Anarchism's conception of the State (and Switzerland)

[Drei]

" radical liberals

got the t-shirt for that one but currently stand by your latter paragraph

 

[Random]

got the t-shirt for that one but currently stand by your latter paragraph

That's good enough for me!

 

[ska invita]

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.

i know that, but do you not see the contradiction in fighting for state-led defence of living conditions on the one hand, and a view that blames the state as the root of social problems on the other? In fact balking when any aspect of state-control is dismantled (such as free schools)
.
Its an important point this - how can an anarchist transition that somehow seeks to negate the state ever take place whilst anarchists support the states role in protecting living conditions (to the degree that it does this). You've got to bite the bullet at some point. Either that or come round to the view that the state's existence per se isnt the problem, rather that the state needs reforming, with its positive functions kept and amended.

I wont come back to this thread till ive got a good definition of state together

 

[Random]

Anarchists think that wage labour is slavery. That doesn't mean we think unemployment is a step in the right direction.

Edit having said that some I know in the eco direct action movement have argued that activism on the dole is important

 

[Athos]

i know that, but do you not see the contradiction in fighting for state-led defence of living conditions on the one hand, and a view that blames the state as the root of social problems on the other? In fact balking when any aspect of state-control is dismantled (such as free schools)
.
Its an important point this - how can an anarchist transition that somehow seeks to negate the state ever take place whilst anarchists support the states role in protecting living conditions (to the degree that it does this). You've got to bite the bullet at some point. Either that or come round to the view that the state's existence per se isnt the problem, rather that the state needs reforming, with its positive functions kept and amended.

I wont come back to this thread till ive got a good definition of state together

No. The very existence of a state will always lead to these problems. And whilst it's possible to attempt to use parts of the state to ameliorate them in the immediate term, the only long-term solution is an end to the state and capitalism. That's not contradictory, just pragmatic.

 

[Athos]

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:


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...



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



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.


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.



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?

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. "

Will be interested to hear your definition of a state. Not sure how it will exclude kingdoms, though.

There's a big difference between delegates and representatives. Even if we overlook the role of existing power structures e.g. capital and media, and pretend that we have a genuine choice in a bourgeois 'democracy'. All it actually means is that we get to choose the people who impose rules upon us. We empower them, and they use that power in their own interests. This, rather than picking the rules that suit our interests, ourselves. That's a big part of the difference between top-down and bottom up decision making.

The need to improve our lot is, in the immediate term, more important than doctrinal purity. I can't seen anarchist supporting cuts to benefits because they are administered by the state. And your point about Tory policies being attractive to anarchists is misconceived. Anarchism isn't just about ending the state; it's about ending capitalism too, and, more importantly building something in its place. The Tories want to shrink part of the state, but leave those parts of it which serve their interests intact, along with capitalism.

 

[ska invita]

Just having a look at Anarchist FAQ on this which is useful:

Why Are Anarchists Against The State
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB2
includes an anarchist definition of the state

Do Anarchists Think the State is the Main Enemy?
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionH2#sech24

Arent participatory communites and confederations just new states?
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci55

and this might be relevant on stuff about how to interact with the state in the present
How is the Framework of an Anarchist Society Created
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI2#seci23

Thats definitely all my questions right there.

lots to read.......

ETA: also also Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy? http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionA2#seca211

 

[Athos]

Just having a look at Anarchist FAQ on this which is useful:

Why Are Anarchists Against The State
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB2
includes an anarchist definition of the state

Do Anarchists Think the State is the Main Enemy?
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionH2#sech24

Arent participatory communites and confederations just new states?
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci55

and this might be relevant on stuff about how to interact with the state in the present
How is the Framework of an Anarchist Society Created
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI2#seci23

Thats definitely all my questions right there.

lots to read.......

ETA: also also Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy? http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionA2#seca211

Oh dear. Any reference to the FAQ is, to some denizens of these boards, like blood in the water is to sharks - they'll have sensed it from a mile off, and be on their way! Expect the following: talk of anakisseds, the anarchist 'scene', Krondstadt, dog-on-a-string and cider, from the usual suspects. And, if you're really unlucky, a visit from RMP3 [shudders].

As it happens, this thread has been done before (albeit not the Swiss angle), so you've done well just to avoid being pogofished.

But, in the unlikely event that thread doesn't get ruined, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[camouflage]

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.

