The state is "fiction" (split from "Leftist fiction")

[Lamnont]

All Leftist ideas are Fiction, because Leftist are statist, and the state is fiction.

The state is fiction because it is Idea that funny names, and titles will change the context of an action to the point that it is ethical, or not.

In baser terms, the state calls theft taxation, and murder war. It then goes around arresting thieves, and murders while being one itself!

[Lamnont]

Looks like I found an anarchist, I'm going to assume you're a communist, with out the balls to create a violent state to enforce you're charity economy! I have a Q for you!

In a stateless society how can you guarantee a lack of formation market economies?
Besides that how can you guarantee people even allow any form of economy, that offers no direct return for their labor? It's very hard to maintain an economy of charity, when private industry requires no emotional ties to those who hold desired material wealth.:confused:

[mykittyhasaboner]

All Leftist ideas are Fiction, because Leftist are statist, and the state is fiction.

Really? So all "leftist ideas" are fiction now because they advocate a state? I'm assuming you are referring to Marxists; but do you think they are fiction? I mean, I'm pretty sure Marxists exist in the real world, so what the fuck? Explain.


The state is fiction because it is Idea that funny names, and titles will change the context of an action to the point that it is ethical, or not.
What kind of idealist nonsense is this? If you think the physical and theoretical foundations for any state in history is based on ideas, then you are terribly mistaken. Contrary to this belief, states are basically organs of class rule, taking form mostly in administrative bodies as well as armed forces. Funny names and titles are irrelevant.


In baser terms, the state calls theft taxation, and murder war. It then goes around arresting thieves, and murders while being one itself!Yeah, yeah the state this the state that. Prove what your saying. There are plenty of different kinds of states, so to lump them all into an ill defined generalization like this is kind of silly.


In a stateless society how can you guarantee a lack of formation market economies?
Besides that how can you guarantee people even allow any form of economy, that offers no direct return for their labor? It's very hard to maintain an economy of charity, when private industry requires no emotional ties to those who hold desired material wealth.:confused:
What are you on about?

First, if you are talking about a stateless society, lets first assume that said society has already developed its productive forces to the point where we have absolute post-scarcity abundance of material goods and infrastructure; reason being this would likely have to be achieved in order to reach a stateless society. What would be the basis for practicing market economics, in a stateless society producing more than it needs, to trade for mere capital or some type of profit gain?

[ZeroNowhere]

Please save debating this kind of thing for the OI forum, this thread is asking about socialist literature recommendations.

[MikeSC]

Some Leftist ideologies advocate a state, though most do not (certainly not on here.) And all Leftism is wrong?

All Rightist ideologies inherently advocate a state at least in some form, because they're based around the state institution of private property. And this isn't?

This is not the kind of standard we've come to expect, a stint in the re-education camp could sharpen your trolling skills- Commissar, take him away!

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Looks like I found an anarchist, I'm going to assume you're a communist, with out the balls to create a violent state to enforce you're charity economy! I have a Q for you!

In a stateless society how can you guarantee a lack of formation market economies?
Besides that how can you guarantee people even allow any form of economy, that offers no direct return for their labor? It's very hard to maintain an economy of charity, when private industry requires no emotional ties to those who hold desired material wealth.:confused:

I think this quote deals with these rather well...


What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

[Il Medico]

I am not going to even dignify your idiotic arguments with a reply, this the second anti-leftist post of yours I have run across, and frankly I think your masquerading as a leftist to make fun of us. I do not find it amusing, so piss off! Also, can some one please restrict this guy, he obviously belongs in "Opposing Ideologies"

[Lord Testicles]

All Leftist ideas are Fiction, because Leftist are statist, and the state is fiction.

[...]

In baser terms, the state calls theft taxation, and murder war. It then goes around arresting thieves, and murders while being one itself!

Firstly not all leftists are statists and secondly...

How can the state be a thief and a murderer when the state is fictional?

[Jazzratt]

I've never found any fiction which had the power to curtail my freedom or even kill me. Just saying.

[NecroCommie]

If state is only a construct of lies it could not imprison an informed mind. Yet it does.

I am not inhibited by the murders and thefts of the state, but by the system of violence that imposes those lies. State is above all a doctrined violence, and can only be defeated as such.

