What exactly is 'the state' and why it's statelessness desirable?

[Red Star Rising]

I have often been asked to justify my position on the state with questions like "who would build the roads?" and "who Would keep the peace?" And such. My brother even once said "we need a state to stop Putin walking in." I know that these questions are irrelevant to the concept of the state from a communist perspective but I always have trouble explaining it to those who are not familiar with the general idea How exactly can I distinguish between state and government and explain how a stateless society would operate?

[Creative Destruction]

Simply, the state is an instrument of class oppression. Once classes end, so does the state, since there'd be no reason to enforce class or property rights. Governance is taken over by everyone.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think there is a need to distinguish between the state and the government. The government is the executive committee of the state. Neither the state nor the government exist in communism. Who builds the roads? People do, the same as they've always done. We try to reach some sort of social consensus on what roads need to be built and get to work.

The state is the coercive political public force, composed of various bodies of armed men and acting as an instrument of class rule for the ruling class. Communism is stateless because there are no classes, there are no coercive bodies of armed men, not even those identical to he population itself, because organised social coercion itself has disappeared.

[Red Star Rising]

Simply, the state is an instrument of class oppression. Once classes end, so does the state, since there'd be no reason to enforce class or property rights. Governance is taken over by everyone.

I realise this, but the problem is that people always confuse democracy, elections and governance, even geographical landmass with the state. How exactly does the state operate in a class oppressive way? My brother insists that the NHS is proof of the opposite. And not because he's stupid, my whole family are very left-wing and often identify as 'socialists' but I just have difficulty accurately identifying what elements of government are and aren't statist.

[Sea]

In addition to what Creative Destruction said, statelessness could only occur at a time when all conventional governments elsewhere have long since been obsoleted. If there are still states elsewhere that could invade, clearly statelessness is a long way off. This problem is therefore a non-issue unless you're crazy enough to suggest statelessness be had before the conditions for it are ripe.

This answers your point about keeping the peace and your brother's point about Putin invading. Furthermore states don't keep the peace and states do invade each other all the damn time, so those concerns are doubly moot.

Regarding building roads and such, states aren't necessary for public works. Who built the longhouses before the development of class society in the first place?

I realise this, but the problem is that people always confuse democracy, elections and governance, even geographical landmass with the state. How exactly does the state operate in a class oppressive way? My brother insists that the NHS is proof of the opposite. And not because he's stupid, my whole family are very left-wing and often identify as 'socialists' but I just have difficulty accurately identifying what elements of government are and aren't statist.Throughout history, the sate always and exclusively arises from a specific economic situation. It is no coincidence that the state during feudal times had certain characteristics, as do modern states, etc.

Don't confuse community organization and large-scale organization and coordination between communities with the state. The former is all that is required to satisfy all your above demands and it doesn't go against statelessness.

[Red Star Rising]

"The state is the coercive political public force, composed of various bodies of armed men and acting as an instrument of class rule for the ruling class."

Right, and can you provide some examples of this in modern democracies?

[Red Star Rising]

By keeping the piece he meant a police force. How would the police operate and without stately authority how are criminals caught and detained or whatever?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"The state is the coercive political public force, composed of various bodies of armed men and acting as an instrument of class rule for the ruling class."

Right, and can you provide some examples of this in modern democracies?

Sure. If I move to, say, America, without getting an official permit (extremely hard to get for workers), there is a special body of armed men, the police, acting under orders of the American government as the executive committee of the American capitalist class, that will coerce me to leave - or more likely throw me in a concentration camp. This is because the American bourgeoisie does not have an interest in the free and legal movement of workers - their interests correspond to a dragooned and frightened population of illegal immigrants to drag wages down.


By keeping the piece he meant a police force. How would the police operate and without stately authority how are criminals caught and detained or whatever?

There is no police in socialism.

[Red Star Rising]

There is no police in socialism.

And what replaces it?

[G4b3n]

I think discussing the desirability of statelessness is fruitless. We are not even close to establishing such a thing. What Marxists and Anarchists both need to do as of now, is understand contemporary capitalism and get out of this 19th and 20th century mode of thought we still have going. If we look back at the big theorists of the classical era, they did not indulge in these fruitless discussions, they were seeking to understand capitalism and how to fight it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And what replaces it?

Nothing. Communism means a transformation of all social relations, making concepts such as crime irrelevant to the future society.


I think discussing the desirability of statelessness is fruitless. We are not even close to establishing such a thing. What Marxists and Anarchists both need to do as of now, is understand contemporary capitalism and get out of this 19th and 20th century mode of thought we still have going. If we look back at the big theorists of the classical era, they did not indulge in these fruitless discussions, they were seeking to understand capitalism and how to fight it.

