The State

[Nwoye]

What is it?

Or more directly, what constitutes statist behavior? What kind of actions must an association or community undertake, or what characteristics must they develop, to make them a state? These are fundamental questions which anyone studying anarchism or social revolutions in general must answer. When discussing the viability of Anarchism, or of genuine Communism, how we answer these questions forms the basis of the rest of our revolutionary theory and practice, in how we approach power structures, law, wealth distribution, counter revolution, and more. In my opinion, no comprehensive answer exists. In this post, I’ll go through the more popular approaches to defining the state and explain why they are insufficient answers to these questions.

The Marxist Definition: The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

Although the Marxist argument is both helpful for developing theory and historically accurate, it’s really useless for what we’re trying to figure out here. The Marxist definition is really answering the questions of, “What has been the historical role of the State?” and “How does the State typically do?”. What we’re looking for here, is “what differentiates statist activity from non-statist activity?” If we’re trying to answer the question of, “does violently seizing private property and redistributing it make our anarchist commune a state?” or “does defense from outside aggression make us a state?” or “does taxation make us a state?” then Lenin’s definition is worthless. In those situations, we’re acting just like a modern or historical state would, by enforcing our will (or protecting it) over a geographic area and a population, but we’re not necessarily acting as an organ of class rule, nor are we exhibiting the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. While the state is a product of class antagonisms, and while it could wither away as those antagonisms do the same, it’s not answering our question.

While Engel’s historical analysis of the State and Lenin’s theoretical application of that analysis is applicable to many situations, it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of what constitutes a state.

The Traditional Definition: A State is a monopoly of the use of legitimate force over a geographical area.

While this definition sounds originally appealing, it’s applicability into theory is not great. For example, what differentiates a state under this definition and a landowner? Specifically in an anarchist society, where there is no overriding source of sovereignty that grants authority to landowners through property titles. In an anarchic society (particularly a market anarchist one, where defense was handled privately), a man defending his property from invaders (even legitimately) is engaging in statist behavior, as they are rejecting the aggressors claim to the use of force over the disputed object (claiming a monopoly). Ownership is nothing but claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of force over a specific object (remember Proudhon’s equation of property with despotism?). When one asserts that they own something they are claiming the right to destroy it, alter it, consume it, trade it, and give it away, and simultaneously that no one else may do the same. To apply this to a genuine communist society, a militia defending a community from outside aggression is claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of force over that area, by asserting (and backing up with violence) that the aggressors may not impose their will over that area. That being said, even anarchists would support such a measure, and someone defending their property (even collectively) doesn’t make sense as a state in the traditional sense, so I don’t feel like this definition is all that useful.

This definition – developed by Weber and adopted as the primary definition of a state by sociologists – is basically useless for our purposes, as it indiscriminately describes a vast array of situations, which in reality share little in common. To hell with it.

The Alternative Definition: A State is a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership.

The assumption behind this definition is really that there are no “natural rights” that justify property, or ownership in any form. In reality, standards for obtaining property – like “finders keepers”, or possession and use - are determined by implicit agreements among people and communities. Today, these agreements are for the most part forced upon citizens by the state via property law. Now one could argue this view of property, but that’s a subject for another thread. The point of this definition is that a state is any entity which exercises ownership over property without fulfilling the common and agreed upon methods. For example, in the United States, the common conception of property is finders-keepers, or a Neo-Lockean interpretation of natural rights. A state would be any entity who can obtain property without having, what is considered, a natural right to that property. What qualifies the United Kingdom or the U.S. as states is that they exercise ownership (which, as expanded upon above, is the same as a monopoly of the use of force) over a geographical area, without having any commonly accepted claim to ownership over that area. The usefulness of this definition, is that it draws a line of distinction between someone defending their property (not a state), and someone forcefully taking another persons legitimate property (statist behavior).

As for the example above, if a militia defends the land they occupy, they are not exercising ownership over something they don’t have a claim to; they’re just protecting their own property. In my opinion, one of the biggest questions an anarchist has to answer is whether or not they would go around violently seizing private property, and whether or not such an action would make them a state. Under conventional definitions, it would. Under this definition however, it could be argued that the private property was a claim to property not operating under the conventional implicit agreement (which in an anarchic society would probably be possession), and was therefore a state. So in fact, the anarchists were just rectifying a wrong (statist activity), and were not contradicting their ideology.

To sum up, the Marxist definition and the traditional definition of a state are inadequate (while the former is useful and historically accurate), and the alternative listed above provides the clearest and most coherent description of a state. This is of course up for discussion, so what are your thoughts?

[Misanthrope]

Great thread. I think all these definitions fit. In my opinion, a main function of the state is to protect the ruling class from the majority of society, while continuing to keep said ruling class in dominant control though discriminatory bailouts and subsidies (ect). For that reason, capitalism cannot exist without a state. The class that benefits from the state also benefits from the capitalist system, the more state intervention in the market, the better (in their eyes). If the state were to be abolished, the upper class would naturally form a new state to forcefully protect their opulent interests. What's more is that the free market naturally tends to monopolize regardless of discriminatory state intervention, which we all know how monopolies end up, it would be hell without a state to tax and regulate the monopolies, somewhat.

[Nwoye]

Great thread. I think all these definitions fit. In my opinion, a main function of the state is to protect the ruling class from the majority of society, while continuing to keep said ruling class in dominant control though discriminatory bailouts and subsidies (ect). For that reason, capitalism cannot exist without a state. The class that benefits from the state also benefits from the capitalist system, the more state intervention in the market, the better (in their eyes). If the state were to be abolished, the upper class would naturally form a new state to forcefully protect their opulent interests. What's more is that the free market naturally tends to monopolize regardless of discriminatory state intervention, which we all know how monopolies end up, it would be hell without a state to tax and regulate the monopolies, somewhat.
Now I agree with all of this, and it's certainly backed up by historical and modern evidence, but what does that tell us pertaining to future organization tactics? What I mean is, is a workers state (a dictatorship of the proletariat) possible? If the Marxist definition is purely correct, then Marx, Engels, and Lenin's interpretations are essentially sound, and a state can be used as an instrument of suppressing the bourgeois counterrevolution. And if the state is purely class rule, then when classes wither away then so does the state.

The point of this thread, is to determine whether or not that Marxist definition is adequate. If it is, then it leads us to delineated a socialist revolutionary process into two separate stages, the first existing within a state and the second existing in the absence of one. If it isn't adequate, then this Marxist conception of revolution makes no sense. If a state is more than just class rule, then we have to determine if it's even possible for a state to wither away. Your an anarchist correct? Well you've got to deal with the problem of how you handle conflict in your anarchic society, and how your organizational tactics (or if they do) mimic those of a state.

Before we can do any of this, we have to determine exactly what a state is. In my opinion, the third definition is the most accurate.

[yuon]

Interesting thread. Personally I think that the state is an instrument of minority rule, backed by the threat and use of force, over a large majority.

The state is an institution which uses force (and the threat of force) to enable the people in the state persistent rule over the people in that state.

---

So, I think that the notion of power is most important. States rule by the notion of "might is right". And, it's power over people, rather than resources. Though, of course, if you control the resources, you can control the people who require and need those resources. (Whether that be land, food, information, or something else.)

So, I reject the notion of "property" as being important, except so much as it is part of the way the state controls and rules.

[Misanthrope]

Now I agree with all of this, and it's certainly backed up by historical and modern evidence, but what does that tell us pertaining to future organization tactics? What I mean is, is a workers state (a dictatorship of the proletariat) possible? If the Marxist definition is purely correct, then Marx, Engels, and Lenin's interpretations are essentially sound, and a state can be used as an instrument of suppressing the bourgeois counterrevolution. And if the state is purely class rule, then when classes wither away then so does the state.

The point of this thread, is to determine whether or not that Marxist definition is adequate. If it is, then it leads us to delineated a socialist revolutionary process into two separate stages, the first existing within a state and the second existing in the absence of one. If it isn't adequate, then this Marxist conception of revolution makes no sense. If a state is more than just class rule, then we have to determine if it's even possible for a state to wither away. Your an anarchist correct? Well you've got to deal with the problem of how you handle conflict in your anarchic society, and how your organizational tactics (or if they do) mimic those of a state.

Before we can do any of this, we have to determine exactly what a state is. In my opinion, the third definition is the most accurate.

I don't think a state can be used to suppress a bourgeoisie counter revolution. I think we all know who the state protects and works for, I don't see why they would turn on the very people that got them to power.

Yes, I am an anarchist but I hate the term.

Why would it be impossible to abolish the state if it is more than just class rule? Conflict, i.e. legal disputes would be settled by a democratic vote of the community. Protection would be at the hands of a militia.

[Nwoye]

I don't think a state can be used to suppress a bourgeoisie counter revolution. I think we all know who the state protects and works for, I don't see why they would turn on the very people that got them to power.
In my opinion, the key is not necessarily the existence or non existence of a state, but who physically controls the state, and who controls production. Whenever there is a "separation of the producers from the means of production", then class society remains, and the state remains an institution of that class that controls production (the elite ruling class). If this distinction is abolished, then I believe a state could still exist and operate as a legitimate and just institution.


Why would it be impossible to abolish the state if it is more than just class rule? Conflict, i.e. legal disputes would be settled by a democratic vote of the community. Protection would be at the hands of a militia.Well how is that any different than how a modern state handles things? I mean supposing the community enforced the result of the vote on the parties involved, how is that not a state?

