Anarchist conceptions of the state?

[Janine Melnitz]

So I asked this question here: (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1514719#post1514719)

What definition of "the state" is popular with Anarchists nowadays? I'm not real familiar with the literature -- I only know what the Anarchists I've known have said, which was usually along the lines of "monopoly on violence" or "instrument of violence in the interests of a given class". Some of these kids decided (and I agreed) that this precluded mass violence in an "anti-statist" revolution; clearly a different concept of "the state" might not though.
And I only got one answer, probably because my question was slightly tangential to the topic:

Defining the State is a tough task, but I'll give it a shot. To be a State and not just a criminal gang or a legitimate communal defense force, an organization must 1) have the purpose of enforcing the ethical beliefs of a population and 2) exempt itself from said enforcement.
This one seems kind of tricky -- either you're saying that a state differs from other organizations in that it is hypocritical or something, which is a little silly because no "statist" (Maoist, liberal, monarchist etc.) is pro-hypocrisy, or you're making a more radical criticism that states are necessarily, because of some other qualities, hypocritical, in which case you still need to define the state to get at what drives this necessity. I can come up with some ideas as to why states might necessarily "exempt themselves from enforcement", but they end up applying to every organization that employs mass violence, so this doesn't really answer the main question: what definition of "the state" is needed for a non-pacifist, revolutionary Anarchism to be possible?

Again, not flamebait, I'm probably just not well-read enough.

[Misanthrope]

Personally, I define the state as an organization that obtained power through force/fraud with a monopoly on the use of legitimate force in a given area, that is primarily an institution of class rule.

I advocate a voluntary government rather than a forced government.

[Janine Melnitz]

Personally, I define the state as an organization that obtained power through force/fraud with a monopoly on the use of legitimate force in a given area,
Right, but leaving out the "fraud" part (unless you think that's essential?), how would organized, mass violence on the part of anarchists avoid fitting this definition? If the organized working class destroys the state, how do they not then have, by default, the "monopoly on the use of legitimate violence" in that area? Maybe I'm wrong and there's a practical solution to this, but I suspect that anarchism requires a different definition of "state" to avoid it.

[Misanthrope]

Right, but leaving out the "fraud" part (unless you think that's essential?), how would organized, mass violence on the part of anarchists avoid fitting this definition? If the organized working class destroys the state, how do they not then have, by default, the "monopoly on the use of legitimate violence" in that area? Maybe I'm wrong and there's a practical solution to this, but I suspect that anarchism requires a different definition of "state" to avoid it.

No it is not essential.

This mass violence of anarchists you speak of, is not a group of people obtaining power, to use that power to force others to abide by their laws. A workers revolution to overthrow capitalism and statism is not statism. "The workers" is a rather vague description of a revolutionary group. An anarchist revolutionary group, in theory, would not be set on obtaining power but rather abstaining from power and removing those who were in power.

force does not equal statism.

[Nwoye]

force does not equal statism.
under an anarchist definition of a state it does. a "monopoly of the use of force" can mean anything from a totalitarian state to a proprietor protecting his plot of land to an anarchist militia.

[Misanthrope]

under an anarchist definition of a state it does. a "monopoly of the use of force" can mean anything from a totalitarian state to a proprietor protecting his plot of land to an anarchist militia.

Monopoly on the use of legitimate force. I advocate voluntary government, if you agree to the laws set forth in say a commune, you can legitimately be punished by the commune, because you agreed that if you broke a law you would be punished.

You do not agree to the terms of the state, you don't sign the constitution.

[Janine Melnitz]

An anarchist revolutionary group, in theory, would not be set on obtaining power but rather abstaining from power and removing those who were in power.
So I guess this is a theoretical impasse, since I'm not sure I could be convinced that forcibly removing someone from power isn't, in itself, an exercise of power over them.

This would mean that in my estimation (non-pacifist) anarchism is self-refuting, but that's a different argument and not for this thread -- I still think that with the diversity and intelligence of anarchist authors, there must be some who conceive the state/revolution in a way that I won't find (simply) logically inconsistent. So if anyone can point me to them, that would be rad.

[Misanthrope]

I never said that the hypothetical revolutionaries weren't exerting force.

