Is the state good?

[Revolutiondownunder]

Is, or can, the state be a positive force in human affairs?

Just having a discussion with a right wing libertarian teacher and he made me think.

Please explain why. I need to learn more in this area.

[Norseman]

No. Would you voluntarily give someone else the authority to kill you? To take your property, or your money? To control things that you need to survive? Without your knowledge, consent, or vote? The state is nothing less than a system to privilege people with authority that they neither deserve, nor need. Anything short of direct democracy is simply tyranny. We can argue about which kinds of tyranny are the worst, but the fact remains that any kind of state which is more than an organizational apparatus for the working class is a system to exploit and oppress the working class.

[shorelinetrance]

if it's justified, sure.

good luck with the justification part though :thumbup1:

[Incendiarism]

It's a little hard to say.

I think the idea of proletarian class rule is fine, but I still can't shake my more anarchist leanings on a more personal level, but it's impossible to live as an abstract character and outside of government.

In any case I voted yes.

[F9]

No it isnt.
State only offers the un-equality,the dictaroship and is against the freedom of people.

Fuserg9:star:

[Djehuti]

the authority to kill you? To take your property, or your money? To control things that you need to survive? Without your knowledge, consent, or vote?

Well... We will most likely have to execute exactly that kind of authority on the bourgeoisie, will we not?

[OI OI OI]

A good state is a workers state:)

[DancingLarry]

It's good for smashing.

[FreeFocus]

While it can be used for some temporary good, no matter how much it is reformed, no matter who is in power, it will always morph back into the same oppressive beast. That's the nature of hierarchy. Therefore, the state is not "good," and is really quite the opposite.

[Robespierre2.0]

A state is not *good*. It is necessary, though.

All states are organized bodies that have a monopoly on force and represent the interests of one class over another.

Whereas the bourgeois-democratic state is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, using dictatorial means to suppress the proletariat, Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, using dictatorial means to suppress elements that aim to bring back the rule of the bourgeoisie (and despite what people may think, the bourgeois do NOT take a revolution sitting down- they will constantly work to undermine it).

[phoenixashes]

It's good for smashing.

Totally agree. Though i still voted no.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It depends. What kind of organizations count as "states", in your view?

Before deciding whether the state is good or bad we must first determine what exactly we mean by "state". This is important because all currently existing states are bad, but, depending on your definition of "state", it may be possible for a state to be good in the future.

[FreeFocus]

A state is not *good*. It is necessary, though.

All states are organized bodies that have a monopoly on force and represent the interests of one class over another.

Whereas the bourgeois-democratic state is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, using dictatorial means to suppress the proletariat, Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, using dictatorial means to suppress elements that aim to bring back the rule of the bourgeoisie (and despite what people may think, the bourgeois do NOT take a revolution sitting down- they will constantly work to undermine it).

Well, too bad that hasn't worked out too well throughout history, every time that authoritarian method has been tried, it's quickly descended into suppression of the working class and the "vanguard" became the new bourgeoisie. Can it be because, gasp, having the ability to determine, arbitrarily, the course of the lives of millions of people, establishing what "rights" they have and when they will receive goods, among other violations of individual rights, will have a psychological effect on individuals and parties that will lead them to wield such power in a way that benefits only them?

As Bakunin said, "They maintain that only a dictatorship -- their dictatorship, of course -- can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up."

The state is certainly not good, nor is it necessary. People don't "rule" on behalf of others.

[chegitz guevara]

Every attempt to create a stateless society has been crushed by another state. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude at the very least, we need a state to protect ourselves from other states. Unless all states are abolished simultaneously, we need a state to protect the gains of the revolution from both the former ruling class as well as the states of foreign ruing classes. Any belief we can simply abolish the bourgeois state and proceed immediately to communism/anarchism is worse than utopianism. It is surrendering the revolution in advance.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, too bad that hasn't worked out too well throughout history, every time that authoritarian method has been tried, it's quickly descended into suppression of the working class and the "vanguard" became the new bourgeoisie.
It is ridiculous to imply that our only choices are anarchy or totalitarianism.