[JimN]

The state is an instrument of class rule. It upholds private property rights and conserves the class monopoly of the means of production. It has developed throughout history and displays overtly coercive forms (police, armed forces, judiciary, prisons etc) and more subtle forms of coercion/control (schools, media, aid etc).
A socialist revolution will involve the abolition of private property, money, classes and the state. It must be on global scale as the system it must replace is organised on a global scale.
People in socialist society will work cooperatively to produce to satisfy needs directly without markets, money or profits.
People will need to agree democratically how to organise production and distribution locally, regionally and globally. This means true democracy with instantly recallable delegates and without leaders.
There will be no state.
There will be no class interests or property to represent or protect. Those areas of society that the state under capitalism has penetrated, such as schools, and that people in socialist society find a use for will be adapted and democratised as decided by society as a whole.

[Havet]

Before we can do any of this, we have to determine exactly what a state is. In my opinion, the third definition is the most accurate.

the third definition is also my preferred one. Perhaps we should translate some of our debates over here so other people could analize them as well?

Basically we had gotten here:

state in a non-anarchic society: agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force)

state in an anarchic society: "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."

to which he replied:
I don't see the usefulness or necessity in drawing two separate definitions of a state, one for present society and one for an anarchic society. Going by these definitions, a body existing in both societies acting the same exact way would be a state in the first example, but not in the second. for example, my homeowners association.

I think the first example is an objective definition of the state without being biased towards its support (from a neutral standpoint, so to speak). The second proves to be a good example for the definition of a state in an imaginary place where the state is rare (an anarchic society).

In the case of your homeowners association, i think its not a state in either definition. Since you already agree with me that its not a state in the second example, ill try and explain why i think it is also not a state in the first:

"a state is an agency of legitimized coercion and with a monopoly of force"

The homeownership association has a police to enforce their laws that the "citizens" of the association previously agreed to. When they engage in doing so, they are seen as legitimate because they are engaging in the protection of contracts that have been agreed upon through the prevalent criteria for contracts (if you signed saying you'll do that, then either you do it, or you don't and pay the fine, and if you don't pay the fine, you get out of the community).

Now when they engage in enforcing the contracts individuals had agreed upon but didnt follow, they are not attacking or using force in the sense that we use it (without being in self-defense). Since the association is perceived to have acquired the associations land legitimately, that is, meeting the prevalent criteria for ownership (in this case, collective), then when they protect that land by enforcing the rules generally accepted then they are not a state.

A homeowners association is NOT a state for the same reason that violently defending your home (aquired through the perceived criteria for ownership) doesnt make you a state and for the same reason defending a shirt on your back wouldnt make you a state. Simply because the homeownership association is defending their land by enforcing the contract generally perceived as the consensus for the laws in the association (internal decision) doesnt make them a state. If the contract, or what the majority of people inside and outside the association thought would be a legitimate contract, would be that in order to be able to stay in the association one had to for example pray in the church once a week, a state would be a person or group of persons who tried to directly force people either not praying or praying even more.


private property as you're describing was created by the state to benefit feudal lords and exploit peasants.

If for thousands of years what constituted the prevalent criteria for property was making something and then possessing it (with the ability to exchange ownership by means of trade), then a state would be a person or group of persons who claimed ownership that was not acquired by making something and then possessing it and/or exchanging it. What you are trying to imply, perhaps, is that a landlord who got his property by making wealth legitimately, and then buying a house and renting it to someone else hasn't ownership of it. But im pretty sure in those days some people lived in houses they didnt own and paid a small fee for the privilege. In any case, it was perceived as legitimate. Examples of a state: a feudal wanting to tax peasants because they are in his "territory" which he came to own by "divine spirit" or by "being born of nobles" or by any other way that was not the perceived criteria and/or consensus.

more arguments:

In a state society, and by using the definition of the state there, which was: "agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force)"

Thus the homeowner association, in a society where there is a state already, is essentially the same as a state: it coerces people and is seen as legitimate, whether there is a contract to it or not.

obviously if the US demanded a contract then it would still be a state, just as the homeowner association would be in a state society.

"In a state society, the state is viewed as legitimate. In an anarchic the society, the nature of the state has to change, because otherwise the revolution/transition wouldnt have occurred. It is thus necessary for the state to not be seen as legitimate, and this means the definition changed."

Now where we last stopped was at trying to argue if a homeowner's association would be a state in an anarchic society. So what are your thoughts?

[Misanthrope]

In my opinion, the key is not necessarily the existence or non existence of a state, but who physically controls the state, and who controls production. Whenever there is a "separation of the producers from the means of production", then class society remains, and the state remains an institution of that class that controls production (the elite ruling class). If this distinction is abolished, then I believe a state could still exist and operate as a legitimate and just institution.

Well how is that any different than how a modern state handles things? I mean supposing the community enforced the result of the vote on the parties involved, how is that not a state?

So what your saying is, it doesn't matter if the state is a present authority or not, just who controls it, regardless if it is not in authority? What do you mean by "physically control the state"? Who physically controls the state now?

So would your justified state still tax?



Because if you lived in the community, you would have voluntarily agreed to some set of rules. While under a state, I did not agree to the constitution.

[Nwoye]

first of all I'll get to hayenmills response tomorrow, as the reply will probably be a bit lengthy.


So what your saying is, it doesn't matter if the state is a present authority or not, just who controls it, regardless if it is not in authority? What do you mean by "physically control the state"? Who physically controls the state now?
I think we both agree that the State is currently an instrument of class rule. Well why is that? It's set up that way. The form of representation and the organization of its legislative body make it so that only interests with the support of essential lobbying groups and the media can gain access to the process. Additionally, power is centralized in a single entity (the FED), and states or localities are granted very little authority over how to run their governments. This leads to bureaucracy, inefficiency, and a large degree of seperation between the governing and the governed.

I think this governmental form of republicanism can be replaced with one of radical, decentralized democracy, where citizens of various communities (states) organize in democratic assemblies to handle legislative and administrative duties. Larger districts or regions could have committies consisting of geographical and labor representatives (delegates from worker councils). If a state did exist, it would actually follow through on Lenin's promise of the revolutionary state being a "purely administrative entity".

In my opinion, a state would naturally develop, as anarchist communities decided how to handle incoming members and how to organize in the long term. So for me, it's not really that I want a state, so much as that I don't think we'll ever really avoid it.


So would your justified state still tax?This is a point hayenmill and I got to in another thread. I think that a certain fee - which could be realized in a quota of production, a commitment of labor contributions, or a physical payment - would probably be inevitable. I mean, if a state was established which provided basic amenities to people (roads, courts, defense, etc) I don't see how it could go without some form of financing. The most equitable solution it seems would be to have everyone owe some form of obligation to the upkeep of the state.


Because if you lived in the community, you would have voluntarily agreed to some set of rules. While under a state, I did not agree to the constitution.
Of course. Now, I believe I know where you're going with this but what importance do you see in this distinction?

[Misanthrope]

I think we both agree that the State is currently an instrument of class rule. Well why is that? It's set up that way. The form of representation and the organization of its legislative body make it so that only interests with the support of essential lobbying groups and the media can gain access to the process. Additionally, power is centralized in a single entity (the FED), and states or localities are granted very little authority over how to run their governments. This leads to bureaucracy, inefficiency, and a large degree of seperation between the governing and the governed.

Yes, the state is set up that way. Whenever there is a state there emerges a political class, a social class that gets discriminatory bailouts, subsidies ect. which leads to a monopolization, which in turn makes said social class very powerful and ruling. The state is also a ruling social class inherently, a capitalist entity as well. The presence of a state tends toward capitalism, hierarchical social classes and monopolization. The state contradicts the values of socialism and the goal of socialism.





I think this governmental form of republicanism can be replaced with one of radical, decentralized democracy, where citizens of various communities (states) organize in democratic assemblies to handle legislative and administrative duties. Larger districts or regions could have committies consisting of geographical and labor representatives (delegates from worker councils). If a state did exist, it would actually follow through on Lenin's promise of the revolutionary state being a "purely administrative entity".

I wouldn't call that a state.





In my opinion, a state would naturally develop, as anarchist communities decided how to handle incoming members and how to organize in the long term. So for me, it's not really that I want a state, so much as that I don't think we'll ever really avoid it.

This is a point hayenmill and I got to in another thread. I think that a certain fee - which could be realized in a quota of production, a commitment of labor contributions, or a physical payment - would probably be inevitable. I mean, if a state was established which provided basic amenities to people (roads, courts, defense, etc) I don't see how it could go without some form of financing. The most equitable solution it seems would be to have everyone owe some form of obligation to the upkeep of the state.


Of course. Now, I believe I know where you're going with this but what importance do you see in this distinction?

Society is naturally voluntary interaction. The institution we know as the state was able to function originally because of religion. The state is just people acting stupid together, the state needs ideological support to exist.

Call it what you want, that is taxation. Taxation is coercion, a death threat. What if they don't want to pay taxes? How is the defense force that is funded by taxation working currently? A police force funded by taxation is bound to fail, their pay doesn't rely on the public's safety. Their pay is in the citations and tickets, I think you know what that leads to..

The state you are describing functions with the threat of death (taxation). What's more, do you expect the majority of society to democratically set up boarders? Land disputes have historically resulted in wars.

[Pogue]

We were actually talking about this at Marxism yesterday. Its an odd argument, and I think it rests alot on semantics. The definition differs depending on what organisation you ask, of course.

[Nwoye]

Yes, the state is set up that way. Whenever there is a state there emerges a political class, a social class that gets discriminatory bailouts, subsidies ect. which leads to a monopolization, which in turn makes said social class very powerful and ruling. The state is also a ruling social class inherently, a capitalist entity as well. The presence of a state tends toward capitalism, hierarchical social classes and monopolization. The state contradicts the values of socialism and the goal of socialism.
I would say that classes arise out of economic relations (the seperation of the producers from production is the basis of all class society), not out of the sheer existence of a state.


I wouldn't call that a state.
If it exercised ownership over property not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership, then it's a state. So if that big community enforced laws and regulations over a geographical area, then it's a state.


