Why is the state inherently oppressive? [Archive]

CELMX

18th January 2010, 10:40

The state is inherently harmful, because, for one, it shatters international solidarity. The government would only care for civilians within its own country, (note: this is not what is occuring now, but if the state was close to "perfect"), which causes mass distruction and genocides between states. For, instead of different races and peoples exercising their natural solidarity, the state teaches them to kill off a thousand so-and-so's from the other nation.
Second of all, the ruler will inherently have different motives than the people, if that is also what you are asking. If they run the show, they would somehow find themselves exempt from some laws.
And, power corrupts. (haha, you guys with tendencies that include vanguard parties, feel free to disagree) A ruler will try to remain ruler, doing anything he can, even if that means oppressing his people.

Indirect democracy is a very easy way to trick citizens. The people don't know what's happening behind the curtain, and they are voting for people to make decisions for them. Pretty dangerous, because that person can completely change their platform, or what they actually do with other representatives, without you knowing.

In my opinion, any form of the state must be abolished, and there must be direct democracy, no indirect democracy bullshit, as that can lead to corrupted powers and alternative motives focused away from the people. Things must be done not only for the common good of man, but for the individual good. The state snatches that individual good away.

Jimmie Higgins

18th January 2010, 10:50

States are a tool of class rule and their oppressiveness or reforms are a reflection of the class conditions in different countries. States are an organization to impress one class's interests over all of society. In all forms of the state that have existed in the past, the state has been a tool for a minority class to rule over the rest of society in order to create a kind of order that benefits that minority - repression is necessary in order for any minority class to convince the majority to go against their own class interests.

In capitalism this obviously means either crushing or co-opting worker movements that seek a social arrangement that hurts profit or the power of the bosses. In the so-called socialist (state-capitalist) countries or 3rd world nationalist countries, the state was generally used to organize society to rapidly industrialize and be able to compete with the other industrial counties.

Although there is "state-corruption" in many of these states, the "state" itself or the bureaucracy itself do not have independent class interests - they serve the needs of the ruling class. The US was going to Iraq and the "debate" was just to legitimize and sell this and make any dissenters feel completely isolated. With US healthcare - the insurance companies, major employers had already set the agenda for the debate and both parties decide what could and could not be considered for healthcare plans in closed-door and private meetings... all months before it was ever discussed by politicians in the media or in public through Congressional debates.

It benefits the capitalist rulers to have representatives that are not very accountable to the population and decision-making bodies that are all hot-air and old-fashioned procedural affairs because the real decisions are made well before the "public debate" happens. So corruption is part of this and for the most part it doesn't hurt the system and so the US ruling class doesn't care - if corruption becomes are real problem and threatens the legitimacy of the state, then the politicians and press and so on quickly throw a few individuals under the bus in order to have the appearance of a legitimate and responsible state. If bureaucrats or a populist elected official ever did somehow try and use state power against the ruling class, then that ruler is generally overthrown by a coup of imperialist intervention. This is what happened when Chavez worked against the interests of some sections of the ruling class in Venezuela - his populist appeal and the support of other sectors of the local capitalists that want more economic autonomy helped to keep him in though.

In a healthy "socialist state" resulting from conscious working class action, I think workers will need to set up a state of their own in order to transform society from one completely shaped and geared toward what's most profitable to one shaped by the needs and desires of the working class majority. I don't think an unaccountable bureaucracy or autocratic dictator could ever deliver this - I think there will need to be a lot of democracy and representatives that are only empowered to carry out the popular will of the groups they are representing (like Marx talks about in connection to the Paris Commune and what Lenin talks about in State and Revolution).

If somehow, representatives begin to do things against the will of the new working class/ruling class then (as long as workers really do control production and therefore society) the working class can paralyze the the effected region by going on strike, preventing all transportation and so on. This is also why I do not believe that a gurella style road to socialism would ever be able to deliver - the working class has to do it and in so doing they are able to take over the running of society and really be the rulers of society... if they can defeat the capitalists, some would-be beurocratic counter-revolution would not have a chance.

mikelepore

18th January 2010, 17:24

I'm referring to the state as a governing body, not an organ of class rule.

