The Enemy

[OrderedAnarchy]

What is the bourgeosie? Is it a class of certain human beings, or a concept, embodied in the entity of national-capitalism, that is born of the conglomerated but individual mistakes of humanity's adherants over thousands of years? It seems to me that we as anarchists have forgotten that it is nationalism, which demands the presence of a robust and stable economy, that has given rise to capitalism, and not the other way around. The bourgeosie is merely a symptom of the human condition; it will go away only to return en force, as happened directly after the Red Revolution.

States depend on capitalism and, in turn, capitalism is nothing without the state. But this implies that they are the same; one cannot fall without the other following. Likewise, the bourgeosie is nothing without capitalism to allow for its exploitation and prosperity. I propose that a complete and utter destruction of the state is necessary for capitalism, and its dependent class of the bourgeosie, to be dismantled.

How can a society have no state without being conquered by a society with one? This cannot happen anywhere without happening everywhere. No, the final revolution will not be in our lifetimes. I cannot tell what the end of history will look like, only that there is an end but that it is not now. The revolution will carry us through peace and war, monarchies and democracies. But progressively the democracies will allow more autonomy and the monarchies will be less despotic until the state and its enablers are no more.

[OrderedAnarchy]

And now for my question. Was nationalism or capitalism first?

[Tatarin]

States depend on capitalism and, in turn, capitalism is nothing without the state.

You could say that capitalism needs some form of countries, but states doesn't matter to them. Less state, more profit.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Do you think capitalism would be around if the state of the West had not protected it against anarchism in the late 19th century? Are American building and oil companies not reaping a huge profit off of the warring in Iraq? The economy in America is booming thanks to the war; capitalists couldn't do it alone.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well, capitalist relations in production appeared far before national boundries became visible.

[Tatarin]

Do you think capitalism would be around if the state of the West had not protected it against anarchism in the late 19th century?

Sure, I agree that the state was necessary before, but that relevance is diminishing. Now we have privatization of "security". There are no more threats to capitalism - no real ones - today, that would require a state. I guess that when the revolution comes, we won't be fighting the police. We will be fighting corporate security forces.


The economy in America is booming thanks to the war; capitalists couldn't do it alone.

But capitalists did do it. US forces may still be answerable to the state - but if you take a closer look at the US military, you would find that just about everything is owned by private corporations. Deny the capitalists a war, and you will literary have a naked army. No weapons, no clothing, no tank, aircraft, sattelite maps and so on.

So yes, while everything isn't privatized, it isn't so yet.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:06 pm
I guess that when the revolution comes, we won't be fighting the police. We will be fighting corporate security forces.
Blackwater (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/) types will be a big concern. :ph34r:

[the-Manifesto]

And now for my question. Was nationalism or capitalism first?

Petty Capitalistic elements have of course existed through the bulk of modern human existence, and expanded rapidly in the 17th - 18th centuries when Feudal guilds, which monopolized the means of production, were ousted by the manufacturing middle class due to expanding world markets.
In this sole regard, Capitalism first grew under the Monarchs and Mercantile policies of Europe. Therefore, the growth of Capitalism and the withering of old Feudalist policies by the new industrial bourgeoisie created the modern state, and therefore the concept of Nationalism. This is apparent during the French Revolution, where the middle class developed the foundations of modern nationalism by overthrowing the Monarch and establishing the state... and subsequent revolutions (and for that matter, evolutions) during the Age of Metternich prompted by the middle class.

Historically speaking, Capitalism grew out of an expired Feudalistic world... the state as we know it did not just appear out of the world of absolutism and created Capitalism to sustain itself. These are my two cents on the question, although I can see fair arguments coming from the other side aswell.

[OrderedAnarchy]

I see that my mistake was to assume that the terms are always the same. For the purpose of this discussion, let capitalism be any form of alienating professional hierarchy -- one carves the bow and another fletches the arrow -- and statehood be any type of enate authority. These are the predecessors of modern capitalism and nationalism respectively, at least. Egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes had no hierarchy, at least until the bigman of the tribe was strong enough to become chief -- state. He then looked on his subjects and let some be bosses and, voila, capitalism!

[Janus]

Previous thread on this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65043)

Various characteristics of capitalism appeared before the formation of nation-states but capitalism itself didn't appear after due to its prerequisites which the development and stability of a nation helped to fulfill.


He then looked on his subjects and let some be bosses and, voila, capitalism!
:blink: That's a much too simplified version of history.


