What is a legitimate state?

[narcomprom]

The topic 'Is Israel a legitimate' was answered by a majority of the formites with "No". Many of you were eager to give the reasons why you don't consider Israel to be legitimate but few gave any authority they consider legitimate in contrasst the Jewish State.
What conditions must states or authorities or bodies fulfill for you to consider them legitimate, fellow revolutionaries? Are there any particular states or authorities you respect as such?

[Misanthrope]

No state is legitimate because it relies on force or fraud. Once the use of force or fraud is halted, it ceases to be a state. For a governing body to be legitimate it must be voluntarily agreed upon by the members governed by it.

[FreeFocus]

While no state is legitimate for the obvious reasons (reliance on violence, instrument of oppression and class rule), Israel, being a settler state, has committed especially egregious offenses, such as ethnic cleansing and racism. No state is legitimate, but not every state is the same. Sweden, for example, does not rely on the oppression of an entire people and theft of a country to exist. It still isn't legitimate, but it doesn't commit egregious acts comparatively.

[Pogue]

the only state i like is one which is on fire and falling down whilst we're all having a right proper tear up in the streets and then drinking in the collective pub of revolution (metaphoric), cos i can look at it and think, 'once you were so powerful, but now you are nothing'

then i'll go get laid by anarcho-chix in entirely equal sex which is based on mutual respect and love, mixed with revolutionary passion

[New Tet]

The topic 'Is Israel a legitimate' was answered by a majority of the formites with "No". Many of you were eager to give the reasons why you don't consider Israel to be legitimate but few gave any authority they consider legitimate in contrasst the Jewish State.
What conditions must states or authorities or bodies fulfill for you to consider them legitimate, fellow revolutionaries? Are there any particular states or authorities you respect as such?

Every state that ever existed anywhere was legitimate. Until it was overthrown.

Every state, like every right is legitimate to the extent it can defend itself from its enemies through its power; military, political or economic.

In short, the only way to de-legitimize a state is to overthrow it.

[Lynx]

If a state is recognized, that goes some way to it becoming "legitimate". For example, Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo). Nothing but a whole lot of diplomatic and political posturing, if you ask me.

[Misanthrope]

If a state is recognized, that goes some way to it becoming "legitimate". For example, Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo). Nothing but a whole lot of diplomatic and political posturing, if you ask me.

I don't follow. Legitimization = recognition

:confused:

[New Tet]

If a state is recognized, that goes some way to it becoming "legitimate". For example, Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo). Nothing but a whole lot of diplomatic and political posturing, if you ask me.

Yeah, but we have to distinguish between a geographical region with national boundaries and the political state created to govern it. It might be possible to de-legitimize a state and still preserve the national boundaries that contained it.

[Lynx]

I don't follow. Legitimization = recognition
Recognition (international, diplomatic) is the mechanism for gaining legitimacy.

Yeah, but we have to distinguish between a geographical region with national boundaries and the political state created to govern it. It might be possible to de-legitimize a state and still preserve the national boundaries that contained it.
How, like in Honduras?

[New Tet]

Recognition (international, diplomatic) is the mechanism for gaining legitimacy.

How, like in Honduras?

No. The state was not abolished in Honduras; its figurehead merely replaced.

[LOLseph Stalin]

No state is legitimate in the revolutionary sense since they rely on oppression and classes in society in order to exist(the state acts in the interests of the ruling class). Of course there are also many that were created due to imperialism such as Canada, the United States, and Israel; all of these which came to oppress the original settlers in the area, in the case of Canada and the US it was the First Nations people and with Israel it was the Palestinians. All of these have been ok for the Bourgeoisie Imperialists because they got the land and the resources while allowing the people to suffer. Even now in Canada and the US the First Nation tribes remain some of the poorest people in society. Many also suffer from alcohol and drug abuse which probably goes along with this. At least the Palestinians are trying to fight back although I don't fully agree with Hamas' politics and methods.

[blake 3:17]

Perhaps an alternative question would be what states would you support? I do have a short list.

[New Tet]

Perhaps an alternative question would be what states would you support? I do have a short list.

