Stateless society?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Communism is constanly descibed as stateless. What exactly does it mean? Does it mean no government or economic planning? No parliaments or councils are whatever? What does it mean exactly as I realized I'm not even that sure.

[anomaly]

The state is the mechanism of class rule. It is simply a means of oppression. And it is to be destroyed.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:33 PM
Communism is constanly descibed as stateless. What exactly does it mean?
And classless as well.

States are used for the sole purposing of furthering the interests of the ruling class. If there are no classes, then the state is not necessary, for their are no class interests to protect.

What this "means", is that there is no longer a need for a large professional army, police force, legal adminstration etc, as there are no longer any class interests to protect.

There will still be governance, but there won't be any central body with authority.

[EusebioScrib]

Well, take the definition of a state (basically what people think of as government). Then just negate it. That is stateless.

[apathy maybe]

No police, no military, no prisons or courts. Not judges or politicians, no bosses.

Stateless means local areas making decisions for local areas, it means no oppression by a organised armed body.

Economically, things will not require a centralised structure. Community X needs A, Community Y has A, Community Y sends Community X A. Ideally things will be produced locally as well.

[BobKKKindle$]

A state can be described as a body of central control that controls all of Society, and operates as a mechanism whereby the ruling class under Capitalism maintains its position through control of the judiciary, and the military.

Under Communism, the military and police - the organisations that will be dedicated to defending the revolution - will be in the form of worker's militias, subject to democratic control by the Soviets.

The question of when the state will wither away is a subject of great debate. Anarchists call for the immidiete destruction of the state apparatus following the revolution, wheras Socialists call for the formation of a strong worker's state in order to revolutionize economic production and the social system, and to defend the revolution from reactionaries and foreign forces, as part of the period called the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

There will still be governance, but there won't be any central body with authority.

Wait that's anarchy, isn't it? How would we plan the economy if there is no central body>?

[Janus]

How would we plan the economy if there is no central body
I doubt that the economy would be the same as we envision it today. Certain practices will probably become obsolete and much of the economy will be decentralized or localized.


Wait that's anarchy, isn't it?
Yes, but the word has negative connotations that have been accentuated by the ruling class in order to create a stigma around it. It's not going to be chaos and an orgy of lawlessness as some imagine.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:27 AM

There will still be governance, but there won't be any central body with authority.

Wait that's anarchy, isn't it? How would we plan the economy if there is no central body>?
... It's communism... it's what communists and anarchists want.

[peaccenicked]

The 'State' is oppression. It even applies to people who dont want to recognise the truth , POINT BLANK....skirt around the issues. It really means 'shout out your heart'.

[Poum_1936]

I dont think anyone said this yet. But socialism (according to most communists) still has a state and class society. The point of socialism is to reduce the role of the state and have classes "disappear". Of course, no one can say this is going to happen within "said X amount of years".

But communism, is considered a classless, stateless society. If the communists happen to win the revolution, then economic planning will happen, but as certain other people said, a state is used as a tool of oppression. And socialist state is hypotheticaly supposed to be used against the bourgeois. No more bourgeoisie, no more state. Thats how its supposed to work.

Councils of the people will still decide certain affairs of the people, economic planning will still happen democratically amongst the people. Its just the state ceases to be a state in the "normal" sense of the term.

And according to Dialetical Materialism, there will be a new antagnomism between communist society (and who knows what). Marx never said communism is the end, and nor should we. Especially the few of us who believe in dialectics on this god forsaken forum. Bad refernce using god when Im talking materialism. But the point remanins.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:27 PM

There will still be governance, but there won't be any central body with authority.

Wait that's anarchy, isn't it? How would we plan the economy if there is no central body>?
Through regional, national and internaitonal federations.

[Cult of Reason]

National?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 02:21 PM
National?
I suppose regional can include large areas of the world, and replace regional with local, but I think National implies larger areas of land mass.

Want of a better word really.

[Cult of Reason]

I was just being a pedantic bastard. ;)

Anyway, I believe that at some point the economy would be planned according to energy accounting.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2006, 12:57 PM
Through regional, national and internaitonal federations.
what do you mean by federation? Could that be like a council of workers from different regions or communes?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Jun 20 2006, 04:54 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Jun 20 2006, 04:54 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2006, 12:57 PM
Through regional, national and internaitonal federations.
what do you mean by federation? Could that be like a council of workers from different regions or communes? [/b]
If you take Spain 1936-39 for example, what you saw happen were individual collectives in agriculture and other big industries form together into federations of collectives that held large Plenums, regionally to organise the ongoing production and distribution of goods.