Do you think capitalism would be around if the state of the West had not protected it against anarchism in the late 19th century?
Capitalism actually faced a greater threat from the state during this period when the government began cutting down on trusts and some of the excesses of the system at the time.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Capitalism actually faced a greater threat from the state during this period when the government began cutting down on trusts and some of the excesses of the system at the time.
I am not talking about the activity-level or specific policies of the bourgeose state, but rather about the utter existence of a state. If the state were to be utterly destroyed, would capitalism still prosper? No nations, no borders, no cops, no army...there would be no state to protect capital, nor any to go to war on behalf of it. If this world were transformed into Nechayev's nihilistic nightmare world in which authority was naught but armed gangs of a revolutionary guard, could capitalism prosper? Not, I'd say, until some form of state were formed to enforce order.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:10 pm
It seems to me that we as anarchists have forgotten that it is nationalism, which demands the presence of a robust and stable economy, that has given rise to capitalism, and not the other way around.
Weird. Capitalism was produced by an idea and not the other way around?

In any case, historically very dubious. The economic features of capitalism were definitely developing in early modern Europe well before the emergence of modern nationalist consciousness, let alone the modern nation-state. Prior to that, states were defined by loyalty to a dynasty, to local feudal loyalties, to anything but the boundaries of an ethnicity, language, or nationality.

Generally, both the modern nation-state and modern nationalist consciousness/patriotism both were established through the major bourgeois revolutions. The bourgeoisie was already a large and wealthy class going in to those revolutions, though more through commerce than through manufacture.

You might as well say the working class was produced by the idea of communism and not the other way around.


For the purpose of this discussion, let capitalism be any form of alienating professional hierarchy -- one carves the bow and another fletches the arrow -- and statehood be any type of enate authority.

A strange use of terminology. But still wrong. Division of labor is as old as humanity, especially the division between the tasks of men and women. Even if, bizarrely, you're going to describe a tribal chief or "big man" as a "state", they became powerful only later.

Or if you use a more normal definition of class society and the state, still the state developed after economic inequality/classes were well established, not before. On this point, there are actual historical examples of state formation to look at, some of which Engels actually cited in Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State.

Modern archaeology and anthropology, also, find the emergence of inequality and private property took place before state formation. In farming and stock-raising villages thousands of years before the first cities and first kings.

Of course a state is necessary for the more developed forms of class society including modern capitalism. But then, modern capitalism is pretty clearly an advance over earlier forms of class society, so I'm not sure what your beef is unless you're trying to turn history backwards to an earlier and even more oppressive form of society.


How can a society have no state without being conquered by a society with one? This cannot happen anywhere without happening everywhere.

Oh. So if a state emerges again - anywhere - it will conquer the world? Sounds like you're admitting anarchy is inherently unstable and unsustainable.

Also, revolution is not going to occur everywhere simultaneously. Complex social processes are inherently messy. It'll be necessary for revolutionaries in some parts of the world to defend themselves, and work to spread the revolution.

[OrderedAnarchy]

The economic features of capitalism were definitely developing in early modern Europe well before the emergence of modern nationalist consciousness, let alone the modern nation-state. True, but before the "modern nation-state" were the kings, knights, barons, and other forms of enate authority. Let them also be the state.


Division of labor is as old as humanity, especially the division between the tasks of men and women. Enate authority is just as old. Let's say that the state of nature ruled up until 12,000 years ago. Up until then, the human species had been divided by nature isntso small, egalitarian, self-managed groups. This would have gone on forever, had not some come to consciousness.

The conscious ones then realized that they could easily exploit the others. But there was a problem, and the exploited, who were hungry, perhaps weak, and always angry, themselves became conscious. Now the dillema became that there could be no economic exploitation without inciting the rage of the exploited. But as the population soared, it became impossible for society to remain without an economy.

The state was thereby established because exploitation, which is impossible without one, was in demand. If there were no state, the people would rise and destroy capital.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:05 am
And now for my question. Was nationalism or capitalism first?
neither, it was feudalism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:07 pm
Enate authority is just as old. Let's say that the state of nature ruled up until 12,000 years ago. Up until then, the human species had been divided by nature isntso small, egalitarian, self-managed groups. This would have gone on forever, had not some come to consciousness.

The conscious ones then realized that they could easily exploit the others.
Thank you, John Zerzan. Of course, all scientific evidence points to different causes for the rise of class society.

Also on the origins of "consciousness" - whatever's meant by that, it makes no sense to say hunting-gathering tribes lacked it.


But there was a problem, and the exploited, who were hungry, perhaps weak, and always angry, themselves became conscious. Now the dillema became that there could be no economic exploitation without inciting the rage of the exploited. But as the population soared, it became impossible for society to remain without an economy.