[Nwoye]

Monopoly on the use of legitimate force. I advocate voluntary government, if you agree to the laws set forth in say a commune, you can legitimately be punished by the commune, because you agreed that if you broke a law you would be punished.

You do not agree to the terms of the state, you don't sign the constitution.
What we're primarily talking about here is the existence of a state while the revolution is in progress - ie when there are still forces of counter revolution working against the installation of socialism. If you use force to do away with private property or to even defend against reactionary insurrection then you are establishing a monopoly of the use of force, and therefore a state.

[Janine Melnitz]

I never said that the hypothetical revolutionaries weren't exerting force.
No, but you said using force was different from asserting power over whomever; this I can't really agree with.

[Misanthrope]

No, but you said using force was different from asserting power over whomever; this I can't really agree with.

Where? Because that isn't true. I said that the hypothetical revolutionaries are not a state because they are not personally obtaining power.

[Janine Melnitz]

Oh okay. How do they assert power without obtaining it?

Edit: TO ANYONE ELSE READING THIS THREAD, the conversation between me and Wolves of Paris about a certain kind of anarchist conception of state/revolution is not the point of the thread please feel free to ignore it!!!!

[revolution inaction]

I think a state is a set of hierarchical organisations which support the interest of a minority, the ruling class, over the majority, currently the workers, although in the past this would have been peasants or slaves.

[Invincible Summer]

This thread is starting to smell a bit like an excuse for sectarianism... but anyways...


I think a state is a set of hierarchical organisations which support the interest of a minority, the ruling class, over the majority, currently the workers, although in the past this would have been peasants or slaves.

I like that definition

[bricolage]

under an anarchist definition of a state it does. a "monopoly of the use of force" can mean anything from a totalitarian state to a proprietor protecting his plot of land to an anarchist militia.

Actually it’s a Weberian definition. He defines a state as such "if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order."

However I agree that it is limiting in that an area under the control of an anarchist militia and with direct worker control over the means of production could be termed a state. A adequate conception of the state needs to encompass more ideas such as hierarchy, class, centralised authority and so on.

[Misanthrope]

Oh okay. How do they assert power without obtaining it?

Edit: TO ANYONE ELSE READING THIS THREAD, the conversation between me and Wolves of Paris about a certain kind of anarchist conception of state/revolution is not the point of the thread please feel free to ignore it!!!!

They use force to remove the state and capitalists from power. The motive behind this use of force would not be to consolidate power for themselves but to consolidate power for the working class as a whole, to let the proletariat decide their destiny.


What we're primarily talking about here is the existence of a state while the revolution is in progress - ie when there are still forces of counter revolution working against the installation of socialism. If you use force to do away with private property or to even defend against reactionary insurrection then you are establishing a monopoly of the use of force, and therefore a state.

A monopoly of the use of force is not a state. What are you talking about..?

"Personally, I define the state as an organization that obtained power through force/fraud with a monopoly on the use of legitimate force in a given area, that is primarily an institution of class rule."

[Durruti's Ghost]

The Anarchist FAQ puts it rather well, I think.


the division of society into rulers and ruled is the key to what constitutes a state. Without such a division, we would not need a monopoly of violence and so would simply have an association of equals, unmarked by power and hierarchy (such as exists in many stateless "primitive" tribes and will exist in a future anarchist society). And, it must be stressed, such a division exists even in democratic states as "with the state there is always a hierarchical and status difference between rulers and ruled. Even if it is a democracy, where we suppose those who rule today are not rulers tomorrow, there are still differences in status. In a democratic system, only a tiny minority will ever have the opportunity to rule and these are invariably drawn from the elite."

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html

[BabylonHoruv]

I think a state is a set of hierarchical organisations which support the interest of a minority, the ruling class, over the majority, currently the workers, although in the past this would have been peasants or slaves.

A state which supported the majority over a minority is also easily hypothetically possible. And i would hold that it would still be a state.

[revolution inaction]

A state which supported the majority over a minority is also easily hypothetically possible. And i would hold that it would still be a state.

but not at all realistic.

[BabylonHoruv]

but not at all realistic.

Not currently realized certainly. but it is the basic pitfall of direct democracy and the reason that many Anarchists are not in favor of direct democracy.

[The Feral Underclass]

...the reason that many Anarchists are not in favor of direct democracy.

