plan in the never-never. With that i'd like to see (and this is influenced by anarchist ideas) is more devolution, more regionalism, more localism, more federalism, proportional representation at the highest levels. All this along with heightened accountability, transparency etc, and real mechanisms to control wrong doing.

At work levels id like to see more co-ops, more workers control including that of re-nationalised industries, a general building of meaningful participation in civic life. To bring it back to anarchism although ive read a bit of Michael Albert's Parecon ive seen he's also written a book which discusses 'pare-' participation in all aspect of life, not just economics. Its a culture that needs to be grown, and I think there is growing public appetite for it, matched by new technology that also stimulates it, and might enable it.

The big question is how can this be implemented against an elite careful to protect its own interests? I can think of 3 key ways: directly via the ballot box (either with new parties or existing parties), via grassroots campaigning (which in terms of legislature would have to influence existing parties or form their own), or through armed revolution, which would also at some point require a new party or other to take control.

Smash The State Anarchism suggests that you can somehow bypass the state in order to create something new (what? how is it not a state?) in its place. To me this seems an impossibility - a fight with a mirror. I struggle to understand the reluctance of anarchism to engage in party politics and the state - where does it leave you other than in a warm glow of righteous purity?

Parties (another word for a group or collective really) can be formed on anarchist lines. The state can be reformed on anarchist lines in theory. So why avoid it?

Reform has a lot of negative connotations, but short of destroying all institutions to Ground Zero and building them up again everything else is reform. In fact even that Ground zero version is a form of reform.

Personally where I'm at at the moment is the desire to see in the short/medium term something along the lines of, for want of a better term, a Chavez-style model (nationalisation, redistribution of wealth, promotion of co-ops and workers control, active program of engaging the populace with these politics as outlined above) though without the Chavez focus on the charismatic leader. This won't make capitalism disappear of course, but seems practical steps on the path, taken with consciousness of the fact that you have to bring the majority with you alongside and willing. Long post, stopping now.

The withering of the state was Marx's and Engels' idea (and terminology). A stateless society is the aim of many left wing ideologies, not just anarchism. The principal difference is ideas about when it should happen: immediately after revolution, or following a period of dictatorship of the proletariat.

Not sure about your definition of the state. Take a look at some of what Marx said about the nature of bourgeois states. It pretty much dismantles the arguments that it is inevitable, necessary, and a benign form of organising for the common good.

Anarchism isn't some airy fairy idea which relies on a rosy conception of human nature. Nor does a commitment to revolution mean that people shouldn't organise to change things within society as it is configured in the meantime.

But you have to recognise the limits of reformism. As long as there is capitalism and a state, power will be concentrated in the hands of a minority which will wield it for its own ends. That power will resist reform. Real chance won't come about until that power is no more.

The state is really a concentration of power. That goes for a workers state as much as it does for a bourgeois one. And it means that those who control it do so in their own interests. It doesn't matter who is pulling the levers, the machine can only operate one way. Which is why anarchists reject the idea of securing state power.

I think there's a big difference between decisions imposed from above by those to whom power has been relinquished, and bottom up decision making through bodies which are made up of delegates who convey their communities'views, but do not purport to exercise power on behalf of those communities.

 

[ska invita]

Thanks for taking the time to get into all those points Athos. Am busy this weekend, but i'll try and dig a bit further into this in the future. In the meantime:

The withering of the state was Marx's and Engels' idea (and terminology). A stateless society is the aim of many left wing ideologies, not just anarchism. The principal difference is ideas about when it should happen: immediately after revolution, or following a period of dictatorship of the proletariat.

There so much to read with Marx & Engels, and the fact that reality ended up contradicting much of what was proposed makes it confusing. I wonder how much (UK) Marxist groups hold this up as the end goal any more. I guess this is more to do with council communism and autonomist traditions. Again, im not sure council communism would really not be a state, even though certain organs would inevitably 'whither'. Comes back again to a definition of the state...

