Anarchists and materialism.

[eric922]

I'm reading up on anarchism, because I'm starting to think it might fit my overall views better, but there is something I'm curious about. Do anarchists, in general, accept the theory of historical materialism or do most reject it

.I read someone on this site that one of the differences between Anarchism and Marxism were their justifications for anti-capitalism. The post said that anarchists had a more ethical justification based on anti-authoritarianism, whereas Marxists used what they considered a scientific justification, historical materialism. Would that be a correct statement? Sorry, if these are really basic questions, I just started reading up on anarchism.

[helot]

As an anarcho-syndicalist myself i really don't like ethical justifications it just seems incredibly flimsy. I do know some fellow anarchists who do base things on ethics.


Personally, i dont actually have any real issues with historical materialism although that varies from anarchist to anarchist. Although quite a few of us in my org. are influenced by Marx so what i say may not be that representative of anarchists in general.

[Tjis]

I'm reading up on anarchism, because I'm starting to think it might fit my overall views better, but there is something I'm curious about. Do anarchists, in general, accept the theory of historical materialism or do most reject it

.I read someone on this site that one of the differences between Anarchism and Marxism were their justifications for anti-capitalism. The post said that anarchists had a more ethical justification based on anti-authoritarianism, whereas Marxists used what they considered a scientific justification, historical materialism. Would that be a correct statement? Sorry, if these are really basic questions, I just started reading up on anarchism.
Many anarchists, including myself, accept Marx' analysis of society, and have a materialist conception of history. But this is not universal.

There are many reasons for people to consider themselves anarchist, but there's no one justification. Unlike the many ideologies that can be classified as Marxism, the Anarchist ideologies can't be traced to any one ideological founding father figure. As such, there is no orthodoxy to fall back on, no one right theory that explains why anarchism is Right and True.

As for ethics, I think most revolutionaries, marxist, anarchist or otherwise, are initially drawn to revolutionary politics because of ethics. It's only after this initial hook that a more refined understanding of society is developed. I very much doubt most people calling themselves Marxist have actually read and understood all of Capital before calling themselves Marxist for example. Rather, they're attracted to Marxism primarily because it offers a way out of capitalism, which is rejected not for any scientific reasons, but because of the obvious hunger, poverty and suffering it causes.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Scientific analysis can present all sorts of evidence but without some ethical viewpoint, there is no 'good' and 'bad' drawn from it. Data is just that, so of course communists across the spectrum are guided by some ethical stance or perhaps emotional stance. You could prove that capitalism creates inequality in the crudest sense but the view that inequality is bad is an ethical viewpoint, not a scientific one.

I don't really like to define myself as anything other than anti-capitalist but if a definition was absolutely necessary then I'd fit into the anarchist camp somewhere. Historical materialism is an adequate mode of understanding class dynamics historically and I don't think Marx himself can initially be faulted that easily. For me, I find that the historical materialism Marx described is useful in understanding macro social questions but that it could be reductionist to boil everything down to economic relations.

I say could because I am currently in a learning process on the matter. Foucault has provided me with the greatest challenge to my previously economically reductionist thinking as has the postmodern world in itself. It is difficult, however, to challenge the Marxist model in this regard due to its 'all knowing' kind of character and the idea of meta-narratives, in a world in which understanding about language, narratives and 'reality' have changed, one could be sceptical in taking on historical materialism dogmatically. The big challenge for Marxism in this regard is obviously the question of revolution - it hasn't happened as Marx predicted (the issue of the grand narrative perhaps, although I should say I would only take Marx on his analysis of capitalism and history but never his, or anyone's predictions (at least not without a pinch of salt)). That said, thinkers like Althusser have done great work in understanding the ideological barriers towards consciousness and have developed Marxism further on this question. Coincidentally, Foucault and Althusser aren't far off from one another on this matter and this concludes the circle of thought-crisis I find myself in - can we adequately theorize about revolution beyond initial Marxist analysis in a rational manner? Aren't economics part of a broader, more complex web of instances that make up a certain society and isn't the idea that economics is the main, structural force in this somewhat sketchy scientifically speaking?

Maybe a useless post but oh well. I still consider myself an anti-capitalist revolutionary and this is what matters I think in the broad sense. I am just uncertain with regards to the ideology of the left and ideology in a general, concretely defined and absolute sense.