Where did you learn this little gem?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think any of the answers given adequately describe what a state is from an anarchist perspective.

We share the Marxist view that a state is one class organised to suppress another, and that a state will take on the characteristics of those that control it. However, anarchists go further in arguing that a state, in order for it to exist and perpetuate its historical objective of one class suppressing another, must centralise and institutionalise the political authority of that class.

The argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates. What we have seen emerge is a class of bureaucrats who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - To begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state i.e. there own political authority, meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the state cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state.

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

[Janine Melnitz]

Oh so the defining characteristic is centralization? Hmm okay

Obviously I'd argue about the practical applications, but this seems internally consistent, so thanks

[Psy]

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

The idea is not really to centralized political authority but centralized command structure to carry out the wishes of society. Think of railways, there is not point in letting train conductors argue with dispatchers or flagmen if workers want change it is more logical to debate policy not challenge the chain of command since conductors doesn't have information dispatchers and in heavy traffic route 5 mins ahead or beyond were the dispatcher planned the train to be can throw the whole network into chaos.

A bigger example would be armies, a army that doesn't fight as a coordinated force won't be very effective, for example how could large bombs be dropped if troops don't maintain their positions, saying over the radio not to advance because their bombers are going to bomb the area ahead of them might be picked up the enemy but the enemy just picking radio traffic ordering troops to hold wouldn't alone tip off the enemy and of course aircrews in bombers would still have to bomb exactly were they were told to else bombs might completely miss or worse hit civilian friendly forces.

And are we really going to have decentralized power generation with disconnected power grids (since you can only have joined power grids with a centralized command structure so power plants grids are not overloaded).

[The Feral Underclass]

The idea is not really to centralized political authority but centralized command structure to carry out the wishes of society. Think of railways, there is not point in letting train conductors argue with dispatchers or flagmen if workers want change it is more logical to debate policy not challenge the chain of command since conductors doesn't have information dispatchers and in heavy traffic route 5 mins ahead or beyond were the dispatcher planned the train to be can throw the whole network into chaos.

I'm not really following what you're trying to say.


A bigger example would be armies, a army that doesn't fight as a coordinated force won't be very effective

I don't accept that decentralisation means not being co-ordinated.


for example how could large bombs be dropped if troops don't maintain their positions, saying over the radio not to advance because their bombers are going to bomb the area ahead of them might be picked up the enemy but the enemy just picking radio traffic ordering troops to hold wouldn't alone tip off the enemy and of course aircrews in bombers would still have to bomb exactly were they were told to else bombs might completely miss or worse hit civilian friendly forces.

Why would any of that happen?


And are we really going to have decentralized power generation with disconnected power grids (since you can only have joined power grids with a centralized command structure so power plants grids are not overloaded).

I'm not opposed to the concept of centralisation of amenities if that's what is necessary. I'm opposed to the centralisation of political authority. They are two very different things.

[eyedrop]

We share the Marxist view that a state is one class organised to suppress another, and that a state will take on the characteristics of those that control it. However, anarchists go further in arguing that a state, in order for it to exist and perpetuate its historical objective of one class suppressing another, must centralise and institutionalise the political authority of that class. I don't think this view paints the entire picture. I don't think the capitalists are entirely in control of the state. The electoral and institutional parts of the state seems capable to push agendas that increases their control and power, and even win them at times. Much of the nationalisation aren't in the capitalists interests, for example nationalisation of oil production, while it is directly a material benefit for the state. The state can run industries itself and keep tremendeous profits away from capitalists.

I'll acknowledge that the state has a tendency to sell out profitable "enterprices", but what about the times it doesn't?

I'll agree with you that neither, the state or the capitalists, can ever serve the workers, although I think the state often tries to expand it's power and control on the expence of the capitalists.

[griffjam]

Anarchists "have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behavior, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the power to make laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force."