Your village is already part of a state, and relies on it for a number of things derived from the state (laws, courts, property rights, money etc). The world is already divided between the domains of various states, and where no state is able to impose itself geographically the people are hardy, self reliant, and wary of strangers. And anarchist culture would need doctors yes, the question is could it create the conditions for doctors to occur? And engineers, and bureaucrats to spend all their time managing complex bureaucracies...

My conception of an anarchist state is not disorganized chaos, an anarchy would require very high levels of organization and a very high level of involvement and education from all its participants, it would be a full time job, I wonder if there'd be time for studying pond-life or creating art or having children. And at the end of it all the context of 'the state' would still be there, just arranged differently.

The state is what occupies the space where public obligations (and the power relations that underpin them) are made solid. An anarchist culture would still have that space, still have these arrangements between individuals and groups, still need those arrangements implemented by the society as a whole. The state is the social-machine, we need it because we live in societies. How is the machine programmed though, to what ends... Owning the state takes hard work and maintenance, control of the state is serious shit. It strikes me as somewhat childish to pretend these issues don't exist, like petulant children shouting Down With School! sure maybe the head-masters a nonce and the teachers are sadists, but it's not the concept of Education that causes schools to exist that one should be critical of, even if this particular school is all about making obedient factory workers- it's still just an issue of what kind of education provided by whom and to what end.

 

[Random]

Rather than argue in terms of an abstract state, or post state scenario, it's best to stay grounded in what anarchist theory means in the here and now. For example, when people are fighting against government cuts, etc, then some political groups say we need to gain state power in order to reverse cuts. Labour activists often argue that getting Labour into.government is the priority. Anarchists say attacks should be defended against using all means, especially direct action, and without reference to whether this hurts left groups trying to gain state power. And without buying into arguments like the state "cannot afford" the social security budget.

 

[ska invita]

im going to get into this more fully once ive finished reading but i just want to respond quickly to this (ETA: wasnt that quick in the end )

Rather than argue in terms of an abstract state, or post state scenario, it's best to stay grounded in what anarchist theory means in the here and now. For example, when people are fighting against government cuts, etc, then some political groups say we need to gain state power in order to reverse cuts. Labour activists often argue that getting Labour into.government is the priority. Anarchists say attacks should be defended against using all means, especially direct action, and without reference to whether this hurts left groups trying to gain state power. And without buying into arguments like the state "cannot afford" the social security budget.

The relation between 'the here and now', 'anarchist theory' and a 'post-state scenario' is crucial and cant be brushed aside. When you say 'stay grounded', this seems to mean to contradict anarchist theory.

When you say 'attacks should be defended against' what you're defending is the welfare state. You're attempting to influence the way the state handles its healthcare provision but replacing democratic action with direct action. But ultimately you want to influence state spending on healthcare.

What is anarchisms relation to the welfare state? From what i see anarchism wants to provide welfare services to the community without the interaction of a central-bureaucratic state. For example in this article http://n30strike.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/anarchism-and-the-welfare-state/ Colin Ward has shown how in the UK pre-welfare state communities organised themselves independently to provide healthcare provision. Unless I've read it wrong in this piece Bevan isnt praised for fathering the NHS, but rather slated for crushing these anarchist, independent health care provisions. The National (read State) Health Service should be anathema to anarchists.

A here and now example: under education in the Anarchist FAQ it talks about Catalonian free schools as the model of choice. I take this to mean that anarchist theory should support (in principle) free schools (as introduced by the Torys). Free schools try and take schools out of state control - this has to be supported to be consistent with anarchist theory.

A commitment to anarchist theory means being consistent on these points. It means having a vision of a future society and working towards that vision. Being committed to it, and to your convictions. It is this inconsistency that makes me confused by anarchism as i find it.

I like the NHS. It makes sense to me to organise national health care centrally, but as I said earlier I want more direct democracy and workers control in state institutions - but i do see it as a state institution and am comfortable with that. Id rather see the state run on more highly democratic lines (as i laid out in earlier posts). I tend to go along with what Camouflage thinks of as the state, so the fact the NHS is part of the state is not a problem to me.

The end goal I want chimes for the most part with the anarchist vision, it's just how to get there that I don't think i can agree on. In terms of health care i want to see a network of federated hospitals, run by their doctors and nurses and other staff. Either this will happen by creating new hospitals (and schools) outside of the state (as happened in Catalonia or on Colin Wards pre-NHS examples), or it means seizing control of state-run hospitals via the mechanisms of government. Staying grounded in the here and now, I favour the second. Anarchists should favour the first. If they don't are they really anarchists? Or am i still missing something?