[ckaihatsu]

Scientific analysis can present all sorts of evidence but without some ethical viewpoint, there is no 'good' and 'bad' drawn from it. Data is just that, so of course communists across the spectrum are guided by some ethical stance or perhaps emotional stance. You could prove that capitalism creates inequality in the crudest sense but the view that inequality is bad is an ethical viewpoint, not a scientific one.


I'll actually prefer to base my premise that 'inequality is bad' on *material* grounds, in that a general situation of hegemony is deleterious to those, like myself, who aren't part of the privileged elite. (I also say as much in my political statement at my user profile.)





I find that the historical materialism Marx described is useful in understanding macro social questions but that it could be reductionist to boil everything down to economic relations.




Aren't economics part of a broader, more complex web of instances that make up a certain society and isn't the idea that economics is the main, structural force in this somewhat sketchy scientifically speaking?


I don't think the case is so much that Marxism, by addressing the totality of human social existence, is 'reductionist' or 'dogmatic', as much as that it's simply addressing the extension of the natural material world into our human social practices of valuation (and intentional material phenomena, like development).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Forgive me if I'm not reading you correctly but it doesn't seem like you've provided a material basis for why inequality is bad. Inequality can perhaps be summarized by one social group possessing more material wealth than another group, but there is no scientific argument as to why its 'wrong'. If we were to be purely scientific and materialistic, we would take a Marxist analysis of society as a tool of historical analysis but this would merely be a descriptive study. We would interpret the world on a material basis and find all sorts of 'facts', but what are these facts without interpretation essentially? I think that when Marx said 'the point is to change it', he was addressing a moral concern with capitalism, because if it isn't wrong, why change it? And why is something wrong? Society can't be explained by maths, 3 minus 1 isn't 2 in terms of what's right and wrong with society, the formula of good and bad is explained by discourses, such as the dominant individualistic liberal capitalist case for the order of society. 3 minus 2 equals something else and that is a question of which ethics prevail and which ethical views attack the prevailing discourse. Scientific data in itself is neutral, its how we interpret the world from an ethical view point that determines what we see as right and wrong. Take studies of the USSR - data has been used by some to show that communism was essentially 'bad' because it 'murdered' x number of people, but another analysis of that same data could surely explain that there were a number of material forces behind such a large population drop, such as famine, civil war and whatever else - these are just hypothetical examples.


A capitalist could call inequality a part of the state of nature (as they do) and there's plenty of data to make that (false) argument, given that there is data that explains that, as it stands, the nature of things is inequality, so how is it that a communist calls for a revolution without an ethical standing point? Communism v.s. capitalism is largely an ethical debate inasmuch as, on the surface, both ideologies are appealing to opposing moral questions (crudely, individualism and collectivism). The material data that is there only tells the tale that our interpretation allows it to.

I think that perhaps the most scientific argument in opposition to capitalism would be to do with the fact that it is inefficient in distributing resources and functioning without collapsing every so often, if one was to undertake such a macro study. this could possibly be explained aside from a question of ethics, but I am unsure and this is just a thought. This would merely show, though, that the capitalist system is liable to collapse if left to its own devices, and it was perhaps a study of material data that challenged laissez-faire capitalism in this regard, if we consider way back when, Keynesianism and more recently, 'quantitative easing' which was essentially a method to try and fix a mess made by gamblers who were running along laissez-faire lines thanks to neoliberal deregulation and the like. These arguments don't explicitly make the case for communism scientifically, although they provide the space for providing collectivist economics as an alternative.

To the OP, I would say that most ideological viewpoints that come under the communist schools of thought, be they anarchist or Marxist or neither, have an element of ethics to them. To be truly scientific in thought is pretty much to be apathetic to the concern of human beings, outside of their nature as subjects of science anyway. I think that some analytical philosophers think that all of these sorts of questions can be explained scientifically but I haven't really seen any proper evidence of this (haven't bothered to look either, because the idea of these philosophers makes me nauseas).

The question of materialism is aside from ethics but is useful to those who want to explain society in a scientific manner. For me, this is useful when confronting ideas about the 'nature' of humans and the like - the materialistic analysis of history is incredibly useful in picking apart capitalism and showing it to be what it is: an historical, socio-economic structural phenomenon and not some kind of state of nature. It is ethics that we rely on to show why it is bad though, and we use the examples of poverty, war and the like, and we can explain the formation of these things materialistically perhaps, but these things are only 'bad' in an ethical sense, and thus communism is our 'good' alternative.