I am in favor of the abolition of the political state and its economic base, to be replaced by a commonwealth of producers, democratically organized at the workplace, wherein all power flows from the industries and all representation comes directly from those who elect it.

[RedSonRising]

Well a State is basically "legitimized" by a monopoly of the use of force within its territory. With that comes no forceable opposition.The States in history we are familiar with have typically used such a monopoly to preserve the interests of the ruling class, with degrees of varation... If the monopoly of coercion is democratically controlled by proletarian citizens by whichever model, then whether or not it is "justified" is a different question, and that may be part of what you're trying to ask.

[narcomprom]

While no state is legitimate for the obvious reasons (reliance on violence, instrument of oppression and class rule), Israel, being a settler state, has committed especially egregious offenses, such as ethnic cleansing and racism. No state is legitimate, but not every state is the same. Sweden, for example, does not rely on the oppression of an entire people and theft of a country to exist. It still isn't legitimate, but it doesn't commit egregious acts comparatively.
That is what I am complaining about: if all states are instruments of class rule you cannot complain about israel especially egregiously thieving land and being too much of a racist, because it would ruled by a grand bourgeois class exploiting the rest as manpower in war and work as much as palestine and sweden. so decide is it israel that is being illegitimate or are all nation-states such? or maybe are all settler states such as taiwan, the anglosaxon britain or usa or the arab maghreb illegitimate?
Could you be more particular about what acts you can consider to egregious enough to set israel apart from the rest?

Well a State is basically "legitimized" by a monopoly of the use of force within its territory. With that comes no forceable opposition.The States in history we are familiar with have typically used such a monopoly to preserve the interests of the ruling class, with degrees of varation... If the monopoly of coercion is democratically controlled by proletarian citizens by whichever model, then whether or not it is "justified" is a different question, and that may be part of what you're trying to ask.

No, I know what I am asking, that is what the rebels here consider to be legitimate. There are a plenty of rebel separatists groups who do maintain a monopoly of force over a certain territory but nevertheless aren't recognized by any international body as legitimate.

SolidarityWithIran, I see, does see the aggressive rightwing fundamentalists of Hamas to be a legitimate force in contrasst to the IDF. That I can understand. And that explains your nick. But why do you bear a Marx in your avy? Would you mind to explain that?

Wolves of Paris believes only in non-coercive forces to be legitimate. A sports club for instance would be a legitimate organisation, do i understand it right? Nobody is forced to play with them and if you don't play by the rules, you're thrown out.

Blake has a short list but doesn't share it. Why not?

Freefocus, similarily to Wolves of Paris, does only hold non-coercive egalitarian organisations to be legitimate. His usage of concepts such as settler state, or theft of land should be clarified, as should his preference of the Swedish bourgeois democracy over the Israeli one. Sweden, after all, does use an army and a police and it's citizenship is also given to Swedes' children rather than to Palestinians'.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Might is right. Unless one is in a position to challenge the legitimacy of any state, then it is legit.

De facto control is all that matters. You can call any occupier names, but until they are removed they are legitimate.

[narcomprom]

Might is right. Unless one is in a position to challenge the legitimacy of any state, then it is legit.

De facto control is all that matters. You can call any occupier names, but until they are removed they are legitimate.
Well what do you do than, as a positivist, on a revolutionary forum?
You know I'm not asking what's de facto there and how cynically states operate on the international stage. What I'm asking is what your personal demands are to an authority for you to consider it legitimate.
edit:Might is Right was the name of an influential English language social darwinist pamphlet from the era of nationalism. It called for mass genocides and was quoted many times by Dr.J.Goebbels. I sincerely hope you don't actually share his altittude to the legitimacy of power.

[Lynx]

We're describing how the statist system works, not expressing our personal approval of it. For me, it's not a question of legitimacy, but relevance.

[blake 3:17]

Dude, you call yourself a fascist in red. Fucked up! Anyways...