 

[camouflage]

Rather than argue in terms of an abstract state, or post state scenario, it's best to stay grounded in what anarchist theory means in the here and now. For example, when people are fighting against government cuts, etc, then some political groups say we need to gain state power in order to reverse cuts. Labour activists often argue that getting Labour into.government is the priority. Anarchists say attacks should be defended against using all means, especially direct action, and without reference to whether this hurts left groups trying to gain state power. And without buying into arguments like the state "cannot afford" the social security budget.

That's puzzling, the spending of the state probably correlates directly to the substance of it's being, the body of Big Government is made of Big Budgets... so why would an anarchists fight tooth and nail to prevent the de-funding of the state? If anything I'd expect anarchists to be delighted every-time the state cuts back on one of the social functions it's occupied. Surely anarchists don't want the state to be able to afford anything, they want it to no longer gain an income by levying taxes, and to no longer spend its ill-gotten gains into any public domain.

 

[Blagsta]

Its not chaos and poverty that anarchists want!

 

[camouflage]

Its not chaos and poverty that anarchists want!

I assume they believe the state must first whither away before the dawn of a bright new age or something.

But what do they want... and are they being careful in case they just might get it?

 

[cesare]

I assume they believe the state must first whither away before the dawn of a bright new age or something.

But what do they want... and are they being careful in case they just might get it?

Read this: Anarchism - arguments for and against. By Albert Meltzer. It won't take long.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html

 

[Blagsta]

I assume they believe the state must first whither away before the dawn of a bright new age or something.

But what do they want... and are they being careful in case they just might get it?

Most anarchists want workplace and community self organisation. Most are aware enough to know that merely wishing this so won't make it happen.

 

[Random]

All I can do is repeat myself on this one. Bargaining for a better deal from the welfare state is no different to bargaining for a better deal from an employer.

I'll add that in both cases the anarchist way is to see the process of winning concrete gains as part of building up class power and confidence in order to create a movement eventually capable of replacing state and wage labour.

Whereas Social democrats want to see the labour movement used to make the current set up merely sustainable.

 

[ska invita]

so most of the anarchist definitions of the state i have seen put it down to:

-enforced taxation (unless those in charge of the state are happy for you to dodge that tax of course)
-and monopoloy of violence.
...a loop exists between these two factors, taxes paying for enforcers, and enforcers enforcing taxes. A kingdom is a state by such definition.

supposedly an anarchsit 'state' isn't a state because it won't
-enforce taxation
-or have a monopoly of violence

I'll add that in both cases the anarchist way is to see the process of winning concrete gains as part of building up class power and confidence in order to create a movement eventually capable of replacing state and wage labour.

Whereas Social democrats want to see the labour movement used to make the current set up merely sustainable.

im really trying to follow this, and im starting to see what your getting but i still cant help but see it as contradictory. Fighting for the welfare state is also fighting for 'sustainability' of the system overall. Following anarchist theory true power and confidence comes from independence, not from waiting for the state to look after us - that creates dependency and 'intimacy' with the state.

I think one of the problems of getting anarchist ideas out into wider acceptance is this lack of clarity. im confused and ive put time and effort into trying to understand it.

-
Can someone tell me how the Autonomist Marxist tradition relates to the state? Im guessing it has the bottom-up aspects of anarchism without the overall 'the state is the enemy' conclusion?

 

[Random]

im really trying to follow this, and im starting to see what your getting but i still cant help but see it as contradictory. Fighting for the welfare state is also fighting for 'sustainability' of the system overall. Following anarchist theory true power and confidence comes from independence, not from waiting for the state to look after us - that creates dependency.

But fighting to gain/retain aspects of social welfare is being active. Just like an organised and militant workforce has more control and is able to push for better conditions, people organised enough to win concessions from the state have more ability to push for even greater control over their lives.

And independence doesn't mean dropping out, or, even worse, starting up some privately owned enterprise. The vast majority of society are dependent on the services that the state provides, just like they're dependent on money from working. It's unrealistic to say that we can simply choose to create a new world like radical pilgrims sailing off to America.

But I must also admit that, from my experience of UK anarchists there's a great deal of discussion and division over exactly how to get from here to there. And some do think that utopian projects in the here and now are the way forward.

Once upon a time I was far more sympathetic to the idea of setting up alternative projects, which would grow until they replaced the mainstream. But now, based on my experience of these projects i think they're always a limited and flawed island, at best. At worst they are privileged little enclaves run by middle class hippies!

