definitions of State

[scarletghoul]

This seems to be the cause of a lot of seemingly deeper disagreements between Marxists and Anarchists. Historically, there are numerous examples of what I consider a socialist state and what Anarchists consider to be a stateless society. It would be interesting to hear peoples' definitions.

How do you define the word 'state' ?

[gorillafuck]

A Marxist definition would be rule by a certain class, and that's the definition I've been arguing for in the "let's talk about RAAN" thread. Though to be fair, there are definitely anarchists who acknowledge that definition.

To me, anarchist Catalonia was an attempt at a dictatorship of the proletariat, it was the democratic rule and control of society by the working class.

[Widerstand]

Finally a useful thread. Goodjob!

I define a state as something along the lines of:

"An institutionalized form of government, which, in order to function, requires a more or less developed bureaucratic body that governs the people, and needs the infrastructure and force to do so. Therefore, a state is necessarily oligarchic to some extent."

[Nwoye]

I think that an integral aspect of a state, and this includes the rule one class over another, is that there is some form of exclusion inherent in the system. This means one group perpetually excludes another from power, or there is at least some degree of separation between those who form the laws and regulations of society and those who are subjected to them. I think this rough definition can help draw the difference between "socialist" states and societies based around the inclusion of all individuals in the decision making process and self-governance in general.

[syndicat]

As Engels points out, a state is an apparatus that rules over society and is separate from effective popular control. It has to be separate in this way if it is to defend adequately the interests of the dominating, exploiting classes. States are based on hierarchical armed bodies, with a chain of command, and their hierarchical structure means there is a concentration of decision-making authority and information/expertise into the hands of the few. The class character of the state is also shown by the internal division between managers and workers, which is a characteristic feature of a bureaucratic hierarchy.

So, briefly: a hierarchical structure, not directly controllable by the mass of the people, which rules over society, has a monopoly of violence in a territory, and exists to defend the interests of dominating, exploiting classes.

[blake 3:17]

Just to follow up on syndicat's post-- which is basically right -- I think the proper Marxist view is to see the State as a product of class struggle. Otherwise one can't account for provisions made to the working class (public education and healthcare, enforcement of basic labour and living standards, the right to unionize a workplace, etc.) Its effect is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie but with a number of accomodations made in it. Many legal and social equalities are well worth defeniding. Relying on the State as the subject of positive social change is highly suspect.

[bricolage]

The problem with dealing with that abstract phenomenon 'the state' is that people argue about it without realising they are working on fundamentally different conceptions.

So in the first instance you have the vulgar, reductionist and inadequate Marxist/Leninist conception of a state as the expression of class rule. Interestingly what this probably has most in common with is the classical Weberian definition of a state; 'Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory'.

The problem with this is it solely accredits state hood to physical force or control. In this way there is no difference between workers collectives coming together in voluntary association (for example) or an autocratic monarchy. Both exercise force and control over a given territory so both are states. If we want to take this as the definition of a state then obviously everyone is a statist, Marxists, anarchists, fascists, whoever. However it is quite clear that when anarchists (and actually Marx/Engels) speak of a state they are referring to something more than that.

I think you can separate this broader conception of the state into two components, 1. institutions, 2. social relations.

In terms of the first it is quite clear that in modern society there are a set of institutions we can recognise as part of a state yet it still remains unclear how many of them could be retained and the entity constitute a stateless society. So we are quite stuck there.

(Interestingly the ICC speaks of a 'semi-state' in the period of transition, I think in a genuinely revolutionary situation this may be what emerges, I'm not sure this would necessarily be a 'bad' thing though).

In terms of social relations here is the go-to theory;


From the fact that the state is essential for the production and reproduction of capital as a social relation (via the guarantee and supervision of the contract), Holloway and Picciotto took an innovative step and proclaimed that the state is a form of social relations too. They built on Marx’s unique approach to classical categories of political economy (capital, money, wage, credit, rent, etc.) which saw them as fetishized separate objects and at the same time as internally connected forms of social relationships.
‘The process of capitalist production gives rise to formations, in which the vein of internal connections is increasingly lost, the production relations are rendered independent of one another and the component values become ossified into forms independent of one another’ (Capital, Vol. III, p. 828)
Like other social forms, the state too exists in its double dimension – as a social form and as a fetishized thing (the state apparatus) at the same time.http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/no-escape-from-theory-remarks-on-the-movement-against-cuts/

The social relations of the state are usually construed as at the very least hierarchical and in most cases centralised. What degree of change however could constitute non-hierarchical or decentralised and what could not is once again unclear.

(I'm also interested in the idea (rather post-structuralist as it may be) of internalising the social relations of the state but thats for another topic and will probably have a lot of complaints about it).

If this is vague is it because it is meant to be but my main points are;
1. the 'physical force' definition of the state, be it Marxist, Leninist or Weberian is wholly inadequate and should be dropped.
2. the state is both an institutional form and a set of social relations, what exactly these are however is unclear.

Ultimately then I think talk of 'the state' is usually fruitless and a matter of semantics. I think it is better to address entities on a more specific basis and in terms of organisation speak in terms of other specifics, ie. what institutions would there be, what recallability, what 'democracy', blah blah blah.

I guess in conclusion I'm with Engels that 'All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term’. Additionally I find the Paris Commune a useful go to point here (despite the obvious differences between today and 1871 France). While Bakunin declared a 'negation of the state' there are many ways that it could be said to be a state (note the state is primarily a form of political organisation, not economic, thus how we can address the Commune as something worth emulating in this context but in terms of reorganisation of control over the means of production). However I think the Commune was as far enough away from what we commonly see to be a state that it could also be said to not be a state, so Engels again 'especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term'. When we are dealing with something the Commune its not worth saying 'was it a state' or 'was it not a state' but rather 'did it fundamentally differ from what currently exists as a state (be it bourgeois or 'worker') that it can be a form of political organisation that can be a starting block (of sort, and probably a small block) for how we can conceive a future society'.

I'm pretty sure this is one of the most disjointed posts I've ever made here though...

[Magón]

As Engels points out, a state is an apparatus that rules over society and is separate from effective popular control. It has to be separate in this way if it is to defend adequately the interests of the dominating, exploiting classes. States are based on hierarchical armed bodies, with a chain of command, and their hierarchical structure means there is a concentration of decision-making authority and information/expertise into the hands of the few. The class character of the state is also shown by the internal division between managers and workers, which is a characteristic feature of a bureaucratic hierarchy.

So, briefly: a hierarchical structure, not directly controllable by the mass of the people, which rules over society, has a monopoly of violence in a territory, and exists to defend the interests of dominating, exploiting classes.

This, oh so very much this. :thumbup1: