So What if the Supreme Soviet Votes Thus

[Bud Struggle]

SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court upheld the state's gay-marriage ban Tuesday, in a highly anticipated ruling that ignited protests outside the court's offices in this city's Civic Center.

The ruling, on a 6-1 vote, said the court couldn't overturn the Proposition 8 measure banning gay marriages, which was passed by California voters last November, because the legal challenge against it was too narrow. But in their ruling, the justices validated the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state before Proposition 8 was passed.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124334333001454329.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124334333001454329.html)

Does the rule of the people (the Soviet) triumph?

[Dimentio]

SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court upheld the state's gay-marriage ban Tuesday, in a highly anticipated ruling that ignited protests outside the court's offices in this city's Civic Center.

The ruling, on a 6-1 vote, said the court couldn't overturn the Proposition 8 measure banning gay marriages, which was passed by California voters last November, because the legal challenge against it was too narrow. But in their ruling, the justices validated the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state before Proposition 8 was passed.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124334333001454329.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124334333001454329.html)

Does the rule of the people (the Soviet) tiumph?

I think that most communists would agree with liberals and conservatives that deciding all laws through the ballot without any limits regarding individual protection is an idiotic idea.

[Robert]

deciding all laws through the ballot without any limits regarding individual protection is an idiotic idea.

Excellent. Now ... How are you going to enforce those limits without a state of some kind?

[RGacky3]

The government should'nt be in marraige to begin with, so its kind of a bad question.

[Bud Struggle]

The government should'nt be in marraige to begin with, so its kind of a bad question.

Well good Vangardist like you and me comrade, know this--but what if those pesky Proletarians don't? And WORSE what if they aren't politically correct?

Hey, what if they ban abortion like the SU did in 1936?

Will the people really rule?

[NecroCommie]

When this happens it is already too late to act according to everyones will. This entire scenario should be avoided through education and the elimination of recreationist agitators.

In communism there is no surpreme soviet, so individual communes would be pretty free to decide their own stuff. In the socialist stage such chauvinist laws are banned outright.

[Bud Struggle]

When this happens it is already too late to act according to everyones will. This entire scenario should be avoided through education and the elimination of recreationist agitators. And who is to do that? Who is to make the rules and who is to design the education programs? And what of the dissidents? What if they are more convincing than the Communist idealists.


In communism there is no surpreme soviet, so individual communes would be pretty free to decide their own stuff. In the socialist stage such chauvinist laws are banned outright.Yea, but ideas make a comeback pretty easily--so there could be maybe "white only" communes or "abortion free" communes.

[Kollentsky]

Well, you've seen that already with the Israeli Kibbutzim.

Any true democrat should agree that they have a responsibility to take their ideas through the rest of society. If we can't convince people of progressive politics then we won't win the revolution.

Plus, it's an integral feature of the materialist conception of history that, to a great extent, these reactionary divisions within society are formed through a complex interplay of socially antagonistic relationships, which (ideally) would not be present under a communist society. Part of the idea is that people would more... enlightened in a situation where they weren't encouraged to screw other people, or at least other sections of society, over all the time.

I happen to agree.

[Yazman]

TomK, you raise an important issue and its something that we need to remember.

I think too many people are quick to attribute everything they hate in the world to capitalism.

There will still be social problems and issues facing us, and the establishment of a post-capitalist society in whatever form it takes will not necessarily eliminate some of the social issues that we have strong opinions on.

Note that I'm NOT defending capitalism but i think that sometimes we can be a bit short sighted in what is a problem capitalism is directly responsible for, and what is a problem that capitalism may propagate in some way but is not necessarily directly responsible for. Sexism, homophobia, etc were around long before capitalism in many different forms and could very well continue after it. The movement to a post-capitalist society should just move such worrying social trends below the acceptable standard of civilization in the way that nazism has been in recent times.

[RGacky3]

Well good Vangardist like you and me comrade, know this--but what if those pesky Proletarians don't? And WORSE what if they aren't politically correct?

Hey, what if they ban abortion like the SU did in 1936?

Will the people really rule?

Without a State peoples marriages are pretty much up to them and their church, the way its supposed to be. So really I could care less what the individual proletarians think about marriage because its between them and their spouse.

Also, why do you assume that somehow proletarians are less "enlightened" than governments?

[Yazman]

Also, I tend to agree with the notion that marriage should remain a social and not a legal system.

[Pogue]

Excellent. Now ... How are you going to enforce those limits without a state of some kind?

Through a constitution that anyone part of our future society must accept.

[Bud Struggle]

Through a constitution that anyone part of our future society must accept.

And who's going to write that Constitution? And what's it going to say? Will people get to vote on it or will some Glorious Leader decide?

If it goes before the people I know the way I'll vote.

[Yazman]

And WORSE what if they aren't politically correct?

Fuck political correctness. Let people say what they really think, be they politicians or anybody. I would rather brutal honesty than nice-sounding lies.


I think that most communists would agree with liberals and conservatives that deciding all laws through the ballot without any limits regarding individual protection is an idiotic idea.

So you are opposed to direct democracy? There is an underlying current (I hate to namedrop but Chomsky describes this quite accurately) in much of politics since the 19th century describing how the "unwashed masses" need an elite of some sort to rule over them because they are not capable of managing themselves, and without this elite society would wither into chaos, and that this view permeates much of capitalist and even some anti-capitalist ideology.

I do not agree with this view.

[MikeSC]

Society should vote only on things concerning society in my opinion- things that either use the resources that society holds in custody on behalf of the people, or laws that people in that society are bound to follow. Marriage, without having any legal significance, would be out of society's jurisdiction. Under communism there would be no need for marriage to be in law.

[Pogue]

And who's going to write that Constitution? And what's it going to say? Will people get to vote on it or will some Glorious Leader decide?

If it goes before the people I know the way I'll vote.

For human beings certain things are fundamental rights, and if anyone denies these things, they have an opinion which quite simply can be ignored. If they violate these rights, they are being unjustified and so should be punished as such by those who do wish to uphold such rights.

Basically, things that cannot be challenged because there is no logical basis for attacking them. You never ever have the right to rape someone, as an example. This could never be justified, and so the right not to be raped supercedes the majority's democratic decision to rape someone. The same goes for homophobia as in this case - no amount of people have the right to take away someone else's right to live with, be legally bound to and have sex with (consensually) someone of the same gender. The right to marry someone of the same sex as you is more important than the communities desire to uphold out-dated religious 'values', and as such, if a community voted to not allow gay marriage and enforced this (as they would, through violence, the only way a law can be enforced) then others could rightfully come to the defence of the persecuted person.

So there would be a constitution, out-lining fundamental rights. This would have to be drawn up democratically, certainly, say through delegates from communities coming forward to write it up, voting according to the wishes of the people they are delegating for. So this would be democratic, same as all other decisions. Of course, one would hope a physical constitution would not be neccesary, if problems arose. Naturally there would be differences of opinion through and between communities which need to be resolved through discussion, and so any constitution would have a large amount of flexibiltiy and would only enshrine fundamental rights which are held to be self-evident. So this is our constitution, essentially solidly outlining the rights of humans. If a racist, sexist or homophobic communtiy rejected some of these fundamental rights then they would be pressured itno accepting them - for example, I'd say anyone who thinks racism is acceptable and enforces it should be restricted from our society, moved from it until they are willing to accept it. I think such people will be in the minority anyway, but they have no right to be part of our society if they don't want t function in it on a libertarian basis.