I think is very interesting and I took a look at the roots of the word legitimate and illegitimate. The meanings actually vary a fair bit between some of notion of the just and good to what just happens to be. So New Tet is basically right, it is legitimate until it isn't. There's the question of who recognizes states as legitimate both externally and internally. The FARC and Hezbollah function as quasi-states. In the eyes of the world some recognize as legitimate and some not. The PA is sometimes given status as a form of a state and again sometimes not. The people of Gaza are criminalized for simply electing Hamas. Within Africa I think some of this gets even more complicated.


Blake has a short list but doesn't share it. Why not?

I'm actually not that interested in which states are legitimate. Which states do I support? Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia. That's about it. The super short list would be Cuba.


Here's the tiny URL for definitions of legitimate: http://tiny.cc/UgMod (http://tiny.cc/UgMod)

[blake 3:17]

Sorry for double post but whatever.

I think a lot of people on here subscribe to rather ultra left views of the state as simply an appendage of a ruling class. A proper Marxist analysis of the state sees a state as a product of struggles between classes and nations. There is a lot to be said for a state -- rule of law, ability to provide material infrastructure and social supports. So Israel does work well or well enough for enough Israelis to be legitimate
and terribly oppresses Palestinians. The American state works for a large number of people in the United States and harms other people both within and outside its borders.

[Agrippa]

Yeah, but we have to distinguish between a geographical region with national boundaries and the political state created to govern it. It might be possible to de-legitimize a state and still preserve the national boundaries that contained it.

This.


I think is very interesting and I took a look at the roots of the word legitimate and illegitimate.

Not me. I'm going to bed.

[Lynx]

Is the word 'legitimate' legitimate when used by nationalist trolls?

[Guerrilla22]

A state has to have a defined political territory, a governing body and recognition by most of the other states as being such.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

While no state is legitimate for the obvious reasons (reliance on violence, instrument of oppression and class rule), Israel, being a settler state, has committed especially egregious offenses, such as ethnic cleansing and racism. No state is legitimate, but not every state is the same. Sweden, for example, does not rely on the oppression of an entire people and theft of a country to exist. It still isn't legitimate, but it doesn't commit egregious acts comparatively.
I'm very wary of this position. I'm not an expert on Swedish history, but I would tend to see Israel's behaviour as being part of the norm, not an exception. The only difference is that it's a relatively new state, so its founding act of violence is still going on. Israel is exactly as legitimate as, say, Canada. Zizek's book on violence has some good insights into the subject.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well what do you do than, as a positivist, on a revolutionary forum?
You know I'm not asking what's de facto there and how cynically states operate on the international stage. What I'm asking is what your personal demands are to an authority for you to consider it legitimate.

A state is legitimate if it is able to control the territory it claims to have. I suppose I could claim that Israel isn't legitimate because it's a settler colony, or because it's racist, or whatever, but that wouldn't challenge the legitimacy of that state. Only the ability to remove said state from power can question it's "right to exist."

Whether a state is the most democratic ever seen or run by a foreign-born dictator has absolutely no consequence when push comes to shove, now does it?


edit:Might is Right was the name of an influential English language social darwinist pamphlet from the era of nationalism. It called for mass genocides and was quoted many times by Dr.J.Goebbels. I sincerely hope you don't actually share his altittude to the legitimacy of power.

I haven't seen the quotes by Dr Goebbels, so I can't say.

What I will say is that bullets speak louder than words. That's how every state is propped up. When I say Might is Right, I don't mean to suggest that genocide should be considered just another option. What I am saying is that standing up to genocide with talk is just so much bullshit. Unless war or cruelty or genocide or whatever is countered by action then it is only so much bullshit.

Might may not be right, but it's still standing when the duist settles.

[DancingLarry]

No state is "legitimate" in that all states usurp and suppress the natural sovereignty of the individual. That something exists and exerts authority hardly makes it "legitimate" in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, from a practical, utilitarian point of view we have to accept that states exist, but that in no way requires us to extend them a smidgen of "legitimacy" which is after all a moral, not utilitarian, attribute.

[Il Medico]

Nation States are the life support and means of control of the bourgeois. As the bourgeois rule and their system of class division is not and can never be legitimate in the eyes of any leftist,(or man with any reason or compassion for that matter) then neither can the state which is both supporting it and a puppet of it.