Objectively, we are fairly close to communism - communism has been a real possibility for over a century and it is only the failure of political leadership that has allowed the bourgeoisie to survive. As for "21st century socialism (TM)", you will have to excuse the cynicism, but I can't think of a single one of these proposals that didn't hinge on tailing some form of social-democrats or sub-social-democrats like Chavez.

[Creative Destruction]

I think discussing the desirability of statelessness is fruitless. We are not even close to establishing such a thing. What Marxists and Anarchists both need to do as of now, is understand contemporary capitalism and get out of this 19th and 20th century mode of thought we still have going. If we look back at the big theorists of the classical era, they did not indulge in these fruitless discussions, they were seeking to understand capitalism and how to fight it.

No, it's important to be able to articulate what future conditions may hold if we begin negating capitalism. One thing does not need to exist at the disservice of the other. Far be it from people to blueprint the future, but overhauling capitalism is a venture that needs to have some vision beyond the immediate future and an explanation of what abolishing capitalism actually means to the people who would be living in a society without it.

[Rafiq]

The idea that a trans-geographic, trans-economic self-conscious body of administration or governance would cease to exist stems simply form the lack of imagination from users here. That is to say, it is ridiculous to assume that this would exist, but even more ridiculous to assume that it would exist in a way similar to the bourgeois state today. We need to be able to imagine not the particularities, but the possibility that we can destroy the state as it presently exists in its entirety, and moreover, there could arise another form of state power.

The state is an instrument of class rule, but we cannot even project a classless society as far as we're concerned, and as far as Marx and Engels were concerned, the "state" as such would wither away not in the sense that it would fall apart, but that after its class based function ceased to be it would assume a purely administrative role. In this era of globalization, wherein a commons is being wrought out by capitalism creating common problems without establishing the global state necessary to deal with them, we either assume a big trans national state is all the more necessary, or that we're reactionaries seeking a return to de-centralized isolated existence. A big centralized means of governance would be necessary, not as an organ of repression but as a means to coordinate large scale movement and deal with large-scale trans national problems, whether they are ecological or otherwise. If you think that these problems wouldn't persist following a social revolution, think again.

[Red Star Rising]

Nothing. Communism means a transformation of all social relations, making concepts such as crime irrelevant to the future society.

That's a bit overly utopian don't you think? In the case of mental illness for example, what armed individuals would be in place to catch them immediately after a crime has been committed? I agree that the police and justice system as it is is fucked, but to go as far as to say there is nothing at all in place...

[Rafiq]

That's a bit overly utopian don't you think? In the case of mental illness for example, what armed individuals would be in place to catch them immediately after a crime has been committed? I agree that the police and justice system as it is is fucked, but to go as far as to say there is nothing at all in place...

The problem of the state is not so much that it is all-encompassing, infringing on our "individual" liberties - that is a bourgeois methodology. It's that the state's function is first and foremost and the reproduction of the hegemony of a specific class, it is not self-conscious or ordained with the role of acting on behalf of everyone in common.

The truth about a classless society is that it is literally beyond our capacities of imagination. It is literally impossible to fathom what future could lie ahead of a proletarian dictatorship, impossible. Only a proletarian dictatorship is within our immediate horizon. One would imagine that such a society would have an incredible amount of problems, but less problems. Or more specifically, different ones that would not amount to the desire to return to a class society. Communism does not mean the end of history.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That's a bit overly utopian don't you think? In the case of mental illness for example, what armed individuals would be in place to catch them immediately after a crime has been committed? I agree that the police and justice system as it is is fucked, but to go as far as to say there is nothing at all in place...

People on RL use the term "utopian" in the strangest ways. Pointing out that communism means fundamental social change is not utopian, it is scientific. Utopianism is not radicalism, but the vision of social change as a fulfillment of the Plan, on account of the Plan being good. Marxism is anti-utopian, not (as people on RL seem to believe) because it tells us nothing about communism (it tells us quite a lot!), or because what it tells us about communism is pleasing to priggish bourgeois sensibilities today (Marx after all talks about the complete transformation of all social relations), but because it locates the historical agent of social change in the movement of the proletariat against capitalism and the guarantor of the possibility of social change in the material conditions.