All of this would be resolved in the process of revolution, though, naturally. No revolution would be over until such problems have been resolved, and the idea of a community that has gone through a revolution but still is reactionary afterwards to me seems almost contradictory anyway. Fundamental to this whole arugment is the whole idea that 'My freedom to swing my fist stops at your face' - people can do what they want as long as it hurts anyone, so I am obliged to swing ym fist, but must stop if it hits someone, and I can be punished for hitting them, because I am infringing upon their freedom not to be hit. With gay marriage, it does not harm anyone, so it should be allowed and cannot be restricted, and if the community tries to restrict it, they were oppresing this person and going against liberty and have to be prevented from doing so.

[Robert]

I think too many people are quick to attribute everything they hate in the world to capitalism. Yaz for President!



So there would be a constitution, out-lining fundamental rights

So there would be a state in this stateless society.

[Pogue]

So there would be a state in this stateless society.


Funnilly enough, I don't remember saying that.

[Forward Union]

Excellent. Now ... How are you going to enforce those limits without a state of some kind?

Why do you need a state? The state doesn't do any actual enforcing does it. I haven't seen Gordon Brown going around punching Tax dodgers. The police enforces, which we would still have. Though many comrades like to create a 2 hour long confusion by calling such an organ a "workers militia"

But yes there would be a police force and a constitution designed to protect peoples rights.

But it's ok keep asking fucking ridiculous, 5 year old questions.


And who's going to write that Constitution?

Me.

[Pogue]

Me.


I wholeheartedly second this.

[Killfacer]

He gets my vote also.

[Pogue]

He gets my vote also.

No voting, its just done.

[Robert]

This is truly bizarr-o world. A constitution is a system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.

So you're clearly contemplating a government, which means a "state"; you just don't want to call it that, and the reason is clear enough.

[Forward Union]

This is truly bizarr-o world. A constitution is a system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.

So you're clearly contemplating a government, which means a "state"; you just don't want to call it that, and the reason is clear enough.

No I am not. It refers to the existence of a state because that is the only form of "sovereign" body in existence today. (actually i can dispute that)

It can equally prescribe the laws and functions of a peoples republic, where supreme decision making power rests in the local councils and on large regional areas, in delegates councils, mandated by the local councils. Theres no state involved, though various mechanisms of the state, police, courts etc, will be used by the people, to enforce and maintain the will of the people.

Such bodies have existed in history and are obviously quite different from a state.

[Kollentsky]

The 'state' is merely the permanent apparatus of government; that is, the structures which remain in place throughout differing administrations (i.e. the judiciary, army, bureaucracy, police, etc). Parliament itself is 'government', constantly changing and shifting (though only within the confines set by the 'state').

ftr, Foward Union, I don't believe there would be a police force under a workers' state. The practical essence of the state is in the distinction between civilian and 'other', "legally" sanctified, purveyors of physical force. A true socialist democracy wouldn't rely upon any such distinction to organise self-control or governance (interestingly enough, this statement is no more radical than the original intent of the US constitution).

[Forward Union]

ftr, Foward Union, I don't believe there would be a police force under a workers' state.

Yes you do. Because you think people that go on killing sprees should be stopped. And you think there should be people to stop it.

Now I know you're already panicking and are about to explain to me all kinds of complicated caveats that differentiate what you think will happen from a police force. But please save us all the time and admit it's a police force. Nothing like the current one, in many ways, but a police force.

Too long people who would otherwise fully support our politics shit themselves because people like you come out with bombastic and controversialist statements like the one above. That is really my only objection to you saying things like that. It's politically an own goal for anyone seeking to discredit us, and it's completely unnecessary. It's far more productive to say "I think the police should only enforce laws agreed on by the community, should be entirely accountable, and it's leadership elected" Big up the separation of police and court, the absence of minority interests etc, and if you're hippy enough to think it should be rotated, add that as well. But saying "THRES NO POLCE MANNN ..FUCKING ****S" makes people lock their windows and wrap up their children in preparation for the oncoming chaos and rioting, which is probably what we want (in their opinion) because we're anarchists, and you've basically just confirmed it for them.

Of course, you can come out with some over intellectual pseudo-psychology to try and salvage the damage you have just done, but most people, including myself, won't buy it.

[Robert]

various mechanisms of the state, police, courts etc, will be used by the people, to enforce and maintain the will of the people.

If these republics and workers councils ... on second thought, you know what? I can tell that we are just going to quibble over where the workers' councils with enforcement powers and a constitution (supported and protected by the police, as you say) leave off and the where the state (supported and protected by the police) begins.

So what exactly are we arguing about? And to what does that "etc." refer above? Agencies? Bureaus? Commissions? Task Forces? Study Groups? Legislative councils?

My honest concern about your vision is that it assumes that local control will stay local. People with common interests in these various guilds and syndicates are going to seek each other out for reasons of efficiency, defense (I know, I know), and standardization of rules and measures. You don't see that happening?

As they aggregate, decisions are going to get more and more complex, and power more and more centralized. I don't say you shouldn't try. Maybe it'll be better in the short run anyway.

[Forward Union]

My honest concern about your vision is that it assumes that local control will stay local. People with common interests in these various guilds and syndicates are going to seek each other out for reasons of efficiency, defense (I know, I know), and standardization of rules and measures. You don't see that happening?
.

Did I not mention the existence of delegates councils? They pretty much answer this point.

[Kollentsky]

Yes you do. Because you think people that go on killing sprees should be stopped. And you think there should be people to stop it.

Err, you can take your simplistic understanding of the distinction between state, government and population, and stick it where the sun don't shine you arrogant **** :)

My whole point, which you appear incapable of cognitively processing, is that a distinction between citizenry and armed bodies of men given 'legal' sanction to act with physical force on their behalf is the very practical basis upon which a state is based. Thus, no state, no police. The idea of a police force is totally counter to the idea of self-regulating and disciplining communities.

Read some Lenin, you child, then come back and chat some with the revolutionaries.

[Forward Union]

My whole point, which you appear incapable of cognitively processing, is that a distinction between citizenry and armed bodies of men ginven 'legal' sanction to act with physical force on their behalf is the very practical basis upon which a state is based.

Only on the basis of the legal mandate being to defend a state. But I will turn your question around and watch you follow the script I already wrote by asking you; what do we do with psychotic murderers?


Thus, no state, no police. The idea of a police force is totally counter to the idea of self-regulating and disciplining commuities.

Never has been considered so in history, from the Bolsheviks, to the Makhnovists, the CNT, and even the Zapatistas today. Such an obvious point only became an issue after the liberal invasion of Anarchism in the 1950s.



Read some Lenin, you child, then come back and chat some with the revolutionaries.