I believe it is not oppressive at all. The superimposition of class rule is the cause of the oppression. After the removal of class rule, government will be a necessary regulatory process, like the homeostatis of a living organism.

Left-Reasoning

18th January 2010, 17:27

I believe it is not oppressive at all. The superimposition of class rule is the cause of the oppression. After the removal of class rule, government will be a necessary regulatory process, like the homeostatis of a living organism.

With all due respect comrade, I disagree.

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

mykittyhasaboner

18th January 2010, 18:35

With all due respect comrade, I disagree.

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Proudhon is talking about government, as in class rule. Your response doesn't make sense. Mike said something along the lines that when class rule has diminished the need for governing bodies will still be necessary in order to regulate and account for actions and transactions in society. When Proudhon repetitively lists actions that result from one class governing over all the rest, it doesn't apply to government in a classless society.

The OP asked why representative bodies are inherently oppressive; I would say they certainly aren't. The view that government is inherently oppressive most likely stems from infantile politics.

FreeFocus

18th January 2010, 18:43

mykittyhasaboner

18th January 2010, 18:50

Why even call it government at all then? The word itself implies something that is involuntary and inescapable (even when you consider the word's use in science, as in "the physical laws that govern the universe"). Perhaps "administration" would be a better term for a "government in a classless society."

Well sure, "administration" is certainly more suited as a word for "government" in a classless society, but this is just pedantic. I think the real issue of whether "government" or "administration" is oppressive or not this government is representative or simply made up of a class of owners ruling over the producing classes.

Left-Reasoning

18th January 2010, 18:54

Proudhon is talking about government, as in class rule. Your response doesn't make sense. Mike said something along the lines that when class rule has diminished the need for governing bodies will still be necessary in order to regulate and account for actions and transactions in society. When Proudhon repetitively lists actions that result from one class governing over all the rest, it doesn't apply to government in a classless society.

The OP asked why representative bodies are inherently oppressive; I would say they certainly aren't. The view that government is inherently oppressive most likely stems from infantile politics.

With all due respect comrade, it is quite clear that Proudhon was not fond of any form of government.

There is no need for a governing body as there is no need for governing. To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, etc. by definition.

Perhaps I misunderstand what function this supposedly classless representative "government" is to perform. If you could enlighten me it would be appreciated.

"Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy." - Proudhon

mykittyhasaboner

18th January 2010, 19:16

With all due respect comrade, it is quite clear that Proudhon was not fond of any form of government.

He probably wasn't, I've never really read his work so I wouldn't know. Although since he was living in the 19th century it's likely that the government he was referring to was that of class rule. I don't know the context of the quote but I think I'm correct.

There is no need for a governing body as there is no need for governing.Except there is a need for governing, whether in a class society (capitalist or socialist) or a classless society (communism). There will still be a need for some kind of regulation and accountability in a society going through socialist transition, and in a future classless society as well. Thus we will need some kind of "government" or "administration".

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, etc. by definition. Actually no it is not. To be "watched" can mean absolutely anything. To be "inspected" can also be a benign action with no relation to authority at all. To be "spied upon" by someone apart of the state is a something akin to class rule and not "government" or administration by definition.

If we are getting confused with the term "government" I'm really only using a standard definition.

A government is the body within a community, political entity or organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization) which has the authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) to make and enforce rules, laws, and regulations.

I wouldn't say it's a perfect definition but this is basically what I mean when I say "government". If I use the term state, it's a very different definition.

Perhaps I misunderstand what function this supposedly classless representative "government" is to perform. If you could enlighten me it would be appreciated. I don't know if I can enlighten you or not but it's plainly obvious to me if humans are to develop a classless society, then we cant just do away with organization or "government". For example you can't for example build large scale industrial projects without centralization or accountability--thus a need for some kind of authoritative body presents itself. In a future classless society we cannot simply do away with technological progress or economic growth; so I think it's safe to say that a communist society would still have a government, but one completely absent of class rule and distinctions.