[F9]

Every attempt to create a stateless society has been crushed by another state. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude at the very least, we need a state to protect ourselves from other states. Unless all states are abolished simultaneously, we need a state to protect the gains of the revolution from both the former ruling class as well as the states of foreign ruing classes. Any belief we can simply abolish the bourgeois state and proceed immediately to communism/anarchism is worse than utopianism. It is surrendering the revolution in advance.

you are totally wrong.What are yo talking about?Surrendering the revolution at once?Do you know what you are talking about?Revolution will be the way to destroy the state and accomplish Anarchism,then we have the ability to defend ourselves from "intruders".Saying that the only way to defend ourselves and the revolution,is to have a state thats stupid.We dont need no one "leader" to say us to protect ourselves.
Its exactly the opposite that its true when you say that Anarchism directly is utopianism.Instead the other way followin a path from socialism and have the state active,is the way to condemn the revolution,and the way to destroy what people revolt for.When the state is "alive" there cant be no Communism/Anarchism.

Fuserg9:star:

[Organic Revolution]

The state is in no way good, its only function is to regulate interactions between people, thus creating a hierarchy.

I will eat my hat if anyone gives me a good reason that there should be a state.

[FreeFocus]

Every attempt to create a stateless society has been crushed by another state. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude at the very least, we need a state to protect ourselves from other states. Unless all states are abolished simultaneously, we need a state to protect the gains of the revolution from both the former ruling class as well as the states of foreign ruing classes. Any belief we can simply abolish the bourgeois state and proceed immediately to communism/anarchism is worse than utopianism. It is surrendering the revolution in advance.

States that crushed stateless societies were also assisted by those forces that proclaim themselves to be "Marxist" or the "vanguard." It happened in Spain, it happened in Russia. All states can't be abolished simultaneously, but that's where geopolitical strategy is relevant.

Also, surrendering the revolution in advance? Isn't the notion of a state simply "withering" away surrendering it in advance? Isn't that utopian? When have the powerful, those who have control over other people's lives, ever willingly relinquished power?


It is ridiculous to imply that our only choices are anarchy or totalitarianism.

All states are at least authoritarian, so from the get go you have a basic violation of individual rights. I don't think what I implied was ridiculous at all. Again, I pose the question, when have the powerful ever willingly relinquished power? Let's say a "vanguard" seizes the state and distributes goods and equalizes pay and the like. Will they simply allow the power that they ultimately hold as heads of and controllers of states, their prestige, the structure they use to exert influence and control over others, to wither away?

[Plagueround]

I've never much been a fan of the idea of dismantling a state to replace it with another one, trusting in the people we put in power to play nicer than the people before. The state undermines the people's ability to work things out without someone lording over them. That being said, if a "vanguard" party ever takes power, the people need to do everything in their power to make that party extremely accountable for every action.

[Norseman]

Well... We will most likely have to execute exactly that kind of authority on the bourgeoisie, will we not?

The only reason the bourgeoisie have anything at all is because of the working class. If everyone was a member of the bourgeoisie class, everyone would starve to death. The bourgeoisie class exists only because it's already exploiting the working class. All the working class needs to do is refuse to be exploited.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The state is a similar expression to private property. I answered no.

[spice756]

It depends. What kind of organizations count as "states", in your view?

Before deciding whether the state is good or bad we must first determine what exactly we mean by "state". This is important because all currently existing states are bad, but, depending on your definition of "state", it may be possible for a state to be good in the future.


All states are bad because power and money corrupt people.It is like that in every capitalism country.The USSR ,North Korea,China ,Vietnam claim to be for the people , but it was the power and money that corrupt people.

There are 3 types of states a fascism state for the upper class and the rich.A state for capitalism .The last the state for the working class and abolish of capitalism .

The 3 evils of world money,power and capitalism all 3 gone and the world will be better place.