Yes because Lenin was such a strong opponant of armed police.

[Kollentsky]

The principle of punishment or social direction is seperate from the idea of a seperate, legally defined body of armed men (police) to enforce social laws. The police are a modern invention of the modern bourgeois state.

Self-regulated and self-disciplined communities are the basis upon which Marxist ideas of communism are based - 'never been considered' - it's quite disgusting you can ramble 'round this place insulting people so arrogantly whilst evidently in no possession of any vaguely detailed knowledge of communism or communist theory.

As for Lenin - read State and Revolution, then come back to me with some views on Lenin's attitude towards the police.

And get less full of yourself.

[Forward Union]

The principle of punishment or social direction is seperate from the idea of a seperate, legally defined body of armed men (police) to enforce social laws. The police are a modern invention of the modern bourgeois state.

These are the caveats I mentioned earlier. So far so good. Keep to the script.


Self-regulated and self-disciplined communities are the basis upon which Marxist ideas of communism are based So, will everyone be the police? free to administer on the spot justice whenever they feel like it? or will there be a completely informal constitution that people just don't write down? So Murder isn't really illegal but I will beat the shit out of you if you murder someone. Or maybe I'll kill you, depends how I feel. And also depends if I catch you, because we wont have a forensic department because there's no police.


As for Lenin - read State and Revolution, then come back to me with some views on Lenin's attitude towards the police.Ok mate.

[Kollentsky]

You tit - what respect do you think you've earned for me to bother answering your evidently ill-researched pseudo opinions? Yes, everyone will be police - and no, that doesn't mean that 'on-the-spot' justice is administered. If you can't see how crime can be controlled socially with general participation in governance, then you're no fucking socialist.

[Forward Union]

You tit - what respect do you think you've earned for me to bother answering your evidently ill-researched pseudo opinions? .

Don't see where research enters into this discussion. and what is a pseudo opinion?


Yes, everyone will be police - and no, that doesn't mean that 'on-the-spot' justice is administered. If you can't see how crime can be controlled socially with general participation in governance, then you're no fucking socialist

How will on the spot justice be prevented?

[Kollentsky]

Look, dickhead, there's no way you're clever enough to lead me on some merry-dance coming 'round to legitimating your opinions. You've just said here that self-regulating communities are something which 'have never been considered in history', that is, a history in which conceptions of socialism have existing since Gerrard fucking Winstanley in the Mid-17thC and in which the police were formed in the early 19thC. You are evidently in need of some theoretical knowledge of political theory, alongside a at least a vague knowledge of a historical process of events.

Here's my advice:

1. Learn to read
2. Read some books on state theory

Then maybe we'll talk. If I feel like it.

Goodnight.

[Forward Union]

Look, dickhead,

http://www.tvscoop.tv/phil.jpg

[gorillafuck]

you arrogant **** :)
And get less full of yourself.
You tit - what respect do you think you've earned for me to bother answering your evidently ill-researched pseudo opinions?
Look, dickhead
You're not going to win him over by repeatedly insulting him. Just a tip.

[trivas7]

It can equally prescribe the laws and functions of a peoples republic, where supreme decision making power rests in the local councils and on large regional areas, in delegates councils, mandated by the local councils. Theres no state involved, though various mechanisms of the state, police, courts etc, will be used by the people, to enforce and maintain the will of the people.

I agree w/ Robert the Great; you're either being disingenuous or demonstrating your ignorance. Any agency that uses force and violence in the name of society are organs of the state.

[trivas7]

It can equally prescribe the laws and functions of a peoples republic, where supreme decision making power rests in the local councils and on large regional areas, in delegates councils, mandated by the local councils. Theres no state involved, though various mechanisms of the state, police, courts etc, will be used by the people, to enforce and maintain the will of the people.

I agree w/ Robert the Great; you're either being disingenuous or demonstrating your ignorance. Any agency or institution that uses force and violence in the name of society are organs of the state. Neither is a republic a syndicate of worker's councils.

[Post-Something]

Kollentsky is possibly the most arrogant human I've ever seen. Tone it down a notch and don't be so hostile, you're really not that smart.

And he even has the nerve to tell Foreward Union to read State and Revolution (because that theoretical level of organisation is obviously how the Soviet Union under Lenin turned out -- like the Cheka...)

[Forward Union]

I agree w/ Robert the Great; you're either being disingenuous or demonstrating your ignorance. Any agency that uses force and violence in the name of society are organs of the state.

But we weren't debating the existence of such organs, but whether or not they were "of the state" or of "peoples councils"

[Robert]

I agree w/ Robert the GreatMy heart soars like a hawk.

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:7saJFg8hbNIFIM:http://coosacreek.org/mambo/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ols.jpg

Trivas for President!

[Kollentsky]

You can post up a meaningless list of my insults as much as you want - my initial post to this thread was fittingly polite and deferent. All abuse came as a direct response to intellectual wankery.

ftr, both Robert the Great and trivia pwn your knowledge of the state. You can't just refer to hypothetical models of society and claim they usurp existing definitions and categories.

PS - absolutely love being 'the most arrogant human being you've ever met'. ftr, on Lenin, interesting that Cheka were brought in reluctantly, in the context of dire civil war, and under the pretext of substitutionism brought about by the failure of the spread of socialism elsewhere - under the auspices of the workers' state, huh?

Learn to readz, guyzz...

[Bud Struggle]

For human beings certain things are fundamental rights, and if anyone denies these things, they have an opinion which quite simply can be ignored. If they violate these rights, they are being unjustified and so should be punished as such by those who do wish to uphold such rights.

Basically, things that cannot be challenged because there is no logical basis for attacking them. You never ever have the right to rape someone, as an example. This could never be justified, and so the right not to be raped supercedes the majority's democratic decision to rape someone. The same goes for homophobia as in this case - no amount of people have the right to take away someone else's right to live with, be legally bound to and have sex with (consensually) someone of the same gender. The right to marry someone of the same sex as you is more important than the communities desire to uphold out-dated religious 'values', and as such, if a community voted to not allow gay marriage and enforced this (as they would, through violence, the only way a law can be enforced) then others could rightfully come to the defence of the persecuted person.

So there would be a constitution, out-lining fundamental rights. This would have to be drawn up democratically, certainly, say through delegates from communities coming forward to write it up, voting according to the wishes of the people they are delegating for. So this would be democratic, same as all other decisions. Of course, one would hope a physical constitution would not be neccesary, if problems arose. Naturally there would be differences of opinion through and between communities which need to be resolved through discussion, and so any constitution would have a large amount of flexibiltiy and would only enshrine fundamental rights which are held to be self-evident. So this is our constitution, essentially solidly outlining the rights of humans. If a racist, sexist or homophobic communtiy rejected some of these fundamental rights then they would be pressured itno accepting them - for example, I'd say anyone who thinks racism is acceptable and enforces it should be restricted from our society, moved from it until they are willing to accept it. I think such people will be in the minority anyway, but they have no right to be part of our society if they don't want t function in it on a libertarian basis.

