Log in

View Full Version : On the Existence of the State



JazzRemington
4th February 2005, 04:55
This is a (very) rough draft of a paper I'm writing on The State. Understand that it is rough and somewhat incomplete. I'm just looking for ways to improve it. The main part I'm having trouble with is how to define the state as either a collection of people or an abstract concept.

On the Existence of the State
History as such has been marred by various thuggish activities and organizations that seek to dominate life and those involved within life so that it can further their own ends. But there exists no dangerous organization today that must be overcome and dismantled than The State: the largest and most dangerous entity known to man. What war has been fought on this earth that wasn't started by The State? Certainly, the degree of control that which we are subjected to is not unknown even to the most uneducated of individuals?

But before we get into the discussion of The State, we must define what The State is. Certainly, The State is not a concrete entity, as one cannot touch it. Some say that The State is an experience, for one does experience The State (moreover, the power of it). But, to be absolutely certain, The State is neither, either, and both all at the same time. The State is an abstract concept created by an individual to dominate other people with the promise of glory and power, the most intoxicating things in our history. It is comprised of those who would call themselves leaders. It has survived wars, devastations, revolutions, depressions, and other attacks by keeping itself afloat with the blood and sweat of the people it crushes with its power and might.

Therefore, we can now continue into our discussion on the nature and existence of The State. It has been concluded that The State is not a concrete thing, but rather an abstract concept. It is comprised solely of those in charge and in power, for it provides them with these things. To maintain itself, The State urges those in power to exert the false concept of authority over its citizenry in order to keep them in line and to preserve itself. It does this by operating a monopoly on violence. It is more than acceptable for The State to use violence against people (regardless whether or not they are citizens), but it is not acceptable for other people to use violence against anyone. This simply is against the best interest of The State, for if people are capable of taking care of themselves and defending themselves and those they love, what use is The State?

But, it most be noted that The State is not an ignorant thing. It is cunning and crafting and knows that direct oppression of its citizenry so it creates several organs to share it's monopoly on violence and authority over: The Police, The School, and The Military. There is another organ, but is not controlled by The State, but is heavily influenced: The Media.

Because of such situations and circumstances that The State tends to create there are some people who rebel or react negatively. For this, the State created both The Police and The Military have been given the authority to perform acts of violence against people and both have been given the authority to use whatever means to protect the interest of The State, which invariably involves the use of violence to some degree. Whenever and wherever there is a threat to the supremacy of and the monopolies controlled by The State, depending upon where the threat comes either The Police or The Military are sent in. In case of domestic threat, The Police are sent and in case of international threat, The Military are sent.

But there are some things that are better suited to be not solved with violence. For this The State created yet another organ called The School. Utilizing its authority over people, The State forces parents to give up their children to the mind-control factory that is called "School." While in The School, children are taught to be obedient and to never question anything. This is enforced by making them ask permission to go anywhere and the use of a bell to signal when they are to enter The School and when they are to leave The School. In extreme cases, The School even forces the children to where uniforms, like the prisoners they are. Instead of learning things and actually getting an education, The School utilizes its monopoly on force to make the children be quiet, behave, and be obedient to both its authority and The State's authority.

But what of those who are not children? What of the adults and those teenagers and the rest of society? There is another organ, though it is not of The State and is independent of The School: The Media. The Media presents us with constant information that prompts us to act in the best interest of The State and The School. Daily, we are fed lies and distortions to promote the idea that we must simply obey and listen and never question or act out of initiative or compassion for our fellow man.

Now, what is the nature of The State? It is simple: The State exists to protect and further its own interests and the interests of those who comprise it. Yes, circular logic but non-the-less it has been doing this very thing for thousands of years. There has never been a war fought out of selflessness, out of pure compassion for other people. Nearly every single war fought by The State has been out of pure selfishness and with the sole purpose of extending its authority over new people. It does this either through shear, nakedness or through a false vale of compassion for others; however, it does not always use violence in this respect either. As always, The State does whatever it does that is within its best interest.

