Difference between government and the State?

[JahLemon]

Is there one? If so, what? Could there be government in an anarchist society?

[Zoroaster]

No difference between the two. Same meaning, different terms.

[Sinister Intents]

The state is an organ of class rule, it is built up by a minority which rules and oppresses the majority. It suppresses and oppresses a producing class for it's own ends and the state is also organized violence, it's organized authority that insists upon the masses that they stay compliant through various means. The state has a monopoly on governance and any organization that can be used for democratic rule (rule by the people) gets shut down because they state seeks to be all encompassing and all controlling, it is the antithesis of democracy which has become a throw around term in and of itself as well as being vague, so worker's and people's control is a better term than that of democracy. Government under socialism would be controlled by all the people as a whole, whereas the state has a monopoly on governance and insists upon minority rule.

In the Soviet Union the Bolshevik party had the monopoly on governance, all organs that could have been used for people's and worker's control became puppets to the state, and the state used them to force people into submission.

In anarchist federation, or rather freely associating anarchist organizations put all government control into the hands of the people, the only form of government anarchists want is that of direct democracy, not bourgeois democracy where we're given fraudulent elections and fraudulent voting, and so on. People will have direct control in an anarchist society.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Is there one? If so, what? Could there be government in an anarchist society?

What do you think is government and what do you think is state?

[JahLemon]

What do you think is government and what do you think is state?
I view the State as being the entire mass of government, economic policy, police, hierarchy, etc. In bourgeois society we have representative democracy. In a stateless society, direct democracy is what constitutes a government.

[L.A.P.]

In pure sociological terms,



The State is the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (monopoly on violence), while the government is the bureaucracy that runs the State.



The United States is the State. The Obama administration and the 114th Congress are the government.



Marxists view the State as an instrument of one class' rule over the exploited classes. Government, through policies, executes the functions of the State

[Sinister Intents]

Yet the state is minority rule propped up for social control. The bourgeois state influences and controls society through use of the media outlets they develop and/or take control of. Some insist the society is the state, and some say the government is the state. The state in and of itself is a separate organ from these and is a more recent establishment. Society is created by individuals and individuals construct the web of society. Government is simply administration, and the state has a monopoly over both of these. They swing the puppet around and around, they control society and the government like a children's toy. They state must be destroyed for the monopoly on society and governance falls into the hands of the people that it belongs to. No one can have sole ownership of everything because in reality society, tge government, this land, the means and modes of production, and so on belongs to all over humanity. It cannot and should not be controlled by any single person.

[ckaihatsu]

Yet the state is minority rule propped up for social control. The bourgeois state influences and controls society through use of the media outlets they develop and/or take control of. Some insist the society is the state, and some say the government is the state. The state in and of itself is a separate organ from these and is a more recent establishment. Society is created by individuals and individuals construct the web of society. Government is simply administration, and the state has a monopoly over both of these. They swing the puppet around and around, they control society and the government like a children's toy. They state must be destroyed for the monopoly on society and governance falls into the hands of the people that it belongs to. No one can have sole ownership of everything because in reality society, tge government, this land, the means and modes of production, and so on belongs to all over humanity. It cannot and should not be controlled by any single person.


I agree with all of this, except for this part:





Society is created by individuals and individuals construct the web of society.


What about societal *institutions* -- ? I don't think that society is so organic and granular as you make it out to be.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Government is either the chief executive committee of the state, or in general, governance, control over the lives of members of society. In socialism, neither exists - although there really are self-proclaimed "anarchists" who would like their anarchist federation or whatever to rule over men instead of simply administering the process of production (just recall our old friend Fabian-Sotionov, the homophobic, straight-edge "horizontalist").

The ruling class, moreover, is not necessarily a minority. In certain regions, the ruling proletariat will be a majority of society.

[Art Vandelay]

Government under socialism would be controlled by all the people as a whole, whereas the state has a monopoly on governance and insists upon minority rule.
There is no government in socialism, as it is a stateless/classless society of free producers.

[ckaihatsu]

There is no government in socialism, as it is a stateless/classless society of free producers.


What about 'social policy', though -- ?

Some -- including myself -- might ask about how transgressions against society's fabric, or against others, might be handled in such a social order, in a consistent way.

Without meaning to sound too cartoonish, there *could* possibly be some capitalism-historical-group that gradually gets big-headed and winds up pushing politically and otherwise for some kind of 'restoration' of exchange values, and bourgeois norms.

If they get overwhelmed and flee to another region of the world would there be some way for society as a whole to deal with them, better than ad-hoc measures?

[Sinister Intents]

There is no government in socialism, as it is a stateless/classless society of free producers.

Indeed it is exactly that, but that doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't develop organs of people's administration as well as set up organizations to prevent reaction and counter-revolution. It would have no central authority or could have immediately recallable officials in a decentralized anarchist federation

[ckaihatsu]

Indeed it is exactly that, but that doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't develop organs of people's administration as well as set up organizations to prevent reaction and counter-revolution. It would have no central authority or could have immediately recallable officials in a decentralized anarchist federation


With this, though, there's no way to ensure a consistent fair treatment regarding transgressions against the socialist-type society -- if someone pulled a violent stunt they might find one localist organization more diffident than that of the location where the incident took place.

Decentralization = inconsistency.

[Sinister Intents]

With this, though, there's no way to ensure a consistent fair treatment regarding transgressions against the socialist-type society -- if someone pulled a violent stunt they might find one localist organization more diffident than that of the location where the incident took place.

Decentralization = inconsistency.