Society is naturally voluntary interaction. The institution we know as the state was able to function originally because of religion. The state is just people acting stupid together, the state needs ideological support to exist.

Call it what you want, that is taxation. Taxation is coercion, a death threat. What if they don't want to pay taxes? How is the defense force that is funded by taxation working currently? A police force funded by taxation is bound to fail, their pay doesn't rely on the public's safety. Their pay is in the citations and tickets, I think you know what that leads to..
So what if, when you enter into a community, you physically sign a contract saying you will pay taxes?


The state you are describing functions with the threat of death (taxation). What's more, do you expect the majority of society to democratically set up boarders? Land disputes have historically resulted in wars.
borders would probably be set up during the revolutionary period, where a communities borders would reach to wherever they defended against counterrevolution.

[Nwoye]

the third definition is also my preferred one. Perhaps we should translate some of our debates over here so other people could analize them as well?
good idea.


state in a non-anarchic society: agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force)

state in an anarchic society: "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."

I think the first example is an objective definition of the state without being biased towards its support (from a neutral standpoint, so to speak). The second proves to be a good example for the definition of a state in an imaginary place where the state is rare (an anarchic society). I still think that the first definition is inadequate in any situation, as it fails to make the distinction between a landlord or proprietor and a state, and it's incorrect in assuming a state must be seen as legitimate to be a state. I expand on both of these critiques below by the way.

Also, the second definition includes the first, and does accurately describe modern states. The United States is essentially a group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership. They do this by imposing laws and forcing taxation within a geographical area - one they did not collectively "mix their labor with".


In the case of your homeowners association, i think its not a state in either definition. Since you already agree with me that its not a state in the second example, ill try and explain why i think it is also not a state in the first:I think it's a state in both examples (even though only the second one matters imo).


"a state is an agency of legitimized coercion and with a monopoly of force"

The homeownership association has a police to enforce their laws that the "citizens" of the association previously agreed to. When they engage in doing so, they are seen as legitimate because they are engaging in the protection of contracts that have been agreed upon through the prevalent criteria for contracts (if you signed saying you'll do that, then either you do it, or you don't and pay the fine, and if you don't pay the fine, you get out of the community).

Now when they engage in enforcing the contracts individuals had agreed upon but didnt follow, they are not attacking or using force in the sense that we use it (without being in self-defense). Since the association is perceived to have acquired the associations land legitimately, that is, meeting the prevalent criteria for ownership (in this case, collective), then when they protect that land by enforcing the rules generally accepted then they are not a state.

A homeowners association is NOT a state for the same reason that violently defending your home (aquired through the perceived criteria for ownership) doesnt make you a state and for the same reason defending a shirt on your back wouldnt make you a state. Simply because the homeownership association is defending their land by enforcing the contract generally perceived as the consensus for the laws in the association (internal decision) doesnt make them a state. If the contract, or what the majority of people inside and outside the association thought would be a legitimate contract, would be that in order to be able to stay in the association one had to for example pray in the church once a week, a state would be a person or group of persons who tried to directly force people either not praying or praying even more.two things:

1: when the community/association imposes legislation (everyone must wear red hats on sunday for example) they are exercising ownership over a geographical area. The people who voted for such a measure, are enforcing their will on the property of those who voted against (exhibiting ownership). Since those who voted for it have not acquired said property through the legitimate means, they are engaging in statist behaviour.

2: Apply the same exact argument used here, and apply it the United States. In what way does the U.S. violate the explanation you've listed here (ie how are they a state)?


If for thousands of years what constituted the prevalent criteria for property was making something and then possessing it (with the ability to exchange ownership by means of trade), then a state would be a person or group of persons who claimed ownership that was not acquired by making something and then possessing it and/or exchanging it.And that's accurate. The first states arose out of tribes who sought out slave labor by going to war.


What you are trying to imply, perhaps, is that a landlord who got his property by making wealth legitimately, and then buying a house and renting it to someone else hasn't ownership of it. But im pretty sure in those days some people lived in houses they didnt own and paid a small fee for the privilege. In any case, it was perceived as legitimate. I was just trying to get the point across that private property arose via state intervention, not through an application of any "natural rights". By the second definition, private property was originally a statist institution.


Examples of a state: a feudal wanting to tax peasants because they are in his "territory" which he came to own by "divine spirit" or by "being born of nobles" or by any other way that was not the perceived criteria and/or consensus.I don't see much a significant difference between this and an aristocrat owning huge agricultural estates, but that's a fundamental disagreement between us.


In a state society, and by using the definition of the state there, which was: "agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force)"Again, this definition makes no distinction between a simple proprietor and an actual state. Me just owning property and creating regulations on what one can do there (no trespassing, no wearing red hats, no yankee jerseys, etc) is me acting as an "agent of legitimized coercion, with a monopoly of force". That's why I feel the alternative definition from the confederalsocialist video is the most useful.


Thus the homeowner association, in a society where there is a state already, is essentially the same as a state: it coerces people and is seen as legitimate, whether there is a contract to it or not.Yes. It functions the exact same way as a state. I don't see the difference between them, going by either definition.


obviously if the US demanded a contract then it would still be a state, just as the homeowner association would be in a state society.right.


"In a state society, the state is viewed as legitimate. In an anarchic the society, the nature of the state has to change, because otherwise the revolution/transition wouldnt have occurred. It is thus necessary for the state to not be seen as legitimate, and this means the definition changed."We live in a state society, and plenty of states are not seen as legitimate. Whether or not a state is seen as legitimate or not is irrelevant, what matters is how it acts and how it exhibits power. I mean, the first states that arose were made up of a dictator, some priests and a big army. They didn't form out of some social contract, they just kept killing people until there was no more organized resistance. And this continues today.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The Marxist Definition: The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

Although the Marxist argument is both helpful for developing theory and historically accurate, it’s really useless for what we’re trying to figure out here. The Marxist definition is really answering the questions of, “What has been the historical role of the State?” and “How does the State typically do?”. What we’re looking for here, is “what differentiates statist activity from non-statist activity?” If we’re trying to answer the question of, “does violently seizing private property and redistributing it make our anarchist commune a state?” or “does defense from outside aggression make us a state?” or “does taxation make us a state?” then Lenin’s definition is worthless. In those situations, we’re acting just like a modern or historical state would, by enforcing our will (or protecting it) over a geographic area and a population, but we’re not necessarily acting as an organ of class rule, nor are we exhibiting the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. While the state is a product of class antagonisms, and while it could wither away as those antagonisms do the same, it’s not answering our question.

While Engel’s historical analysis of the State and Lenin’s theoretical application of that analysis is applicable to many situations, it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of what constitutes a state.

I believe that the state is the decision making body for the collective interests of the ruling class in class societies. So in capitalism, feudalism, and state capitalism, obviously, the state is an instrument of minority rule over workers and other non-ruling classes. Whatever organizations workers organize to dismantle capitalism and replace it with the collective interests of the working class is technically a state even if it is informal and horizontal or groups of collectives or whatnot.


"If we’re trying to answer the question of, “does violently seizing private property and redistributing it make our anarchist commune a state?” or “does defense from outside aggression make us a state?” or “does taxation make us a state?” then Lenin’s definition is worthless."

But seizing private property is forcing the collective interests of the working class onto the capitalists class and that is why I would call any organization by workers to end capitalist rule is technically a "state".

In the same way, defending a revolution from outside aggression is a state because again it is the working class promoting its collective class interests against the collective class interests of the capitalists in the form of attacking armies or internal counter-revolutionary armies or whatnot.

Taxation is not necessarily the interests of one class being put onto the rest of society - this is certainly true when the US taxes so that it can build a huge military or police force or prison.

[Nwoye]

I believe that the state is the decision making body for the collective interests of the ruling class in class societies. So in capitalism, feudalism, and state capitalism, obviously, the state is an instrument of minority rule over workers and other non-ruling classes. Whatever organizations workers organize to dismantle capitalism and replace it with the collective interests of the working class is technically a state even if it is informal and horizontal or groups of collectives or whatnot.

But seizing private property is forcing the collective interests of the working class onto the capitalists class and that is why I would call any organization by workers to end capitalist rule is technically a "state".

In the same way, defending a revolution from outside aggression is a state because again it is the working class promoting its collective class interests against the collective class interests of the capitalists in the form of attacking armies or internal counter-revolutionary armies or whatnot.

Taxation is not necessarily the interests of one class being put onto the rest of society - this is certainly true when the US taxes so that it can build a huge military or police force or prison.
I still think you're misguided here. Keep in mind, I agree with this historical analysis of a state, and I feel it's accurate - it's just the wrong question. If I want to know whether or not a given organization is a state, I wouldn't ask whether or not it serves one classes interests. Imagine a classless society, where there still was an institution that acted just like a modern state, by taxing, and enforcing legislation over a given geographical area - would it be a state?

[Havet]

I still think that the first definition is inadequate in any situation, as it fails to make the distinction between a landlord or proprietor and a state, and it's incorrect in assuming a state must be seen as legitimate to be a state. I expand on both of these critiques below by the way.

Also, the second definition includes the first, and does accurately describe modern states. The United States is essentially a group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership. They do this by imposing laws and forcing taxation within a geographical area - one they did not collectively "mix their labor with".

good point



two things:

1: when the community/association imposes legislation (everyone must wear red hats on sunday for example) they are exercising ownership over a geographical area. The people who voted for such a measure, are enforcing their will on the property of those who voted against (exhibiting ownership). Since those who voted for it have not acquired said property through the legitimate means, they are engaging in statist behaviour.

2: Apply the same exact argument used here, and apply it the United States. In what way does the U.S. violate the explanation you've listed here (ie how are they a state)?