[Charles Xavier]

Every state be it a slave owner's state, a fuedal state, a capitalist state and a worker's state have a role to play in each epoch of human society. When a progressive class takes ownership of a state it is legitimate. These states are inevitable part of human society. They developed out of the need for civilization. You cannot say all states are illegitimate because thats not true. However not all states are illegitimate.

[FreeFocus]

I'm very wary of this position. I'm not an expert on Swedish history, but I would tend to see Israel's behaviour as being part of the norm, not an exception. The only difference is that it's a relatively new state, so its founding act of violence is still going on. Israel is exactly as legitimate as, say, Canada. Zizek's book on violence has some good insights into the subject.

If you'd like to debate the merits of my comparison, go ahead. Sweden is not a settler state whose very existence is predicated on imperialism. All states, obviously, are violent, and are maintained by violence - however, only a handful, on top of the violence that goes along with any state, engaged in full-scale ethnic cleansing and/or genocide to come into existence and maintain their existence by keeping that reality. Israel is exactly as illegitimate as Canada, another settler state.


Every state be it a slave owner's state, a fuedal state, a capitalist state and a worker's state have a role to play in each epoch of human society. When a progressive class takes ownership of a state it is legitimate. These states are inevitable part of human society. They developed out of the need for civilization. You cannot say all states are illegitimate because thats not true. However not all states are illegitimate.

I take issue with this position. No state is legitimate, and legitimacy can only be held once everyone is free to pursue their full development (which is true only under a stateless socialist society). No coercive power from above holds legitimacy. Moreover, I disagree with the Marxist position that every society follows the path of development that Europe happened to, but perhaps that's another topic for another day.


That is what I am complaining about: if all states are instruments of class rule you cannot complain about israel especially egregiously thieving land and being too much of a racist, because it would ruled by a grand bourgeois class exploiting the rest as manpower in war and work as much as palestine and sweden. so decide is it israel that is being illegitimate or are all nation-states such? or maybe are all settler states such as taiwan, the anglosaxon britain or usa or the arab maghreb illegitimate?
Could you be more particular about what acts you can consider to egregious enough to set israel apart from the rest?

Wolves of Paris believes only in non-coercive forces to be legitimate. A sports club for instance would be a legitimate organisation, do i understand it right? Nobody is forced to play with them and if you don't play by the rules, you're thrown out.

Blake has a short list but doesn't share it. Why not?

Freefocus, similarily to Wolves of Paris, does only hold non-coercive egalitarian organisations to be legitimate. His usage of concepts such as settler state, or theft of land should be clarified, as should his preference of the Swedish bourgeois democracy over the Israeli one. Sweden, after all, does use an army and a police and it's citizenship is also given to Swedes' children rather than to Palestinians'.

It is not only the Israeli government which is imperialist, Israeli society itself is defined through its settler imperialist relations and origins with Palestinians and in Palestine. Hence, you have IDF soldiers murdering Arabs with glee and committing all kinds of atrocities. You have the majority of Israelis supporting attacks on Iran and supporting wars against Palestinians and Lebanese. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a war that Israel waged against Arabs that wasn't supported by a majority of Israelis, and if there is one (which I doubt), it's only because casualties were mounting. Perhaps public support fell off towards the end of the last war against Lebanon in 2006. I'll have to look at the numbers.

I don't have to "decide" anything, I made it clear in every post that all states are illegitimate, but not all states are illegitimate for the exact same reasons. There's different degrees of illegitimacy, I suppose. Taiwan would be illegitimate, yes - in fact, its history is rather interesting (and one not commonly known), when you look at the policies of the Qing dynasty (forced assimilation, language suppression, theft of land). On top of that, the Taiwanese state exists separately from mainland China because of outside capitalist interests, although at this time it's obvious that it would've become capitalist anyway, given China's path of development the past few decades. Perhaps I'm ill-informed here, but how are the Maghreb states settler states?

Palestinians don't live in Sweden and don't have historical ties to the land - why, if they don't live in Sweden, should they have citizenship? I don't condone the notion of citizenship, as it's a state concept, but what point were you trying to make? I don't think you have one, or any, to be frank.