You don't need to align yourself strictly to being ethical or materialistic or even Marxist or anarchist, just use the tools available to you to develop understandings of the socio-economic world and to then develop arguments. I'd be weary of any person who said that they were explicitly scientific or explicitly ethical in their world-view. Utilize whatever tools are useful to you for whatever study or argument you are currently involved in, there's no need to be dogmatic in favour of any discipline.

[ckaihatsu]

Forgive me if I'm not reading you correctly but it doesn't seem like you've provided a material basis for why inequality is bad.


Not at all -- you've actually provided it in this post yourself:





I think that perhaps the most scientific argument in opposition to capitalism would be to do with the fact that it is inefficient in distributing resources and functioning without collapsing every so often, if one was to undertake such a macro study. this could possibly be explained aside from a question of ethics


So we could say, strictly on the basis of a *standard* over objective conditions, that any economic system that can't deliver on what it promises -- be self-consistent -- should be discarded. This is more common-denominator, even, than a *value judgment* that 'inequality is bad', much less anything 'ethical'.


philosophical abstractions

http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

One can accept Marx's Materialist analysis of modern historical conditions without buying into a strong anti-idealist metaphysical position. Honest analysis of material reality does not lock one into any strong metaphysical framework. This is why there are scientists who are atheists and scientists who are religious. The point is that one needs to be able to do material analysis independently of idealist presuppositions, or as independently as we possibly can.

Generally speaking, Anarchists tend to be more moralist and idealist, but there are plenty of subconsciously moralist Marxist Communists out there who use the language of material dialectical thinking yet stake out all sorts of materialist positions. Arguably, most people on this forum on some level see racism and sexism as problematic not simply because they involve material contradictions but because it is morally wrong.

In other words, Marxist materialism is a way of viewing empirical data and contrasting it to the history of societies as such, and that is independent from our moral or metaphysical views. However, that independence presupposes that we work to keep our metaphysical ideas out of our material analysis

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Not at all -- you've actually provided it in this post yourself:





So we could say, strictly on the basis of a *standard* over objective conditions, that any economic system that can't deliver on what it promises -- be self-consistent -- should be discarded. This is more common-denominator, even, than a *value judgment* that 'inequality is bad', much less anything 'ethical'.


philosophical abstractions

http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/
Okay, but does that materialistic view that I provided appeal to a masses which is still largely informed within the realms of ethical judgement?

If not, which is probably the case, then doesn't the case for communism become largely an ethical case?

Could you, as a communist, propagate a serious, anti-captalist alternative through purely scientific, ethically neutral arguments? Where would this argument fit, outside of the discipline of social science?

I'm being facetious here, but surely you don't think that being a communist is being purely scientific in one's thought and one's vocal arguments and polemics? Do ethics not come into it in your understanding? After all, it is the masses which we concern ourselves with, and we cannot assume that they will put scientific discovery in front of ethics, can we?

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, but does that materialistic view that I provided appeal to a masses which is still largely informed within the realms of ethical judgement?

If not, which is probably the case, then doesn't the case for communism become largely an ethical case?


Well, it would be bad politics for me to be sectarian and to disregard people's real life experiences and judgments about the world, if they happened to arrive at an agreement with communism.





Could you, as a communist, propagate a serious, anti-captalist alternative through purely scientific, ethically neutral arguments? Where would this argument fit, outside of the discipline of social science?


I haven't said anything that is baseless -- *any* anti-capitalist alternative begins from the real-world observation that capitalism is needlessly destructive and untenable. I won't begrudge you your choice of categorization, but to *focus* on such categorizing would be to only be academic about it.





I'm being facetious here, but surely you don't think that being a communist is being purely scientific in one's thought and one's vocal arguments and polemics? Do ethics not come into it in your understanding? After all, it is the masses which we concern ourselves with, and we cannot assume that they will put scientific discovery in front of ethics, can we?


If you're being facetious then you're being less-than-serious-and-forthright. Being 'facetious' only fogs your own statements and gives others the sanction to view your arguments in a lesser light.

I'm not going to attempt to differentiate myself from the masses -- my objective material position in society is no different than anyone else's who is not privileged, and my abilities for understanding and discussing proletarian politics are not so different, either.





I think that perhaps the most scientific argument in opposition to capitalism would be to do with the fact that it is inefficient in distributing resources and functioning without collapsing every so often, if one was to undertake such a macro study. this could possibly be explained aside from a question of ethics

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Well, it would be bad politics for me to be sectarian and to disregard people's real life experiences and judgments about the world, if they happened to arrive at an agreement with communism.