NovelGentry
4th February 2005, 08:45
I'm sorry, I just couldn't get through it all. I'm not putting down your writing or anything, I'm tired and I've read a lot of stuff like this before -- attempts to clarify the state that fall short of nothing more than making it more confusing.

One thing I disagree with is the personification you use. You attribute values of the ruling class, those who use the state as a tool of class oppression to the state itself. The state is nothing more than a tool, and as such it can be used as a tool which can progress us, even towards it's own destruction (if properly designed).

It is this same sort of personificaiton and almost "free will" of the state that makes anarchists believe the state itself is the enemy. The state is nothing without classes or a class who is using it to maintain it's upper hand. Indeed, without those attributes, no state exists. These, however, are perpetuations of people, not of the state itself.

The state exists as a mere representation of that power, granted, a formal and organized one, but still nothing more than a representation.

Edit: I should have noted that when I said representation here, I meant representation as a means, not simply as a reflection.

Like I said, I didn't read the whole thing, so I'm not sure if your definition of the state actually contradicts or supports what I'm talking about, but I do know that it is confusing to attribute "cunning" and "craftiness" to something which you admittingly agree is not a "concrete entity."

JazzRemington
6th February 2005, 19:44
Originally posted by NovelGentry
One thing I disagree with is the personification you use. You attribute values of the ruling class, those who use the state as a tool of class oppression to the state itself. The state is nothing more than a tool, and as such it can be used as a tool which can progress us, even towards it's own destruction (if properly designed).

I'm still on the fence as to whether the State is indeed a tool or a collection of people. It is true that a State by itself can do nothing without the people who use it, but this seems a little to Egoist to me, claiming it's an abtract concept of force. I agree that it seems I'm leaning toward it being an abstract concept in my paper, but in truth I just don't know.


It is this same sort of personificaiton and almost "free will" of the state that makes anarchists believe the state itself is the enemy. The state is nothing without classes or a class who is using it to maintain it's upper hand. Indeed, without those attributes, no state exists. These, however, are perpetuations of people, not of the state itself.

Yes, but without The State, odds are there would BE no classes becuase there would be nothing to enforce them in some way. People in and of themselves pretty much act according to how they were raised or whatever situations they are in. Give someone complete authority and power with little or no accountability, and odds are they will seek to keep it by any means necessary, even creating a certain "class" of people of which a little bit of power is shared with in order for that individual to stay in power. So in essence, I agree with you.


The state exists as a mere representation of that power, granted, a formal and organized one, but still nothing more than a representation.

That might be true, except that a State can only exist if there are leaders and hierarchies. A leaderless State is no State. That is the problem I have with the State as a tool, an abstract concept if you will. If it IS a representation of the means power and authority, then that means someone or some people must have GIVEN it that representation at some point.

monkeydust
6th February 2005, 21:32
Here's my take on it


History as such has been marred by various thuggish activities and organizations that seek to dominate life and those involved within life so that it can further their own ends. But there exists no dangerous organization today that must be overcome and dismantled than The State: the largest and most dangerous entity known to man. What war has been fought on this earth that wasn't started by The State? Certainly, the degree of control that which we are subjected to is not unknown even to the most uneducated of individuals?


This is fine from a Marxist point of view, but if you're doing any kind of paper for Political Philosophy in general you must bear in mind that the notion of the state being a tool for class rule is not universally accepted.

Many say that, instead, it's something created for "convenience" by an implicit "social contract" made between people.


But before we get into the discussion of The State, we must define what The State is. Certainly, The State is not a concrete entity, as one cannot touch it. Some say that The State is an experience, for one does experience The State (moreover, the power of it). But, to be absolutely certain, The State is neither, either, and both all at the same time. The State is an abstract concept created by an individual to dominate other people with the promise of glory and power, the most intoxicating things in our history. It is comprised of those who would call themselves leaders. It has survived wars, devastations, revolutions, depressions, and other attacks by keeping itself afloat with the blood and sweat of the people it crushes with its power and might.