1. depends if voting was a prevalent criteria for managing the homeowner's association. If it were, the people whose vote did not accomplish anything would have to agree to the results. For the winner to be engaging in statist activity would require most of the people in the homeowner's association to not regard voting as a means to manage the homeowner's association and of managing resources.

2.wow, now youve confused me. Let me go back again. A state is a person or group of persons who acquire ownership without the prevalent criteria for ownership. They tax land they do not own, so on.

I'd say the difference between them and the homeowners association is that the USA DOES NOT acquire ownership through the prevalent criteria even though its SEEN AS LEGITIMATE. This means that people are so stupid that they believe just because a state does something its okay, but when other people do it its wrong. This mean the state can collect taxes on land, but other people can not. Its so strong a form of cognitive dissonance that it has spread almost everywhere. A guy named this belief archoexceptionalism (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/01/archoexceptionalism.html)

Basically: "In plain english, it's the belief that government is magical. It's the belief that while it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's alright and even beneficial if done by government."

Now like i said before, a homeownership would not be a state because it would acquire ownership the right way, and by doing so it would be seen as legitimate, just as any other person or group of persons doing it elsewhere.



We live in a state society, and plenty of states are not seen as legitimate. Whether or not a state is seen as legitimate or not is irrelevant, what matters is how it acts and how it exhibits power. I mean, the first states that arose were made up of a dictator, some priests and a big army. They didn't form out of some social contract, they just kept killing people until there was no more organized resistance. And this continues today.

interestingly, other states are not seen as legitimate because they did not became states through the prevalent criteria for becoming a state (democracy?elections?). anyway, yeah your crude representation of history cab be accepted.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I will begin with my fundamental opinion about the idea of finding a definition for the state:

There is no definition of the state that can possibly include all the institutions people generally consider to be states and at the same time exclude all the institutions people generally consider to be non-states.

Or in other words, our intuition about what counts as a "state" is hopelessly contradictory. If we are to have any definition of the state, we have no choice but to accept that it may end up including things we don't like to consider states (like anarchist militias), or excluding things that we do like to consider states (like the Holy Roman Empire).

I am very close to believing that the term "state" itself is hopelessly muddled and should be abandoned, but I'm not quite there yet.


Although the Marxist argument is both helpful for developing theory and historically accurate, it’s really useless for what we’re trying to figure out here. The Marxist definition is really answering the questions of, “What has been the historical role of the State?” and “How does the State typically do?”. What we’re looking for here, is “what differentiates statist activity from non-statist activity?” If we’re trying to answer the question of, “does violently seizing private property and redistributing it make our anarchist commune a state?” or “does defense from outside aggression make us a state?” or “does taxation make us a state?” then Lenin’s definition is worthless. In those situations, we’re acting just like a modern or historical state would, by enforcing our will (or protecting it) over a geographic area and a population, but we’re not necessarily acting as an organ of class rule, nor are we exhibiting the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. While the state is a product of class antagonisms, and while it could wither away as those antagonisms do the same, it’s not answering our question.
Actually, it does provide one perfectly viable answer to our question: No activity is statist or non-statist in itself. An activity is statist if it is done to enforce the rule of one class over another. The exact same activity, if it is done for another purpose, is not statist.

You are looking for a definition of the state that will allow you to say that certain activities are always statist, no matter who does them and why. I do not believe such a definition exists.


The Traditional Definition: A State is a monopoly of the use of legitimate force over a geographical area.

While this definition sounds originally appealing, it’s applicability into theory is not great. For example, what differentiates a state under this definition and a landowner? Specifically in an anarchist society, where there is no overriding source of sovereignty that grants authority to landowners through property titles. In an anarchic society (particularly a market anarchist one, where defense was handled privately), a man defending his property from invaders (even legitimately) is engaging in statist behavior, as they are rejecting the aggressors claim to the use of force over the disputed object (claiming a monopoly). Ownership is nothing but claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of force over a specific object (remember Proudhon’s equation of property with despotism?). When one asserts that they own something they are claiming the right to destroy it, alter it, consume it, trade it, and give it away, and simultaneously that no one else may do the same. To apply this to a genuine communist society, a militia defending a community from outside aggression is claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of force over that area, by asserting (and backing up with violence) that the aggressors may not impose their will over that area. That being said, even anarchists would support such a measure, and someone defending their property (even collectively) doesn’t make sense as a state in the traditional sense, so I don’t feel like this definition is all that useful.

This definition – developed by Weber and adopted as the primary definition of a state by sociologists – is basically useless for our purposes, as it indiscriminately describes a vast array of situations, which in reality share little in common. To hell with it.
This is a very good analysis, and I agree entirely.


[Property], as expanded upon above, is the same as a monopoly of the use of force.
Again, a very important truth. It deserves to be quoted. :)


The assumption behind this definition is really that there are no “natural rights” that justify property, or ownership in any form. In reality, standards for obtaining property – like “finders keepers”, or possession and use - are determined by implicit agreements among people and communities. Today, these agreements are for the most part forced upon citizens by the state via property law. Now one could argue this view of property, but that’s a subject for another thread. The point of this definition is that a state is any entity which exercises ownership over property without fulfilling the common and agreed upon methods.
But then you have the same "problem" as with the Marxist definition: The exact same activity may be statist or non-statist depending on what are the agreed upon methods of exercising ownership over property.

Different societies might agree upon different methods, so the same activity could be statist in one society and non-statist in another society.


As for the example above, if a militia defends the land they occupy, they are not exercising ownership over something they don’t have a claim to; they’re just protecting their own property.
But what if other people do not agree that this militia has a rightful claim to that property?

Which brings me to another point: How prevalent must the "prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership" be? What if we have a society in which 40% of people support criteria of ownership A, 35% support criteria B and 25% support criteria C? If an organization in this society follows criteria A and breaks criteria B and C, is it a state?


I'd say the difference between them and the homeowners association is that the USA DOES NOT acquire ownership through the prevalent criteria even though its SEEN AS LEGITIMATE.
Why can't the prevalent criteria have an "except for..." clause? For example, why can't the prevalent criteria be as follows:

"Property can only be legitimately acquired by homesteading; except for organization X, which may exercise ownership over anything it sees fit."

After all, what makes criteria prevalent? Popular acceptance. So if an overwhelming majority of the people accept that the state may exercise ownership over anything it sees fit, then isn't that a clause in the prevalent inter-subjective criteria of ownership?

Inter-subjective criteria for anything mean that whatever is widely seen as legitimate is legitimate.


Basically: "In plain english, it's the belief that government is magical. It's the belief that while it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's alright and even beneficial if done by government."
You are assuming people to hold a belief that it's always wrong to murder, enslave, and steal, regardless of the circumstances or the consequences.

I do not hold such a belief, and I'd wager that many other people do not hold it either. So there is no cognitive dissonance. It is possible to believe that murder or theft are usually wrong but may be justified under certain conditions - and that the government meets those conditions.

It is possible for non-state entities to meet those conditions too. For example, I'm a utilitarian. I believe it is good to kill one person to save the lives of a hundred. It is good if the state does it, and it is equally good if anyone else does it. On the other hand, murder is wrong when it does not save lives - which is most of the time.

[Nwoye]

1. depends if voting was a prevalent criteria for managing the homeowner's association. If it were, the people whose vote did not accomplish anything would have to agree to the results. For the winner to be engaging in statist activity would require most of the people in the homeowner's association to not regard voting as a means to manage the homeowner's association and of managing resources.
how would you determine whether or not direct democracy (voting in an assembly) was a "prevalent criteria" for organization? I mean, the only way you could characterize some form of organization as a "prevalent criteria" would be if it was supported by a majority of the relevant population, and doing this would be an implicit recognition that democracy is the only just method of organization.

So suppose someone joined the association while it was relatively small, and he signed the contract saying he agreed to the current rules. Suppose, later on, the association (democratically) instituted a small tax to finance the administrative duties. Would that original person (who voted against the measure) be obligated to pay the tax?


2.wow, now youve confused me. Let me go back again. A state is a person or group of persons who acquire ownership without the prevalent criteria for ownership. They tax land they do not own, so on.right.


I'd say the difference between them and the homeowners association is that the USA DOES NOT acquire ownership through the prevalent criteria even though its SEEN AS LEGITIMATE. This means that people are so stupid that they believe just because a state does something its okay, but when other people do it its wrong. This mean the state can collect taxes on land, but other people can not. Its so strong a form of cognitive dissonance that it has spread almost everywhere. A guy named this belief archoexceptionalism (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/01/archoexceptionalism.html) As I've said before, whether or not a state is supported or seen as legitimate is irrelevant to its status as a state. If an entity can physically defend its claim of ownership over what it claims to own (without the generally accepted criteria of course) then it's a state.

Anyway, I still don't see how the homeowners association has claimed ownership legitimately.


Basically: "In plain english, it's the belief that government is magical. It's the belief that while it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's alright and even beneficial if done by government."Well this belief is pretty widespread, but not particularly relevant to our discussion imo.


Now like i said before, a homeownership would not be a state because it would acquire ownership the right way, and by doing so it would be seen as legitimate, just as any other person or group of persons doing it elsewhere.How would the homeowners association acquire ownership the right way? I apologize if you posted it earlier and I simply missed it.


interestingly, other states are not seen as legitimate because they did not became states through the prevalent criteria for becoming a state (democracy?elections?). anyway, yeah your crude representation of history cab be accepted.I think there's a notable difference between the international community seeing states as illegitimate (unjust, oppressive, etc), and denying those states the concept of sovereignty (their status as independent states). Even though the U.N. may see North Korea as an illegitimate military dictatorship, they recognize it as being a state.

[Misanthrope]

I would say that classes arise out of economic relations (the seperation of the producers from production is the basis of all class society), not out of the sheer existence of a state.