The problem is that a lot of self-professed leftists, all their professions of materialism aside, effectively still adhere to the mystical model in which crime is caused, not by social conditions, but by demons. And calling the demons "sociopathy" because you once read a study doesn't make the whole thing any more scientific. Mental illness does not automatically cause people to become criminal (and for that matter, much of what is criminal today would either be common, fucking people of the same sex, for example - or simply inapplicable, like stealing). Mental illness, combined with social conditions, sometimes leads to violence. Usually the violence is against people with the mental illness, not by them. In socialism, the conditions that lead to serious violence, conditions such as scarcity, competition, forced work and overworking etc., will not exist.

And if a "crime" has been committed, what good does it do to "catch them immediately after"? If someone got killed, are they going to be brought back to life?

In any case the problem is in the assumption that the police is here to protect the citizens. They're not. Their job is to safeguard the rule of the bourgeoisie, and if you think the cops will protect you, you're either a member of the bourgeoisie, or in for a rude awakening.

[consuming negativity]

the state is the people and resources which make it up, as well as the social relations that both created and are created by/ in reference to it. there is really no such thing as a state. the concept exists in our heads, but in actuality, the reason it's so hard to define is precisely because it is a sociological phenomenon. you can't point to an object and go "there, that's the state, let's smash it!".

the primary function of the state, according to virtually everybody, is bringing about compromise between differing interests. liberals tend to see this as each individual thinking something different and the "pragmatic" middle ground between them all making up politics, but communists understand that while there will always be individual variations, the defining conflict that is being "defused" by the state is one of differing class interests. most of your single-issues, moral issues, and the rest, can see voters lining up one way or another along them based on class distinctions and the different world-views which are shaped in no small part by economic relations. not just the actual economic relations, but how we see ourselves in relation to the means of production. persons who understand the unlikelihood that any worker will ever become a wealthy capitalist are going to vote differently from people who falsely believe themselves to be... how did they put it... "temporarily embarrassed millionaires".

the reason statelesness is desirable, to me, is because the entire idea of needing a governing body stems from the idea that people need to be governed. that power needs to be exerted, at least over some people, in order to get them to behave appropriately. but it is precisely the socioeconomic hierarchy enforced by the state which is the reason for so many of the ills of our society, as 870 (xhar-xhar) talked about in the post immediately preceeding mine. while "there won't be cops and everybody will be happy" doesn't sound like much more than blowing off the question, it's mostly true. that there will never be any problems or people fucking up or fucking each other over is a ridiculous thought, but ultimately, what is a police officer except some guy who got hired by the state to enforce laws? once you take the magic away, you'll find that the idea of groups of citizens policing themselves according to their own mutually-agreed upon non-binding agreements is pretty realistic and palatable. in fact, the only reason that isn't what we have now is because people believe, for one reason or another, that economic and social hierarchy are somehow justified, whether that be because god loves the people who have money or because money is needed to get people to be productive or inventive.

a stateless society is one in which the governance of people has been replaced by the administration of things, which is a paraphrase of engels. right now, we treat people like things - we have no understanding of them and in fact our bodies and actions themselves are only valued in society based on their economic potential. we have commodified our resources, our land, and even ourselves. our experiences aren't immune, either. think about it: what do you do that is not producing or consuming things that is produced? very little. even when you're in bed, you're sleeping on and surrounded by commodities. when you go outside, you're wearing them and just walked out of one. go to the bar and drink something while you talk to friends; sit in front of the tv and consume media. it doesn't matter. our entire lives have become mediated through objects, and our bodies and minds can be bought and sold. and so we seek to destroy the rule of objects over humanity - we seek to treat people as people and objects as objects. we recognize the wasteful inefficiency, exploitation, and unsustainability of capitalist society and so we seek to re-organize society so that workers own their own means of production and production is done not for profit but out of necessity.

there's a lot more to it than that; i could go on and on about the capitalist law of accumulation or how the many different conservative ideologies obfuscate the class nature of conflict in our society, but i think this more or less addresses your points.

[EthInfinity]

I'm confused about this whole thing. How would the public decide what to do without someone organizing everything? What keeps individuals from going off and forming their own little tribal organizations if there is no state? Or is that the goal?
:confused:

[Red Star Rising]

I'm confused about this whole thing. How would the public decide what to do without someone organizing everything? What keeps individuals from going off and forming their own little tribal organizations if there is no state? Or is that the goal?
:confused:
As I understand it, the state is not the government, it is the bourgeois institution that prevents governance being carried out in the interests of everyone. That is, the apparatus that is involved in government whose authority does not derive from the people and does not act for the people.The state therefore is capitalism by force - it is responsible for maintaining Wall st. greed and allowing this to interfere with the general governance and general welfare of the people. It is the coercive body that carries out foreclosures and enforces the rule of private property.

Is this correct?

