MarxSchmarx
17th October 2009, 05:42
In the following post, I argue that talk of a "stateless" society is ultimately unenlightening, and can hinder our activism. In particular, I argue that at issue in our analyses of the state is often not the state, per se, but rather a question sovereignty. By focusing our prescriptive discourse on questions surrounding "the state", many leftists have managed to obfuscate and thereby dodge, uncomfortable but key questions about the issues of sovereignty and authority. By recasting many key political questions of the left (such as "What should a stateless society look like?" or "Is a worker's state, however transitory, desirable/possible?") as essentially matters of degree about sovereignty, the left can help develop at least a more precise, and hopefully more productive, analysis of power.
NB, this is a bit of a work in progress so I would appreciate criticism!
---------------------------
Although leftists are wont to describe their affinity for a "stateless" society, this has historically meant different things to different groups both within the left and without.
A key component of any analysis of a "stateless" society is our understanding the very definition of the state itself. I begin by proposing that "the state" be understood in strict terms that are ahistorical and not contingent on material facts.
While largely sociological and anthropological definitions and interpretations of the state that emphasize the historical contingency of political institutions may seem desirable, they can often obfuscate pressing normative questions.
A case in point is the issue of whether states are "largely derivative instruments of class rule". Much can, and has, been gained by adopting such a historical and materialist understanding of the state. No doubt, it is a highly fruitful paradigm.
Yet this historical, or, rather, empirical, account of the state cannot help address pressing normative questions that the left, should its visions be implmenented, must address. For example, should "the state" construct stoplights at a busy traffic intersection, despite objections from neighbors that it is an eyesore? Ceterus parabus, whether or not the state "is an instrument of class rule" cannot be of much help in answering this question. However, an ahistorical and abstract definition of the state can provide a framework in which such questions can be addressed.
To this end, a useful starting point is the prevailing bourgeois legalistic understanding of the state - namely, as a sovereign entity over a geographic area and its inhabitants. By "sovereign", we mean that this entity can coerce individuals to behave in a certain way. I will refer to this as the bourgeois legalistic definition of the state.
Initially, such a view of the state seems hopelessly vague. For instance, using this definition, even a nuclear family can be a state. A parent can order a toddler to go to bed, and if needs be carry the toddler to physically place them in the bed. Similarly, in a social circle, peer pressure can "coerce" a naive individual to undertake something they wouldn't otherwise be inclined to undertake. Even entities we traditionally consider to be states, such as, say, the nation of England, can "coerce" individuals in subtle ways by essentially ensuring that all individuals born and raise in the state speak English.
However, such a perspective of the state is a perspective quite common to many people the world over, and it appears to describe the essence of what it is that what most of us understand the state to be about.
When, therefore, one confronts that definition by insisting that by a "stateless society" one does not mean a nuclear family, for example, one must posit that something more must be involved in the understanding of the state.
Yet this brings us, quite rapidly, to the crux of the problem. Any empirical criteria for defining the state that one is against turns out to be equally problematic. For instance, while a leftist may be in favor of the abolition of "bourgeois" states, it is not clear that ultimately the qualification of "bourgeois" sufficiently describes what it is that most leftists oppose. For instance, in no serious sense can the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan be considered a "bourgeois" state, yet it embodied all the criteria of the bourgeois legalistic definition of the state. Further, not only would leftists favor the abolition of a medieval empire just as much as they would favor the abolition of the "bourgeois" state, but would favor the abolition of both for largely similar reasons. As such, an essentially ahistorical definition and understanding of the state is required to articulate precisely what it is that leftists are against.
An oft-cited alternative to opposing the generic, if uninformative, "state" is to oppose "illegitimate authority". Much has been written about what does an does not constitute illegitimate authority. Suffice it to say that for now, this merely appears to punt the question. Does the "community", say, of Manchester have the "legitimate authority" to create the conditions whereby 95% of children growing up in Manchester speak English? Does a neighborhood council have any more legitimate authority to erect a stop light despite the objections of the people living at that intersection? Moreover, the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate authority inherently appears to assume that legitimate authority is not only possible but desirable. And what is "authority", but the ability to compell behavior? As such, even "legitimate authority", as traditionally defended by leftists, would fall under the bourgeois legalistic definition of the state.
Thus we arrive at the problem - what is it that distinguishes entites like the Mongol Empire or the state of Cuba, on the one hand, from entities like the nuclear family, or even the tribal elders? The answer, I posit, is one of degree and not of quality. The state of Cuba has the ability to coerce many more individuals than I, in my capacity as a parent to a toddler, do. Blurrier still is the line between being an elder of a nomadic tribe and being the emperor over vast swaths of Eurasia (although to be sure, in Genghis Khan's case, he wasn't quite an elder of his tribe when starting out).