So the members of the state are treated the same as peasants and both have an equal say in how society functions? I wouldn't say so, not to mention how the state steals money from the majority of society with the threat of death. That is a social class oppressing another social class.

(I'm talking about modern states not your envision)



If it exercised ownership over property not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership, then it's a state. So if that big community enforced laws and regulations over a geographical area, then it's a state.

So will there will be the use of force or fraud in acquiring said property?



So what if, when you enter into a community, you physically sign a contract saying you will pay taxes?

Then that is justified because it is a voluntary interaction. It is just as justified as me going to the store and purchasing a product.



borders would probably be set up during the revolutionary period, where a communities borders would reach to wherever they defended against counterrevolution.

So I guess there will be the use of force in acquiring the property. The majority of the property seized will most likely not be owned by the bourgeoisie but rather by the proletarian. What if the proletariat do not wish to give up their property, then what?

[Havet]

Why can't the prevalent criteria have an "except for..." clause? For example, why can't the prevalent criteria be as follows:

"Property can only be legitimately acquired by homesteading; except for organization X, which may exercise ownership over anything it sees fit."

After all, what makes criteria prevalent? Popular acceptance. So if an overwhelming majority of the people accept that the state may exercise ownership over anything it sees fit, then isn't that a clause in the prevalent inter-subjective criteria of ownership?

Inter-subjective criteria for anything mean that whatever is widely seen as legitimate is legitimate.

I agree. On your prevalent criteria example, if thats what other people thought, that X organization could not abide it by some reason, then fine. The problem is, most states did not come "naturally", but by force, by a person or group of persons acquiring something without using the prevalent criteria and then using force to defend it unjustly.



You are assuming people to hold a belief that it's always wrong to murder, enslave, and steal, regardless of the circumstances or the consequences.

I do not hold such a belief, and I'd wager that many other people do not hold it either. So there is no cognitive dissonance. It is possible to believe that murder or theft are usually wrong but may be justified under certain conditions - and that the government meets those conditions.

It is possible for non-state entities to meet those conditions too. For example, I'm a utilitarian. I believe it is good to kill one person to save the lives of a hundred. It is good if the state does it, and it is equally good if anyone else does it. On the other hand, murder is wrong when it does not save lives - which is most of the time.

What if someone broke into someones house, killed him, and then stole the body to give the organs to some medical associations. Isn't that murder? People who wold utilitarian views usually dont put themselves in a situation like that to avoid having to rationalize it.

what's state but a group of people?

If it is wrong for a person to do X, then it is wrong for all people to do X.
If it is wrong for all people to do X, it is wrong for groups of people to do X.
State is a group of people. It is wrong for state to do X.

This means, no war, no law, no taxes. This is not compatible with states.

If people think its okay for a state to murder one to save many, then they also think its okay for a group of people to murder one to save many, so they also think its okay for one person to murder one to save many. And when you suggest THEY die, they will retreat with their idea of sacrifice for the greater good...

[Havet]

how would you determine whether or not direct democracy (voting in an assembly) was a "prevalent criteria" for organization? I mean, the only way you could characterize some form of organization as a "prevalent criteria" would be if it was supported by a majority of the relevant population, and doing this would be an implicit recognition that democracy is the only just method of organization.

So suppose someone joined the association while it was relatively small, and he signed the contract saying he agreed to the current rules. Suppose, later on, the association (democratically) instituted a small tax to finance the administrative duties. Would that original person (who voted against the measure) be obligated to pay the tax?

Damn we always have to go to the "everything goes wrong" scenarios...

Either they could sort that out in the initial contract with something like:

"if in the future, this organization performs X or there is Y change to the contract you will not feel obliged to perform Z action"

Or the person would just have to leave because it would go against the prevalent criteria for management of the homeowners association.




As I've said before, whether or not a state is supported or seen as legitimate is irrelevant to its status as a state. If an entity can physically defend its claim of ownership over what it claims to own (without the generally accepted criteria of course) then it's a state.

Anyway, I still don't see how the homeowners association has claimed ownership legitimately.

oh its very relevant. In the USA, the prevalent criteria for ownership is X, but the state still claims ownership by other reason. Now people dont argue because they think the state is legitimate, but when its other person doing it they complain. Archoexceptionalism.

Lets imagine the homeownership association in a stateless society, and that the prevalent criteria of ownership (for simplicity's sake) is homesteading. If its legitimate for an individual to homestead and keep the land, then its equally legitimate for a group of individuals to collectively homestead the land and collectively own it, therefore collectively being responsible for it. Thats why im not too fond of collectives, unless very good rules are stated at the beginning of its creating, then there will inevitably appear clash of interests in the way the collective resource is managed.



How would the homeowners association acquire ownership the right way? I apologize if you posted it earlier and I simply missed it.

posted above. the only difference its that its a group of a people instead of just one person. Perhaps it would be important adding that collectively owning or homesteading something would also b viewed as legitimate by the other individuals and the rest of society.


I think there's a notable difference between the international community seeing states as illegitimate (unjust, oppressive, etc), and denying those states the concept of sovereignty (their status as independent states). Even though the U.N. may see North Korea as an illegitimate military dictatorship, they recognize it as being a state.

yeah

[sascha]

Introduction

Written 2001/2002: First, I would like to say that we were born in State and in that way we become its citizens, in fact members, but nobody asked us, do we really want it. In that way, State ensure itself existence - I just read The Law of Citizenship in Yugoslavia & there is written that abolishing of Yugoslavian citizenship will be allowed to some person only if that person is in procedure to get citizenship of some other State. So in that way I dont have right to become person without citizenship, eupatrid (apatrid). Horrible. Therefore I believe that theorists of law are not in right when they say that people are united themselves willing in organization called State & that people willing renounce of one part of their freedom in order to create common life, i.e. in order to create freedom for all people who live in it. With regard to freedom, we never had it cause past and especially from creating of first authorities (oligarchies) i.e. States, privileged people rob of from poor fair people who are still trying through work to produce enough goods for themselves and their families. Of course, we never succeeded in it & therefore we must boycott to work for privileged people cause they throw us or into indebted slavery either they take profit from our work for themselves, i.e. they rob us. Therefore we have right to take back all what riches took from us. State is created (based) by tribal aristocracy i.e. thieves & today State is serving that through its law (that is face of injustice) their robbery is legalized. The fact is that politicians and businessmen cannot survive each without other & they are helping each other in greed of privileges and in robbing of poor. Until the State exists, we will have no freedom & welfare.

States, its law and its departments of repression are serving to protect riches from us - therefore we must destroy it, abolish it.

We must fight to abolish the State, to take back capital that produced by our work but riches stole it from us and usurped for themselves. We must abolish robbed i.e. capitalistic relations between people. In consideration of the fact that we are all born equal on this planet Earth, it means we are born like human beings, it is absolutely unnatural and injustice, that during life some individuals enjoy while other people suffer, die hungry, they dont have time to devote either to themselves neither to their families even worst, many people who are not satisfied with their life and who are loaded with problems, maltreat as their families as other people also. Almost all problems between people are result of existing of the State, from nationalism to maltreating in houses. I call it products of the State and its repressive society that is created by the State. Therefore instead of loosing of time with results of existing of the State, it is more important to find out in the sense of our problems, it means to show real face of the State & to abolish that organization that torture us so much & which is destroying millions of life. Therefore it exists this web presentation. In this way I want to give you information about State's violence with hope that I'll instigate you to think and, who knows, maybe in active participating in fight to realize anarchism also, i.e. to realize society without authority of man by man.

Abolish slavery, states and all forms of domination of man by man!

"If I succeed, sometimes, to instigate inventiveness of spirit at readers, Ill be satisfied. Thats what worth much more than stupid approval of people who repeat rules by heart and guide themselves in thinking toward schools debate" - Georges Sorel

The violence that is describes on these pages, it's violence that is done by the State over people, i.e. by clerks and officials of this criminal organization, as and other persons with instigate and agreement of them. That violence isn't happening somewhere far away from us but every day beside us & it is just a question of moment when we will be victims too. About this theme doesn't exist full settled information cause states try to hide it, beginning with lying medias and ending with criminal police; so information that are using here are got from families which members survived torture or information from rare books about it. For this moment, data will include Yugoslavia, especial period of Milosevic authority. I hope one day here will be information from whole Europe.

One more time, don't forget that here are only partially datas & that every moment, even while (during) you read this text, somebody is meeting with torture that is guided (realized) by the State.

Definition and Characteristic of The Torture

The torture can be defined like any act with which is made purposely pain and corporally or mentally suffering (any intensity) to somebody, from official persons or other ones who acts with support or agreement of them. Reasons for making of suffering are getting of information, confession, punishing for some act, frightening, acting of pressure, etc. It could be add that torture is any act that is made against corporal and psychic integrity of person, independent of it is at that moment (acting) made indeed the corporal pain or psychic suffering or that kind of results omitted. In that way, the torture is any violation of human dignity.
Shortly, the definition of the torture contain 3 elements:
Purposely making of pain or corporal or mental suffering
Motive that is made in order of getting information or confession, frightening, acting of pressure, etc.
Characteristic of executor which is faced in its official or facted acting on the side of criminal organization: the State (it means that here belong Para-military and Para-police forces also)


Short View on History of States Violence

History of the States violence is so old like history of the State. Always all authorities were based on power i.e. on violence. Beside States, church's authority are limiting freedom of people also & in the middle Ages it was clearest visible and sensible what maniacs can do, maniacs who persecuted and killed free opinion & everything with aim to keep AUTHORITY! In consideration that the State and its law guide and legalize the violence and robbery, there is nothing for people to do but to make rebellions and revolutions in order to liberate themselves from mentioned maniacs. Of course, and after such authoritarian revolutions, in which existed leaders, people are met with new tortures from new authorities. In Serbia people are conscious that every authority is bad but they dont see other solution. Therefore these texts exist - to explain the idea of anarchism, one idea where it doesnt exist authority of man by man. Anarchistic revolution, so anarchism also, can be realized only with conscious people. It will be still slavery, exploitation and poverty around us until the revolution is not based on anarchistic principles, it means without leaders, started from (bellow) ordinary people, who are conscious and solidary, who will aspirate to realize anarchistic freedom i.e. society.