All of this would be resolved in the process of revolution, though, naturally. No revolution would be over until such problems have been resolved, and the idea of a community that has gone through a revolution but still is reactionary afterwards to me seems almost contradictory anyway. Fundamental to this whole arugment is the whole idea that 'My freedom to swing my fist stops at your face' - people can do what they want as long as it hurts anyone, so I am obliged to swing ym fist, but must stop if it hits someone, and I can be punished for hitting them, because I am infringing upon their freedom not to be hit. With gay marriage, it does not harm anyone, so it should be allowed and cannot be restricted, and if the community tries to restrict it, they were oppresing this person and going against liberty and have to be prevented from doing so.

But you are mixing two things here. Democracy and reason. I don't think you have any right to think that they should go hand in hand. That's the whole point about the anti-homosexual vote in California. I don't really care about state sanctioned marriage, but it is pretty interesting that the majority of voters dislike the idea of giving equal rights to gays.

The same would go for abortion, not to get into the subject but you RevLefters have your ideas on the subject itself but there are lots of other good Communists and Socialists that would think otherwise. That area would certainly come up for discussion and there is a good chance that the Commubnist Constitution may not be in line with Revleft policies.

And further there is the problem of malcontents. Would I as a Capitalist have the same rights under Communism that you Communists have under Capitalism? Would you mind if I and my friends set up a website and work for the counter-Revolution? (I can just see the "Reagan Kiddies" and "Thatcher Kiddies" posts now!)

And it's nice that you choose to isolate people that don't go along with standard operating proceedure--but what if those folks set up their own communities and just deal with their own fellow believers--then you are Balkanizing the one world Anarchy--you are in effect forming countries. Here's where Communism would need a "Glorious Leader" to straighten things out.

While I like the idea of Communist Anarchy a lot I can't see it would not devolve into Stalinist Communism (which I don't like a lot) rather quickly.

[Forward Union]

You can post up a meaningless list of my insults as much as you want - my initial post to this thread was fittingly polite and deferent. All abuse came as a direct response to intellectual wankery.

But tell me what was intellectual about pointing out that saying "we're gonna have no police" is a suicidal PR move, alongside being untrue. I've actually learnt that from 5 years of community organising. After all, you are the one that told me I have to read Lenin to hang around with the "revolutionaries"


PS - absolutely love being 'the most arrogant human being you've ever met'. ftr, on Lenin, interesting that Cheka were brought in reluctantly,Lenin: "hmmm. I dunno man. hmm, it's kinda wrong... ...oh go on then"


in the context of dire civil war, and under the pretext of substitutionism brought about by the failure of the spread of socialism elsewhere - under the auspices of the workers' state, huh?I dont actually disagree with the existance of a secret police in a revolutionary situation per se. But i do strongly oppose that particular implimentation. The makhnovist model is better imo. (Don't reply to this I don't want a discussion about the Russian Revolution)

However, we still haven't answered the question about how in your "care bear" society, we will deal with people who perfrom acts of "on the spot justice"

Who will stop this? and on what basis?

[Forward Union]

But you are mixing two things here. Democracy and reason.

I don't think he was. He clearly outlined the need for a semi stable constitution to protect certain rights from idiotic or bigoted whims like the one in california. This said, I do think a factual, secular education, and free access to information and the internet will make people more reasonable. And that democracy functions best when people think reasonably, and based on evidence. So I suppose religion is something of a spanner in the works... but I wont go off on that one.


And further there is the problem of malcontents. Would I as a Capitalist have the same rights under Communism that you Communists have under Capitalism? You will have the same rights under Communism as a Feudal Lord has under Capitalism.

And that is a deeply honest answer.


While I like the idea of Communist Anarchy a lot I can't see it would not devolve into Stalinist Communism (which I don't like a lot) rather quickly.Because assuming we have set up a functioning direct democracy, which has an armed wing to defend it, the only way a dictator can take over is if A) they are elelcted, or B) they stage an armed coup. Both are possible but I don't think the first one is very likely. I've not seen any examples of a proper, ordered direct democracy falling into dictatorship. I can't imagine how it's possible.

[Kollentsky]

I've actually learnt that from 5 years of community organising.

Whoop-de-frick - you mean you've had genuine, REAL contact with ACTUAL PEOPLE in the ACTUAL COMMUNITY?! It's not a PR blunder or untrue to claim there would be no police in a stateless society. The police are a direct manifestation of the state by any meaningful definition.

"Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to ensure public and social order through the legitimized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility." - wiki


Who will stop this? and on what basisPeople in the community will stop it, on the basis of the rules they lay out in their own organisations; and there would be no distinction between those allowed to use force in the community and those not (other than that no-one should be able to use force for an activity deemed against the community's interest and specifically decided against).

Whilst an armed body of men who are specifically legitimated to use force which others aren't exists, there is still a state. That is the point.

[Forward Union]

Whoop-de-frick - you mean you've had genuine, REAL contact with ACTUAL PEOPLE in the ACTUAL COMMUNITY?! It's not a PR blunder or untrue to claim there would be no police in a stateless society. The police are a direct manifestation of the state by any meaningful definition.



"Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to ensure public and social order through the legitimized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility." - wikiThat doesn't contradict me at all. It says "Police are agents or agencies, usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to ensure public and social order through the legitimized use of force" which is what I have been saying. Except that the empowering body in a communist society are democratic "soviets" rather than the state. It's also correct to point out that the term is commonly associated with an exercise of state power. That doesn't mean it is so by all definitions.


People in the community will stop it, on the basis of the rules they lay out in their own organisations; Organisations? I assume you mean local/regional delegates councils. (Unless I can just set up an organisation that sanctions random murder and go around doing it as a soverign entity) So you agree with written law and constitution which is a good start. But everyone can enforce it? That's just not possible for a lot of reasons...

Firstly, it's a specialist task. It requires people of a particular physical and mental capacity, and many other functions of the police requrie scientific degrees.

If a serious crime occurs (someone breaks into my house to try and kill me), who do I phone? My mates? (all my mates are from the chess club) or will there be a coordination center I can call which will send help. (If yes, carry on to my next question. If not, im dead, so I don't support your proposed system)

If they exist and can send help, how will they knew who to send, will they throw darts at a phonebook, hoping they don't end up selecting old miss miggins to chase the murderer down the road? or will there be a list of suitable volonteers. If there are volonteers, I would also hope they mark down what times they are available to be called up (So the coordination people don't spend ages phoning people whos phones are off, while i get my head hacked open) and perhaps they could stay at a suitible center with access to fast vehicles in order to respond to these issues quickly.

If we have a coordination center, and a group of volonteers who can respond to emergancies, we have a ... ... begins with P. Also, so far in my scenario, there's no guest appearances by the state.

What about other functions of the police. If a murder has already happened and no one knows who did it, who will carry our forensic investigations? The good samaritan?


Whilst an armed body of men who are specifically legitimated to use force which others aren't exists, there is still a state. That is the point.Urm. No, basically. A mechanism of State (the police) is not a state. No one would be stupid enough to claim the Anarchist free territories in Ukraine had a state, there was no government. But there were police, courts and a millitary.