[Red Star Rising]

People on RL use the term "utopian" in the strangest ways. Pointing out that communism means fundamental social change is not utopian, it is scientific.

Perhaps. But it does not follow that the changing of social relations will magically result in no humans ever harming each other ever again and everyone joining hands for flower power. There will always be arseholes, and your claim that there will not be is one of the reasons why you are so frequently accused of utopianism.

[Tim Cornelis]

No, the state is not bourgeois, the modern state is. Saying it prevents governance from being in the interests of all is an odd way to put it. The bourgeois state maintains capitalist relations by force by upholding contracts, property laws, etc. (It also maintains capitalism via NHS, welfare, propgnda etc.) Simply put, the bourgeois state facilitates and maintains the normal functioning (or tries to at least) of the capitalist mode of production. How is it bound to do this? There's two theories in Marxism, the instrumental and structural account of the state. The instrumental view says that the members of government are inclined to bourgeois interests because of their social network while the structural view says that the state is structurally constrained to rule in the interests of capital. I subscribe to the latter view: the bourgeois state has to facilitate capital accumulation, and if it does not rule in favour of the interests of capital, the economy will falter.

The public will decide what to do with the commonly owned resources via free and voluntary association.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm confused about this whole thing. How would the public decide what to do without someone organizing everything? What keeps individuals from going off and forming their own little tribal organizations if there is no state? Or is that the goal?
:confused:

No, that is not the goal, nor would it be desirable. What makes it impossible is not some kind of coercive public power, but the global, objectively socialised nature of modern industrial production. Chiefdoms - it's probably best to avoid the charged term "tribe" - flourished in a period where, for the most part, anything beyond the nearest mountain range was irrelevant. Today, most production processes have inputs and outputs across the world.

And of course someone would organise public debate and decision-making. If we want to convene a council of the Altai-Sayan region to discuss the preservation of species endemic to the region, someone will have to convene the council, make sure there is space available, check the credentials of the delegates, bring crisps etc. But this does not make the organisers a state - just as the people who organise sessions of the student council are not a state.


As I understand it, the state is not the government, it is the bourgeois institution that prevents governance being carried out in the interests of everyone. That is, the apparatus that is involved in government whose authority does not derive from the people and does not act for the people.The state therefore is capitalism by force - it is responsible for maintaining Wall st. greed and allowing this to interfere with the general governance and general welfare of the people. It is the coercive body that carries out foreclosures and enforces the rule of private property.

Is this correct?

I don't think so, since the assumption seems to be that institutions like the police etc. are inherently "for" the "general welfare of the people", but that some sinister pro-capitalist group "interferes" with their functioning. The Marxist position is that the entire edifice of the state - from the Ministry for Abandoned Properties to the beat cop on the street - are an instrument of ruling class rule, and the modern bourgeois state can never be reformed to serve the proletariat.

One thing that I find interesting is that people are buying the standard liberal line about the cops "protecting people". Let me ask you something, when was the last time a cop protected you? The last time I saw the cops, dozens of them were bearing down on a burger joint. This is a good thing, since the second to last time I saw them they were trying to find out what my two (female) friends who were holding hands were doing wrong so they could do something to them. If, at any point, a cop protected me, he must have done it so no one in the world knows. Now, the point is not that cops are singularly unpleasant specimens of the species, although they generally are, but that "protecting people" is simply not in their job description. If you live in the US, the courts in your country have even recognised this fact.


Perhaps. But it does not follow that the changing of social relations will magically result in no humans ever harming each other ever again and everyone joining hands for flower power. There will always be arseholes, and your claim that there will not be is one of the reasons why you are so frequently accused of utopianism.

Some of the things that have been called "utopian" on RevLeft: a proletarian revolution, the global overthrow of capitalism, the abolition of the market, central planning, the abolition of the family, the abolition of borders, the withering away of the state... in fact I think we can safely say that every point of the communist programme has been called "utopian" at some point. I tend to be involved in these debates because I like me a bit of a rhetorical scuffle, so I tend to "bite" and continue debating when other members have already left.

But I suppose I shouldn't really disagree with anyone here, since apparently people don't see the middle between everyone always being happy with everyone ("joining hands for flower power"), and premeditated killing of people. That alone is cause for concern, but the justification of "there will always be arseholes" just seals the deal. Sure, I imagine that some of the behaviors we associate with being an arsehole will remain in the socialist society. There will probably be that guy who won't put the bottles of Bottled Drinks Production Centre Model 17 Soft Drink back into some semblance of order, after he's fished out the one bottle with an expiry date further off from the back of the shelf. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this would somehow, in the absence of scarcity and competition, lead to "crime", whatever that means to you.