[Kronos]

and the state is fiction.You can't be serious. The definition is simple: a group of people who agree to follow rules. As long as those rules are enforced, a state is possible.

I agree with Hobbes in that rights are derived by the state- outside and in the absence of the state, there is no contract between people that cannot be justifiably violated.....since....without agreement only "might is right", and to have the might is to justify the act.

Now there are 342, 866 different versions of a "state", but they all have one thing in common. Rules and the authority to enforce those rules.

The perfect state will be that state in which the followers and enforcers of those rules will be the same people.

Verily, I speak thus.

[Nulono]

All Leftist ideas are Fiction, because Leftist are statist, and the state is fiction.

The state is fiction because it is Idea that funny names, and titles will change the context of an action to the point that it is ethical, or not.

In baser terms, the state calls theft taxation, and murder war. It then goes around arresting thieves, and murders while being one itself!1: Yes, war is murder.
2: La propriété, c'est le vol!

Leftists can be anarchists.

[RGacky3]

You can't be serious. The definition is simple: a group of people who agree to follow rules. As long as those rules are enforced, a state is possible.

I never agreed to follow any rules, as far as I know niether did my father, or grandfather. In fact I don't know any nation that started out as a group of people agreeing to follow rules, do you? I don't know, Iceland maybe?

Thats not how Nations formed.

[Nulono]

I never agreed to follow any rules, as far as I know niether did my father, or grandfather. In fact I don't know any nation that started out as a group of people agreeing to follow rules, do you? I don't know, Iceland maybe?

Thats not how Nations formed.Um, America for one. The founders sat together and wrote the Constitution.

[RGacky3]

Um, America for one. The founders sat together and wrote the Constitution.

What percentage of the population was the founders? They agreed that they'll be the government and everyone will follow the rules they wrote down.

[Demogorgon]

Um, America for one. The founders sat together and wrote the Constitution.
At most that means that white male landholders and slave owners agreed to follow the rules. Even at that, though, most of them were only indirectly represented, having a say only with regards to electing members of the State legislatures who ratified the Constitution.

Besides that wasn't the formation of "the state", organised Government already existed in the United States, the Constitution was written the reorganise the federal Government after the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of America.

And on top of that, the Articles of Confederation merely created a higher level of Government to unite the thirteen colonies with the absence of the Imperial Structure that previously did this. The State, as it is understood here, came to America by Conquest.

Of course in the modern age, the State is simply reality, anyone calling it fiction might want to try breaking the law and see if the consequences are fictional or not.

The continuing desirability of the state is a different argument from its origins anyway. In any economic system the state exists for the benefit of the classes in control. In an economic system where the working class is in control, a state may very well be desirable.

[Kronos]

Gacky, the point of contention raised against the concept of the state as a derogatory was first held by social analysts observing class based societies that were industrially advanced. Such societies have existed since the bronze age, but there have always been states since the dawn of man.

The common denominator of the state, class based and advanced, or not, is that it is an arrangement of laws put in place by those who agree and participate in a group. Hunter-gatherers can be said to have had a state.

So when you take a critical communist perspective against notions of the state (and you certainly can), be clear about the circumstances about a particular state....and raise objections against those, rather than against the very concept of the state itself.

[RGacky3]

So when you take a critical communist perspective against notions of the state (and you certainly can), be clear about the circumstances about a particular state....and raise objections against those, rather than against the very concept of the state itself.

The concept of the state is only useful when it applies to atual states in existance. Hunter gather groups did NOT have a state by the commonly accepted definition of a State. Everytime you had a permanent rulling body with innate authority over a specified area, its never (unless you have any examples) come about by consensus.

Even if it did, at one point, that is useless for future generations. So your explination of the 'concept' of the state is really pointless if it can't be applied.

[Kronos]

Well that's it then: this "commonly held definition" is to narrow for my liking.

Certainly there have been states that have been arranged through consensus. Even the oxymoronic system of anarchy becomes a state process through its "spontaneous organization".

And how do you classify the contract made between a majority of peasants to provide work force in exchange for the protection by a king? These peasants willingly enter into an agreement with a Lord. It doesn't matter if there is a ruling class and a working class- the point is that a system of government is agreed upon by everyone here.

I am not claiming that any and all states are good....I'm simply trying to broaden your understanding of what a state can be.

[RGacky3]

Well that's it then: this "commonly held definition" is to narrow for my liking.