What doesn't make this form of government oppressive or exploitative is that it has nothing to do with ruling class which controls the government and owns the means of production who literally extract wealth from the laboring classes for their own benefit.

"Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy." - ProudhonThis is largely irrational. If I'm working on something, and somebody who has more experience than me tells me I'm doing something wrong or to do something else, I'll listen to them. It's not because they are a tyrant, but because they know what they are doing. So if anybody tries to govern you or order you than they are tyrants and usurpers, and therefore your enemy? I don't think one has to think to hard to see how this doesn't work out the same way in every case, and is far to generalized of a statement.

Left-Reasoning

18th January 2010, 20:06

He probably wasn't, I've never really read his work so I wouldn't know. Although since he was living in the 19th century it's likely that the government he was referring to was that of class rule. I don't know the context of the quote but I think I'm correct.

Comrade, as shown by the quote given above, he opposed all forms of government.

Except there is a need for governing, whether in a class society (capitalist or socialist) or a classless society (communism). There will still be a need for some kind of regulation and accountability in a society going through socialist transition, and in a future classless society as well. Thus we will need some kind of "government" or "administration". Could you give an example of what this government/administration would do?

If we are getting confused with the term "government" I'm really only using a standard definition.

A government is the body within a community, political entity or organization which has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws, and regulations.

I wouldn't say it's a perfect definition but this is basically what I mean when I say "government". If I use the term state, it's a very different definition.I use the terms government and state as near synonyms. This may be a source of confusion for me.

However, an organization of "representatives" that has the authority to dictate laws does not seem like a part of a classless society to me.
You can't have a classless society and a ruling class simultaneously. Even if the ruling class is supposedly representative of the majority.

"I don't know if I can enlighten you or not but it's plainly obvious to me if humans are to develop a classless society, then we cant just do away with organization or "government". For example you can't for example build large scale industrial projects without centralization or accountability--thus a need for some kind of authoritative body presents itself. In a future classless society we cannot simply do away with technological progress or economic growth; so I think it's safe to say that a communist society would still have a government, but one completely absent of class rule and distinctions. "

Trade Unionism seems like a viable alternative.

What doesn't make this form of government oppressive or exploitative is that it has nothing to do with ruling class which controls the government and owns the means of production who literally extract wealth from the laboring classes for their own benefit.This is indeed the main evil at present. But it is not the only evil in hierarchical government.

This is largely irrational. If I'm working on something, and somebody who has more experience than me tells me I'm doing something wrong or to do something else, I'll listen to them. It's not because they are a tyrant, but because they know what they are doing. So if anybody tries to govern you or order you than they are tyrants and usurpers, and therefore your enemy? I don't think one has to think to hard to see how this doesn't work out the same way in every case, and is far to generalized of a statement.Comrade, there is a difference between government, which holds a gun to your head unless you submit to its dictates, and a friendly suggestion.

mykittyhasaboner

18th January 2010, 20:40

Comrade, as shown by the quote given above, he opposed all forms of government.
OK I realize that, but the only real government Proudhon ever saw was one that enforced the capitalist classes over working classes. That's why I think his view of the government in general is largely influenced by precisely that kind of government, that is, the capitalist state.

Could you give an example of what this government/administration would do?A government for a socialist society or a communist society? It really depends.

Laborers who overthrow capitalism and constitute their own rule will by matter of necessity be creating their own form of government. If this were to happen, using past precedents as lessons and examples, workers would set up institutions which foster their democratic rule over the work place, the economy, the political discourse and apparatuses, as well as cultural and social aspects of their communities. Since your an anarchist, I'm sure you would agree with this course of action; just know that all of that are forms of government. Anarchists aren't, or perhaps shouldn't be against "government" in itself.

I use the terms government and state as near synonyms. This may be a source of confusion for me. Yes it certainly is. The state (armed bodies, and political/legislative apparatuses) is an organ of class rule; it's very specific. "Government" can mean a lot of things.

However, an organization of "representatives" that has the authority to dictate laws does not seem like a part of a classless society to me. Why not? Are you saying there should be no laws in a future classless society?