I don't really like this section, your definition of the state is far too vague. And the state is not an "abstract concept" at all. I'd focus more on these points:

-The state is a set of public governmental institutions distinct from civil society, including the bureaucracy, the courts, the social security systems and so on. Basically anything that can be identified within the entire "body politic". So the state has an institutional aspect.

-The state is also made up of a number of individual, those working within or directing its institutions and, arguably, even the citizens that interact with it. So the state also has a personal aspect.

-The state has territorial bounds, it has a geographical aspect.

So the state is best understood as a political association that establishes sovereign jurisdicition within defined territorial borders. In this sense, its institutional apparatus merely gives expression to state authority.


But there are some things that are better suited to be not solved with violence. For this The State created yet another organ called The School. Utilizing its authority over people, The State forces parents to give up their children to the mind-control factory that is called "School." While in The School, children are taught to be obedient and to never question anything. This is enforced by making them ask permission to go anywhere and the use of a bell to signal when they are to enter The School and when they are to leave The School. In extreme cases, The School even forces the children to where uniforms, like the prisoners they are. Instead of learning things and actually getting an education, The School utilizes its monopoly on force to make the children be quiet, behave, and be obedient to both its authority and The State's authority.


Two points I'd add here:

1.The school is not the only means of "appeasing" the citizens. Arguably healthcare and social security share a similar function.

2.The school is not simply used by the bourgeois state as a means of indoctrination, it is also used to gain a trained workforce, thereby saving companies money which would otherwise have to be used to undertake the training themselves.


The State exists to protect and further its own interests and the interests of those who comprise it. Yes, circular logic but non-the-less it has been doing this very thing for thousands of years.

Careful. The state in the modern sense has not really existed for any more than 500 years or so, if that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not bad overall from a Marxist perspective.

However if this is supposed to be a more general essay on the state you need to be much less tendentious. You might want to discuss the Liberal, the pluralist or the "elite" conceptions of the state as well.

gawkygeek
9th February 2005, 19:06
there can be no stateless world, only a world in which states are smaller for even if one person is on their own, they create a state in which they rule their own. and by nature people cling to one another and thus create larger states where by necessity they create rules and punishments to enforce the rules.

your concept of school is extremely exagerated, and neglects the common situation where schools tend to encourage free thought, simply orderly free thought so all in the group may understand and percieve.

the media is in most circumstances sepperate from the state in a way that they control their own broadcast but that is arguable and irrelevant by anymeans because any person who wishes can turn it off and find other means of obtaining information.

The Garbage Disposal Unit
9th February 2005, 21:44
there can be no stateless world, only a world in which states are smaller for even if one person is on their own, they create a state in which they rule their own. and by nature people cling to one another and thus create larger states where by necessity they create rules and punishments to enforce the rules.

The rules which peopleestablish for themselves, and among themselves as equals by consensus, are necessarily different than the institutions of the state - resting on violence and class-domination.
People cling to each other, and organize, but not necessarily along heirarchical and violent lines. Nor need agreed upon rules necessarily be enforced by retributive justice (Which has proven ineffective anyway).


the common situation where schools tend to encourage free thought

While I believe 'schools' (loosely) could be structured to facilitate free thought, and that within existing schools, there are individuals who may inspire free thought, this is not the function, nor the intended fuction, of schools as an institution. A reasoned analysis of the existing school systems - including their historical origins (Many are based around the Austro-Hungarian Empires model, whose open intention was to create mediocre and passive citizens) - have, as their aim, quite the opposite.


the media is in most circumstances sepperate from the state

But they do, however, serve the same master as the state - capital. To that end, media will, so long as the state performs in the interest of capital, defend the interests of the state.