Anarchist definition of the state?

[StrictlyRuddie]

So marxists believe the state is an instrument of class rule that can/must be used by the proletariat after seizing it from the capitalists.

Now how would anarchists describe the state? Not as a vessel of one class over another but as an entire sperperate class? Help me out here please

[Stranger Than Paradise]

you are close by saying an entire different class. We see all states being the coercion of one group by another. These groups in charge will aim to keep power. In short: all states are bourgeois to Anarchists.

[revolution inaction]

One anarchist definition is that the state is an instrument of minority rule.

[griffjam]

The term State refers to a set of administrative, hierarchical, bureaucratic, coercive and legal structures-the legislature, the civil service, the judiciary, the army and police- coordinated by an executive. These mechanisms of domination and control have an exclusive legal monopoly on the use of force and a territorial basis. The State emerges with the division of society into classes and is designed to protect the ruling and exploiting minority ruling class from the oppressed classes. Economic exploitation, and the coercive institutions of political power have always gone hand in hand. When we say that the State upholds the ruling class we mean the whole ruling class- and not just the capitalists or bosses in the economy, but also the generals, the politicians and the top civil servants. The State is not simply the tool of economic interests, but a structure of domination in its own right and with its own dynamics. Overall, the State and capitalism are like two inseparable Siamese twins- each requires the other. The State will always defend the ruling class. This is because the State is funded by taxes and loans generated in the process of exploitation, because the top personnel of the State are mainly drawn (like the bosses of the companies) from the few who own all the wealth (thus sharing common values and interests), and because the State was created specifically in order to defend the ruling class. In addition, those controlling the State develop a vested interest in the power and wealth that they derive from their position, thus turning them into zealous defenders of the class system. The State cannot be used to secure the liberation of the working class (and working peasantry).

[StrictlyRuddie]

One anarchist definition is that the state is an instrument of minority rule.

Then during the revolutionary period and after, if the rule of the "Majority", the proletariat was instituted through workers councils, general assemblies, Neighborhood assemblies etc.. instead of the leninist-vanguard party way of organization, would anarchists be opposed to that type of "State"?

If Im not mistaken this is the kind of state that the left-communists support? I don't see how this is contrary to the anarchist principles if all these assemblies federate by commune, regional, nationally, and eventually internationally as the revolution progresses world wide to insure the needs of the communes are being fulfilled and to maintain the defense of the defense of the revolutionary gains of the proletariat?

Please point out any/ all mistakes I've made above, I have the feeling I've messed up something.

[ZeroNowhere]

How the state is defined is not a part of the definition of anarchism, which is opposition to hierarchal authority. I'm not entirely sure why some people think it is.


In short: all states are bourgeios to Anarchists.
The feudal state was bourgeois? :D

[JohnnyC]

Then during the revolutionary period and after, if the rule of the "Majority", the proletariat was instituted through workers councils, general assemblies, Neighborhood assemblies etc.. instead of the leninist-vanguard party way of organization, would anarchists be opposed to that type of "State"?

If Im not mistaken this is the kind of state that the left-communists support? I don't see how this is contrary to the anarchist principles if all these assemblies federate by commune, regional, nationally, and eventually internationally as the revolution progresses world wide to insure the needs of the communes are being fulfilled and to maintain the defense of the defense of the revolutionary gains of the proletariat?

Please point out any/ all mistakes I've made above, I have the feeling I've messed up something.
You didn't mess up anything.When it comes to "state" Anarchists and Marxists actually support the same thing, the difference is only in semantics.By the way, Lenin also supported workers councils as a form of proletarian state, he explained that quite clearly in State and Revolution.

[revolution inaction]

Then during the revolutionary period and after, if the rule of the "Majority", the proletariat was instituted through workers councils, general assemblies, Neighborhood assemblies etc.. instead of the leninist-vanguard party way of organization, would anarchists be opposed to that type of "State"?

We wouldn't be opposed to it, it is something we seek to create, but we wouldn't call it a state either.




If Im not mistaken this is the kind of state that the left-communists support? I don't see how this is contrary to the anarchist principles if all these assemblies federate by commune, regional, nationally, and eventually internationally as the revolution progresses world wide to insure the needs of the communes are being fulfilled and to maintain the defense of the defense of the revolutionary gains of the proletariat?

Please point out any/ all mistakes I've made above, I have the feeling I've messed up something.

that sounds ok

[revolution inaction]

You didn't mess up anything.When it comes to "state" Anarchists and Marxists actually support the same thing, the difference is only in semantics.By the way, Lenin also supported workers councils as a form of proletarian state, he explained that quite clearly in State and Revolution.