You can't have a classless society and a ruling class simultaneously. Even if the ruling class is supposedly representative of the majority.I never said we can, but obviously you misunderstand just what a ruling class is. A ruling class is not defined by it's political position or it's part in decision making, rather it is conditioned by a given class's relations to the means of production. A class which is the ruling class of a given society (for capitalist society its the bourgeoisie, for socialist its the workers etc.) has to own the means of production.

A class less society does not have a ruling class because all individuals in society own the means of production, since they all play a productive part in maintaining a communist society. That does not mean they cannot elect representative bodies or some other form of government in an effort to organize their society effectively.

Trade Unionism seems like a viable alternative. An alternative to what? Trade Unionism is a form of government, this is especially true when trade unions are actually part of the state.

This is indeed the main evil at present. But it is not the only evil in hierarchical government. There are many more "evils at present" but they aren't necessarily inherent to hierarchy itself.

Comrade, there is a difference between government, which holds a gun to your head unless you submit to its dictates, and a friendly suggestion.Of course, but that's not what I said and you clearly attribute that aspect of a state to "government" in general. What I was talking about wasn't a friendly suggestion. What I was talking about was a hierarchical decision. Obviously you oppose hierarchy and I'm not even going to bother arguing about that.

Kayser_Soso

18th January 2010, 20:57

Because it is illegitimate hierarchy. What do you mean "run things that other people don't want to run?" In the mayor example, I'm sure that most people care about things like zoning, development, quality of life issues, etc.

That doesn't mean everyone wants to personally manage all those issues. And what exactly makes it illegitimate? Force is legitimacy enough.

The state is inherently oppressive because it will never include everyone who is affected, and moreover, those individuals who are included and wield state power become, almost invariably, corrupted, and wield power to their benefit. Really, why wouldn't they?

The first sentence here is something that is unavoidable. If you have a commune based on direct democracy, there will always be those who dissent from the majority opinion and have to abide by the majority's decision. Moreover, if it's all about those affected having a say in things, there will be many minors who are affected without say. Again, you paint yourself into a corner with this concept because one can argue that it makes no sense to say, for example, that an 18 year old must have a say in every issue that affects him or her, but a 17 year old cannot. And if you lower the age, you could take it lower until you get to a more justifiable age cutoff at adolescence. The thing is- people are always going to have to deal with not having a say in every issue that affects them, especially since issues often arise from causes outside everyone's control. Whether there is a state or not is immaterial.

The last sentence in that bloc is a tautology. This kind of rhetoric could just as easily be used to bolster a typical capitalist "human nature" argument.

Left-Reasoning

18th January 2010, 21:02

That doesn't mean everyone wants to personally manage all those issues. And what exactly makes it illegitimate? Force is legitimacy enough.

Comrade, with all due respect, might does not make right.

If it were the case, then the capitalist exploiters of today would have a legitimate claim.

Kayser_Soso

18th January 2010, 21:08

Comrade, with all due respect, might does not make right.

A long line of historical figures both living and dead would beg to differ.

If it were the case, then the capitalist exploiters of today would have a legitimate claim.

Their legitimacy is a reality only to the extent that they can defend it. Obviously as a Marxist I have certain ideas about justice and morality but I do not project them onto the way the world is. They are legitimate because they have the force to back it up. We crush them, and we'll be legitimate.

Left-Reasoning

18th January 2010, 21:23

A government for a socialist society or a communist society? It really depends.

Laborers who overthrow capitalism and constitute their own rule will by matter of necessity be creating their own form of government. If this were to happen, using past precedents as lessons and examples, workers would set up institutions which foster their democratic rule over the work place, the economy, the political discourse and apparatuses, as well as cultural and social aspects of their communities. Since your an anarchist, I'm sure you would agree with this course of action; just know that all of that are forms of government. Anarchists aren't, or perhaps shouldn't be against "government" in itself.

Comrade, anarchism by definition is opposition to the state. This government of yours is not a state, however. But I am unclear as to what precisely it would do. A specific example would be appreciated.

Why not? Are you saying there should be no laws in a future classless society? No legislation. Laws would not require a governing body. Don't murder, etc.