[Psy]

I'm not opposed to the concept of centralisation of amenities if that's what is necessary. I'm opposed to the centralisation of political authority. They are two very different things.
Right but there is a difference between problem solving and decisions. I agree we should decentralized decision making since not everyone wants the exact same thing but there is no real reason for problem solving to be decentralized since problem solving should be based on meritocracy not popular option, for example a revolutionary army shouldn't vote on tactics democratically but rather lead by those have shown the most competence (assuming the revolutionary troops collectively want to win against the capitalists forces). A extreme example of this would be if the revolutionary army learned capitalists were planing to launch ICBMs at worker occupied cities and the officers of the revolutionary army decide to launch nuclear bunker busters at missiles silos controlled by capitalists forces, there really wouldn't be enough time to democratically decide to nuke those silos and doing so would tip of the capitalists and could cause the capitalists to launch sooner meaning the nuclear bunker busters hit empty silos as their ICBMs are already in flight.

[The Feral Underclass]

Right but there is a difference between problem solving and decisions. I agree we should decentralized decision making since not everyone wants the exact same thing but there is no real reason for problem solving to be decentralized since problem solving should be based on meritocracy not popular option, for example a revolutionary army shouldn't vote on tactics democratically but rather lead by those have shown the most competence (assuming the revolutionary troops collectively want to win against the capitalists forces). A extreme example of this would be if the revolutionary army learned capitalists were planing to launch ICBMs at worker occupied cities and the officers of the revolutionary army decide to launch nuclear bunker busters at missiles silos controlled by capitalists forces, there really wouldn't be enough time to democratically decide to nuke those silos and doing so would tip of the capitalists and could cause the capitalists to launch sooner meaning the nuclear bunker busters hit empty silos as their ICBMs are already in flight.

I can't really see how our opinions differ.

[nuisance]

Malatesta-

'Anarchists generally make use if the word "State" to mean all the collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial, etc., by means of which management of their own affairs, the guidance of their personal conduct, and the care of ensuring their own safety are taken from the people and confided to certain individuals, and these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective force of the community to this end.
In this case the word "State" means "government," or, if you like, it is the abstract expression of which government is the personification. Then such expressions as "Abolition of the State," or "Society without the State," agree perfectly with the conception which anarchists wish to express of the destruction of every political institution based on authority, and of the constitution of a free and equal society, based upon harmony of interests, and the voluntary contribution of all to the satisfaction of social needs.
However, the word "State" has many other meanings, and among these some that lend themselves to misconstruction, particularly when used among men whose sad social position has not afforded them leisure to become accustomed to the subtle distinction of scientific language, or, still worse, when adopted treacherously by adversaries, who are interested in confounding the sense, or do not wish to comprehend it. Thus the word "State" is often used to indicate any given society, or collection of human beings, united on a given territory and constituting what is called a "social unit," independently of the way in which the members of the said body are grouped, or of the relations existing between them. "State" is used also simply as a synonym for "society." Owning to these meanings of the word, our adversaries believe, or rather profess to believe, that anarchists wish to abolish every social relation and all collective work, and to reduce man to a condition of isolation, that is, to a state worse than savagery.
By "State" again is meant only the supreme administration of a country, the central power, as distinct from provincial or communal power, and therefore others think that anarchists wish merely for a territorial decentralization, leaving the principle of government intact, and thus confounding anarchy with cantonical or communal government.
Finally, "State" signifies "condition, mode of living, the order of social life," etc., and therefore we say, for example, that it is necessary to change the economic state of the working classes, or that the anarchical State is the only State founded on the principles of solidarity, and other similar phrases. So that if we say also in another sense that we wish to abolish the State, we may at once appear absurd or contradictory.
For these reasons, we believe that it would be better to use the expression "abolition of the State" as little as possible, and to substitute for it another, clearer, and more concrete --"abolition of government."
The latter will be the expression used in the course of this essay.'

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/malatesta/anarchy.html

[Psy]

I can't really see how our opinions differ.
See I only see the need to decentralize decision making but not problem solving. For example there is no need for every community to have their own plan on dealing with climate change and it could be counter productive, it is much better to have a world wide plan for dealing with climate change. Same with transportation, while it is better communities for plan for travel within their communities it is better to have a plan for transportation across all of Earth so a station master in a small town in the USA knows when a passenger would end up in a small town in the UK as they could check with a central dispatch for all of Earth, and if there is a problem, notification of the problem could be sent to all station masters across the world (so the station master in the small town would have notifications of delays around the world thus could warn customers of said delays).