The only time that anarchism has been a mass movement is when it was part of the working class struggle to gain better conditions. Always with the aim of winning all the way, and eventually bringing about libertarian communism. I can't see any other way that it can conceivably become a mass movement again.

 

[ska invita]

But fighting to gain/retain aspects of social welfare is being active. Just like an organised and militant workforce has more control and is able to push for better conditions, people organised enough to win concessions from the state have more ability to push for even greater control over their lives.

And independence doesn't mean dropping out, or, even worse, starting up some privately owned enterprise. The vast majority of society are dependent on the services that the state provides, just like they're dependent on money from working. It's unrealistic to say that we can simply choose to create a new world like radical pilgrims sailing off to America.
...

if the priority is to organise>win concessions>and push for greater control, why disclude democratic methods?

I understand the tension between direct action and party politics, and maybe i'm being hugely naive, but i think you can still have a strong direct action wing and a parliamentary wing. It needn't be mutually exclusive. I guess Hamas, Sinn Fein and ANC all did this in their own way.

The chances of an anarchist party (run on anarchist, delegated lines of course) winning a general election are zero, but getting candidates to stand, soap box, spread ideas, organise, and perhaps even winning at local ward/ council levels can't be a bad thing in my book. I think i saw Ian Bone try to encourage anarchist candidates to stand in recent times.

The biggest reason not to do so from an anarchist point of view seems to be an ideological one (the anarchist critique of the state). I think although that critique is relevant and should act as compass, reality shouldn't mean dismissing the state apparatus out of hand.

Anyone know what the position of (marxist) autonomists is in regard to the state and political representation? Does it mirror that of anarchism?

(thanks for sticking with this thread - ive learnt something)

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Its not chaos and poverty that anarchists want!

lIBerAL!

 

[Athos]

im really trying to follow this, and im starting to see what your getting but i still cant help but see it as contradictory. Fighting for the welfare state is also fighting for 'sustainability' of the system overall. Following anarchist theory true power and confidence comes from independence, not from waiting for the state to look after us - that creates dependency and 'intimacy' with the state.

The biggest reason not to do so from an anarchist point of view seems to be an ideological one (the anarchist critique of the state). I think although that critique is relevant and should act as compass, reality shouldn't mean dismissing the state apparatus out of hand.

Anyone know what the position of (marxist) autonomists is in regard to the state and political representation? Does it mirror that of anarchism?

I guess there's a tension between practical steps which appear anathema to the long-term aim, but which are necessary to bring about short term objectives (which, paradoxically, increase the chances of achieving that long-term aim), and steps which, whilst apparently beneficial in the short term are likely to make the long-term aim less achievable! Many anarchists feel that engaging with bourgeois democracy is a negative thing, because bourgeois democracy is bolstered by that engagement; and because it corrupts those who engage; and, most importantly because it's a distraction from real change (which it will never allow). The same criticisms cannot necessarily be leveled at welfare; instead, it can be seen as a step towards strengthening the working class, which is a necessary (though not sufficient) pre-condition for revolution.

I understand where you're coming from when you say not to dismiss the state out of hand. But unless you can come up with a conception of the state which doesn't concentrate power over the majority in the hands of a minority (effectively perpetuating or recreating a class system), or can explain how or why that minority would not use that power in its own interests (and people say anarchist are naive ), I remain doubtful of the possibility of a long-term state based solution.

As I understand it, autonomist marxists focus upon non-state attacks on capitalism, by workers on a bottom-up basis. It seems to me that there's a big overlap with lot of anarchist ideas. Though I have heard the argument from some anarchists that there's really no such thing - that marxism isn't somthing you can pick an choose the best from, such that autonomist marxists are not really marxists at all. I'm not convinced, I think it's quite possible to accept parts of Marx's ideas without having to accept them all.

 

[joe dick]

Does anyone here have an opinion on how Distributism as an economic alternative to Socialism and Capitalism might (or might not) be adopted to further the cause of Anarchism?

Sorry, that question is very poorly expressed. What I meant to ask was "In your opinion would the adoption of the economic ideas of Distributism serve/further the cause of Anarchism?"

 

[Athos]

Does anyone here have an opinion on how Distributism as an economic alternative to Socialism and Capitalism might (or might not) be adopted to further the cause of Anarchism?

Sorry, that question is very poorly expressed. What I meant to ask was "In your opinion would the adoption of the economic ideas of Distributism serve/further the cause of Anarchism?"

I don't know a lot about it, but I approach with scepticism any ideology based on the ideas of a pope and more recently linked to Cameron's Big Society (according to Wikipedia).