And I would rather have an acountable, recallable, democratically mandated body of people than a "judge dred" vigilante system, which relies on passers by seeing crimes and leaping to the rescue.

[Kollentsky]

You're confusing a voluntary militia with police - who are specially selected individuals gifted by law the right to use violence. Having a group of guys you'd call up if some wanker was pissing through your letterbox wouldn't have to stop you kicking the bloke off the porch yourself - something which under a state, civilians would technically not be allowed to do. In no free state should there be a ranked distinction between 'civilians' and 'manhandlers'. The organisation of manhandlers in itself does not a police force make - though to organise them as full-time crimefighters is something which would insititutionalise them to a degree intolerable in a post-state society.

And, urrrm, yes - the existence of a Police force without a 'government' would necessitate the existence of the State. It would necessitate the existence of a 'Police State'. Though frankly, the idea that you consider the 'free Ukrainian' territories to have had no government more than confirms my suspicions you either have no conception of what these terms mean, or you think you can mince them around and apply them at whim to justify your own warped ideas.

If a post-state society still has courts, police, armed forces and all the other features of a state, then what is it exactly that you think distinguishes a state from a post-state?

[Forward Union]

You're confusing a voluntary militia with police - who are specially selected individuals gifted by law the right to use violence.

sigh. This is what I said at the start. If you had listened to me rather than got offended by my apparent tone we could avoid this entire charade.

Calling that type of organisation a Voluntary Militia is like calling a spade an Earth moving implement. It's pointless, it confuses people, and it makes you sound a bit silly.

In all my life, whenever I have given ordinary people pamphlets about anarchism, they often get hung up one the "abolition of the police" statements. As I said before, they fucking shit themselves, and think we are proposing a society that has literally no interest in stopping murder. And doesn't care if their kids get stabbed. It's like saying "we want to create a safe haven for pedos, murderers, rapists and nazis"

If, on the other hand, we say there is a police force (which there is by every available definition of the police I've ever read), but that it functions completely differently, all we do is save hours of pointless elaboration and sound really quite good.


Having a group of guys you'd call up if some wanker was pissing through your letterbox wouldn't have to stop you kicking the bloke off the porch yourself - something which under a state, civilians would technically not be allowed to do.Depends on the country, but I think you are actually.


And, urrrm, yes - the existence of a Police force without a 'government' would necessitate the existence of the State. It would necessitate the existence of a 'Police State'.Given what I mean by police is what you seem to call a "voluntary militia" (a term never used in this way in all of human history) then how does t he existence of such a body create a police state, or even a "voluntary militia state"


If a post-state society still has courts, police, armed forces and all the other features of a state, then what is it exactly that you think distinguishes a state from a post-state?No central decision mankind, or active government.

But lets address this other point. Now that you've gone through the first part of my script by accepting the existence of a police force with certain caveats (or voluntary militia as you like to miscall it) we'll walk you through to the next bit of this circus debate. Courts. So the police (voluntary militia) catch the murderer. What. What do we do next? nothing? let him/her go? Kill them on the spot? Ask God for advice? what.

There must be a way of determining if someone is guilty, and then of determining what should be done as a result. The body that does this, is a court.

sigh.

[Kollentsky]

You've mistaken 'police' for meaning 'organised response to crime' and 'maintaining order'. You also can't comprehend how either of these latter two could be coordinated with a professional body of manhandlers. Not much of an anarchist.

Maybe it's because you think I have a similarly anarchistic notion of how the transition to a post-state society would progress. You, evidently, believe this will be a simultaneous process corresponding with (and being the direct consequence of) the revolution itself. I, do not. I believe that the revolution should be followed by, in a best case scenario, a workers' state, which would ease the transition of present society to a self-governing society over a period of time - pushed forward by the collective nature of its new governing institutions. The point at which the state has, thus, ''withered away" is the point at which society is at an advanced enough level not to need State institutions based upon professionalised and legitimised violence. If there's a rapist in the community, the community would be stable, educated and sophisticated enough to deal with it. This isn't a necessary conclusion to a workers' state but it is a constant aim, and one I believe there could be significant steps towards - in the very least.

Again, you should stop referencing history - as your knowledge of it appears tenuous to say the least. You first referenced 'the whole of history' to incorrectly claim that the idea of self-governing communities had never been considered throughout 'the whole of history'. Actually, socialist emancipatory philosophies pre-date the birth of what can in any sense of the imagination be described as a 'modern' police force, which arose alongside the creation of the European state. Now you reference 'the whole of history' to claim that the term 'voluntary militia' has never been used in human terms. This is also incorrect. Brazenly, indeed. Unfortunately, it seems history is not kind to your wild assertions. "Facts", as Lenin said; "are stubborn things".

Perhaps you simply need to realise that the idea of society without a state is 'Utopia', whether envisioned by right or left, and thus - no-body need present you with what you deem a 'likely' blueprint for the order of things in said Utopia, as said Utopia is sufficiently 'Utopian' to cope without.

Or perhaps you'll just keep on making up definitions to suit your whacky pipe-dreamt musings.

Hmmm.

[Robert]

if some wanker was pissing through your letterbox

:laugh: Man, do I LOVE British English, what with your "wankers" and "tossers." Is there a difference in a wanking tosser and a tossing wanker? And what's that great word you guys have for cops?

Anyway, yes you can over here stop a wanking tosser from pissing in the bleeding mailbox.

Here's a representative law:

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property, for example, one may with impunity stop a wanker from pissing in, on, or around your bleeding mailbox.



I made up the last part, but the rest is true.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't think he was. He clearly outlined the need for a semi stable constitution to protect certain rights from idiotic or bigoted whims like the one in california. This said, I do think a factual, secular education, and free access to information and the internet will make people more reasonable. And that democracy functions best when people think reasonably, and based on evidence. So I suppose religion is something of a spanner in the works... but I wont go off on that one. One of the nice things about Democratic Capitalism is that it can honestly deal with all comers--no matter what their background or education. Capitalists think that all sorts of people add to the general melieu and make the world a more varried and interesting place. Seems though you think it's best for Communism that everyone recieve the same sort of education to better have the same value systems that are conducive to a good homogenized citizenry. Excellent! Who needs unauthorized thoughts getting in the way of a productive Proletariat!




You will have the same rights under Communism as a Feudal Lord has under Capitalism.

And that is a deeply honest answer. Good answer!


Because assuming we have set up a functioning direct democracy, which has an armed wing to defend it, the only way a dictator can take over is if A) they are elelcted, or B) they stage an armed coup. Both are possible but I don't think the first one is very likely. I've not seen any examples of a proper, ordered direct democracy falling into dictatorship. I can't imagine how it's possible. So why do you think that up till now attempts at Democracy in countries that proport to be or act or think Socialistic or Communist have been such a failure? Up till now Democracy and Communism haven't mixed very well.

[Pogue]

One of the nice things about Democratic Capitalism is that it can honestly deal with all comers--no matter what their background or education. Capitalists think that all sorts of people add to the general melieu and make the world a mor varried and interesting place. Seems though you think it's best for Communism that everyone recieve the same sort of education to better have the same value systems that are conducive to a good homogenized citizenry. Excellent! Who needs unauthorized thoughts getting in the way of a productive Proletariat!