[Slippers]

In capitalism the state is this: The state is the thing that runs the police and such.

The state is who will force you to not take over your workplace and ensure it stays in the hands of the "legal" owner.

The state is what enforces private property and the value of currency.

Probably an oversimplification but I think simple, to-the-point explanations can be helpful for a start. For me, who has a hard time focussing and understanding things at times, they have been.

[EthInfinity]

As I understand it, the state is not the government, it is the bourgeois institution that prevents governance being carried out in the interests of everyone. That is, the apparatus that is involved in government whose authority does not derive from the people and does not act for the people.The state therefore is capitalism by force - it is responsible for maintaining Wall st. greed and allowing this to interfere with the general governance and general welfare of the people. It is the coercive body that carries out foreclosures and enforces the rule of private property.

Is this correct?


So, would that mean that communism actually allows for a government to exist? Would it be a direct democracy or something like that?

[MarxistWorld]

I think that humans and societies will need to be more mentally and politically evolved (of course after the dictatorship of the proletariat phase) in order for state-less communism to be able to work. Right now the world not ready for that super-advanced political system



I have often been asked to justify my position on the state with questions like "who would build the roads?" and "who Would keep the peace?" And such. My brother even once said "we need a state to stop Putin walking in." I know that these questions are irrelevant to the concept of the state from a communist perspective but I always have trouble explaining it to those who are not familiar with the general idea How exactly can I distinguish between state and government and explain how a stateless society would operate?

[Red Star Rising]

Sure, I imagine that some of the behaviors we associate with being an arsehole will remain in the socialist society. There will probably be that guy who won't put the bottles of Bottled Drinks Production Centre Model 17 Soft Drink back into some semblance of order, after he's fished out the one bottle with an expiry date further off from the back of the shelf. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this would somehow, in the absence of scarcity and competition, lead to "crime", whatever that means to you.
This is a painfully obvious attempt to deflect my argument and confuse the central issue of the debate. Equating not keeping bottles in order to harming other people is demonstrative of your inability to properly address any question. You can't try to abolish murder. You can't claim that there will be no crime. It is silly, it is utopian. What apparatus will be in place to prevent and deal with people showing psychopathic behaviour?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is a painfully obvious attempt to deflect my argument and confuse the central issue of the debate. Equating not keeping bottles in order to harming other people is demonstrative of your inability to properly address any question. You can't try to abolish murder. You can't claim that there will be no crime. It is silly, it is utopian. What apparatus will be in place to prevent and deal with people showing psychopathic behaviour?

The point is that there is no argument. You assume "crime" (and you never specify what "crime" is, I mean, homosexuality and stealing are also crimes; not everything called a "crime" is something we should try to stop or abolish) will continue to exist because... why? The closest you've come to giving a reason is "there will always be arseholes". That doesn't work at all, of course. You still have to justify the leap from "people will do things that annoy other people" to "there will be murder".

And, of course, psychopathy. People on RL love to talk about psychopathy, but few of them seem to be familiar with the subject. As I said, on RL the term is used as a more "sciencey" alternative to the "demons" that compel people to murder. The problem is that this is a piss-poor model of human behaviour, no matter what you call the evil spirits that disrupt the control the assumed person-homunculus has over "their" body, as can be seen from the way violence changes form with changing relations of production.

[Red Star Rising]

The point is that there is no argument. You assume "crime" (and you never specify what "crime" is, I mean, homosexuality and stealing are also crimes; not everything called a "crime" is something we should try to stop or abolish) will continue to exist because... why? The closest you've come to giving a reason is "there will always be arseholes". That doesn't work at all, of course. You still have to justify the leap from "people will do things that annoy other people" to "there will be murder".

And, of course, psychopathy. People on RL love to talk about psychopathy, but few of them seem to be familiar with the subject. As I said, on RL the term is used as a more "sciencey" alternative to the "demons" that compel people to murder. The problem is that this is a piss-poor model of human behaviour, no matter what you call the evil spirits that disrupt the control the assumed person-homunculus has over "their" body, as can be seen from the way violence changes form with changing relations of production.

"Justify the leap"? I believe it is you who has to justify the leap to thinking that there will be no murder because...social relations.... You are tossing the burden of proof around so unintelligently. You are yet to explain the specifics of how changing social relations will result in no more murder. You might as well claim that there will be no gravity and the ocean will turn into lemonade.

And you are dismissing my point about psychopathy not because you have some great insight into why people kill each other, but because you would prefer it not to exist. Murder, destructive behaviour, kidnapping and whatever else would still be frowned upon in a Communist society is not all motivated by Capitalism, regardless of how much you wish it was.