But, as far as I can see, it has a number of major weaknesses.

First, I cannot see how the ownership of 'shares' of the means of production by individuals (as opposed to common ownership of the whole) could work for anything other than agricultural land.

Secondly, it seems inevitable to me that those shares will eventually change hands, and that a market will create concentration of ownership of the means of production and the attendant problems.

Thirdly, the lack of class focus.

 

[CNT36]

Secondly, it seems inevitable to me that those shares will eventually change hands, and that a market will create concentration of ownership of the means of production and the attendant problems.

I know considerably less about it but wasn't something similar tried in Russia and the ownership became concentrated in the hands of Oligarchs?

 

[CNT36]

i know that, but do you not see the contradiction in fighting for state-led defence of living conditions on the one hand, and a view that blames the state as the root of social problems on the other? In fact balking when any aspect of state-control is dismantled (such as free schools)
.
Its an important point this - how can an anarchist transition that somehow seeks to negate the state ever take place whilst anarchists support the states role in protecting living conditions (to the degree that it does this). You've got to bite the bullet at some point. Either that or come round to the view that the state's existence per se isnt the problem, rather that the state needs reforming, with its positive functions kept and amended.

I wont come back to this thread till ive got a good definition of state together

I guess you have to step away from only talking about the anarchist conception of the state and see that anarchism is against all authority, oppression and domination. You talk about a lot of appealing ideas which could have a place in a future society based on Anarchist lines. You mention free schools and moving Schools away from state control. We live in a predominantly capitalist society. A capitalist industry in not a democracy.If schools were to be simply freed from state control they would likely end up in private hands or reliant on corporate sponsorship. This would lead to them being controlled or influenced by a private authority free from even the limited positive influences of democracy. You also talked about regionalism. It could be a benefit in a future society but what would it look like today? Perhaps a lot like international markets but rather than countries competing to undermine/prevent workers rights and welfare systems and push down wages this would happen on a regional scale. This would be yet more power in the hands of private tyrants undermining what concessions had been won through the state. You also talk about the NHS. I don't see many functioning Anarchist or health co-ops waiting so guess who ss waiting to fill the void. Smashing those bits of the state that can actually benefit people while leaving intact the parts that protect, maintain and encourage the capitalist system with all of it class and power relations will do little but make life a lot worse for a lot of people.

 

[joe dick]

Thanks for the replies, Athos and CNT36.

Definitely out of my depth here. I really struggle with the idea of individual property rights in a stateless system. Again, I am not very sophisticated politically (just a Canadian - we don't do politics. it's not polite. questioning "democracy" and the primacy of the state is an activity strenuously discouraged here. doing so is good way to shunted to the fringes of society.) I'll just go back to reading and lurking as I have nothing constructive to add. thanks again though!

 

[ska invita]

Smashing those bits of the state that can actually benefit people while leaving intact the parts that protect, maintain and encourage the capitalist system with all of it class and power relations will do little but make life a lot worse for a lot of people.

oh i know that. for me the point of this thread is to pick away a bit at anarchist theory to try and understand it better, and try and work out what the best tactics are for everyone. Im particularly trying to dig at the idea that engaging with the state is a bad thing, with a view that since there are many positive aspects of the state that anarchists are prepared to fight for, why not make that fight more explicit, rather than the reluctant and somewhat contradictory position we have now of 'smash the state/protect the welfare state'. Why not make it reclaim the welfare state and increase direct democracy for the other aspect of the state currently hijacked by the ruling classes < all of which needn't be mutually exclusive to creating independent community/workers organisations.

I really struggle with the idea of individual property rights in a stateless system.

i'm sure you're not the only one on that - i'll definitely add myself to the list there. issues around commons, property, money, exchange, 'law enforcement' etc etc in a 'stateless' world is deep utopian thinking and hugely problematic if heavy state bureaucracy is to be avoided. Its seems to me to be a healthy reaction to recoil from such far-down-the-line future thinking and concentrate on the here and now, as even twenty years worth of fighting for smaller gains would leave us faced with a very different world in twenty years time, and transform the people that take part in those struggles. But postponing future-utopian dreams leads me back to the fight for the state as we have it now.

I think there's a point where anarchist theory has become outdated on this. The original thinkers theorised at a time before the welfare state existed. Theorising the state and its manifestations in 1890 is significantly different to considering it in 2013.

Lets stick with the example of the UK for now.

Before the realisation of comprehensive education, the NHS, etc, you could argue for an independent, community based, anarchist 'welfare system'. As Colin Ward showed in that link above, such things kind of existed here in the UK.