This said, I do think a factual, secular education, and free access to information and the internet will make people more reasonable



Definitions of reading on the Web:

the cognitive process of understanding a written linguistic message; "his main reading was detective stories"; "suggestions for further reading"
a particular interpretation or performance; "on that reading it was an insult"; "he was famous for his reading of Mozart"
a datum about some physical state that is presented to a user by a meter or similar instrument; "he could not believe the meter reading"; "the barometer gave clear indications of an approaching storm"
written material intended to be read; "the teacher assigned new readings"; "he bought some reading material at the airport"
interpretation: a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something
a city on the River Thames in Berkshire in southern England
recitation: a public instance of reciting or repeating (from memory) something prepared in advance; "the program included songs and recitations of well-loved poems"
the act of measuring with meters or similar instruments; "he has a job meter reading for the gas company"


Life is simple.

[Pogue]

So why do you think that up till now attempts at Democracy in countries that proport to be or act or think Socialistic or Communist have been such a failure? Up till now Democracy and Communism haven't mixed very well.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/238/facepalmrap.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=facepalmrap.jpg)

[Bud Struggle]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/22/world/22china.600.jpg

:)

[Robert]

You think they were voting on a pay raise for themselves? Or just for the Premier? :)

[Bud Struggle]

That's a meeting of the Commie Club. :D

[Plagueround]

That's a meeting of the Commie Club. :D

Lies. Those men are far too calm to be the Commie Club.

[RGacky3]

So why do you think that up till now attempts at Democracy in countries that proport to be or act or think Socialistic or Communist have been such a failure? Up till now Democracy and Communism haven't mixed very well.

Sometimes TomK, you really blow my mind, how can someone, relatively intelligent, given so much information, understood that information, Still make such an idiotic statement, as if he never heard it before.


Capitalists think that all sorts of people add to the general melieu and make the world a more varried and interesting place.

What are you talking about? Where is the evidence for this?


Seems though you think it's best for Communism that everyone recieve the same sort of education to better have the same value systems that are conducive to a good homogenized citizenry. Excellent! Who needs unauthorized thoughts getting in the way of a productive Proletariat!

Again, your gonna have to explain yourself, how basic education under communism would be any different than basic education under capitalis, and what this unauthorized thoughts is about?

He was saying everyone should get a good basic education, and generally more educated people are more tolorant, so education would help reduce bigotry.

Then you turn that into "Everyone must be uniform in though"?

So .... What are you talking about?


You will have the same rights under Communism as a Feudal Lord has under Capitalism.

And that is a deeply honest answer. Good answer!

Just in case you did'nt get it it meas the same rights as everyone else.

[Kollentsky]

:laugh: Man, do I LOVE British English, what with your "wankers" and "tossers." Is there a difference in a wanking tosser and a tossing wanker? And what's that great word you guys have for cops?

As far as I'm concerned, I use 'tosser' as the polite form of the adjective 'wanker' - but they're interchangeable really.

And d'ya mean 'Bobby'? 'Bizzies'? 'Dibble'? 'Old Bill'? ... 'Filth'?

There are tonnes of regional variations but they're all we've got where I'm from.


Anyway, yes you can over here stop a wanking tosser from pissing in the bleeding mailbox.

Here's a representative law:

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property, for example, one may with impunity stop a wanker from pissing in, on, or around your bleeding mailbox. Trespass is a big thing Stateside in a way it's not over here; but as far as I'm aware, you're only allowed to use physical force to remove someone from your property so long as you have a sign clearly stating 'no trespassing' and you don't injure them. In most real cases, a court wouldn't convict a defendent of 'injuring' a burglar on their property - but there have been some high profile cases where someone defending their house has ended up in prison for causing grievous injury and/or death.

Regardless, the idea is that there's a trained body of blokes who are specially granted the right to use force, and specifically, that no-one else is.

And, conveniently, the laws in America allowing an individual to use force are mainly throwbacks originating with the original constitution; which was designed specifially to minimise the presence of a police force and in times of crisis, to draft people into voluntary militias (or get 'deputised').

[Robert]

there's a trained body of blokes

DamNATION is that good! Why can't Americans talk like that?

[Forward Union]

You've mistaken 'police' for meaning 'organised response to crime' and 'maintaining order'.

Firstly I think the voluntary militia you made up fits perfectly into the definition of a police force you provided. So there's no mistake.

But secondly, even if it was something of an incorrect usage of the term police, I have already stated that misusing the term to create greater appeal for the ideas at the core of it is better than the most insane statements spouted by certain comrades.


If there's a rapist in the community, the community would be stable, educated and sophisticated enough to deal with it.Please. You're making me cringe.

Anyway aside from some wingnut rhetorical ranting, you still haven't answered anything, Joe publics probably run off in fear by now. Well, ok, you've admitted to the existence of a police force in a post state society which is ok even if your liberal throat is having problems swallowing the actual word.

But what about courts, you said there would be no courts. So what do the voluntary militias do when they finally catch jack the ripper?

[Bud Struggle]

Sometimes TomK, you really blow my mind, how can someone, relatively intelligent, given so much information, understood that information, Still make such an idiotic statement, as if he never heard it before. I heard it--I just don't easily believe it. Here's my formula for understanding Communism: 1/4th belief in what you Anarchists say about the future based on the belief that it's pretty well thought out and you (and other's) really seem to think it's going to happen. I give you the benefit of the doubt. 1/2 on what attmepts at Communism have produced in the past. Some damn good ideas but always with pretty nasty results. I have to believe that not ALL the Russian Revolutionaries and Chinese Revolutionaries, etc. have ignoble intentions. I think that things went bad because there's some sort flaw in the plan. And there just may be always a flaw in the plan--so every time good people with good intenetions try Communism in real life--youend up with a Hoxha or a Castro or a Stalin. And 1/4 Communism may have blown it's wad and now it's right up there with Fascism and Feudalism as a historical dead end.

Personally, I'm hoping that you guys win--it may not always seem like it but I like the idea of Communism, your type of Communism. I'm just afraid the Stalinists would win again if there was another Revolution.



Just in case you did'nt get it it meas the same rights as everyone else. I wonder if I would have as much freedom under Communism as you have under Capitalism, that's all.

[Bud Struggle]

But what about courts, you said there would be no courts. So what do the voluntary militias do when they finally catch jack the ripper?

Why do the words "lynch mob" come to mind? :rolleyes:

[Robert]

I wonder if I would have as much freedom under Communism as you have under Capitalism, that's all. I don't. You wouldn't.

[Pogue]

TomK, your arguments in regards to me to do with communism have failed everytime because quite simply you still don't understand the movement, the different trends in it and their approaches. If you read my posts you'd understand I crticise Lenin, Stalin, the USSR, Bolshevism, et cetera more than pretty much anyone on the board. Read the user title - Libertarian Socialism - if its not democratic, to me its not socialism, I don't defend it and therefore it doesn't effect me. Talking about how 'communism' and 'democracy' haven't mixed well to me is an oxymoron - if it wasn't democratic, it wasn't communism.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, your arguments in regards to me to do with communism have failed everytime because quite simply you still don't understand the movement, the different trends in it and their approaches. I think it less that I don't understand than that I like to take an historical aproach to things. In political ideology as in the stock market I like to look at past performance as an indicator future performance.



