Would organized crime replace the state without the state?

[Metacomet]

Question I guess.

Wouldn't the absence of a moderately powerful central state with a general monopoly on violence lead to decentralized, "mafia" type rule? Power abhors a vacuum it seems.

Not that that would necessarily be awful, or worse then having an authoritarian state, but wouldn't it be inevitable?

[Queercommie Girl]

Well if that happens, then the revolution must have failed in some way.

It might not be worse than a capitalist state (depending on the state), but it still sounds like an anarcho-capitalist hell-hole to me. (It's like replacing the "rule of the bourgeois" by the "rule of the lumpen-bourgeois")

If that's "socialism" then I am a die-hard "counter-revolutionary".

[SHORAS]

As long as there are classes there will be some form of state. Otherwise it is simply a deepening barbarism. And it is and would be awful. But instead of theorising I think it is more useful to look at real life examples of creeping barbarism and states around the world. Take for example the recent story about organ harvesting in Kosovo, the multi-billion drug trade around the world, the seemingly irrational wars etc And how all these things are interconnected with states and capital.

[#FF0000]

The state already isorganized crime.

[Metacomet]

The state is organized crime.


Agreed, I don't see a real difference between the two, both have the power of violence over others in order to get power/ wealth etc. Just different scales.

But without the state would "lumpen" bourgeois replace it? (good way of putting it)

Would it be preferable to a capitalist state?

[Queercommie Girl]

But without the state would "lumpen" bourgeois replace it? (good way of putting it)


Only if the revolution actually fails.



Would it be preferable to a capitalist state?


It depends on the exact nature of the "capitalist state", and also the exact nature of the "lumpen-bourgeois". In both cases some are better than others. So there is no simple "hand-waving" answer to this.

[The Teacher]

Without any government at all it becomes inevitable that someone will figure out that violence and oppression is better than working for a living. If not in the first few generations, then eventually. That's the problem with anarchy, there is never enough authority to defend itself.

[Queercommie Girl]

Without any government at all it becomes inevitable that someone will figure out that violence and oppression is better than working for a living. If not in the first few generations, then eventually. That's the problem with anarchy, there is never enough authority to defend itself.

Communism is not "anarchy", at least not in the Leninist understanding.

[Zealot]

A big reason why crime even exists is because of poverty and desperation etc. If these conditions were met and the people felt satisfied I don't see why organized crime should prosper.

[#FF0000]

Agreed, I don't see a real difference between the two, both have the power of violence over others in order to get power/ wealth etc. Just different scales.

But without the state would "lumpen" bourgeois replace it? (good way of putting it)

Would it be preferable to a capitalist state?

It'd be the same thing, really. I mean, look for example to Eastern Europe and Russia, where, through all of this strife and struggle and warfare, folks who would have otherwise been literally common thugs and criminals became war heroes/criminals. This is especially the case in former Yugoslavia from what I understand.

[Hit The North]

A big reason why crime even exists is because of poverty and desperation etc. If these conditions were met and the people felt satisfied I don't see why organized crime should prosper.

The other major factor encouraging organised crime is the existence of private property and a money economy that allows people to gain wealth through illicit trade. Something else that the revolution will abolish.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Technically speaking, crime is conceptually impossible without a state to forbid it.

At the level where it actually matters, people will always have disagreements, and violence will always be an effective way of settling those disagreements. If there's no stable institution wielding violence and the threat of it to enforce normally nonviolent resolution mechanisms, people will band together in violence-wielding institutions until the situation stabilizes.

If by "state" you mean anything wielding a near-monopoly on violence, then the only alternatives to states is a plurality of (constant, overflowing) violence. If by "state" you mean something more specific, like rule by a particular class or a nation-state, such that a federation of workers' councils or whatever wields a monopoly on violence under anarchism, then of course you could have a stable, peaceful anarchism.