The idea is that you do not need specific councils to organise things, you simply have different collectives in different areas that deal with different things independently and which eventually organise themselves into a federation i.e. the Federation of Bread Makers Collectives and the Federation of Diary production collectives; these federations then meet periodically, perhaps organised as spokesperson councils, into large Plenums to discuss issues concerning the federation at large.

Theoretically, this would happen "nationally" and internationally. These plenums would not be permenant institutions of control or organisation, but simply meetings mandated with specific purposes and accountable to the collectives at large. There would be no one who had the ability to make decisions and all spokespersons would act simply as a voice for the decisions made by collectives. They would relay those decisions into the plenum and an agenda would be formed and discussions had.

I would argue that the meetings decision making process should be based on consensus. It is best to come to a collective decision that everyone is happy with, but of course that would be up to the Federations to decide.

[Rawthentic]

This is a bit off topic, but why is it that people, under capitalism, seem to stubborn to grasp the idea of a stateless society. People I have met say that government will always be around because humans want naturally to be governed. Obviously, this is ridiculous. I see a stateless society as a logical, simple thing, where people own their resources and need not a government to do such.

[Che06]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jun 20 2006, 10:17 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jun 20 2006, 10:17 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:54 PM

The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2006, 12:57 PM
Through regional, national and internaitonal federations.
what do you mean by federation? Could that be like a council of workers from different regions or communes?
If you take Spain 1936-39 for example, what you saw happen were individual collectives in agriculture and other big industries form together into federations of collectives that held large Plenums, regionally to organise the ongoing production and distribution of goods.

The idea is that you do not need specific councils to organise things, you simply have different collectives in different areas that deal with different things independently and which eventually organise themselves into a federation i.e. the Federation of Bread Makers Collectives and the Federation of Diary production collectives; these federations then meet periodically, perhaps organised as spokesperson councils, into large Plenums to discuss issues concerning the federation at large.

Theoretically, this would happen "nationally" and internationally. These plenums would not be permenant institutions of control or organisation, but simply meetings mandated with specific purposes and accountable to the collectives at large. There would be no one who had the ability to make decisions and all spokespersons would act simply as a voice for the decisions made by collectives. They would relay those decisions into the plenum and an agenda would be formed and discussions had.

I would argue that the meetings decision making process should be based on consensus. It is best to come to a collective decision that everyone is happy with, but of course that would be up to the Federations to decide. [/b]
damn just reading that it makes so much sense and seems way more efficient then the system they have now.

another thing, a fellow comrade said something about the lack of military. If there would be a lack of one then what was the ussr doing with one, or does it go back to the 'they weren't really communist' point?

[Che06]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jun 20 2006, 10:17 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jun 20 2006, 10:17 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:54 PM

The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2006, 12:57 PM
Through regional, national and internaitonal federations.
what do you mean by federation? Could that be like a council of workers from different regions or communes?
If you take Spain 1936-39 for example, what you saw happen were individual collectives in agriculture and other big industries form together into federations of collectives that held large Plenums, regionally to organise the ongoing production and distribution of goods.

The idea is that you do not need specific councils to organise things, you simply have different collectives in different areas that deal with different things independently and which eventually organise themselves into a federation i.e. the Federation of Bread Makers Collectives and the Federation of Diary production collectives; these federations then meet periodically, perhaps organised as spokesperson councils, into large Plenums to discuss issues concerning the federation at large.

Theoretically, this would happen "nationally" and internationally. These plenums would not be permenant institutions of control or organisation, but simply meetings mandated with specific purposes and accountable to the collectives at large. There would be no one who had the ability to make decisions and all spokespersons would act simply as a voice for the decisions made by collectives. They would relay those decisions into the plenum and an agenda would be formed and discussions had.

I would argue that the meetings decision making process should be based on consensus. It is best to come to a collective decision that everyone is happy with, but of course that would be up to the Federations to decide. [/b]
damn just reading that it makes so much sense and seems way more efficient then the system they have now.

another thing, a fellow comrade said something about the lack of military. If there would be a lack of one then what was the ussr doing with one, or does it go back to the 'they weren't really communist' point?

[Che06]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jun 20 2006, 10:17 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jun 20 2006, 10:17 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:54 PM

The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2006, 12:57 PM
Through regional, national and internaitonal federations.
what do you mean by federation? Could that be like a council of workers from different regions or communes?
If you take Spain 1936-39 for example, what you saw happen were individual collectives in agriculture and other big industries form together into federations of collectives that held large Plenums, regionally to organise the ongoing production and distribution of goods.

The idea is that you do not need specific councils to organise things, you simply have different collectives in different areas that deal with different things independently and which eventually organise themselves into a federation i.e. the Federation of Bread Makers Collectives and the Federation of Diary production collectives; these federations then meet periodically, perhaps organised as spokesperson councils, into large Plenums to discuss issues concerning the federation at large.

Theoretically, this would happen "nationally" and internationally. These plenums would not be permenant institutions of control or organisation, but simply meetings mandated with specific purposes and accountable to the collectives at large. There would be no one who had the ability to make decisions and all spokespersons would act simply as a voice for the decisions made by collectives. They would relay those decisions into the plenum and an agenda would be formed and discussions had.

I would argue that the meetings decision making process should be based on consensus. It is best to come to a collective decision that everyone is happy with, but of course that would be up to the Federations to decide. [/b]
damn just reading that it makes so much sense and seems way more efficient then the system they have now.

another thing, a fellow comrade said something about the lack of military. If there would be a lack of one then what was the ussr doing with one, or does it go back to the 'they weren't really communist' point?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:38 AM
If there would be a lack of one then what was the ussr doing with one, or does it go back to the 'they weren't really communist' point?
The USSR was [theoretically] in a transitionary period from capitalism to communism. The concept of Leninism suggests that there should be a strong centralised military that is hierarchical in order to defend the revolution. But yes, the USSR was never communist so that has something to do with it.

In anarchist theoy or in a communist society, the military would be decentralised militias with hierarchy in as much as those who had experience in military matters would take responsability for certain things but would be accountable to the milita at large.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:38 AM
If there would be a lack of one then what was the ussr doing with one, or does it go back to the 'they weren't really communist' point?
The USSR was [theoretically] in a transitionary period from capitalism to communism. The concept of Leninism suggests that there should be a strong centralised military that is hierarchical in order to defend the revolution. But yes, the USSR was never communist so that has something to do with it.

In anarchist theoy or in a communist society, the military would be decentralised militias with hierarchy in as much as those who had experience in military matters would take responsability for certain things but would be accountable to the milita at large.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:38 AM
If there would be a lack of one then what was the ussr doing with one, or does it go back to the 'they weren't really communist' point?
The USSR was [theoretically] in a transitionary period from capitalism to communism. The concept of Leninism suggests that there should be a strong centralised military that is hierarchical in order to defend the revolution. But yes, the USSR was never communist so that has something to do with it.

In anarchist theoy or in a communist society, the military would be decentralised militias with hierarchy in as much as those who had experience in military matters would take responsability for certain things but would be accountable to the milita at large.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:48 PM
People I have met say that government will always be around because humans want naturally to be governed. Obviously, this is ridiculous. I see a stateless society as a logical, simple thing, where people own their resources and need not a government to do such.
That's partly because people simply cannot conceptualise in their minds any other alternative. Government seems perfectly logical because as far as they are concerned it works.

The idea that people "want naturally" to be governed is obviously not true; because you and I are both "persons" and we don't want to be governed. Marx said that the prevailing ideas of a society are by those who rule it.

It's in the ruling classes' interest for everyone to believe that humans naturally want and need to be governed. It therefore justifies their governance. It is, of course, all bullshit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:48 PM
People I have met say that government will always be around because humans want naturally to be governed. Obviously, this is ridiculous. I see a stateless society as a logical, simple thing, where people own their resources and need not a government to do such.
That's partly because people simply cannot conceptualise in their minds any other alternative. Government seems perfectly logical because as far as they are concerned it works.

The idea that people "want naturally" to be governed is obviously not true; because you and I are both "persons" and we don't want to be governed. Marx said that the prevailing ideas of a society are by those who rule it.

It's in the ruling classes' interest for everyone to believe that humans naturally want and need to be governed. It therefore justifies their governance. It is, of course, all bullshit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:48 PM
People I have met say that government will always be around because humans want naturally to be governed. Obviously, this is ridiculous. I see a stateless society as a logical, simple thing, where people own their resources and need not a government to do such.
That's partly because people simply cannot conceptualise in their minds any other alternative. Government seems perfectly logical because as far as they are concerned it works.

The idea that people "want naturally" to be governed is obviously not true; because you and I are both "persons" and we don't want to be governed. Marx said that the prevailing ideas of a society are by those who rule it.

It's in the ruling classes' interest for everyone to believe that humans naturally want and need to be governed. It therefore justifies their governance. It is, of course, all bullshit.