[spice756]

I've never much been a fan of the idea of dismantling a state to replace it with another one, trusting in the people we put in power to play nicer than the people before. The state undermines the people's ability to work things out without someone lording over them. That being said, if a "vanguard" party ever takes power, the people need to do everything in their power to make that party extremely accountable for every action


That is what happen in every step to communism :crying:the state was not for the working class do to the power and money corrupt the state , or else they would have done no to state capitalism ,profit in command or authority . And would have not have lost intrest in communism.


But some people will ask if there is no state than how would people respond to war or natural disaster.Or enforce communism laws.

Or if a drought was to happen or storm.

My views are money ,power,competition and hierarchy corrupts the state.

[chimx]

The state is not an issue of morality. Good or bad are irrelevant. The state is simply necessary so long as class antagonisms exist in a society.

[FreeFocus]

The state is not an issue of morality. Good or bad are irrelevant. The state is simply necessary so long as class antagonisms exist in a society.

I disagree. It certainly is an issue of morality, on a significant level. Is it moral to limit one's access to things they need to survive? Decide whether they live or die? Remove, to a large degree, a person's ability to provide for themselves and live the way they choose? It comes down to an abrogation of one's will.

[Vendetta]

An organization designed to protect private property is not good.

[spice756]

I disagree. It certainly is an issue of morality, on a significant level. Is it moral to limit one's access to things they need to survive? Decide whether they live or die? Remove, to a large degree, a person's ability to provide for themselves and live the way they choose? It comes down to an abrogation of one's will.

The morality in the US state is very conservative and god and state :eek: that is why stem cell research ,abolition and gay/lesbian rights are ban.

If people are conservative or go to church all the time than that is why there are debate all the time on the news.

Like all the other Neoconservatives take on the 60's and 70's civil liberty of single moms, sex out of the wedlock ,common-law ,sex liberty rights and divorce so on.

Remove church and neoconservatives thought and there would be no debates going on in the news over this..

[FreeFocus]

The morality in the US state is very conservative and god and state :eek: that is why stem cell research ,abolition and gay/lesbian rights are ban.

If people are conservative or go to church all the time than that is why there are debate all the time on the news.

Like all the other Neoconservatives take on the 60's and 70's civil liberty of single moms, sex out of the wedlock ,common-law ,sex liberty rights and divorce so on.

Remove church and neoconservatives thought and there would be no debates going on in the news over this..

Well, conservatives are hardly moral, considering the fact they're apologetics for imperialism and murder. Their concern about things like abortion stem from their religious fanaticism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The state is not an issue of morality. Good or bad are irrelevant. The state is simply necessary so long as class antagonisms exist in a society.

Thank you, you took the words out of my mouth. Whilst we may be able to assess the actions of a particular state as being positive or negative from some particular point of view or debate the necessity of the state, making abstract, moralistic value judgements of the state as an institution (or rather series of institutions) is senseless.


Is it moral to limit one's access to things they need to survive? Decide whether they live or die? Remove, to a large degree, a person's ability to provide for themselves and live the way they choose?

What is "immoral" about any of the above? An even better question however is why morality even a matter we should concern ourselves with?

[Revolutiondownunder]

after reading the responses and doing some more reading of my own I voted no.

The state may be needed. But if it is then its a neccessary evil. Not a good.

[Djehuti]

The only reason the bourgeoisie have anything at all is because of the working class. If everyone was a member of the bourgeoisie class, everyone would starve to death. The bourgeoisie class exists only because it's already exploiting the working class. All the working class needs to do is refuse to be exploited.

I agree that this is the central dimension of the revolution, our refusal - not our organized violence. Still I believe that we sometimes will find ourselves in need of force and coercion as well.

[Black Sheep]

Voted yes, for every tool can be used against a target.State->bourgeoisie

[FreeFocus]

What is "immoral" about any of the above? An even better question however is why morality even a matter we should concern ourselves with?

So what's the point in leftist ideologies? What's the point in worker liberation, if not because they're oppressed? Desiring to change that situation means oppression is wrong, that oppression robs people of the ability to determine their own fates.