I haven't said anything that is baseless -- *any* anti-capitalist alternative begins from the real-world observation that capitalism is needlessly destructive and untenable. I won't begrudge you your choice of categorization, but to *focus* on such categorizing would be to only be academic about it.





If you're being facetious then you're being less-than-serious-and-forthright. Being 'facetious' only fogs your own statements and gives others the sanction to view your arguments in a lesser light.

I'm not going to attempt to differentiate myself from the masses -- my objective material position in society is no different than anyone else's who is not privileged, and my abilities for understanding and discussing proletarian politics are not so different, either.
So you and the masses are a hegemonic body, then? You're forgetting that there are obstacles in the way of understanding material reality and the data that explains it. Ethics play a part in this interpretation.

[ckaihatsu]

So you and the masses are a hegemonic body, then? You're forgetting that there are obstacles in the way of understanding material reality and the data that explains it. Ethics play a part in this interpretation.


I'm not quite sure what you're expecting me to say here.... I think we've covered this ground quite well now.

[hatzel]

I haven't said anything that is baseless -- *any* anti-capitalist alternative begins from the real-world observation that capitalism is needlessly destructive and untenable.

Ethics, then. No matter how hard you try you're never going to wriggle free of ethical positions and arguments.

I really don't understand why people are always so keen to defend themselves against the accusation that they might be...like...making a decision on something. Seriously, what's up with that? :confused:

[ckaihatsu]

Ethics, then. No matter how hard you try you're never going to wriggle free of ethical positions and arguments.


"Wriggle free" -- ??? -- !

That's quite a presumption, and a nearly-*offensive* characterization, at that....

As if the universe pulses with the life-force of "ethics" and we're just wantonly trying to "ignore" it -- (!)





I really don't understand why people are always so keen to defend themselves against the accusation that they might be...like...making a decision on something. Seriously, what's up with that? :confused:


The reason why it's better to avoid a paradigm of "ethics" or "morality" is because both unavoidably involve subjectivities regarding value judgments.

As with any other endeavor, the grounding of matters in a transparent *scientific* method allows decisions to be shown as far more *unbiased* and far less prone to person-centric motivations.

A materialist stance is not about "avoiding decisions" -- it's about not having the baggage of a prefabricated value system that must be catered to in the process of decision-making.

[hatzel]

"Wriggle free" -- ??? -- !

That's quite a presumption, and a nearly-*offensive* characterization, at that....

As if the universe pulses with the life-force of "ethics" and we're just wantonly trying to "ignore" it -- (!)

Never said anything about 'the universe,' you notice. I'm only talking about your words. Here and elsewhere. I'm pointing out that you have most certainly not wriggled free of ethics, nor have you given me any reason to believe that you will, that there is even the most tentative step in that direction. You, on the other hand, are deflecting the issue. If you insist on having this shitty discussion (because it is pretty shitty and I regret having ever stuck my nose in; I don't expect to continue beyond this), at least try to be involved in it, rather than floating off somewhere else entirely. A recurrent theme in your posts, actually...


The reason why it's better to avoid a paradigm of "ethics" or "morality" is because both unavoidably involve subjectivities regarding value judgments.

Never said otherwise, but what's 'better' (whatever that means) and what you're doing aren't necessarily the same. Things are rarely that simple. My problem (if I in fact have one) isn't people abandoning ethics (for example), it's people claiming to have done so whilst still very obviously appealing to ethics, you know? Not to have transformed the ethical field, not to have approached the issue from a new angle, but to have flat-out overcome it. Real pet peeve of mine, all these intellectual dishonest people...


As with any other endeavor, the grounding of matters in a transparent *scientific* method allows decisions to be shown as far more *unbiased* and far less prone to person-centric motivations.

Things that are bare japes:

1. Leslie Nielsen films.
2. Scientism.

Still, ethical decisions made based on 'scientific' studies are still ethical decisions. Appealing to 'science' doesn't exclude ethics, it just makes it a 'scientifically'-derived ethics.


A materialist stance is not about "avoiding decisions" -- it's about not having the baggage of a prefabricated value system that must be catered to in the process of decision-making.

See above, under 'things that are bare japes,' example no. 2. Neutral observation by autonomous and unbiased agents, particularly in the realm of this 'materialist science' you're clinging to (though it's neither materialist, nor a science, I should point out), is what those in the business call a silly old pipe-dream. Those in another business would call it bourgeois liberal claptrap, but as luck would have it I'm not in that exact business.