There is always this with the pros and cons with centralization and decentralization. A centralized state would be brutally efficient at worst, horribly bureaucratic in aspect, cold and calculating, but would also provide efficiency and be more positive in instances. There must be workarounds for both centralized and decentralized societies.

Also in my previous statement I was more aiming for the fact that the state manipulates society

[ckaihatsu]

There is always this with the pros and cons with centralization and decentralization. A centralized state would be brutally efficient at worst, horribly bureaucratic in aspect, cold and calculating, but would also provide efficiency and be more positive in instances. There must be workarounds for both centralized and decentralized societies.


Without meaning to get too bourgie here, this is something the nascent U.S. had to deal with, and still juggles today:


Federalists v. Anti-Federalists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Era#Federalists_v._Anti-Federalists


The Articles of Confederation: predecessor to the U.S. Constitution and drafted from Anti-Federalist principles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation


---


So this is a *structural* matter, not simply let's-find-a-compromise-with-pros-and-cons-for-both.

The issue I raised about consistent policy regarding counterrevolutionaries remains standing.

[Sinister Intents]

Without meaning to get too bourgie here, this is something the nascent U.S. had to deal with, and still juggles today:


Federalists v. Anti-Federalists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Era#Federalists_v._Anti-Federalists


The Articles of Confederation: predecessor to the U.S. Constitution and drafted from Anti-Federalist principles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation


---


So this is a *structural* matter, not simply let's-find-a-compromise-with-pros-and-cons-for-both.

The issue I raised about consistent policy regarding counterrevolutionaries remains standing.

It being bourgeois doesn't mean it isn't useful information. I myself have no clue which would be more beneficial considering both have benefits and negative aspects. I lean decentralization out of my own nature. Besides anarchist communes could in themselves become nascent states and eventually become states conquering the collectives and subjecting individuals to the authority of a centralized state. Anarchist federation is dangerous as the DotP

[Sinister Intents]

I'll post a bit more on tge topic of your post when I finish reading those Wikipedia pages

[Luís Henrique]

Government is what changed when Obama replaced Bush in the White House. State is what did not change in the same occasion.

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

It being bourgeois doesn't mean it isn't useful information. I myself have no clue which would be more beneficial considering both have benefits and negative aspects. I lean decentralization out of my own nature. Besides anarchist communes could in themselves become nascent states and eventually become states conquering the collectives and subjecting individuals to the authority of a centralized state. Anarchist federation is dangerous as the DotP


I, for one, find a resolution to this seeming conundrum by making sure to distinguish between the *economic* and the *political* in such a (post-capitalist) context.

A growing centralization -- widening consistency -- of policy would apply to 'political' matters, such as what do to with active counterrevolutionaries, while much regarding 'economics' -- collective production -- could readily take place on many scales at the same time, given a more-focused or less-focused general direction from the public for mass production.


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

http://s6.postimg.org/z6qrnuzn5/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jy0ua35yl/full/)

[Sinister Intents]

You're one of the few who use concise descriptions of what you mean/ what is intended to happen. Certainly you have greater understanding of all of these in theory and in practice, which both don't always equal each other. A centralized transition makes great sense to me, yet transition can follow similarly for a decentralized society. It is said that communism is a stateless and classless society of freely associating individuals. How can we ensure this centralized state disappears when the time is right? Who is in control of the state (s) during transition? I'm very weary of a centralized state considering what the state is, how it functions and what it does. What will prevent it from going the way of the Russian revolution, which was a similar happening to what happened with the French revolution before that?

Plus outside of this I can't truly be called an anarchist, I say anarchist communist, but I've so many influences and ideas floating in my head.

[ckaihatsu]

You're one of the few who use concise descriptions of what you mean/ what is intended to happen. Certainly you have greater understanding of all of these in theory and in practice, which both don't always equal each other.




A centralized transition makes great sense to me,




yet transition can follow similarly for a decentralized society.


I would say 'no' on that one....





[...]

A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

Just as it's easier to travel in elevators than in cars we should *strive* for a vertical consolidation of militant labor groupings as part of a worldwide proletariat offensive. This tight centrality and focus would enable the vanguard to manuever much more quickly and effectively against the class enemy's mobilizations, no matter where and when they take place, worldwide.




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism





It is said that communism is a stateless and classless society of freely associating individuals. How can we ensure this centralized state disappears when the time is right?





[...]

I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

[...]




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism





Who is in control of the state (s) during transition?


(See first excerpt, above.)





I'm very weary of a centralized state considering what the state is, how it functions and what it does. What will prevent it from going the way of the Russian revolution, which was a similar happening to what happened with the French revolution before that?


Basically: Success.





From all the discussions on vanguardism I've ever been around, including on this thread, it seems that there are really only a handful of issues involved.

My greatest concern is that we don't get *bogged down* by history. While I admire and champion all comrades who are adept at revolutionary historical matters -- certainly moreso than myself -- I've found that I've shied away from a more comprehensive, academic approach simply because the past is *not* directly transferable onto the future. There are many substantial, determining details of the historical situation back in 1917 that are *not* confining us today -- sheer material productive capacity would be one, not to mention communications capability, and so on.

This means that we *can't* look to the Bolshevik Revolution as the definitive, transferable model by which to form all revolutionary plans for the future. Yes, we should all be well aware of its intricacies and outcomes, but no, we should not be *beholden* to its *specific* storyline here in the 21st century.

[...]




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism





Plus outside of this I can't truly be called an anarchist, I say anarchist communist, but I've so many influences and ideas floating in my head.