I'm a leftist because I desire a better world. Morality is at the heart of my ideology, as a humanist. If the left don't concern itself with morality, how does that make it much better than the bourgeoisie? We would be oppressing people without making money off of it and they oppress people in order to make money? What a substantive difference to those with the boot on their neck..:rolleyes:

[Organic Revolution]

The state is not an issue of morality. Good or bad are irrelevant. The state is simply necessary so long as class antagonisms exist in a society.

Bullshit. The states function is to perpetuate those class antagonisms, no to delineate away from them. How would a state exist if it wasn't for class? That argument operates in the same way as saying that without the state there would be no racism, sexism, white privilege, etc.

I assure you that when the state no longer exists, class antagonisms will drop away.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I assure you that when the state no longer exists, class antagonisms will drop away.
The last time I checked, there were plenty of class antagonisms in Somalia, despite the lack of a state there.

If the state vanished tomorrow, the result would not be communism, but civil war.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Desiring to change that situation means oppression is wrong

No it doesn't. "Desiring to change the situation" is a result of the fact that the "system" is directly opposed to my interests as a worker, not because of some moral principal of right and wrong.


I'm a leftist because I desire a better world.

I'm a socialist because I recognise that capitalist relations are exploitative and alienating and as such something as a worker I am compelled to abolish.

If your politics are motivated by some a prior ethical code of right and wrong and not on the basis of class struggle, you and I have nothing in common.


If the left don't concern itself with morality, how does that make it much better than the bourgeoisie?

I don't understand what you mean "better than the bourgeoisie". Communism is not some morally superior utopia which we can choose over "immoral" capitalism, it is the product of the class struggle.

Despite being directed at chimx, I'd like to make a reply:


Bullshit. The states function is to perpetuate those class antagonisms, no to delineate away from them.

Whilst the modern capitalist state may exist only to perpetuate existing class relations, the state will be a necessity post-revolution so long as we consider the state merely as an organ of class rule (as opposed to the perpetuation of this rule).


How would a state exist if it wasn't for class?

It wouldn't. The state exists so long as do classes.


I assure you that when the state no longer exists, class antagonisms will drop away.I could equally assure you that when classes no longer exist, the state will drop away.

[chegitz guevara]

States that crushed stateless societies were also assisted by those forces that proclaim themselves to be "Marxist" or the "vanguard." It happened in Spain, it happened in Russia.

That doesn't despute the point. All attempts to create stateless societies have been crushed.


All states can't be abolished simultaneously, but that's where geopolitical strategy is relevant.Thus, you cannot move directly to a stateless society. Assuming you have the capacity to defeat the local ruling class, you will still have to contend with foreign ruling classes. Without a state to defend you, you will be conquered. Imperialism isn't going to allow you to have your way.


Also, surrendering the revolution in advance? Isn't the notion of a state simply "withering" away surrendering it in advance?No. According to Marxist theory, the state, being the instrument of class rule, will only disappear once all classes have disappeared. That will not happen in only one region, but will be a global phenomenon, so that all states will whither away more or less simultaneously.


Isn't that utopian?Possibly, but it is considerably less so than imagining we can abolish the ruling class and create a stateless society immediately, will still surrounded by hostile powers.


When have the powerful, those who have control over other people's lives, ever willingly relinquished power?Without a class to serve, without property to protect, the state simply will not exist. There will still be police, because there will still be crime (unless you think that the revolution will make people stop committing murder, etc.). But with the whole world in the hands of working class democracies, there will no longer be a need for a military, and that will begin to disappear.


you are totally wrong.What are yo talking about?Surrendering the revolution at once?

I wrote "in advance." I explained what I meant by that. Without a state to protect the revolution from other states, the revolution is doomed. Every attempt to create a stateless society in a limited area has been crushed from without. You cannot survive surrounded by hostile enemies without a state. As you are giving up your main weapon to defend the revolution even before you've made it, you are surrendering in advance. If you're going to do that, you ought not to even attempt it.


Do you know what you are talking about?Revolution will be the way to destroy the state and accomplish Anarchism,then we have the ability to defend ourselves from "intruders".How? By what means? No state, no coordination. No state, no military. No military, you get occupied and you get a state imposed upon you.