Only anarchistic revolution leads to true freedom and welfare.

That is what I want, to ABOLISH THE CAUSE of peoples suffering and problems & not to spend my time in fight against all negative products i.e. results of existing of the State. The cause of all our problems IS the State, domination of man by man and exploiters relations in society & therefore we must abolish it.

Causes of State's Violence

I believe that people in this region know very well that in Serbian history every ruler, sovereign was thief and dictator. Therefore people in Serbia have phrases which say that every sovereign is the same shit. It means that people have consciousness that every authority is thievish and oppressive but because of poverty people didn't fill their needs and didn't read books i.e. they didn't hear anything about anarchism. They never heard for idea which can give them real freedom. Poverty also kills people, physically and mentally, so many people felt in apathy i.e. they don't believe that they can change anything. In such sickness we felt because riches, with stealing of profit created by our work, disabled to us the normal development of our life. They are organized, united against us: criminal organization State - its repressive law and departments - riches. I call it "Black Trio". It is not important what kind of idea they spread, communism or capitalism, it is the fact that they want to be authority and to command over our life. Workers don't have fatherland and it is unimportant under what form of authority we are suffering. Bakunin said: "I can't imagine anything human without freedom". Causes of state's violence are well-known - if authority didn't succeed with convincing (mental control), they will try with repression to keep their positions.

About many types of discrimination (on the basis of race, sexuality, language, beliefs), about political proscriptions and violence, I can say generally that are results of existing of the state and of exploitation relation between people.

Because of negative opinion which elites created about anarchism, that anarchism is violence in which stronger torture others, I would like to say that in present system stronger are authority for others and anarchists want to change it. Therefore these pages serve for spreading of anarchism i.e. such way of society's organizing in which people alone will guide/govern their life and freedom, in which will exist solidarity, economic equality, peace and order

On more important thing is that people in this region during centuries fought to create their own state i.e. they fought against Turkish, German's, etc. Therefore we are learnt from childhood in schools to believe in the state and to love it (teachers gave us to read patriotic books and to listen such songs). It means that history plus school create nationalism which becomes very easily chauvinism when elites need it (for war, for example). Nationalism is need of the state and of manipulators. About law which persecutes free opinion I don't need to say anything.

In any case, we, anarchists, must continue with explanations to the people that fight in the name of state is without sense because the state keeps slavery, authority of man by man & we must spread more and more idea of anarchism.

I would like to add that state's law is based on modification of Roman (slavery, warlike, disciplinary, cruelly) law. It speaks for itself that we will be destroyed everybody if we don't abolish the state, its law, its departments, and all relations in which economic stronger exploit weaker. Therefore it is necessary to unite all kind of anarchists (eco, animal rights, etc) if it is possible.

Simply said, anarchism is society in which there is no exploitation: among human beings, among human's beings and animals, among human's beings and nature.

We are born with brain which has possibility for development, to develop better living standards than those which exist in the nature. We should abolish slavery in order to build new consciousness, new morality, to build justified society. If you are not satisfied, surely you are not, get more information about anarchism and I am sure you will accept such idea. I don't expect from riches to accept anarchism because it is not their interests (although there are many egoists among self-proclamated anarchists). Their position (or maybe they) will disappear during revolution.

Executors of State's Violence

Military, police and other state's departments for realizing of state's violence are the biggest ciminal organizations which help to elites to stay on power. They are the sense of the state as repressive organization, their aim is protection of riches, of politicians and of bussinessmen. Without them, every authority would be dethroned or abolished very easily. Especially not without secret agency. Even many constitution doesn't speak about existing of such agency than politicians created it as part of ministry of police. If we see history of police, we will see that they always existed to protect riches from poor, that cops were always ready (with hate) to attack poor and hungry protestors just in order to keep job. getting in of provocators and secret agents is usually thing for this pigs. But we should not spread paranoia because of it than we should develop counter-tactics.

Important info: 27 billions of Dollars is necessary yearly in order to feed all hungry people in the world, to give them school and hygiena, but only for military industry states spend yearly 780 billions Dollars. It means, with abolishing of the state and its military, it could be saved big money, enough to abolish poverty in whole world. Is it your aim? It is surely mine.

In military, torture is daily thing, as among soldiers as of soldiers towards civilians. Young soldiers experience torture because officers believe that in that way children will become aged people. They are making children to be "strong men". During whole military service, there are rules about discipline and order, people are becoming robots who will pass all hard problems who will kill imagined enemy i.e. unhappy young boy at other side. In military it is killing will, personality and rationality of human beings in order to create from them obedient sheep, ready to be obedient at future working place after military also. Working place at which boy will be exploited without resistance. Torture is especially realised about groups which are public, in medias, discriminated by politicians, about those who refuse to take weapons and to be educated to kill, about all who resist to military discipline.

When I made the biggest mistake in my life, when I served military in Serbia, older soldiers had beaten one young so much that I saw later full bed of blood and in the middle of bed was shit/faecal of this boy. In any case, this boy later gave me hand because i was the only one who didn't torture young soldiers. Simply, I was attacked by older when I was young soldier, so I didn't have idea to do it to someone. Other think that they should torture young soldiers, that's the only chance for them to be authority for other people. Therefore it is necessary to develope consciousness before to make revolution, in order to minimize misuses.

Torture of military about civilians is happening during the war and when authorities use military to break demonstrations. Still there were no war without victim of civilians, from raping to torture, killing and slaughtering. We are eyewitnesses of separation of Yugoslavia and what's happening during this war. At demonstrations, military is helping to police and in such cases were always many dead people. The aim of the state is to show its power, to make fear at people, to keep authority on power. In Yugoslavia, military was sent on protestors in March 1991 and military was called to break demo at Okt.5.2000. in Belgrade. Example can be and USA at 1992, when National Guard helped to police at demonstration in Los Angeles. People went out on streets to protest against court liberation of white brutal cops who tortured person with African roots. After mixing of mentioned guard, demo was spreading so in the end were 60 dead people, 2400 wounded, 15000 arrested and about billion Dollars of demage.

Other state's depratments for realizing of state's violence are different types of secret agencies (civilian, military, etc). This departments are totally out of control, so nobody knows what they really do, especially when they do something unofficially (off the record). In Serbia, secret agency was not in constitution than politicians made in as part of ministry of police. They are under command of criminal elites. sometimes even political elites control different types of agencies so they spy each other. Such agencies are using for political proscriptions and other dirty things: from disinformation about someone to killing. In order to realise it, secret agency cooperate with criminals and I got info that weapon with silencer can be bought only from relatives of secret agents. Therefore murder with special weapon could be always solved because such weapon is sold by secret agents. But such agencies will rather keep good relation with criminals in order to use them for eliminations. Everything is hiden behind parol "national interests"... So the state protect its executors who act against free opinion, who kills people. When it was controled behavior of FBI at 1972 it was fixed that FBI made half million secret files about individuals and groups, that FBI investigated 750 000 activities which they see as subversive, that they have 9000 spies. They take for subversive organization those which are fighting for human rights and anti-war movement. Beside it, they spread disinformation about individuals and groups, with aim to distroy their reputation in society and their political strength. FBI blackmailed leader of black people martin Luter King.

Everything what is caracteristic for FBI is common thing for all secret agencies. After separation of Yugoslavia, republic secret agencies became stand alone and federal secret agency was abolished. Serbian and Montenegro secret agencies were children of "communist" secret political police (OZNA-UDBA-SDB). Their activities were regulated by secret act of ministry of police in Serbia. SDB had its own special forces, it was centralized and at the top was person who got such position from politicians. This person is not independent from politicians so he realize their wishes. As part of police, secret agency was more power than ordinary police, but they the both of them used torture and the whole police was visible political. Criminals were searched only when politicians (through their person at the top) demanded from police to do it.

I think that with this information I explained that police is authoritarian organization and that every state is criminal, the same as police. Don't forget that only through abolishion of the state and its repressive departments (police and military) we can realize freedom and we can feed ourselves and others around us.