The state was thereby established because exploitation, which is impossible without one, was in demand.

So right there you admit the state came second, after class society. Class society produced the state, not vice versa. And if necessary, class society will produce the state again.

Hell, in recent history we've seen that happen in chaotic situations like Somalia and Afghanistan.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Hell, in recent history we've seen that happen in chaotic situations like Somalia and Afghanistan. Or in Soviet Russia...

There was no class society before the State. The State was created so that class society could exist.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:05 am
And now for my question. Was nationalism or capitalism first?
The growt of capitalism is entwined with the growt of nationalism and the national state. Modern capitalism could not happen without the creation of the national state which in turn created national feelings; nationalism, patriotism etc.

During the early medieval age one did not identify oneself with a nation: Londoners viewed themselves as londoners and not as englishmen, parisians viewed themselves as parisians and not as french. There was no common measuring units, the church services in York were pretty much identical to the church services in Genua, the learned speach latin no matter if they lived in London, Paris, Hamburg, Amsterdam or Rome. People did admittedly speach english, french, german etc. (with large regional differences) but these languages did not become written languages until much later. For the guild merchant in Marseilles commodities from Paris that intruded on his monopoly were as "foreign" as if they had come from Frankfurt, while the wholesaler saw the entire world as his province. Any patriotism or nationalism did not exists, children at school did not read stories about some national hero or looked at paintings of his country's ships sinking an enemy country's ship, just because it did not exist any countries in the way it does today.

Nations is a construction brought from the needs of the growing middle class. Those with much money scream the loudest for the need of policemen in their hoods, those who use the roads for trade demands loudest that they should be freed from costums and bandits. Confusion and insecurity is bad for business and the only one person who could garantee order and safety was the king, the strong central power (it was the nobility, the feudal lords who pillaged, destroyed and created the insecurity). The middle class supported the king, lended him money so that he in time could raise a standing army and proclaim independence from his vasalls, the feudal lords. A standing, trained and diciplined army. The new weapons (such as canons) also demanded a new form of organisation that only a coordinated army could provide. In return the king saw to that the changes (for example national coinage, national measuring systems, national rules of trade, a national written language etc) necessarily for the feudal middle class to expand and in tame develop into the modern bourgeoisie, were brought to be.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Nations is a construction brought from the needs of the growing middle class. I think I will go with your definition. Society needed state before it could develop the division of labor. Ever since then, the growing economy has demanded a more and more robust state. One can not fall without the other following, for state demands class, and class is reliant on state. The start of class society came after, if only moments after, the state.

[co-op]

Society needed state before it could develop the division of labor.

Thats not true. The division of labour was properly established with the agricultural revolution which allowed fixed human settlement and the ability of some to release themselves from production and take on other roles. This pre-dated any notion of the 'state'.



Ever since then, the growing economy has demanded a more and more robust state.

The ruling class, whether it be in the epochs of slavery, feudalism or capitalism, require a state to protect them from other classes and force their interests abroad (imperialism).


The start of class society came after, if only moments after, the state.

Class society gave rise to states. A state is the modern way in which the ruling class organises its collective interests. That is why we cannot have anarchism by taking over the state. The state isn't intended for such a purpose. It must be got rid of straight away. It will never wither away.

[OrderedAnarchy]

The division of labour was properly established with the agricultural revolution which allowed fixed human settlement and the ability of some to release themselves from production and take on other roles. What if that original divisor of labor was the state? Maybe we have been missing the important piece all along. Maybe the reason that they (state and exploitation) are inseperable is that they are one in the same.

The first class in class society was that of the chieftains. They were physically the strongest and got the most cronies, so could tell some to fletch and others to hunt. They were the bosses, but also the state, as they crushed dissent and built up influence.

They established lower stratas of class when their economy grew, because it became to much for one tyrant to handle. Thus there began different industries under the yolk of petty managers, who were less priviledged than the chieftains but still more so than their underlings. These early bosses became what we now know as the bourgeosie. They in turn, but much later, built around themselves the middle class.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:42 am

Hell, in recent history we've seen that happen in chaotic situations like Somalia and Afghanistan. Or in Soviet Russia...

There was no class society before the State. The State was created so that class society could exist.
A minute ago you said the opposite:


But there was a problem, and the exploited, who were hungry, perhaps weak, and always angry, themselves became conscious. Now the dillema became that there could be no economic exploitation without inciting the rage of the exploited. But as the population soared, it became impossible for society to remain without an economy.

The state was thereby established because exploitation, which is impossible without one, was in demand.

You were partly right that time: there was exploitation, there was resistance to that exploitation, therefore a state became necessary and was established.