Saying that the only way to defend ourselves and the revolution,is to have a state thats stupid.We dont need no one "leader" to say us to protect ourselves.Who said anything about one leader? But you need to have a way of coordinating defense, and rapidly. Do you honestly think you could defeat the United States without coordination, without a military? The only reason we took so long to defeat the Iraqis is because our government didn't play by the old rules, of slaughtering everyone. In the case of class war, which is what an attempt to establish an anarchy will entail, the gloves will come off. Enemy states will kill everyone until you surrender.

[Winter]

I voted yes because the main function of the state is to protect the property and liberties of certain classes. Currently, the state as we know it serves the interests of the bourgeois class. A basic tenant of Marxism-Leninism is to gather up the masses of proletariat to take the power of the state to use it to protect the liberties and property of the proletariat, the vast majority of the population.

Property in a proletariat led state will not be the same as we know it under a bourgeois democratic state. Instead of property being owned by single individuals it would be owned by the proletariat class as a whole. This is basic Marxism, so why am I explaining this? :p

[bobroberts]

No state, no coordination. No state, no military.

You can coordinate activities and operate a military without a state.

[Q]

A very one-sided poll. I voted yes but with the notation that I'm talking about a workers' state. A state where the working class is dominant over the bourgeoisie and has a different layout compared to that of a bourgeois state.

[chegitz guevara]

You can coordinate activities and operate a military without a state.

If you have a military, you have a state.

[bobroberts]

If you have a military, you have a state.

You can have armies for defense without a central state authority for them to submit to. If the state merely consisted of a defense network, it would be quite tolerable.

[Robespierre2.0]

It's been said over a thousand times before, but the bourgeoisie aren't good sports. When they lose control of a country, they use any means possible to weaken and destroy the new order, from internal sabotage to calling on their imperialist buddies to invade from the outside. These saboteurs have to be weeded out and eliminated.

Like it or not, decentralization is a recipe for disaster- Leninists are absolutely justified in crushing anarchist uprisings when they threaten the stability of the workers' state.

In order to feed, clothe, and protect the people, resources from every end of the country have to be collected and used efficiently according to a central economic plan. Time-consuming, expensive projects such as space programs, dams, military equipment and the like simply cannot be constructed without a central authority coordinating the whole thing; If we have to take a poll on every large project, everyone's going to do their own thing and we accomplish nothing. The Soviet Union existed for over half a century. The anarchist-controlled regions of Spain? Only as long as the nationalists let them live- a couple years.

If this 'disregard for individual rights' bothers you, obviously you've either missed the point of collectivism or aren't a collectivist to begin with. Revolution is about resolving class struggle, not idealist concepts of morality.

And while I'm bracing for the inevitable hissy fit, I'd like to say I have a raging hard-on for rigid authoritarianism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You can have armies for defense without a central state authority for them to submit to. If the state merely consisted of a defense network, it would be quite tolerable.
See, this is why I said that we need a good definition of "the state" before we can even begin to discuss if it's good or bad. So let me ask again: What kind of social organizations count as "states?"

Clearly, even an anarchist society needs some form of large-scale collective organization to coordinate not only defense, but also complicated production processes that require input from people and factories all over the world.

So, what is the dividing line between a state and a coordinating body for large-scale activities?

[revolution inaction]

So, what is the dividing line between a state and a coordinating body for large-scale activities?
A state is something that enables a minority to rule over the majority, scale is irrelevant.

[revolution inaction]

Like it or not, decentralization is a recipe for disaster- Leninists are absolutely justified in crushing anarchist uprisings when they threaten the stability of the workers' state.

In order to feed, clothe, and protect the people, resources from every end of the country have to be collected and used efficiently according to a central economic plan. Time-consuming, expensive projects such as space programs, dams, military equipment and the like simply cannot be constructed without a central authority coordinating the whole thing; If we have to take a poll on every large project, everyone's going to do their own thing and we accomplish nothing. The Soviet Union existed for over half a century. The anarchist-controlled regions of Spain? Only as long as the nationalists let them live- a couple years.