If you read my posts you'd understand I crticise Lenin, Stalin, the USSR, Bolshevism, et cetera more than pretty much anyone on the board. I agree. I do so also. You will find I have been pretty sympathetic to Anarchism. I like the theory--I just find it hard to see how it would work on a large scale when it hasn't ever been tried (other than in a couple of small local cases) before.


Read the user title - Libertarian Socialism - if its not democratic, to me its not socialism, I don't defend it and therefore it doesn't effect me. Talking about how 'communism' and 'democracy' haven't mixed well to me is an oxymoron - if it wasn't democratic, it wasn't communism. I agree here also, but you have a lot of Communist on this board and in the real world that see Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Trotsky as TRUE Communists and their philosophy as the embodiment TRUE Communist principals. I can't honestly discount them when Discussing communism as a whole. To be honest--they are my problem. I read RevLeft on a regular basis and see that democracy is often very disfavored as being a Bourgeoise creation. I see Democracy here as being one of a few competitive ways of organizing society and it's not always the most favored.

Read guys like Bobkindles and some Stalinists and Hoxhaists and you'll see something quite different in the way of Communism than you are discussing. I tend to address the totality of Communism that I see on RevLeft more than just you (or RGacky who has the same basic philosophy as you.)

I know you have issues with me about my day job--all well and good--but I don't disagree with you much about what a good future for the world would look like. I have no problem with Anarchism--but I rather have Capitalism any day of the week than the Stalinism-Hoxhaism-Trotskyism that is often offered up in this site. Also I am quite interested in the Technocratic approach to Communism. Makes sense in my head greatly, but for me at times it just lacks romance.

[Kollentsky]

Forward Union, I do not know what it is you are having so much difficulty comprehending. The nature of utopia is, whether you like it or not, going to include utopian methods of organising. One would imagine that in a society sophisticated enough to have dispensed with its state fully, there wouldn't be any serious crime to deal with.

The difference is that you see the revolution itself as some definitive moment at which 'the state' is dissolved - whether this correlates with any actual decline in state institutions or not. That's utterly ahistorical and innaccurate, and tbh, I'm not sure how much benefit I can gain from discussing this with someone so evidently incapable of dealing with simple theoretical constructs.

The definition of police I provided, and which is correct, is a force of armed men with special dispensation (i.e. - not awarded to other people [i.e. - powers which other people aren't allowed to use {i.e. - powers given directly, and solely, to them, them and no-one else, as in, no-one else has these powers}]) to use force. There is no necessity in an organised response to crime taking upon itself this distinction between 'police' and 'citizenry' in any society where it is not an aim of the social system to disempower the general public (AKA the state). As such, there would not be a police force under communism.

PS - hope the repetitions helped you along

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

The nature of utopia is, whether you like it or not, going to include utopian methods of organising.


This is fucking ridiculous.

[Forward Union]

This is fucking ridiculous.

Exactly

[Forward Union]

Why do the words "lynch mob" come to mind? :rolleyes:

Well exactly, we don't advocate that as you may have read from our posts.

[RGacky3]

Why do the words "lynch mob" come to mind?

Whos killed more people unjustly, "lynch mobs" or governments?


I wonder if I would have as much freedom under Communism as you have under Capitalism, that's all.

YOU as a Capitalist would probably have less than you have now (in the sense that you no longer can own your company and tell people what to do) but everyone else would have more. After slavery left slave owners had a little less freedom.


1/4th belief in what you Anarchists say about the future based on the belief that it's pretty well thought out and you (and other's) really seem to think it's going to happen. I give you the benefit of the doubt. 1/2 on what attmepts at Communism have produced in the past. Some damn good ideas but always with pretty nasty results. I have to believe that not ALL the Russian Revolutionaries and Chinese Revolutionaries, etc. have ignoble intentions. I think that things went bad because there's some sort flaw in the plan. And there just may be always a flaw in the plan--so every time good people with good intenetions try Communism in real life--youend up with a Hoxha or a Castro or a Stalin. And 1/4 Communism may have blown it's wad and now it's right up there with Fascism and Feudalism as a historical dead end.


You can't say 1/2 attempts at communism, you have to look at what they actually were, and what principles they actually followed, THEN you can make a judgement.

BTW, feudalism "worked" for hundreds of years, so did Capitalism, that does'nt mean they actually "work", Capitalism does'nt work, ask 9/10ths of the world.

your overgeneralizing refusing to acnowledge actual conditions.


In political ideology as in the stock market I like to look at past performance as an indicator future performance.


Yes, everytime anarchist communism or libertarian soclialism was put into practice it came along fine, until an ARMY destroyed it (the ones that were destroyed).


I like the theory--I just find it hard to see how it would work on a large scale when it hasn't ever been tried (other than in a couple of small local cases) before.


"I find it hard to believe" is like saying "i have a funny feeling" you have to say exactly why, and everytime you've done that you hav'nt showed how Anarchism would be worse than statism or Capitlasm, and every doomsday example has been shut down by both empirical and rational evidence.

[Kollentsky]

This is fucking ridiculous.

You evidently have no grasp of English (or, I presume, language generally) as my statement is logically infallible.

Moron.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

You evidently have no grasp of English (or, I presume, language generally) as my statement is logically infallible.

Moron.

I'm not really interested in engaging in a flame war.

Sorry.

[RGacky3]

as my statement is logically infallible.



The nature of utopia is, whether you like it or not, going to include utopian methods of organising.

The Nature of fresh food, is going to include fresh methods of cooking.
The Nature of sexy bodies, is going to include sexy methods of excersising.
The nature of Hard products, is going to include hard methods of production.
The nature of fictional books, are going to include fictional methods of writing.
The nature of Bannana republics, are going to include bannana like forms of organizing.

You see how dumb your "logically infallible" statements are?

Utopian is a loose way to describe something meaning pretty perfect and thus unlikely, its not a specific methological definition of a societ organizing.

[Demogorgon]

Firstly I think the voluntary militia you made up fits perfectly into the definition of a police force you provided. So there's no mistake.

But secondly, even if it was something of an incorrect usage of the term police, I have already stated that misusing the term to create greater appeal for the ideas at the core of it is better than the most insane statements spouted by certain comrades.

Please. You're making me cringe.

Anyway aside from some wingnut rhetorical ranting, you still haven't answered anything, Joe publics probably run off in fear by now. Well, ok, you've admitted to the existence of a police force in a post state society which is ok even if your liberal throat is having problems swallowing the actual word.

But what about courts, you said there would be no courts. So what do the voluntary militias do when they finally catch jack the ripper?
I agree with this and with a fair bit of the other things you have said, you are making a similar mistake yourself is avoiding the use of the word "state". I mean, you, quite correctly I think, say we need a police force, courts, a body of law which we will stick to to prevent arbitrary decisions and I am presumably being reasonable when I infer you also think these bodies should have a support staff and mechanisms for ensuring they don't abuse their authority. That looks a lot like a state to me. You can say it is controlled by the people rather than a sovereign state, but in practice it looks a lot like the people have simply become the Sovereign State to me.