I never said we can, but obviously you misunderstand just what a ruling class is. A ruling class is not defined by it's political position or it's part in decision making, rather it is conditioned by a given class's relations to the means of production. A class which is the ruling class of a given society (for capitalist society its the bourgeoisie, for socialist its the workers etc.) has to own the means of production. The current ruling class is the capitalist class. However the idea of a ruling class is not by definition synonymous with the capitalist class. Those running a hierarchical government would be members of a ruling class.

A class less society does not have a ruling class because all individuals in society own the means of production, since they all play a productive part in maintaining a communist society. That does not mean they cannot elect representative bodies or some other form of government in an effort to organize their society effectively. I am a mutualist socialist not a communist.

"Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought which can be traced to the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market."

There are many more "evils at present" but they aren't necessarily inherent to hierarchy itself. "For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state." - An Anarchist FAQ

gorillafuck

19th January 2010, 21:09

We crush them, and we'll be legitimate.
You sound more sinister everytime I see you post.

And I've been having people misunderstand me. I know that a state in the marxist definition is one of class rule. I suppose what I meant was meant for people who oppose representative democracy/all hierarchy, and whether you call it a state or not.

Kayser_Soso

19th January 2010, 22:17

You sound more sinister everytime I see you post.

Some call it sinister, others would call it realistic.

ZeroNowhere

20th January 2010, 09:28

With all due respect comrade, I disagree.

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” - Pierre-Joseph ProudhonNo, you do not. At most you think that the word 'government' ought to be used differently, at least you simply use a different definition.

Obviously as a Marxist I have certain ideas about justice and morality but I do not project them onto the way the world is. They are legitimate because they have the force to back it up. We crush them, and we'll be legitimate.Crushing them sounds a bit mean, especially since they're right.

"Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought which can be traced to the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market."
So basically, you support capitalism. Good to know.

mykittyhasaboner

20th January 2010, 14:22

Comrade, anarchism by definition is opposition to the state. This government of yours is not a state, however. But I am unclear as to what precisely it would do. A specific example would be appreciated.
I've given you an example already, regarding industry. I'm sorry I can't give you a specific example, only hypothetical ones, because we don't live in a classless society.

No legislation. Laws would not require a governing body. Don't murder, etc.Laws do not require a governing body? :laugh:

Then who the fuck is going to enforce the laws?

The current ruling class is the capitalist class. However the idea of a ruling class is not by definition synonymous with the capitalist class. Those running a hierarchical government would be members of a ruling class.Um, no. The ruling class are those who own and control the means of production. Members of a hierarchical government aren't by definition a ruling class. This is probably one of the biggest inconsistent voids of anarchist theory--that is the definition of class.

I am a mutualist socialist not a communist.

"Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought which can be traced to the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market."I know what mutualism is, posting the Wiki definition of it isn't going to help your side of the discussion. It seems to me, that mutualism, as irrational of a theory it already is, doesn't take class struggle into account in a definitive way.

"For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state." - An Anarchist FAQOh no! Hierarchy!! Run to the hills!!! They are going to give us orders!!! :scared:

The Anarchist FAQ is hardly going to help you prove that government and hierarchy is inherently oppressive. All that said was anarchists don't like hierarchy.

robbo203

20th January 2010, 15:57

Laws do not require a governing body? :laugh:

Then who the fuck is going to enforce the laws? .

Depends what you mean by a "governing body". Certainly, laws do not require a state and there is a well established body of work going back even before such classics as Maine's Ancient Law and Bronislaw Malinowski's Crime and Custom in Savage Society investigating the workings of "primitive law" in stateless societies. The enforcement of this law was radically decentralised and usually involved only those immediately affected such as relatives of the aggrieved individual with perhaps an intermediary to help in negotiations like the leopard skin man (if I remember correctly) in Evans-Pritchard's classic ethnography of a stateless society, The Nuer

Um, no. The ruling class are those who own and control the means of production. Members of a hierarchical government aren't by definition a ruling class. This is probably one of the biggest inconsistent voids of anarchist theory--that is the definition of class..