But I don't want to leave out ordinary police, I must mention them in several words. They are the most offen executors of state's violence, all over the world. The only difference is that work of this department is more in front of public eyes so they can't hide everything what they do. The basic function of police is protection of riches from poor. In such sense, politicians support police to use torture and weapons, to legitimate people on streets, to give orders and warnings, to gather information, to search houses, to arrest and to imprison people, to limit moving and to keep people in theur stations, to spy letters and talkings... In police academy they study such things as: theory of war strategy, military tactics, military weapons... They have still ooze/rating, so everything of this say us that police has military structure. Of course, we must be ready to protect us from such terroristic state's departments. Except at demos and in wars, police realize torture at arresting, investigation and keeping of people in their stations, at interventions whan they use sticks and weapons... The aim of torture, for example at arresting, is to create shock and confusion at arrested, in order to get easilier information or admission from them. With such aim, they ask that person without stopping the same questions, family of arrested is not informed about it as long as it is possible, person don't get medical help... Therefore many times victim die during arrest and during custody. At this point is important to mention responsibility of judges (at least of judge for investigation) because they know what police do but they help to cops to hide torture. There is no inoccent state's departments. In Britain in police custody died almost 300 persons between 1970 and 1979 and police wrote for all of them that it were accident cases. The same case is with many leftists who "hanged themselves" in prison in Germany, Italy, etc). In USA, between 1990 and 1994, were 55 such cases, but 90% of died were africans and Hispanoamericans. Police said always that they died from drugs but it was fixed that they died from brethlessness because of using of CS spray or because someone strangled them with hands around neck. During 1998 in South America died in custody 200 people, in India 201 persons during 1996, etc. Victims are offen also people who were eyewitnesses of torture. In that way police try to make fear at people. In town Niksic in Montenegro, 1993 year 6 cops came in local pub and started to torture one person. Other man asked them why they beat his friend but then 6 cops started to beat him. One of cop killed him with standing with foot on his neck. 3 cops were judged, after 2 years, they got 8, 11 and 12 years of prison. People who were shot by police shouldn't be forgotten also. Such death experience about 300 people yearly in USA and about 3600 people yearly are wounded by cops there. In Serbia die between 10 and 30 people yearly in this way. Mostly die people who "resist at arrest", who try to run away or who shot on police. I think that they make such resistance because they will rather die than to experience torture from cops and to let someone to push them between 4 walls. I believe that police don't have right to arrest anyone, to torture anyone nor to kill anyone. Permission, as money also, for it they got from riches not from poor. The solution for problem is not isolation of individual than the solution is to abolish this system and to create welfare. State's violence make too much with using of weapons (especially against prisoners who try to liberate themselves), so people must resist to it in all possible ways. It would not be surprise if some people start to use the same things against the state. My opinion is that people should combine different tactics when they make resistance, in harmony with situation and affinities of people.

For the end of this part about police, I want to say that there is no inoccent cop. They are all at least present when their collegue torture someone. Cops are people who are isolated from ordinary people and they protect themselves from such feeling with developing of mutual solidarity among themselves. "We" (cops) and "They" (society) are very confronted categories, so violent behavior among cops is very tolerated and loyality is high appriciated.

Guards in custodies and in prisons are also horrible persons who realize torture i.e. they realize state's violence. About them you can read in texts about prisons.

Paramilitary and parapolice forces also realize brutal violence in the name of the state. The state (elites) is guilty for violence realized by political and other groups and individuals who are not employed officially but they are supported (public or secret) by state's departments. Executors are usually national extremists who realizes interests which are decided by political or other elites. All such forces acted in ex-Yugoslavia in last 15 years. They are used especially when it should be hidden who gave such orders, so in that way there is no written order by political elites. They are protection for dirty orders of politicians. Acting of such forces is always justified with patriotist paroles: "they protect nation, national interests, dignity, etc". They acted in whole ex-Yu. Parapolice groups were used inside of Serbia, when it should protect authority from opposition (opposition leaders, different organizations, ordinary people). All these forces are in fact state's organized criminal i.e. they killed and kidnaped political rivals and they had beaten ordinary people at demos (in all ex-socialist states the main privileged criminals are in fact ex-agents). They eliminated mostly political, business and criminal rivals. Killers are never cought. During 2000 year in Serbia happened 28 kidnapping and more than a half are never solved. Most of them is made to reach money but some of them had political motives. When kidnappers were not cought it was clear that is not accidently i.e. kidnappers are members of mentioned forces which stayed protected by new authorities after dethroning of Milosevic. They had beaten demonstrants in last 15 years. Pigs are conscripted from orders of secret agents or from political parties which are authorities, from members of paramilitar and of criminal groups. With sticks, they made injuries to demonstrants (they didn't care who is child, woman or man). Therefore, it is visible that their criminal acting is against people who wants freedom and it is logic that their chef is - criminal organization - the state.

Other executors of state's violence: Employed in other state's departments can be also executors or participants in torture. First of all, functionaries in justice department and in state's administration. Administration doesn't make physically violence than mental one. They attack our dignity in daily life. It is important to say that they have such behavior during centuries, from begining of the state's existing, people accepted it like normal so many people don't react against it. Arogant and corrupted bureaucracy has power and it gives them chance to push people in such position that people must pray them and to give them gifts i.e. to humble themselves. That show us that the state sees us like enemies who should be downgraded, who should be exploited in every way. They are power masters and we are vassals and blind obedient people. Horrible! In justice department, prosecutors and judges are participants in realizing of state's violence. They support, directly or indirectly, cops and custody and prison guards to use violence. Investigation judge during investigation and prosecutor during setting a charge. They cooperate with cops and they know very good what cops did in order to gather proofs. Beside it, investigation judge speaks with victims after police custody is finished so such judge sees what's happened to victim. Prosecutors realize state's violence i.e. they decide will they set a charge or not. Prosecutors are always under command of elites so elites, the state, decide sometimes directly against whom will be, or will not be, set a charge. So, prosecutors and judges sometimes indirectly sometimes directly participate in or realize state's violence and serve to politicians in elimination of rivals or of fighters for freedom. Sometimes even politicians give list of people for elimination.

The only solution is abolishing of the cause of all problem - the State. The law of the state is criminal one (based on the law of Roman Empire, which was clear slavery).

Instruments and Methods With Which is Realizing The States Violence

There are many ways and instruments for torturing of people, and that are changing during time, so it is hard to create written document that contain all methods and instruments which belong to torture. In Serbian language, the verb torture has many synonyms, and through it we can see what people in this region experienced: moriti, kinjiti, tlačiti, zlostavljati, daviti, pridavljivati, muštrati, mrcvariti, šikanirati, tiranisati, terorisati, napastvovati, silovati, prisiljavati, šibati, ugnjetavati, uznemiravati, gnjaviti, gaziti, gnječiti, kidati, guliti kožu, cediti, vredjati, ponižavati, seckati, jahati, metnuti na muke... Method for realiying of violence which is the most present - registered in 150 States - is BEATING. Consequences of this violence is not naive, and many instruments are using: sticks, metal sticks, plastic and tube of rubber, electrical cable, pendreci, baseball sticks, handle of gun, belt, chain, wet rope Slapping, kicking with fists and legs are so usual in police stations that kind of acting many people accept like routine acting of police and not like torture.

In order to make bigger pain to victim and in order to hide proofs of torturing, states maniacs use many techniques, in fact they combine beating with other methods of torturing: they put victims in especially hard position (hang his/her head down, make bridge, kneeling, beating on soles). After beating, they use many other methods and instruments of torturing, as: exposing of face to extreme warmth or cold, binding of hands and legs with protraction, binding and keeping in unnatural position, refusing of water, food and sleeping, obstructing of breathing, exposing to electric-shocks, making of burn, giving of drugs, raping and sexual maltreatment are using in more than 50 States & everywhere are happening death cases because of torture in police stations and prisons.
These methods are often using in proceeding of investigation of suspected persons, then on persons who are in prisons, like and massively on all people; for example at demonstrations. During this proceedings, State additional to torture people through unceasing investigation, keeping in unsafe situation, closing in totally dark rooms, isolation, humiliating, frightening, taking off to false execution...

It should especially convert attention on methods that are created in praxis of secret polices that are created to protect authorities. Such methods are: disturbance of some person and his/her family, arresting and keeping in without reason, spying and eavesdropping, secret photos and generally disturbance of private life, destroying of reputation, blackmailing, setting of proceeding and guilt, limitation of free movement, turning out from place of living, abductions and lastingly disappearance and also political murders i.e. liquidations.

Prisoners are persons also, on whom the State execute military and medical experiments. They are executed by castrations, interventions on brain & everything with faith that should either correct them or disable them for crimes in the future. New praxis follow such logic, the only difference is now that State look them like some kind of States property and societys pest so they taste on them new medicaments, methods for medical treatment, instruments for biological wars, etc.

Technological development is widening of new methods and instruments for realizing of states violence & depraved minds of states employees and profiteers, everyday surprise us with their inventions of new instruments and methods for torture of people. Like proof for this, that the State not only use this violence but it finance the existing of industry for producing of instruments for torture also, I could mention rarely news of Associated Press from 1996 year: Government of USA, in last year, allowed export of check (astringent) for cracking of fingers, shackles, mad shirts, different devices for electro-shocks & other devices that are designed especially for torture. The same year, French, Britain and companies from South Africa, were produced for market the device that is function to control of mass demonstration. This device through away very sharp wire that ram in meat of people very easily.

Besides 5 members of Council for Security of OUN (USA, UK, Fr, Russia, China - my flesh creeps when I'm mentioning so many criminal organizations), on the top of the list of exporters of instruments for torture are Germany, Israel, Bulgaria, Rumania, Ukraine and South Africa.

As we can see it, the arsenal of instruments for torture contain as devices from Middle Ages so and modern technological ones. Although the training and fitting out of torturers is mirror of misery, all States i.e. governments and privileged companies, see in it only good profit and keeping of states authority. Of course, WE will be victims and therefore we must disable them, through regaining of consciousness, through training for fight & finally through revolution. We must abolish their domination above/over our life.

Dont allow/let those, who see us like sheeps, to manipulate with our life! We must organize ourselves in international level & to destroy those who psychically and corporally rape us and take our salaries for themselves. Lets liberate us!

[Jimmie Higgins]

I still think you're misguided here. Keep in mind, I agree with this historical analysis of a state, and I feel it's accurate - it's just the wrong question. If I want to know whether or not a given organization is a state, I wouldn't ask whether or not it serves one classes interests. Imagine a classless society, where there still was an institution that acted just like a modern state, by taxing, and enforcing legislation over a given geographical area - would it be a state?

In a classless society, I don't know if people would be induvidually taxes - it seems like it would be a matter for the workplace collectives to decide how much resources they could spare for a given reason - like say a town wanted to build a bridge - instead of collecting $30 for everyone, the steel and construction organizations would have to know if they had the people and materials to give to such a project.