Your definition is so wide that it does'nt even hold any meaning, because in that sence EVERY thing is a state, then when you use that definition, you change someone saying "I'm against the state" to ultimately saying "I'm against organization" even though you know damn well thats not what he's saying. You know what I mean and what people mean when they say "the state".


Certainly there have been states that have been arranged through consensus. Even the oxymoronic system of anarchy becomes a state process through its "spontaneous organization".


if your gonna try and pull bullshit redefinition arguments we'll use a different word then ok? Instead of State, formalcentralandpermanententitywithinnateauthority overaspecifiedareaandgroupofpeople.


And how do you classify the contract made between a majority of peasants to provide work force in exchange for the protection by a king? These peasants willingly enter into an agreement with a Lord. It doesn't matter if there is a ruling class and a working class- the point is that a system of government is agreed upon by everyone here.

In that case small businesses "willingly" pay mobsters protection money.


I am not claiming that any and all states are good....I'm simply trying to broaden your understanding of what a state can be.

No your not your distorting the argument by redefining words and changing the discussion.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Beyond the fact that anarchism started in the left :laugh:


In a stateless society how can you guarantee a lack of formation market economies?
Besides that how can you guarantee people even allow any form of economy, that offers no direct return for their labor? It's very hard to maintain an economy of charity, when private industry requires no emotional ties to those who hold desired material wealth.:confused:

How do you intend to enforce a market economy without the state? It is in fact a prerequisite. You cannot hold property without both the willingness and ability to commit murder in it's defense.

Also emotional ties to other human beings, especially ones you are dependent on = good thing.

[Kronos]

Your definition is so wide that it does'nt even hold any meaning, because in that sence EVERY thing is a state, then when you use that definition, you change someone saying "I'm against the state" to ultimately saying "I'm against organization" even though you know damn well thats not what he's saying. You know what I mean and what people mean when they say "the state".No I don't "know what you mean", dude, because you have a very crude understanding of what a "state" is. And even among yourselves, as communists, you rarely define the same, and agree on, what a communist state is. Yet you all discuss the matter as if "it goes without saying". No, it DOESN'T go without saying. Tighten up, homes.

The fundamental aspect of a "state", WHICH ESTABLISHES IT AS A STATE, is that it is a group of people who agree on laws and rules, as well as a means to enforce those rules, and thereby uphold a constitution in which there is a "due process" involved in judicial action.

No other conditions of a society are relevant here- not the economic modes of production, not the educational system, not the religious beliefs or lack thereof, not the classes, and not the demographics. All of these are relative to the industrial context of the group in question. What is not in question is the diplomatic practices of the society.

A group of five indians can sit around in the woods sharpening sticks.....but as long as there is a "contract" between them, the rules of which are enforced by an authority that supercedes the individual, they have a "state".

Where there is no possibility of law enforcement, you merely have a group that is "organized", NOT a group arranged as a "state".

Since the dawn of man there have been primitive political arrangements that are in every sense of the word a "state".

Now get off my leg.

[RGacky3]

And even among yourselves, as communists, you rarely define the same, and agree on, what a communist state is.

Actually the definition of a communist state is pretty universal, from the lifestylist anarchist to the hardcore maoist, there is no communist state, because communism is classless and stateless. No Leninist or whatever has ever claimed to have a communist state and anarchists agree with them on that.


The fundamental aspect of a "state", WHICH ESTABLISHES IT AS A STATE, is that it is a group of people who agree on laws and rules, as well as a means to enforce those rules, and thereby uphold a constitution in which there is a "due process" involved in judicial action.

In that case a college faternity is a state, even though no one would ever consider it such. The same with a camping group, thats a state.

Now your defnition of it has reduced the meaning of "state" to essencially nothing, in which case we have nothing to discuss because your not talking about anything of substance.


the rules of which are enforced by an authority that supercedes the individual, they have a "state".


That authority IS the state (if that authority exists), if its just a group of individuals, and no one has innate authority to enforce the rules, there is no state. Anyway if we are going to discuss the state we have to use the common meaning and understanding of it, if you don't want to do that, and want to ge all analytical on me, we will use the word formalcentralandpermanententitywithinnateauthority overaspecifiedareaandgroupofpeople
so theres no confusion about what we are talking about.