The problem is that you cannot ultimately separate de facto ownership and control. Ownership ultimately IS the exercise of ultimate control over a given thing which implies the existence of a hierarchy in some sense. This is why in state capitalist regimes the capitalist class can be legitimately identified as that group of individuals who by virtue of their control of the state and their position in the governing hierarchy, actually exercise collective ownership as a class over the means of production to the exclusion of the great majority

The Anarchist FAQ is hardly going to help you prove that the state and hierarchy is inherently oppressive. All that said was anarchists don't like hierarchy.

It is not only anarchists who think the state is oppressive. So do Marxists. It is a tool whereby one class oppresses another

Left-Reasoning

20th January 2010, 19:14

No, you do not. At most you think that the word 'government' ought to be used differently, at least you simply use a different definition.

I disagree. I can't think of any organization in an anarchist society that could logically be referred to as government.

So basically, you support capitalism. Good to know.

"the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour. . . . And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege. . . every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers . . . What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to deprive capital of its reward." - Benjamin Tucker, Mutualist - Market Socialist

h9socialist

20th January 2010, 21:25

What crap! (I've never heard much about "mutualism" -- somehow, after reading this thread, I get the sense of having been fortunate in that regard . . . up to now. Sounds like Petty-Bourgeois utopianism).

As far as I am concerned, a "state" is the repository of political power. If the worker's seize power only to destroy power, without first changing political, social and economic conditions, there seems to me to be little point in revolution. Consequently, anarchism doesn't seem workable to me. If the worker's state is not inherently oppressive to the power of capital, and repressive of bourgeois culture, then it seems like the revolution would be for nothing.

mikelepore

21st January 2010, 11:27

Mike said something along the lines that when class rule has diminished the need for governing bodies will still be necessary in order to regulate and account for actions and transactions in society.

That, but also I don't believe that the behavior modification that results from any social change can be complete. In the most perfected classless society of the future, I expect that occasionally someone is going to get angry and murder a neighbor. We should be saying that the need for laws and their enforcement will be reduced to a small fraction of their magnitude today. We shouldn't claim that they will be unnecessary.

Comrade Anarchist

22nd January 2010, 03:38

The state is inherently harmful because it rules people lives and creates a hierarchy. There should be no laws and there is no need for mayors,governors, leaders b/c they do nothing, they only do that which is good for themselves. A body that governs over people will oppress these people with responsibilities and laws to create order. A state calls that people sacrifice their liberties so that their lives can be run. A nationalized economy is no better than a purely private one. Officials do not want to run anything they want power and power only comes when we sacrifice our liberties to them so that they can control us.

Kayser_Soso

22nd January 2010, 14:23

The state is inherently harmful because it rules people lives and creates a hierarchy.

Why is hierarchy inherently evil?

There should be no laws and there is no need for mayors,governors, leaders b/c they do nothing, they only do that which is good for themselves.

Why should there be no laws? And would you care to substantiate your claim that mayors, governors, and leaders only do what is good for themselves?

A body that governs over people will oppress these people with responsibilities and laws to create order.

A majority voting within say, a work council, will oppress all those who had the minority opinion.

A state calls that people sacrifice their liberties so that their lives can be run. A nationalized economy is no better than a purely private one. Officials do not want to run anything they want power and power only comes when we sacrifice our liberties to them so that they can control us.

How does the state run your life? You sound more like one of those capitalist libertarians here. Plus many people who lived under nationalized economies such as those in Eastern Europe lived far better back then than they live today- and repeated surveys show a growing number of people stating precisely that.

Drop the idealism.

gorillafuck

22nd January 2010, 16:50

There should be no laws and there is no need for mayors,governors, leaders b/c they do nothing, they only do that which is good for themselves.
You think that there should be no laws? So it's perfectly okay for me to break all your windows, then?

A body that governs over people will oppress these people with responsibilities and laws to create order.
Create order?! Oh no!!

A state calls that people sacrifice their liberties so that their lives can be run. A nationalized economy is no better than a purely private one. Officials do not want to run anything they want power and power only comes when we sacrifice our liberties to them so that they can control us.
I've taken on certain responsibilities where I was being held responsible to do things for other people. Was I a tyrant? Because I was serving a similiar duty to an elected representative.

Left-Reasoning

22nd January 2010, 17:38

Create order?! Oh no!!

Anarchy is order.

Kayser_Soso

22nd January 2010, 18:39

Anarchy is order.

I'm not going to be a hypocrite by invoking Orwell(Moar liek, OrBADLY, amirite?), but...no, just...no.

hefty_lefty

22nd January 2010, 21:19

Bucket of cows, to reply to your origonal question I would have to say it comes down to a lack of morality of the people who make up the governing bodies. A country/state cannot be morally ruled if there are power struggles within the governing body, whatever deceits this ruling class is willing to use against itself they will use against the people too.

Doctors become jaded with the suffering and mortality of their patients, preferring not to see them as people at all sometimes, but rather as a broken machine in need of repair.
Similarly, many politicians seem to have lost sight of the human edge in politics. I feel they do not see themselves as representatives of the people, but rather representitives of reactionary units which are prodded and poked to discover their level of tolerance.

Morality cannot come second, especially to economy.

Misanthrope

26th January 2010, 02:47

The state as you speak of is a governing body that is forced upon you, i.e. you have no choice in which state you wish to be apart of or if you want to be ruled by a state at all. Also, the state is funded by taxation, theft.

Black Sheep

26th January 2010, 10:28

We have to avoid getting lost in the dual definitions of the state here.
According to Marx, it is an instrument of class oppression.
Anarchists (mostly,depending on the tendency) don't have a problem with that.

According to anarchists,it's a monopoly of illegitimate violence (/oppression).
All anarchists have a problem with that.

So according to the marxist tendency, the marxist state can either contradict the anarchist goal or approach it tremendously, i.e. in left communist and council communist models.

But as the 'mainstream marxism' is leninist, the centralized state is almost always associated with marxist tactics,and thus the conflict with the libertarian revolutionary left.
So is the state oppressive? Yes, but according to its structure, its level and legitimacy of authority and what you mean by state.
For example, a council of a federation of autonomous communes in the marxist definition is a state,and has some, although effectively minimized,authority and 'oppression'.

Svante

26th January 2010, 21:37

To me government has always inferred that some elite is governing the way I live my life. I feel I should be allowed to live however I like as long as I am a contributing member of society.

Government is inherently oppressive because the existence of it is dependent on being able to tell you what to do and stealing your "property"(taxes). The second it stops doing that people will begin to realize it is worthless and its legitimacy will deteriorate.

överens,you say that gouvernement will give up its powver. i think this i s mistake many people make becuase no gouvernement will give up power. the power must be take away from them. this will b e difficult becuase the gouvernement run the militare.hur som helst,the gouvernement will say it is democracy but they lie and will not give up power.people must fight for this.

Jimmie Higgins

28th January 2010, 21:56

överens,you say that gouvernement will give up its powver. i think this i s mistake many people make becuase no gouvernement will give up power. the power must be take away from them. this will b e difficult becuase the gouvernement run the militare.hur som helst,the gouvernement will say it is democracy but they lie and will not give up power.people must fight for this.

No, no ruling class will ever willingly give up it's power, whereas the ruling class will disband a particular government for another one that suits their needs better - it's called a coup and it happens a lot - often with bureaucrats within the old government leading the charge. The US government has been eliminating some aspects of the government while increasing other sections - this is not because "the government" has its own class interests separate from the ruling class, but because some government functions are no longer useful to the capitalist ruling class. The capitalist governments will never give up the military, police, or prisons, because these things are essential to their being able to rule. But since the ruling class in the US is not worried about mass strikes or protests as much now, it has been able to "wither away" a lot of the social safty net and it now trying to privatize public education.

A government designed and maintained by a working class/ruling class, on the other hand, is a government run by and in the interests of the majority. Since it is not in working class interests to exploit other oppressed groups (through the power of the state) as the need to protect it's own power is reduced, the working class will have less and less need for a government.