That isn't a bad thing by any means mind you. The problem with anarchism, I feel, is it gets far too hung up on the concept of "the state". It opposes it for various reasons related to the bad aspects of current states and then-in the case of reasonable anarchists like yourself-appreciates that some functions the state presently carries out must continue and propose various means to keep them going. But then you get tongue tied, rather than just saying it is a new kind of state, you deny it is a state at all, when, to the average person, it looks a lot like one. The state has fundamentally changed its nature several times throughout history, a feudal state looks a lot different to a modern capitalist one for instance. Why not just say we will fundamentally change the nature of the state also? It makes the argument a lot easier to follow and saves having to use so much jargon.

[Forward Union]

I agree with this and with a fair bit of the other things you have said, you are making a similar mistake yourself is avoiding the use of the word "state". I mean, you, quite correctly I think, say we need a police force, courts, a body of law which we will stick to to prevent arbitrary decisions and I am presumably being reasonable when I infer you also think these bodies should have a support staff and mechanisms for ensuring they don't abuse their authority. That looks a lot like a state to me. You can say it is controlled by the people rather than a sovereign state, but in practice it looks a lot like the people have simply become the Sovereign State to me.

That isn't a bad thing by any means mind you. The problem with anarchism, I feel, is it gets far too hung up on the concept of "the state". It opposes it for various reasons related to the bad aspects of current states and then-in the case of reasonable anarchists like yourself-appreciates that some functions the state presently carries out must continue and propose various means to keep them going. But then you get tongue tied, rather than just saying it is a new kind of state, you deny it is a state at all, when, to the average person, it looks a lot like one. The state has fundamentally changed its nature several times throughout history, a feudal state looks a lot different to a modern capitalist one for instance. Why not just say we will fundamentally change the nature of the state also? It makes the argument a lot easier to follow and saves having to use so much jargon.

Well. I disagree that it is a state (by reasonable definition, there is no center, no national or city boundaries etc). I have heard anarchists argue that they want "a government made up of all the people" and I think that's a semi-useful way of explaining it. But while some of the mechanisms of state will exist, I don't think it's fair to say there will be an actual state. At the very least it's a loaded term and will create more confusion than clarification.

[Demogorgon]

Well. I disagree that it is a state (by reasonable definition, there is no center, no national or city boundaries etc). I have heard anarchists argue that they want "a government made up of all the people" and I think that's a semi-useful way of explaining it. But while some of the mechanisms of state will exist, I don't think it's fair to say there will be an actual state. At the very least it's a loaded term and will create more confusion than clarification.
Thing is, I also want a "Government made up of all the people" and I also want it run by various means of direct or semi-direct (depending on practicality) democracy, some methods of which have been discussed here. I just call that a means of running a state.

I don't think the word is terribly loaded as it happens. It is in anarchist circles of course and that is why you find yourself using other words, but to most people it is a pretty neutral word that refers to Government institutions. I oppose the capitalist state for the fairly obvious reason I oppose capitalist Government, but to me it follows that because I support socialist Government (with the word here simply meaning the method things are being run by), I support a socialist state.

I don't believe your views are very different to mine here (with one exception that we will come to), it is just that you are using less direct words to express the same ideas, believing the words "Government" and "State" to be more narrow than I do.

The exception is what you say about no city boundaries and the like, I disagree with that because administrative boundaries are simply convenient. Don't get me wrong, I am against borders, or at the least any restriction on moving across them, but administrative boundaries for the purposes of organisation are benign. If we are going to have courts and the like it seems reasonable to say that "Court A will decide on cases arising from this area, Court B from that are" and so forth. That can also mean that the laws each court will use can vary based upon the wishes of the people living in the area they have jurisdiction over and boundaries also become useful there as it allows people to know exactly where they stand in legal terms as they move from area to area. And of course when it comes to cities, sometimes it is just obvious where the dividing lines are. If you get to the point where you have to drive sixty miles down the motorway to get to the next urban area, it is pretty clear you have reached a new city!

[trivas7]

The state has fundamentally changed its nature several times throughout history, a feudal state looks a lot different to a modern capitalist one for instance. Why not just say we will fundamentally change the nature of the state also? It makes the argument a lot easier to follow and saves having to use so much jargon.
I dispute this. The state is a legal creation of capitalism that defined the nation-state by geographical boundaries. There were no feudal states, there were patches of culturally similar kinship clans that occupied the same geographical territory, ruled by feudal lords, sometimes called kings. E.g., the Roman Empire was not a legal entity bound by geography but by allegiance to Rome from the rulers of subjugated clans and taxation.

[Bud Struggle]

I dispute this. The state is a legal creation of capitalism that defined the nation-state by geographical boundaries.

Yet interesting enough the Marxist-Lenist-Maoist states were identical to the Capitalist states and they were the legal creation of Commnists.

[Kollentsky]

The Nature of fresh food, is going to include fresh methods of cooking.
The Nature of sexy bodies, is going to include sexy methods of excersising.
The nature of Hard products, is going to include hard methods of production.
The nature of fictional books, are going to include fictional methods of writing.
The nature of Bannana republics, are going to include bannana like forms of organizing.

You see how dumb your "logically infallible" statements are?

Utopian is a loose way to describe something meaning pretty perfect and thus unlikely, its not a specific methological definition of a societ organizing.

Well done on repeating my exact point as though it's some kind of argument against me. Keep it up.


I agree with this and with a fair bit of the other things you have said, you are making a similar mistake yourself is avoiding the use of the word "state".

Which is precisely my point; the state is defined by a presence of these permanent governmental structures, the concept of 'legality' and other. What FU is doing is, as you say, confusing the fact that 'he's an anarchist and hates the state!' with the fact that he also, in practicality, agrees with the state in varying forms. This point is one which you'll find I made several pages back, in response to his tendency to arbitrarily recreate definitions to suit his own purposes.

Which leads onto the point which both RGacky3 and Comrade Joe are incapable of comprehending - that the idea of a society post-state is utopian. That said, I think it should be striven towards and would be theoretically possible - but let's call an egg an egg. The reason you wouldn't need to have a police force in a stateless, communist society is because no-one would commit crime, and everyone would happily work with one another peaceably. Fact.

[RGacky3]

Well done on repeating my exact point as though it's some kind of argument against me. Keep it up.

It was'nt an argument against you frankly I have no idea what

The nature of utopia is, whether you like it or not, going to include utopian methods of organising.

what it was was just pointing out the rediculousness of that statement, based on the meaning of the word utopian.


that the idea of a society post-state is utopian.

what does that MEAN?


The reason you wouldn't need to have a police force in a stateless, communist society is because no-one would commit crime, and everyone would happily work with one another peaceably. Fact.

Thats not the reason, the reason would be that the community would be able to police themselves, each other, crime would drop dramatically, but it would'nt fall off the face of the planet.