Lenin claimed that he supported workers councils but when the Bolsheviks actually had power in russia they closed Soviets that voted against the Bolsheviks and removed any power the workers councils had, concentrating power in a central bureaucracy and the Bolshevik party.

[Bilan]

you are close by saying an entire different class. We see all states being the coercion of one group by another. These groups in charge will aim to keep power. In short: all states are bourgeois to Anarchists.

A bourgeois state requires a bourgeoisie. Not all states in existence have had a bourgeoisie, nor the characteristics of the bourgeois state, and were thus, not bourgeois.

[Bilan]

One anarchist definition is that the state is an instrument of minority rule.

How did this "minority" assert power? How did this occur?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

A bourgeois state requires a bourgeoisie. Not all states in existence have had a bourgeoisie, nor the characteristics of the bourgeois state, and were thus, not bourgeois.

What I am saying is any group which is in power, which is the state, will become the new bourgeoisie of a society.

[revolution inaction]

How did this "minority" assert power? How did this occur?

What?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

What I am saying is any group which is in power, which is the state, will become the new bourgeoisie of a society.

So the workers will become the bourgeoisie if they take power?

[Bilan]

What?

I'm asking you to explain the basis for your definition of the state. It can't just exist. It has to have come from somewhere. Where did it come from?

[Bilan]

What I am saying is any group which is in power, which is the state, will become the new bourgeoisie of a society.

Well, no, that doesn't make any sense. The bourgeoisie are a by-product of a particular mode of production, not just any. A "state" is not bourgeois, it is an organ of class rule, not exclusively of bourgeois rule. The bourgeois is simply a class, the bourgeois state, simply an instrument of bourgeois rule.

[revolution inaction]

How did this "minority" assert power? How did this occur?


I'm asking you to explain the basis for your definition of the state. It can't just exist. It has to have come from somewhere. Where did it come from?

Your being rather unclear.

The minority in power is the ruling class and how it asserts power depends on the form of society, but through some combination of ownership of the means of production and force of arms is typical and often with religious dogma and tredition and nationalism as well.

If your asking me to explain the origin of the state or of the bourgeoisie or of feudal lords then I can't be bothered because it would take a book.

[Bilan]

Your being rather unclear.

Sorry.



The minority in power is the ruling class and how it asserts power depends on the form of society, but through some combination of ownership of the means of production and force of arms is typical and often with religious dogma and tredition and nationalism as well.

Yes, but what makes them the ruling class? As I'm sure you'd agree that a minority can not just usurp power at will, and form a ruling class. A military coup, for example, represents not the creation of a ruling class, but a reinstatement of one.
Now, you say the ruling class "own(s) the means of production ...and has a (monopoly) of force", but what I'm asking you to do is at least, even if as a summary, explain how this occurred, if you reject the Marxist origin of the state?



If your asking me to explain the origin of the state or of the bourgeoisie or of feudal lords then I can't be bothered because it would take a book.

No, just a summary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ironically Bilan, my definition of the word "state" can be synonymous with the anarchist concept (instrument of minority class rule, including those by coordinators), considering remarks by Marx and Engels about workers replacing the state with a Gemeinwesen, or "commonwealth."

[Tjis]

Then during the revolutionary period and after, if the rule of the "Majority", the proletariat was instituted through workers councils, general assemblies, Neighborhood assemblies etc.. instead of the leninist-vanguard party way of organization, would anarchists be opposed to that type of "State"?
Depends. What is very important is that these groups are organised in such a way that no group has power over any other group.
For example, say we have a factory. Within are various groups working on various things. These groups are united in a factory council. Factories are then united in an industry council.
In every factory there are yearly elections where every group can elect a representative for their group into the factory council. There are also elections for representatives for the industry council.
In the year they are elected, industry council members do all the general decisions for the industry, which are then passed down to the factory councils, who apply it to their own factory.

This would definitely NOT be anarchist.

The problem is not so much with the council structure, but with the fact that its members have the power to make decisions. That places the industry council above the factory council, and the factory council above the workers.

Instead, the councils should only have executive powers. Decisions should be made by everyone involved, preferably by consensus, and then the executive council only takes care of the coordination.

Also, the members of the council should be recallable immediately by majority vote to prevent abuse.

I'm not sure if left communists are ok with elected councils with decision power so we might still be talking about the same thing.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Depends. What is very important is that these groups are organised in such a way that no group has power over any other group.
For example, say we have a factory. Within are various groups working on various things. These groups are united in a factory council. Factories are then united in an industry council.
In every factory there are yearly elections where every group can elect a representative for their group into the factory council. There are also elections for representatives for the industry council.
In the year they are elected, industry council members do all the general decisions for the industry, which are then passed down to the factory councils, who apply it to their own factory.