This isn't the best example because there are conflicts between capitalist countries (warring brothers) because of imperialism and competition, but when the G8 or G20 representatives get together - is that a state within the ruling class? Is that portions of the capitalist class forcing their ideas on other sections? Not all sections of the capitalists will get their way, but they generally understand that they were outvoted and understands that there is the overall capitalist needs that need to be taken care of before their individual needs.

When we, as workers have totally gotten rid of he inequalities between regions and the capitalists are no longer a threat and every individual has the same options for education and housing and so on, then our organizations will not be states, but decision making bodies like the G8 - better in fact because we won't have to war and exploit others and compete with each other. So it will be free-association and our organizations will be to make decisions that will represent all of us rather than impose decisions that represent one part of the population onto the rest of the population.

[Nwoye]

After some interesting posts fromPaul Muad'Dib and hayenmill, my initial reservations about that definition were for the most part confirmed - it's just too damn vague. There are several assumptions it makes which aren't in my opinion valid, and it's usefulness deteriorates when disputes arise over what constitutes legitimate property. Also, as hayenmill (maybe unintentionally) pointed out, one could argue that any state is just an amalgamation of individual property, and since every individual proprietor has a stake in that state (if its democratic/republican) there is actually no overriding body exercising ownership, just individual proprietors joining together and managing their properties collectively.

That being said I still disagree with the simple "monopoly of force" definition as it's useless in differentiating between proprietors and states. And kwisatz, I'm starting to share your apathy towards defining a state.

[Nwoye]

So the members of the state are treated the same as peasants and both have an equal say in how society functions? I wouldn't say so, not to mention how the state steals money from the majority of society with the threat of death. That is a social class oppressing another social class.

(I'm talking about modern states not your envision)
Of course this characterization of modern states is accurate, but we have to understand that the only reason the state exists is to protect the upper class which you're describing here. The state did not create the upper class, the upper class created the state.


So will there will be the use of force or fraud in acquiring said property?
wait what property? of course there will be force in acquiring property - not because of a desire for violence but just because it's inevitable.


Then that is justified because it is a voluntary interaction. It is just as justified as me going to the store and purchasing a product.
so if the united states had every new member to the state sign a contract to become a citizen, it would cease being a state?


So I guess there will be the use of force in acquiring the property. The majority of the property seized will most likely not be owned by the bourgeoisie but rather by the proletarian. What if the proletariat do not wish to give up their property, then what?
I'm confused. There are like three different thoughts going on in this thread, what are you getting at here?

[Nwoye]

When we, as workers have totally gotten rid of he inequalities between regions and the capitalists are no longer a threat and every individual has the same options for education and housing and so on, then our organizations will not be states, but decision making bodies like the G8 - better in fact because we won't have to war and exploit others and compete with each other. So it will be free-association and our organizations will be to make decisions that will represent all of us rather than impose decisions that represent one part of the population onto the rest of the population.this is interesting.

[ZeroNowhere]

I still think you're misguided here. Keep in mind, I agree with this historical analysis of a state, and I feel it's accurate - it's just the wrong question. If I want to know whether or not a given organization is a state, I wouldn't ask whether or not it serves one classes interests. Imagine a classless society, where there still was an institution that acted just like a modern state, by taxing, and enforcing legislation over a given geographical area - would it be a state?Not going by the Marxist definition of the state. Your argument here is that the Marxist definition of the state doesn't suit your purposes, or align with what you think should and shouldn't be called a 'state'. It answers the 'fundamental question of what the state is' (a definition does that by definition). You just disagree with this definition of the word 'state', and therefore think that it's asking the wrong question (because if that's not the question you would ask to determine whether or not something is a state, you're obviously not operating using that definition.)


When we, as workers have totally gotten rid of he inequalities between regions and the capitalists are no longer a threatWait, so you would have a stateless society which still has capitalists?

[yuon]

"Holy Roman Empire" may I suggest that it wasn't a state? I would suggest that it was a collection of states. Similar, in some ways, to the EU at present.

The EU isn't not a state, it isn't federated, or even co-federated, but is much more than the UN.

Oh, and no one even looked at my definition? What about power?

[Misanthrope]

Of course this characterization of modern states is accurate, but we have to understand that the only reason the state exists is to protect the upper class which you're describing here. The state did not create the upper class, the upper class created the state.

I agree.




wait what property? of course there will be force in acquiring property - not because of a desire for violence but just because it's inevitable.





so if the united states had every new member to the state sign a contract to become a citizen, it would cease being a state?

A state is a group of people or person that acquire property not through inter-subjective consensus therefore the use of force or fraud most be used. If every member in a given geographical area were to voluntarily set up boarders and agree on the property boarders then no it would not be a state it would be a restrictive covenant.



I'm confused. There are like three different thoughts going on in this thread, what are you getting at here?

That prior statement, I was saying that the property seized during a revolutionary period would majorly be from normal everyday people, not rich capitalists, therefore, that property seized or abolished would not be justified because that property is not being used for exploitative means.

Factories (and property formally owned by the capitalists) would be seized by the workers, that would be completely justified and I don't need to go into why because I assert you are anti-capitalist.

[Nwoye]

A state is a group of people or person that acquire property not through inter-subjective consensus therefore the use of force or fraud most be used. If every member in a given geographical area were to voluntarily set up boarders and agree on the property boarders then no it would not be a state it would be a restrictive covenant.
but you said that the homeowners association was not a state because it was "voluntary", citing the contract as evidence for this. It naturally follows from this that if the United States had every member or even new member sign a contract to be a citizen, they would cease being a state.


That prior statement, I was saying that the property seized during a revolutionary period would majorly be from normal everyday people, not rich capitalists, therefore, that property seized or abolished would not be justified because that property is not being used for exploitative means. I don't think that's necessary. And Marx and Engels agreed with me in The Communist Manifesto when they wrote:
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
All personal property will remain in the hands of its proprietor, and only private property (unused or unoccupied land or resources) would be expropriated or managed collectively.


Factories (and property formally owned by the capitalists) would be seized by the workers, that would be completely justified and I don't need to go into why because I assert you are anti-capitalist.of course.

[Misanthrope]

but you said that the homeowners association was not a state because it was "voluntary", citing the contract as evidence for this. It naturally follows from this that if the United States had every member or even new member sign a contract to be a citizen, they would cease being a state.

Yes, it would cease being a state, like I said..





I don't think that's necessary. And Marx and Engels agreed with me in The Communist Manifesto when they wrote:
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
All personal property will remain in the hands of its proprietor, and only private property (unused or unoccupied land or resources) would be expropriated or managed collectively.

of course.

Good, sorry for jumping to conclusions.

[Nwoye]

Yes, it would cease being a state, like I said..
sorry I misinterpreted your post. But how could you argue that a simple and inconsequential gesture such as that causes the U.S. to cease being a state? I mean, there is no change in how the government operates, just a change in whether it takes explicit consent from its citizens.

[Misanthrope]

sorry I misinterpreted your post. But how could you argue that a simple and inconsequential gesture such as that causes the U.S. to cease being a state? I mean, there is no change in how the government operates, just a change in whether it takes explicit consent from its citizens.

Because there is no force being used. If the taxation is voluntary it is like donating to charity, if taxation is forced then it is theft.

[Nwoye]

Because there is no force being used. If the taxation is voluntary it is like donating to charity, if taxation is forced then it is theft.well certainly new members to the United States sign a contract (for all intents and purposes), so taxation is "voluntary" for them. why isn't taxation voluntary for the US? (I'm being socratic here btw, I'm not retarded).

[mikelepore]

The Marxist Definition: The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

I wouldn't say "a product of."

The state was originally created (about 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia) because people gave up nomadic existence based on a foraging economy, and built permanent cities based on an agricultural economy. They found it necessary to be more formal about establishing defenses and rules.

However, very soon afterward, the original citizens captured prisoners and invented slavery, so the state was quickly *changed into* an oppressive device.

***

"Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its common interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent vis-a-vis society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class."

--- From F. Engels, _Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy_ , 1886

[h9socialist]

As a socialist, I'm drawn to Martin Buber's definition of "socialism" which goes something like this: "Socialism substitutes society for the state without it becoming a state" (not an exact quote, but close. While I agree that is the ultimate goal, I tend to believe that such a definition is well on the way to utopianism. Some reserve of political power has to remain -- if for no other reason than to prevent a resurgent bourgeoisie. Until Che's notion of "the new socialist man" is achieved, I see very little hope of the abolition of the state.

[Nwoye]

I wouldn't say "a product of."
neither would I really, but that's a direct quote from Lenin.


The state was originally created (about 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia) because people gave up nomadic existence based on a foraging economy, and built permanent cities based on an agricultural economy. They found it necessary to be more formal about establishing defenses and rules.

However, very soon afterward, the original citizens captured prisoners and invented slavery, so the state was quickly *changed into* an oppressive device. correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the development of the state go like this:
The increase of production in all branches - cattle-raising, agriculture, domestic handicrafts - gave human labor-power the capacity to produce a larger product than was necessary for its maintenance. At the same time it increased the daily amount of work to be done by each member of the gens, household community or single family. It was now desirable to bring in new labor forces. War provided them; prisoners of war were turned into slaves. With its increase of the productivity of labor, and therefore of wealth, and its extension of the field of production, the first great social division of labor was bound, in the general historical conditions prevailing, to bring slavery in its train. From the first great social division of labor arose the first great cleavage of society into two classes: masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited.

(From Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State)

Going by the Marxist definition (hell even by the conventional definition) didn't the original states develop as war pursuing slave states, as described by Engels? Rather than out of a conscious desire for formality and law as you describe. If you could point me to a reference for your argument I would appreciate it.


"Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its common interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent vis-a-vis society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class."

--- From F. Engels, _Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy_ , 1886that's a good quote. thanks.

[MetJeBrood]

The state provides the elite with low taxes, bailouts and divides the working class.
The state is just a think the helps the elite to stay in power..