@OP: I find it proper annoying when Marxists with black flags call themselves anarchists. That's the second pet peeve of mine I'm going to reveal in this post!

[Rafiq]

Indeed, Anarchists are capable of being materialists. But materialism cannot serve as a basis for one's Anarchist convictions (In the same way it can for socialism).

What makes Anarchism a unique current of socialism, is the universal ethical basis layered on top of (or, as I should say, below) socialist ideology.

[Rafiq]

Ethics, then. No matter how hard you try you're never going to wriggle free of ethical positions and arguments.

I really don't understand why people are always so keen to defend themselves against the accusation that they might be...like...making a decision on something. Seriously, what's up with that? :confused:

If we define ethics as a system of moral principals, then you're incorrect. Socialism as an ideology, of course, embodies the interest of the class concious proletarian. What defines Anarchism, though, is this same thing, though, with ideological rhetoric based upon several ethical convictions (anti authority, anti heirarchy, universal opposition to the State). One can indeed be a socialist without having to adhere to ethical positions, if socialism means sharing the interests of the proletarian class, revolution, etc. I mean, self interest is not something you'd consider in itself ethical, right? Am I for filling an ethical act, by not jumping off of a cliff, or cutting my fingers off? Would I be for filling an ethical act, if I was dodging a person swinging a baseball bat at me?

[ckaihatsu]

Never said anything about 'the universe,' you notice. I'm only talking about your words. Here and elsewhere. I'm pointing out that you have most certainly not wriggled free of ethics,


Again, you're being presumptuous in simply asserting your worldview and implying that you're correct, and then insulting me according to your assumptions.





nor have you given me any reason to believe that you will, that there is even the most tentative step in that direction. You, on the other hand, are deflecting the issue. If you insist on having this shitty discussion (because it is pretty shitty and I regret having ever stuck my nose in; I don't expect to continue beyond this), at least try to be involved in it, rather than floating off somewhere else entirely. A recurrent theme in your posts, actually...


If you're just going to maintain a pattern of unjustifiable slights and mischaracterizations of me, take it elsewhere.





Never said otherwise, but what's 'better' (whatever that means)


'Better' is a value judgment.





and what you're doing aren't necessarily the same. Things are rarely that simple. My problem (if I in fact have one) isn't people abandoning ethics (for example), it's people claiming to have done so whilst still very obviously appealing to ethics, you know?


No, I don't follow, and I don't agree with you.

Insulting someone does not ingratiate you to them.





Not to have transformed the ethical field, not to have approached the issue from a new angle, but to have flat-out overcome it. Real pet peeve of mine, all these intellectual dishonest people...


You'd be better off typing this into a word processor and then closing out the document without saving it.





Things that are bare japes:

1. Leslie Nielsen films.
2. Scientism.

Still, ethical decisions made based on 'scientific' studies are still ethical decisions. Appealing to 'science' doesn't exclude ethics, it just makes it a 'scientifically'-derived ethics.


...





See above, under 'things that are bare japes,' example no. 2. Neutral observation by autonomous and unbiased agents, particularly in the realm of this 'materialist science' you're clinging to (though it's neither materialist, nor a science, I should point out), is what those in the business call a silly old pipe-dream. Those in another business would call it bourgeois liberal claptrap, but as luck would have it I'm not in that exact business.

@OP: I find it proper annoying when Marxists with black flags call themselves anarchists. That's the second pet peeve of mine I'm going to reveal in this post!


...

[helot]

Indeed, Anarchists are capable of being materialists. But materialism cannot serve as a basis for one's Anarchist convictions (In the same way it can for socialism).

What makes Anarchism a unique current of socialism, is the universal ethical basis layered on top of (or, as I should say, below) socialist ideology.


No, it's really not. The distinction between anarchism and other forms of socialism isn't ethics. To try to claim such shows a lack of understanding.



If we define ethics as a system of moral principals, then you're incorrect. Socialism as an ideology, of course, embodies the interest of the class concious proletarian. What defines Anarchism, though, is this same thing, though, with ideological rhetoric based upon several ethical convictions (anti authority, anti heirarchy, universal opposition to the State).

My anarchism isn't to do with ethics at all. Take an opposition to the state, for example, i have no ethical problems with one class suppressing another nor with an institution possessing a monopoly of violence as such the problem with the state, however, is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the working class as a class can control it. It is designed to be controlled by a minority hence i consider it a necessity for the working class to create its own institutions of class rule. The State isn't some arbitrary thing, it came into being to serve a definite purpose.