This would definitely NOT be anarchist.

The problem is not so much with the council structure, but with the fact that its members have the power to make decisions. That places the industry council above the factory council, and the factory council above the workers.

Instead, the councils should only have executive powers. Decisions should be made by everyone involved, preferably by consensus, and then the executive council only takes care of the coordination.

Also, the members of the council should be recallable immediately by majority vote to prevent abuse.

I'm not sure if left communists are ok with elected councils with decision power so we might still be talking about the same thing.

I'm pretty sure most people on here advocates recallable delegates. It's not like it's some strictly anarchist thing.


Note that this applies to all kinds of states: bourgeois to so-called workers' states (in a workers' state, the bourgeois will, I think, be replaced by the bureaucrats).


No, they'll be replaced by the workers. You'd think that was a simple concept. :confused:

[Tjis]

I'm pretty sure most people on here advocates recallable delegates. It's not like it's some strictly anarchist thing.
I never said it was. It's funny how you quote my entire post and only respond to that part, while that remark was more of an afterthought in my post.

[Black Sheep]

When it comes to "state" Anarchists and Marxists actually support the same thing, the difference is only in semantics.By the way, Lenin also supported workers councils as a form of proletarian state, he explained that quite clearly in State and Revolution.

This.The notable differences are
-the marxist leninist pre-revolutionary way of struggle + organization (participation in the parliament, anarchists dont do that.
-M-Ls' centralization of power through (a new,'proletarian',whatever that means) state apparatus,anarchists go for decentralization on all fields.
-M-Ls' vanguardism.Now this is the thorn on my side.Anarchists on the other hand reject any institutionalized role of the vanguard.


Eventually,if you take into account that the newly built proletarian state functions through direct democracy,recallable and directly accountable + 'monitored' delegates, there shouldnt be a problem,and it is basically the same with the anarchist proposal.

(except from the centralization thing)

[revolution inaction]

Yes, but what makes them the ruling class? As I'm sure you'd agree that a minority can not just usurp power at will, and form a ruling class. A military coup, for example, represents not the creation of a ruling class, but a reinstatement of one.


There control of the means of production and a means to defend that control is what makes them the ruling class, if a minority has access to sufficient resources it may be abel to seize power. I would say a coup was one section of the ruling class seizing control from another section.



Now, you say the ruling class "own(s) the means of production ...and has a (monopoly) of force", but what I'm asking you to do is at least, even if as a summary, explain how this occurred, if you reject the Marxist origin of the state?


I don't necessarily reject the marxist explanation of the origin of the state, I haven't read any marxist explanation of how the state came to be. What I am disagreeing about is the definition of the state.
I imagine that the state first came about when someone realized it was easier to bully other people into paying taxes or rent than to work for them self, as they got more successful they would have started to employ other people to do this for them.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No. The workers will stay as workers. The moment one becomes a professional bureaucrat who employs other workers for the state, he/she ceases to be worker. Thats why I think any "state" with professional politicians will turn out to be similar to bourgeois states.


As little as a factory owner today ceases to be a capitalist if he becomes a municipal councillor...

Delegates elected to short terms and subject to immediate recall don't exactly sound like professional bureacrats. If that's a professional politician, then anarchists are subject to the same criticism, because from what I know they propose the same thing.

[Bilan]

There control of the means of production and a means to defend that control is what makes them the ruling class, if a minority has access to sufficient resources it may be abel to seize power.

Okay, so the ruling class manifests as a relationship to production. We agree.



I don't necessarily reject the marxist explanation of the origin of the state, I haven't read any marxist explanation of how the state came to be. What I am disagreeing about is the definition of the state.

The latter flows from the former. The origin of the state can't be logically separated from its manifestation in contemporary society - it was born out of it.



I imagine that the state first came about when someone realized it was easier to bully other people into paying taxes or rent than to work for them self, as they got more successful they would have started to employ other people to do this for them.

I don't think that sounds very rational, nor does it sound like there's alot of history to back it up.
How about this:



This badly understood economic system was in general the result of the need of certain communities to face up to the problems posed by nature in certain regions (aridity, floods, monsoons, etc).



In such regions communities were very quickly forced to study the cycles of nature and to undertake irrigation works to assure their livelihood. The complexity of these works, the technical knowledge they required, the need for an authority to coordinate them, engendered layers of specialists (priests, versed in the study and observation of nature, were often at the origin of these castes). Charged with a specific task in the service of the community, these specialists - appearing to be the creators of new wealth - tended to constitute themselves into a ruling caste. They progressively appropriated the social surplus at the expense of the collectivity. The development of the productive forces transformed these servants of society into exploiters.