[Cliff Paul]

Nothing. Communism means a transformation of all social relations, making concepts such as crime irrelevant to the future society.

Usually I find myself in agreement with you my bald, Trotskyist comrade but in this case the tankies are right. You are being a little bit idealistic here.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Justify the leap"? I believe it is you who has to justify the leap to thinking that there will be no murder because...social relations.... You are tossing the burden of proof around so unintelligently. You are yet to explain the specifics of how changing social relations will result in no more murder. You might as well claim that there will be no gravity and the ocean will turn into lemonade.

And you are dismissing my point about psychopathy not because you have some great insight into why people kill each other, but because you would prefer it not to exist. Murder, destructive behaviour, kidnapping and whatever else would still be frowned upon in a Communist society is not all motivated by Capitalism, regardless of how much you wish it was.

What "point about psychopathy"? First of all, there is no condition called "psychopathy" that is recognised by the psychiatric profession, and given that this is a profession that recognises an "oppositional defiant disorder", that's saying something. The only official use of the term "psychopathy" is in various "diagnostic tools" sold by psychiatrists to the prison system, and used to keep particular categories of prisoners in worse conditions (such as those who kills cops - allegedly over 50% of these are "psychopaths" and can be locked up in isolation units, and I'm sure this has nothing to do with the interests of the cops and the bourgeois state whatsoever).

You simply said that there is going to be murder (and now, apparently, kidnapping?) because "psychopathy". Now back in the real world we have a fairly good understanding of the causes of murder - and it can be traced, either directly to the social stratification inherent in class society, or to the superstructure of class society, including notably the family. Communism abolishes class society and as such abolishes the reasons for murder. This does not mean everything is going to be magically great or that people will not be killed (it is easy to imagine, for example, a fight escalating to the point that someone is killed). But what of it? It still doesn't mean we need some sort of socialist police, as if some fetishistic imitation of bourgeois "justice" is going to bring people back from the grave.


Usually I find myself in agreement with you my bald, Trotskyist comrade but in this case the tankies are right. You are being a little bit idealistic here.

But here's a thought: are people bald, or are they differently haired?

One thing I will say is that people are apparently misunderstanding me as claiming that everything is going to be perfect in the socialist society. Far from it. Fights will still happen, there are going to be disputes and so on. But for some things - which include both some of the most problematic and some of the most minor crimes - we can safely say that they will no longer happen. Stealing is impossible in a society where property has been abolished, for example. Murder and rape, too, have social roots, and I think we can confidently say they will not be a factor in the socialist society. We can consider, for example, the archaeological evidence from early stateless societies, where what little murder we can discern seems to have happened between groups (bands etc.) due to competition over scarce resources.

And this is important, not simply because people are trying to argue for some kind of socialist police, and not simply because they're blindly repeating scare stories about "psychopathy", but because similar arguments could be raised about any aspect of the socialist society. E.g. we say there are not going to be markets in socialism. Not because the Socialist Police are going to go around and beat people with truncheons for selling and buying, but because the social conditions will be such that markets are essentially impossible. Now someone could attack this as "utopian" as well, and in fact people do. Just as people imagine there is some evil spirit called "psychopathy" that forces people to murder, they imagine there is some (evil?) spirit that makes men inclined toward buying and selling - they think this is a part of the human condition that will not change.

[Rafiq]

"Justify the leap"? I believe it is you who has to justify the leap to thinking that there will be no murder because...social relations.... You are tossing the burden of proof around so unintelligently. You are yet to explain the specifics of how changing social relations will result in no more murder. You might as well claim that there will be no gravity and the ocean will turn into lemonade.

And you are dismissing my point about psychopathy not because you have some great insight into why people kill each other, but because you would prefer it not to exist. Murder, destructive behaviour, kidnapping and whatever else would still be frowned upon in a Communist society is not all motivated by Capitalism, regardless of how much you wish it was.

The error here is conflating somethings possibility, and it's systemically intregal prevalence. That is to say, "crimes" in our society ARE completely dependent on their relationship to capitalism, and if they were to exist in a post capitalist society, they would take an entirely different form, and would exist for entirely different causes. It would be safe to assume that, for example, while behaviors deemed unacceptable will always exist, in comparison to the phenomena of "crime", which is just as much a "problem" for capitalist society as is prostitution is for patriarchy - they would be so miniscule that dealing with them as problems en masse would itself not be a problem.