[blake 3:17]

Israel is exactly as legitimate as, say, Canada.

Yes. The Canadian state is founded on genocide and violence. It is also a keen ally of Israel. Many of us here are involved in both indigenous and Palestinian solidarity.

The Israelis have been able to accomplish in decades what my ancestors took centuries to do. Are they legitimate? I guess so. Just? No.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes. The Canadian state is founded on genocide and violence. It is also a keen ally of Israel. Many of us here are involved in both indigenous and Palestinian solidarity.

The Israelis have been able to accomplish in decades what my ancestors took centuries to do. Are they legitimate? I guess so. Just? No.

Imperialism is never just, but it's the way in which most Bourgeois states were founded. Looking back in history, almost every state was created with the use of violence and bloodshed. Even places such as England and France used these methods. It took some fighting for each side to be "hey, this is my land so stay out!" Each of these nations of course went on and formed their own governments in the form of monarchies which eventually created colonies in other parts of the world in order to obtain weath, which led to oppression.

[Mather]

No state is legitimate.

All states serve the ruling elites in power, be they the alliance of state/political leaders and private businessmen as we have in the 'West' or the case of the state capitalist USSR where the state became the sole entity of capitalist production and the sole source of the exploitation and oppression of the working class.

The social revolution must be made and led by the working class and other oppressed sections of society, to destroy both the capitalist system and it's political manifestation, the state.

[samizdat]

I think "legitimacy" is inherent in anything that exists through chance and possibility, even if it isn't under the ideal conditions.

Terrorists, bad credit, black holes etc are all "legitimate" because they do infact exist. There are no rules to the game.

[blake 3:17]

Imperialism is never just, but it's the way in which most Bourgeois states were founded. Looking back in history, almost every state was created with the use of violence and bloodshed. Even places such as England and France used these methods. It took some fighting for each side to be "hey, this is my land so stay out!" Each of these nations of course went on and formed their own governments in the form of monarchies which eventually created colonies in other parts of the world in order to obtain weath, which led to oppression.

I don't think a state is necessarily imperialist. Is Cuba imperialist? South Africa? Mexico?

[blake 3:17]

^^^ It seems to be the problem with the question. The Good and the Whateverishappeningatthemoment can both be deemed legitimate.

This thread is too much fun!

[RebelDog]

Every state be it a slave owner's state, a fuedal state, a capitalist state and a worker's state have a role to play in each epoch of human society. When a progressive class takes ownership of a state it is legitimate. These states are inevitable part of human society. They developed out of the need for civilization. You cannot say all states are illegitimate because thats not true. However not all states are illegitimate.

So you are saying a capitalist state is legitimate because capitalism was a progressive step from feudalism? You might as well say corporations are legitimate because they were a proggressive step from feudal ownership.

[LOLseph Stalin]

So you are saying a capitalist state is legitimate because capitalism was a progressive step from feudalism? You might as well say corporations are legitimate because they were a proggressive step from feudal ownership.

Speaking from the Bourgeois sense, corporations generally are legitimate. They were created by enterprenaurs who wanted to make money. These corporations can grow depending on how successful they are. This in the society we know is perfectly legal, however murder and genocide are not. These are both things that have resulted from the creation of nations. This in a sense makes the Bourgeoisie hypocritical since they think this is ok, yet they don't accept it to happen in their own country.

[RebelDog]

Speaking from the Bourgeois sense, corporations generally are legitimate. They were created by enterprenaurs who wanted to make money. These corporations can grow depending on how successful they are. This in the society we know is perfectly legal, however murder and genocide are not. These are both things that have resulted from the creation of nations. This in a sense makes the Bourgeoisie hypocritical since they think this is ok, yet they don't accept it to happen in their own country.

If we are 'speaking from the bourgeois sense' then anything that benifits them is legitimate, so thats a pointless endeavour. In the real world corporations are simply private tyrannies who have undemocratic ownership and control over the economy. If they grow it is because they are successful at passing on their costs to their workforce and the wider population through exploitation, environmental destruction and public subsidy. A corporation is a massive cost-shifting machine.