[Black Cross]

See I only see the need to decentralize decision making but not problem solving. For example there is no need for every community to have their own plan on dealing with climate change and it could be counter productive, it is much better to have a world wide plan for dealing with climate change. Same with transportation, while it is better communities for plan for travel within their communities it is better to have a plan for transportation across all of Earth so a station master in a small town in the USA knows when a passenger would end up in a small town in the UK as they could check with a central dispatch for all of Earth, and if there is a problem, notification of the problem could be sent to all station masters across the world (so the station master in the small town would have notifications of delays around the world thus could warn customers of said delays).


I'm not opposed to the concept of centralisation of amenities if that's what is necessary.

I don't think you're 'disagreeing' on anything substantive Psy.

Also, anarchists are proponents of direct action. It's not necessary that we send out a ballot every time there's a decision to be made.

[BabylonHoruv]

Where did you learn this little gem? (Many Anarchists being opposed to Direct Democracy)


Crimethinc. I know they are not the mainstream of Anarchist thought, or a majority in any way. However they are opposed to Direct Democracy, they are Anarchists, and there are enough of them to count as many Anarchists.

[BabylonHoruv]

See I only see the need to decentralize decision making but not problem solving. For example there is no need for every community to have their own plan on dealing with climate change and it could be counter productive, it is much better to have a world wide plan for dealing with climate change. Same with transportation, while it is better communities for plan for travel within their communities it is better to have a plan for transportation across all of Earth so a station master in a small town in the USA knows when a passenger would end up in a small town in the UK as they could check with a central dispatch for all of Earth, and if there is a problem, notification of the problem could be sent to all station masters across the world (so the station master in the small town would have notifications of delays around the world thus could warn customers of said delays).

Are you an Anarchist? So far you don't look like one to me but i may be mistaken.

[yuon]

... it is better to have a plan for transportation across all of Earth so a station master in a small town in the USA knows when a passenger would end up in a small town in the UK as they could check with a central dispatch for all of Earth, and if there is a problem, notification of the problem could be sent to all station masters across the world (so the station master in the small town would have notifications of delays around the world thus could warn customers of said delays).

Trains in Europe (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/ch11.html). It is easy to produce a "centralised" train system without a centralised political body to enforce that system.
All this was done by free agreement, by exchange of letters and proposals, by congresses at which relegates met to discuss certain special subjects, but not to make laws; after the congress, the delegates returned to their companies, not with a law, but with the draft of a contract to be accepted or rejected.[1 (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/ch11.html)]

Oh, and why should a "station master" in the USA need to know about a passenger is going to arrive anywhere in the UK?

----

As to the definition of the state, I would suggest something along the lines of a hierarchical organisation, which centralises power and military force, controlled by a minority.

As TAT has mentioned, when new "states" are created, with the intention that they be ruled by a majority of the population, invariably a group takes control of the reigns of the state.

Oh, and the group, the minority in control of the state (and state) invariably resist any attempt to destroy that state. States, in other words, perpetuate themselves. (Which lends a mockery to the notion of the state "withering away" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s4). Though the so called "proletarian state" has been described by certain people as something that doesn't resemble to me, an anarchist, as a state at all. The transitional "state" promoted by certain Leninists and other Marxists is no state at all according to my idea of what "state" is.)

[The Feral Underclass]

Crimethinc.

That's not anarchism.


I know they are not the mainstream of Anarchist thought

It's not anarchist thought.

[Psy]

Trains in Europe (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/ch11.html). It is easy to produce a "centralised" train system without a centralised political body to enforce that system. [1 (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/ch11.html)]

Oh, and why should a "station master" in the USA need to know about a passenger is going to arrive anywhere in the UK?

So travelers can reach their destination in a timely fashion while maximizing efficiency. For example if a traveler wants to get from LA to London the station master can tell the traveler the best way to get there (since it is the same network world wide) and have the plan mapped out in advance so computers know in advance of traffic, so railways in the UK can prepare for their traffic on their networks. It would also help with planning express routes and allow for flexible express routes that are created and shut down based on advance warning of traffic. It would also make losing luggage much harder as it means the same bar code put on in LA would work in London as London computers would see it is from LA and simply ask servers in LA who it belongs to and where is going and the route of the luggage would be able have been plotted out so the traveler wouldn't even have to pick them up at the airport and they could go right to the travelers finial destination be a hotel or residence. It would also make it easier for transit workers to relocate anywhere in the world due to standardization due to centralization, meaning a station master from LA could easily work in London since it would be the same organization just a different division.