Not sure about your definition of the state. Take a look at some of what Marx said about the nature of bourgeois states. It pretty much dismantles the arguments that it is inevitable, necessary, and a benign form of organising for the common good.

When I get a mo I'll try and dig out some definitions - I think defining it is a big part of the problem.

Anarchism isn't some airy fairy idea which relies on a rosy conception of human nature. Nor does a commitment to revolution mean that people shouldn't organise to change things within society as it is configured in the meantime.

well yeah, but i've often found there to be a contradiction between anarchist organising that defends centralised state (public) services if the end goal is to kill the state. For example free schools completely undermine the centralised state bureaucratic comprehensive school system. The anarchist position should support free schools following the logic through - shouldn't it? A number of Tory policies in fact, who actively try to wither the state too.

But you have to recognise the limits of reformism. As long as there is capitalism and a state, power will be concentrated in the hands of a minority which will wield it for its own ends. That power will resist reform. Real chance won't come about until that power is no more.

I definitely recognise the limits. Historical power shifts often are opened up by external/unexpected factors. The number of possible crisis we might see in our lifetimes is really mounting up (environmental and financial the big two), and the ability to resist reform changes over time.

The state is really a concentration of power. That goes for a workers state as much as it does for a bourgeois one. And it means that those who control it do so in their own interests. It doesn't matter who is pulling the levers, the machine can only operate one way. Which is why anarchists reject the idea of securing state power.

Im going to come back to this when i ve had a chance to look into definitions/conceptions of the state a bit more. Its not just a concentration of power, or else a kingdom would be a state, which it isnt, no?

I think there's a big difference between decisions imposed from above by those to whom power has been relinquished, and bottom up decision making through bodies which are made up of delegates who convey their communities'views, but do not purport to exercise power on behalf of those communities.

reread this a few times but think i may be misunderstanding what it says. Anyhow:

...there is a difference, but what does the difference boil down to? I think the key difference is the mechanics of the 'power-appointing' (aka democratic) processes. Our MPs now are delegated the power they have. They are voted for and receive their mandate through that. A king or dictator is real top down power, but in truth David Cameron is a product of bottom-up democratic processes - a general election and elections within his own party!

Obviously this type of democracy is still inadequate, but its a situation that we have fought to get to, and a fight that needs to continue to make it better still.

Chomsky makes the case that people's struggles from suffragettes, chartists etc now to Arab Spring has been to get the vote. That has been won at huge cost and with huge resistance from those who it threatened. But overtime victories were made against the odds.

In being asked 'what should we do chomsky?' as he often is, ive read him make a good defense of the possibility of taking power through the ballot box. We're all aware of the forces that make the playing field uneven, but making it more even is one of the parts of changing the democratic mechanisms. Bigger fights have been won in the past.

Cynically the biggest lesson I got from Occupy (particularly Wall Street), was that even with the biggest commitment to horizontalism, and even with small numbers involved (Wall Street was quite big but compared to the size of the population it was minute) factions immediately formed to try and steer the decision making process their way.

Democracy, no matter how direct or horizontal or autonomist will be somewhat imperfect, but it can definitely still be greatly improved, and from what ive read so far it should be a key area of campaigning for anarchists and marxists, particularly so if " a commitment to revolution [doesnt] mean that people shouldn't organise to change things within society as it is configured in the meantime. "

 

[Random]

" i've often found there to be a contradiction between anarchist organising that defends centralised state (public) services if the end goal is to kill the state. For example free schools completely undermine the centralised state bureaucratic comprehensive school system. The anarchist position should support free schools following the logic through - shouldn't it? A number of Tory policies in fact, who actively try to wither the state too."

some anarchists would agree with you, mostly the ones influenced by US libertarianism or who are basically radical liberals. The mainstream of the anarchist movement has been part of the working class movement and tries to defend living conditions for the working class.