As such, cries for a "stateless society" are ultimately uninformative. Despite charges that it is a matter for "ivory tower eggheads" and that it amounts to drawing up arbitrary blueprints for a future utopia, the left will do much better in articulating its critique and opposition to the bourgeois state by delimiting the extent of sovereignty we are willing to tolerate. To some degree, this is already underway. For example, libertarian municipalists, for all their faults, do specify quite clearly that they feel that such entities should cover no more territory than a regular person can walk in a day. Such conversations of the "extent of sovereignty" we desire in our future social and political arrangements need to happen among other leftist tendencies.
NB, this is a bit of a work in progress so I would appreciate criticism!
---------------------------
Although leftists are wont to describe their affinity for a "stateless" society, this has historically meant different things to different groups both within the left and without.
A key component of any analysis of a "stateless" society is our understanding the very definition of the state itself. I begin by proposing that "the state" be understood in strict terms that are ahistorical and not contingent on material facts.
While largely sociological and anthropological definitions and interpretations of the state that emphasize the historical contingency of political institutions may seem desirable, they can often obfuscate pressing normative questions.
A case in point is the issue of whether states are "largely derivative instruments of class rule". Much can, and has, been gained by adopting such a historical and materialist understanding of the state. No doubt, it is a highly fruitful paradigm.
Yet this historical, or, rather, empirical, account of the state cannot help address pressing normative questions that the left, should its visions be implmenented, must address. For example, should "the state" construct stoplights at a busy traffic intersection, despite objections from neighbors that it is an eyesore? Ceterus parabus, whether or not the state "is an instrument of class rule" cannot be of much help in answering this question. However, an ahistorical and abstract definition of the state can provide a framework in which such questions can be addressed.
To this end, a useful starting point is the prevailing bourgeois legalistic understanding of the state - namely, as a sovereign entity over a geographic area and its inhabitants. By "sovereign", we mean that this entity can coerce individuals to behave in a certain way. I will refer to this as the bourgeois legalistic definition of the state.
Initially, such a view of the state seems hopelessly vague. For instance, using this definition, even a nuclear family can be a state. A parent can order a toddler to go to bed, and if needs be carry the toddler to physically place them in the bed. Similarly, in a social circle, peer pressure can "coerce" a naive individual to undertake something they wouldn't otherwise be inclined to undertake. Even entities we traditionally consider to be states, such as, say, the nation of England, can "coerce" individuals in subtle ways by essentially ensuring that all individuals born and raise in the state speak English.
However, such a perspective of the state is a perspective quite common to many people the world over, and it appears to describe the essence of what it is that what most of us understand the state to be about.
When, therefore, one confronts that definition by insisting that by a "stateless society" one does not mean a nuclear family, for example, one must posit that something more must be involved in the understanding of the state.
Yet this brings us, quite rapidly, to the crux of the problem. Any empirical criteria for defining the state that one is against turns out to be equally problematic. For instance, while a leftist may be in favor of the abolition of "bourgeois" states, it is not clear that ultimately the qualification of "bourgeois" sufficiently describes what it is that most leftists oppose. For instance, in no serious sense can the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan be considered a "bourgeois" state, yet it embodied all the criteria of the bourgeois legalistic definition of the state. Further, not only would leftists favor the abolition of a medieval empire just as much as they would favor the abolition of the "bourgeois" state, but would favor the abolition of both for largely similar reasons. As such, an essentially ahistorical definition and understanding of the state is required to articulate precisely what it is that leftists are against.
An oft-cited alternative to opposing the generic, if uninformative, "state" is to oppose "illegitimate authority". Much has been written about what does an does not constitute illegitimate authority. Suffice it to say that for now, this merely appears to punt the question. Does the "community", say, of Manchester have the "legitimate authority" to create the conditions whereby 95% of children growing up in Manchester speak English? Does a neighborhood council have any more legitimate authority to erect a stop light despite the objections of the people living at that intersection? Moreover, the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate authority inherently appears to assume that legitimate authority is not only possible but desirable. And what is "authority", but the ability to compell behavior? As such, even "legitimate authority", as traditionally defended by leftists, would fall under the bourgeois legalistic definition of the state.
Thus we arrive at the problem - what is it that distinguishes entites like the Mongol Empire or the state of Cuba, on the one hand, from entities like the nuclear family, or even the tribal elders? The answer, I posit, is one of degree and not of quality. The state of Cuba has the ability to coerce many more individuals than I, in my capacity as a parent to a toddler, do. Blurrier still is the line between being an elder of a nomadic tribe and being the emperor over vast swaths of Eurasia (although to be sure, in Genghis Khan's case, he wasn't quite an elder of his tribe when starting out).
As such, cries for a "stateless society" are ultimately uninformative. Despite charges that it is a matter for "ivory tower eggheads" and that it amounts to drawing up arbitrary blueprints for a future utopia, the left will do much better in articulating its critique and opposition to the bourgeois state by delimiting the extent of sovereignty we are willing to tolerate. To some degree, this is already underway. For example, libertarian municipalists, for all their faults, do specify quite clearly that they feel that such entities should cover no more territory than a regular person can walk in a day. Such conversations of the "extent of sovereignty" we desire in our future social and political arrangements need to happen among other leftist tendencies.