[BabylonHoruv]

That's not anarchism.

(referring to Crimethinc)

It's not anarchist thought.

How so? They are opposed to the state as well as to capitalism. I know that they are not your kind of Anarchist, but that doesn't mean they are not Anarchist.

They may be fools, but they are Anarchist fools. They are opposed not only to the state but to heriarchical power of any sort.

[BabylonHoruv]

So travelers can reach their destination in a timely fashion while maximizing efficiency. For example if a traveler wants to get from LA to London the station master can tell the traveler the best way to get there (since it is the same network world wide) and have the plan mapped out in advance so computers know in advance of traffic, so railways in the UK can prepare for their traffic on their networks. It would also help with planning express routes and allow for flexible express routes that are created and shut down based on advance warning of traffic. It would also make losing luggage much harder as it means the same bar code put on in LA would work in London as London computers would see it is from LA and simply ask servers in LA who it belongs to and where is going and the route of the luggage would be able have been plotted out so the traveler wouldn't even have to pick them up at the airport and they could go right to the travelers finial destination be a hotel or residence. It would also make it easier for transit workers to relocate anywhere in the world due to standardization due to centralization, meaning a station master from LA could easily work in London since it would be the same organization just a different division.


Making the trains run on time is a task that most sort of assume Fascists are the best at. It's even a stereotype. I am slightly disturbed to see that having the trains run on time is still being used as an arguement for central government. Not because it is invalid, but simply because it quickly conjures up very negative connotations for those of us who have read some of the historical debates.

[Psy]

Making the trains run on time is a task that most sort of assume Fascists are the best at. It's even a stereotype. I am slightly disturbed to see that having the trains run on time is still being used as an arguement for central government. Not because it is invalid, but simply because it quickly conjures up very negative connotations for those of us who have read some of the historical debates.

Not really an argument for central government but central planning, really if we ever could build a A.I powerful enough to run plan train routes I would have no problem with letting a central A.I plan out all the routes as long as the A.I understand what we humans expect from it (same with a central transportation body run by humans).

[ComradeOm]

Trains in Europe (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/kropotkin/conquest/ch11.html). It is easy to produce a "centralised" train system without a centralised political body to enforce that systemAn extremely poor example for a number of reasons. In the first place, Kropotkin is entirely regarding government input into railway planning. With the exception of the UK (and possibly the US) the state was heavily involved in the construction of every major 19th rail network. This involvement ranged from subsidising particular lines to physically planning and constructing the routes. Kropotkin uses an anecdote about Nicholas I while ignoring the fact that later Tsars spent huge sums on, and closely supervised, the construction of the famous Trans-Siberian Railway

The second major problem with that argument is that the railways were the product of capitalist development. It was the concerns of British industrialists that first gave rise to the railways and it was financial speculators that drove the railway boom of the 1840s. It was British capital that built the railways across America. However admirably decentralised this may be from an anarchist perspective it was not "free agreement" that drove the construction of railways but the search for profit and the tyranny of the market

Of course the supposed decentralisation of the market is nothing but an illusion. Kropotkin had hardly be faulted for this final point (although more astute minds had already noted the increasing concentration of capital that is such a feature of modern capitalism) because he died shortly before the rail networks that he so exalts were nationalised en masse. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc, all nationalised their railways in the decades following Kropotkin's death. Why? Because the decentralisation of their origins was inefficient and unsustainable. The railway networks had expanded to the point where private enterprise could no longer profitably manage such operations. So the European states, which had always had considerable stake in these anyway, was forced to step in and assume the burden

So Kropotkin is entirely wrong when he speaks of the lack of state intervention in European railways. You want to see today's "European Central Government of Railways"... then have a look at the European Railway Agency! But what is more baffling is Kropotkin's strawman that such a body would automatically arise, rather than the industry falling under the aegis of traditional state bodies. You can turn his whole argument around by applying the same logic to the textile industry, for example, which also arose in a decentralised fashion (with 'free agreements' and all) yet failed to give rise to a "European Central Government of Textiles". Of course it didn't, that was the role that the bourgeois state performed! :confused: