Is the withering away of the state, Anarchy or Minarchy?

[heiss93]

Is the withering away of the state, Anarchy or Minarchy? While Marx does refer to stateless Communism, the definition of "stateless" Communism especially as elaborated by Engels and Lenin, might better be described as minarchy, in that the administrative functions of the state still remain, and state apparatus still exists against crime, based now on the individual and not class basis.

[Argument]

There would still be a state monopoly for crime prevention/"punishment"? Or did I misinterpret you?

[Dimentio]

I think Heiss93 asked a question, and did not deliver a statement. He basically asked what Marx thought.

[Black Sheep]

But practical anarchy is minarcy.
Remember that (reasonable) anarchists oppose all illegitimate authority.

Philosophically, anarchy is a society where all authority is abolished.
Practically,there are types of authority that are legitimate and thus you should not oppose them.

So all anarchists are minarchists.
Except from the wacky ones.

[Argument]

Black Sheep: No, anarchists are not minarchists. The only authority that's acceptable is voluntary authority. The state is not voluntary. Anarchism and minarchism are two different things.

[Dimentio]

Some issues could not really be solved by voluntarism. For example, if a patient who is going to undergo a surgery and in a state of unconciousness, the surgeon has to make the decision whether or not to cut in the patient or not.

[Zanthorus]

The only authority that's acceptable is voluntary authority.

Of course! Why did no-one point this out before! Primitivistic hyper-individualist atomist society here we come!

[Argument]

Some issues could not really be solved by voluntarism. For example, if a patient who is going to undergo a surgery and in a state of unconciousness, the surgeon has to make the decision whether or not to cut in the patient or not.Indeed. I admit that not everything is black & white, yet I don't think this particular example is that bothersome. The individual could in advance sign a contract (which he is allowed to break whenever he want, of course) that gives the surgeon right to perform a surgery on him if necessary.

[heiss93]

Well I think part of the problem is that the debate between minarchism and anarchism has taken place almost entirely within the libertarian right. Which makes sense since the only state that can wither away presently is the capitalist state. So minarchism essentially means "small-government conservatism" AKA The Reagan war machine.

But what would Communist minarchism look like? Thus while minarchy is a term of the right, it may perhaps more accurately describe what is meant by stateless socialism.

Thoughts?

[Crusade]

Of course! Why did no-one point this out before! Primitivistic hyper-individualist atomist society here we come!

Involuntary authority it is then!

[MarxSchmarx]

Well I think part of the problem is that the debate between minarchism and anarchism has taken place almost entirely within the libertarian right....
But what would Communist minarchism look like? Thus while minarchy is a term of the right, it may perhaps more accurately describe what is meant by stateless socialism.

Thoughts?

The right libertarians have a very confused understanding of what the state is, and the whole minarchism/anarchism debate they have is largely semantic and stems from their muddled perspective. When you read their literature, on a given geographical scale, the two are indistinguishable. e.g., a private security company I employ on my grounds to enforce security is basically a minarchist state writ small.

So this isn't a particularly useful distinction that we should adopt. The Marxian left has had its own understanding of the state (as an executive committee of the ruling class) for some time, it has served us fairly well (with important modifications, such as work emphasizing the autonomy of the state apparatus), and there is generally no reason to abandon it. With the abolition of classes states to will therefore per se become obsolete. To adopt the right libertarian discourse is to cede this historical, materially grounded understanding of the state for an idealistic fantasy that will help us communicate better with right libertarians. Frankly that's of dubious benefit even if the cost of setting aside our own analysis were not involved.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

No Anarchism isn't Minarchy. The state apparatus does not longer exist, new forms of governance that cannot be considered a state apparatus will exist in its place. The state is a centralised authority which concentrates decision making power and knowledge into the hands of a minority, this is by definition is a state. By means of mass assemblies, workers councils, federations between these councils Anarchism seeks to place power within the hands of everybody. This is not a state apparatus, the state apparatus is characterised by the formation of a bureaucratic class and a central hegemony over decision making. Anarchist forms of governance do not feature either of these characteristics, it cannot be considered a minimal form of a state. Many people on the site (not saying the OP is one of them) are confused about what a state is, to some the state equals governance.