Where you'd consider the State as an instrument of class rule i'd consider it an instrument of minority class rule.

You could claim that i'm mistaken but to claim it's down to ethics is absurd.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No, it's really not. The distinction between anarchism and other forms of socialism isn't ethics. To try to claim such shows a lack of understanding.




My anarchism isn't to do with ethics at all. Take an opposition to the state, for example, i have no ethical problems with one class suppressing another nor with an institution possessing a monopoly of violence as such the problem with the state, however, is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the working class as a class can control it. It is designed to be controlled by a minority hence i consider it a necessity for the working class to create its own institutions of class rule. The State isn't some arbitrary thing, it came into being to serve a definite purpose.

Where you'd consider the State as an instrument of class rule i'd consider it an instrument of minority class rule.

You could claim that i'm mistaken but to claim it's down to ethics is absurd.
You're making an observation though, what does it matter? A murder is a murder, is it wrong?

How does a scientific observation inspire an action, objectively and without an ethical standing point?

[helot]

You're making an observation though, what does it matter? A murder is a murder, is it wrong?

How does a scientific observation inspire an action, objectively and without an ethical standing point?

Whether i'd consider a murder as wrong would depend on the circumstances in which it occured. My ethical view on things was irrelevant for my post and i don't think ethics should be completely ignored because its part of our very humanity, i was just refuting the claim that things such as the anarchist opposition to a state being based in ethics is inaccurate.

[Art Vandelay]

Whether i'd consider a murder as wrong would depend on the circumstances in which it occured. My ethical view on things was irrelevant for my post and i don't think ethics should be completely ignored because its part of our very humanity, i was just refuting the claim that things such as the anarchist opposition to a state being based in ethics is inaccurate.

Except that ethics are not "apart of our very humanity." To paraphrase Marx the ruling ideas of any historical epoch will be the ideas of the ruling class; this goes for ethics as well. They are not some golden rule which must be followed in the face of differing and changing material conditions.

[helot]

Except that ethics are not "apart of our very humanity." To paraphrase Marx the ruling ideas of any historical epoch will be the ideas of the ruling class; this goes for ethics as well. They are not some golden rule which must be followed in the face of differing and changing material conditions.

I didn't want to give the impression of some objective morality as such and of course ethics are affected by the material conditions within a society however forms of morality predate class society and i'd say are an extension of our social instinct.

[Rafiq]

No, it's really not. The distinction between anarchism and other forms of socialism isn't ethics. To try to claim such shows a lack of understanding.

Really now? Than what is it? Anti Authoritarianism, opposition to heirarchies, the State, etc.? Those are all ethical positions. Universal ethical positions, actually, kind of a mutation of classical Liberalism, if you will.


My anarchism isn't to do with ethics at all. Take an opposition to the state, for example, i have no ethical problems with one class suppressing another nor with an institution possessing a monopoly of violence as such the problem with the state, however, is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the working class as a class can control it.

Well, that's a bunch of nonsense. For one, the state exists to serve the interests of a class, historically. Why don't you think the proletariat can exist in state dictatorship? Why are proletarians unique to this? It's you who needs to provide evidence in this regards. Let's just be honest, it's because you think power is going to corrupt, it's because you think a "new ruling class" will come into place, because the State, and authority are inherently rotten, inherently amoral which breed such an amoral construction.


It is designed to be controlled by a minority hence i consider it a necessity for the working class to create its own institutions of class rule. The State isn't some arbitrary thing, it came into being to serve a definite purpose.


The state, firstly, isn't "designed". Secondly, a Bourgeois state only serves a minority and has similar functions because the Bourgeoisie are a minority. There isn't any other reason as to why. The proletariat developing it's own institutions of class rule would inevitably result in a state. Tell me, what do you think a state is? What kind of shit semantics problem is this?


Where you'd consider the State as an instrument of class rule i'd consider it an instrument of minority class rule.


For what reason? The state is a weapon which is utilized in the interest of a certain class, whether it be a minority or a majority. Why is it important that it can only serve a minority?


You could claim that i'm mistaken but to claim it's down to ethics is absurd.

It is down to ethics. These distinctive characteristics, are all ethical convictions, but universal ethical convictions as well. I've heard many Anarchists say that the ills of mankind are inherent to the State, to domination, authority, etc.