The error lies in assuming that we are predisposed to bad behavior "naturally", of which only out of fear is this regulated. This is true only for capitalist society, however: we ARE predisposed to behavior outside laws systemically, and that's exactly why laws exist: to save capitalism from its own antagonisms. In effect "murder" and "destructive behaviors" would most likely not be so incredibly widespread problems wherein some kind of systemic means of regulating them would be necessary. And for fucks sake, onward with such myths of psychopathy. "Sociopathy" has become a postmodern ideological boogeyman, a pre-text excusing ourselves for being unable to account for the fact that people are capable of behavior not even fathomable by conventional ethics. Hence previous "enigmas" become solved, Stalin, Hitler and Saddam "psychopaths" - we are unable to recognize the fact that morally contemptible behavior can be induced by systemic means because we cannot imagine a systemic totality, or conditions outside of our own. Bourgeois philistine degenerate scum like Dutton will never come into terms with the fact that even different moral coordinates are possible. Shame on the scum who prattle of "psychopathy", when it is infinitely a greater injustice to have the most barbaric horrors be passed off by "good" citizens because they are sanctioned by the state apparatus. A good, and noble man can slaughter thousands in Iraq because he's serving his country, but it takes a psychopath to commit such heinous a crime as to break the law or end up in prison. According to Dutton, what seperates a psychopath from a good citizen is proximity: a sociopath can push a fat man off a bridge to stop a train and save people, while a "good citizen" could only do this at a De-personalized distance, by pulling a lever away from the fat man so he's not visible that would have the same effect. So it has nothing to do with whether one is capable of "bad" behavior but bad behavior in violation of proximity. Sounds like "psychopaths" are simply honest people no longer alienated from their actions. As such, Stalin the bankrobber is a "psychopath" while Johnson or Nixon, who oversaw the slaughter of millions in Vietnam are normal because this behavior was deemed normal systemically.

How fucking despicable this kind of methedology is, how disgustingly hypocritical it is. Xhar-Xhar is entirely correct, users who talk about psychopathy don't know a crock of shit of how complex the matter is, how NO behavior can be reducible to it. That is why the apparatus of psychiatric terminology doesn't recognize it: it's a bunch of spectacle-conformed heresay and overblown showboat trash. Plenty of "psychopaths", under the qualifications given for what that means, are completely normal people http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/

But let's ignore this and pretend it is real. According to Dutton, most powerful people display psychopathic traits, suggesting it is encouraged systemically. In addition, empirical studies have shown that there is no direct link between "psychopathy" and violent behavior and that furthermore, most of those we consider psychopaths aren't actually psychopaths under our definitive qualifications. In addition, environmental variables have been shown to be stronger in exemplifying "psychopathic" traits. So it is safe to assume that no, this would hardly be a problem. Each social epoch, to play the devils advocate, defines the particular means of how "psychopathy" is expressed.

The biggest and most unforgivable blunder is the notion that capitalism is somehow a factor in defining our behaviors, although there is a domain of human nature outside of our social totality. You cannot be outside of capitalism to owe something to it - ALL behaviors exist because they are able to reproduce the conditions of capitalism, or are conformed to this function. Communism is only possible because it derives from social antagonisms within this social totality.

[Cliff Paul]

But here's a thought: are people bald, or are they differently haired?

mind blown


Murder and rape, too, have social roots, and I think we can confidently say they will not be a factor in the socialist society.

define factor? I'd agree that a socialist society wouldn't require hoards of police officers combing the streets day + night but I can't imagine that violent crime would cease to exist altogether


We can consider, for example, the archaeological evidence from early stateless societies, where what little murder we can discern seems to have happened between groups (bands etc.) due to competition over scarce resources.

I always thought early stateless societies were violent as fuck, although the only info I've read on that is that asshole Steven Pinker's work.

[Tim Cornelis]

We can consider, for example, the archaeological evidence from early stateless societies, where what little murder we can discern seems to have happened between groups (bands etc.) due to competition over scarce resources.

As I have pointed out months earlier, the opposite is true. Band society was not characterised by war, and the murder that did exist was interpersonal by and large.

"They say their findings suggest that war is not an innate part of human nature, but rather a behaviour that we have adopted more recently.
The study is published in the journal Science.
Patrik Soderberg, an author of the study, said: "This research questions the idea that war was ever-present in our ancestral past. It paints another picture where the quarrels and aggression were primarily about interpersonal motives instead of groups fighting against each other. ... "Over half the events were perpetrated by lone individuals and in 85% of the cases, the victims were members of the same society."
Most of the killings were driven by personal motives, he added, such as family feuds or adultery."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23340252

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

define factor? I'd agree that a socialist society wouldn't require hoards of police officers combing the streets day + night but I can't imagine that violent crime would cease to exist altogether

As I said, it is possible that there will be violence in the socialist society. E.g. two people could get into a fight. But if there is no police force, and no court and prison system, there are no crimes.