But its fair to summarise that the working class in the majority rallied around the Labour party (with extra pressure exerted from the far-left) and the welfare state was born and fulfilled this need. It was born of the state and suffers from the positives and negatives that brings.

My reasoning has it that this leaves two options for someone sympathetic to anarchist ideas:
-ignore the state and build a network of communes outside state control which include new grassroots welfare provisions. This is hugely limited in effectiveness and scope and ignores the plight of the majority of working class people living the UK.
OR
-see the victories made by the labour movement in the last century as something to be proud of, to defend, and to build on, and as part of a broad working class struggle not necessarily separate from anarchist desires.

IMO the biggest problem with the state today is the deficit of democracy. A century ago the ruling classes were shitting themselves over everyone getting the vote, as naturally the majority would vote against the ruling minority. The fact that the ruling class has managed to maintain control through more sophisticated methods despite universal suffrage came as a pleasant surprise to them (took effort of course), and means we should keep fighting for a democratic mechanism that truly shits them up. Anarchism has a lot to say on this subject -if anarchism is a theory of organisation (based on direct democracy, delegation and the like), then fight for it in the arena that it really matters today. Local government is the low hanging fruit here I think. Or don't and go and start a commune. I can't see any other options here.

 

[ska invita]

To put it in a real world situation, European countries like Spain and Greece are seeing the state dissolve around them, and there's little sign that process is going to reverse. In Spain there are occupations of hospitals and health care provision by the workers which are effectively state employed. The process of the occupations etc is transforming the relationship between the staff across the whole network. How the future might play out is hard to know, but lets say the state as we know it collapses further and workers are left in control as a result of the power vacuum, and a new workers-controlled system emerges (lets put aside the details of that cross over period for the moment).

This would mean taking over the infrastructure previously created through the state - not going out and setting up new hospitals. There's no need to do that, becasue people have already fought over decades to get this infrastructure for themselves. If this process is a case of taking over state apparatus then anarchists should come to terms with this reality and integrate it into the anarchist program - seizing 'state' apparatus under workers control - and how best to achieve that in an integrated way. I think a lot of century-old, pre-welfare state anarchist theory gets in the way here, with its deep rooted distrust of anything related to the state.

Bit rushed this as have to go now, but hope it makes sense.

 

[CNT36]

To put it in a real world situation, European countries like Spain and Greece are seeing the state dissolve around them, and there's little sign that process is going to reverse. In Spain there are which are effectively state employed. The process of the occupations etc is transforming the relationship between the staff across the whole network. How the future might play out is hard to know, but lets say the state as we know it collapses further and workers are left in control as a result of the power vacuum, and a new workers-controlled system emerges (lets put aside the details of that cross over period for the moment).


This would mean taking over the infrastructure previously created through the state - not going out and setting up new hospitals. There's no need to do that, becasue people have already fought over decades to get this infrastructure for themselves.

I think the difference there is that as you say the state is dissolving. That creates a quite different situation and different opportunities to one in which there is an ideological motivated attack on the state from the right backed by private interests.

If this process is a case of taking over state apparatus then anarchists should come to terms with this reality and integrate it into the anarchist program - seizing 'state' apparatus under workers control - and how best to achieve that in an integrated way. I think a lot of century-old, pre-welfare state anarchist theory gets in the way here, with its deep rooted distrust of anything related to the state.

I don't think the difficulty comes in integrating it into an Anarchist program I think the difficulty comes in the realtionship the occupied enterprise (I'm not sure how much difference it makes whether the previous owner was the state or a private individual) has with the socio-economic world around it. To stay an effective hospital for example the workers in control would have to come to some relation with the state hierarchy and/or private health care providers/drugs companies and other industries required for keeping the hospital going. The workers maybe king within it walls but I imagine they will have to make some tough compromises with the outside world in order to survive. If the state was smashed or weak to the point of irrelevance and worker controlled enterprises became something like the norm then that would not be the case.

I think your first sentence is the most important particularly "and there's little sign that process is going to reverse". It raises a lot of questions. The state is dissolving what is likely to happen next? Does the state such as it is have a choice in the matter? If so why is it letting occupations continue? Could they perhaps be taking some of the burden off the state and acting in its short term interests? Why hasn't the private sector stepped in? If the state recovers will it attempt to reintegrate the occupied apparatus into the state? What are the prospects for resistance?

Do you have any decent links or recommendations of where I can read more about this? I've only read scattered bits and pieces.