What non-consensual or disruptive violence exists will probably be dealt with by the people at the site of the incident. E.g. if someone takes a hammer to the local cultural centre, they will be overpowered by the people who were passing by.

What would presumably not happen is the centre being vandalised as a crowd of onlookers passivised by the social conditions just watches, the police arresting the perpetrator later, then having this ridiculous semi-religious juridical ritual that won't fix the centre but will restore confidence in the bourgeois state.


I always thought early stateless societies were violent as fuck, although the only info I've read on that is that asshole Steven Pinker's work.

I'll try to dig up some overviews on the subject but (as far as I know - keep in mind I'm not an archaeologist, but someone who is interested in the subject) there is not much evidence of intra-band or intra-tribe violence in the archaeological record. And there is evidence of inter-group violence, for example the Teviec graves.

Pinker, if I recall his book correctly, relies on comparison with modern hunter-gatherer societies. But that won't do. Most of these societies passed through an agricultural phase, for one thing, and they exist in a social context that is significantly different than that of the long stateless period of human history. We know, from history, that even minor and sporadic contact could change societies significantly, for example the introduction of horses and the role it played in increasing the significance of intertribal organisations among American Indians.

[Rafiq]

Nothing is more idiotic at how anthropologists designate "primitive" societies as simply pre-civilized societies. I remember reading some "revisionist" anthropologists claiming that human pre-history was war-like, the evidence being the graves of killed humans around the mesolithic era in Egypt. But the mesolithic era saw to the slow rise of agriculture, which we can deduce led to the first embryonic forms of property to develop. There is absolutely no evidence of widespread violence in Hunter gatherer societies before the discovery of agriculture. Absolutely none.

As for "modern" Hunter gatherers, these societies are hardly Hunter gatherers. Some like to point to modern Innuits that practice what is akin to sexual slavery, but evidence shows that before contact, and dependence on the Europeans they were sexually egalitarian.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Nothing is more idiotic at how anthropologists designate "primitive" societies as simply pre-civilized societies. I remember reading some "revisionist" anthropologists claiming that human pre-history was war-like, the evidence being the graves of killed humans around the mesolithic era in Egypt. But the mesolithic era saw to the slow rise of agriculture, which we can deduce led to the first embryonic forms of property to develop. There is absolutely no evidence of widespread violence in Hunter gatherer societies before the discovery of agriculture. Absolutely none.

From my limited knowledge in the field, the violence was there, but it was rather systemic as opposed to individual, i.e. it was not individuals going and killing people, but rather certain rituals, which led to violence. So if someone violates some unwritten communal rule, then there would be a violent ritual to sort things out. These societies were violent, but the violence didn't stem from antagonisms between individuals per se.

[Cumulus]

What non-consensual or disruptive violence exists will probably be dealt with by the people at the site of the incident. E.g. if someone takes a hammer to the local cultural centre, they will be overpowered by the people who were passing by.

What would presumably not happen is the centre being vandalised as a crowd of onlookers passivised by the social conditions just watches, the police arresting the perpetrator later, then having this ridiculous semi-religious juridical ritual that won't fix the centre but will restore confidence in the bourgeois state.


So you're suggesting a system based entirely on vigilante justice where every citizen is a judge, jury, and executioner? No evidence collection? No trial? I understand that the courts might have their fair share of issues, but they're better than nothing.

[MarxistWorld]

I read in a philosophy book, written by Schopenhauer (I forgot the title of the book) that in the future humans will be so intelligent, that it will be impossible for governments to exist over humans. For rulers to tell humans what to do, for states to exist. So, I think that according to that thought by Schopenhauer, one of the main causes for the existance of states is that humans let them selves to be ruled by states.

If humans were a lot more informed and smarter, I think that it would be almost impossible to rule humans. So I think that with the help of technology (Like transhumanism) and other very advanced kinds of technologies, many tasks will be done by robots. So advanced technology might also help a state-less society to work in a efficient way without the society collapsing, like it is collapsing right now in most countries of the world. Where the capitalist political system is not able to satisfy the basic needs of the 100% population of each nation




I have often been asked to justify my position on the state with questions like "who would build the roads?" and "who Would keep the peace?" And such. My brother even once said "we need a state to stop Putin walking in." I know that these questions are irrelevant to the concept of the state from a communist perspective but I always have trouble explaining it to those who are not familiar with the general idea How exactly can I distinguish between state and government and explain how a stateless society would operate?