This is simply untrue centralisation is not necessary for any of this. Also no one wants every little decision to be voted on, but it is necessary for everyone effected by decisions to be involved in making them.
The anarchist in spain where betrayed by the stalinist, they killed the revolution before the nationalist won.
The length of time the ussr lasted is irrelevant it was not socialist, the Bolsheviks had destroyed the revolution by the early 1920s, and if you think that length of existence is important then why not copy the british empire or the romans?



If this 'disregard for individual rights' bothers you, obviously you've either missed the point of collectivism or aren't a collectivist to begin with. Revolution is about resolving class struggle, not idealist concepts of morality.

And while I'm bracing for the inevitable hissy fit, I'd like to say I have a raging hard-on for rigid authoritarianism.

If you aren't for workers having direct control over the means of production, and for freedom you are not a communist.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

A state is something that enables a minority to rule over the majority, scale is irrelevant.
Alright then. Suppose we kept the exact structure of present-day governments but replaced parliamentary bodies with the people as a whole (you can either imagine that I'm talking about a very small country, or that some technology is used to get everyone's votes from a distance).

Would the resulting institution still be a state? Notice that it is no longer an institution of minority rule, though it remains very similar to what we normally call a state.

[Robespierre2.0]

This is simply untrue centralisation is not necessary for any of this.

Show me an anarchist space program, or a battalion of tanks produced in anarchist-controlled factories, and I'll change my mind.



The length of time the ussr lasted is irrelevant it was not socialist, the Bolsheviks had destroyed the revolution by the early 1920s, and if you think that length of existence is important then why not copy the british empire or the romans?

The longetivity itself isn't the point. It's the fact that bringing about communism will require workers' power to survive a bitter, life-or-death class struggle. Now, neither the USSR nor the Anarchists survived. However, the USSR lasted longer and accomplished much more in terms of improving the day-to-day lives of the workers, and from that, I conclude that their theory, Marxism-Leninism, is a far more viable option.


If you aren't for workers having direct control over the means of production, and for freedom you are not a communist.


Explain exactly how workers should have 'direct' control over the means of production.

Also, don't give me that freedom crap. According to the bourgeoisie, you are living in a 'free country' because Nazis are guaranteed the right to march through town. The same people would tell you that public education and healthcare are hindrances on your 'freedom'.

[revolution inaction]

Alright then. Suppose we kept the exact structure of present-day governments but replaced parliamentary bodies with the people as a whole (you can either imagine that I'm talking about a very small country, or that some technology is used to get everyone's votes from a distance).

Would the resulting institution still be a state?

This doesn't give the people control over the running of society, and it is massively impractical.
The government is not the state, it is just a small part of the state, the majority of the state is outside the government.

The government passes instructions to other parts of the state which then decide how and if to carry them out, and these of organisations of the state decide which information they tell the government. Most of the time these organisations operate without having to be told what to do by the government.

If the people where put in the place of the government the the bureaucracy of the state would continue to operate in basically the same way as before and although reporting to different masteries, this bureaucracy would still be in control and would still rule over the people even if it had less freedom to do so than with representative democracy.

I think that like representative democracy such a system would not put the people in control of how society was run. The majority of decisions would still be made by organisations separate from the people and the members of these institutions would still be influenced by bribes and there own greed and the population would still be atomised, and unable to co-ordinate there actions.

So I think a state would still exist because I don't think the people as a whole could control things though these methods, and so they would still be ruled.


I feel there is something wrong with the way i have written this explanation, but i am to tired to try and do any more.

[spice756]

See, this is why I said that we need a good definition of "the state" before we can even begin to discuss if it's good or bad. So let me ask again: What kind of social organizations count as "states?"


Well in capitalism the state is just a government body who pass laws.The fire ,police ,ambulance are a separate body for the state.

Much can be said for the army and courts. I look at them has separate bodies for the state.

The major problem that corrupts the state/government is money ,power and hierarchy ,greed .I believe if this is removed the state can be good.

But if there was a major earthquake in city B and city C has to send food and suplies you will need a body that response to disasters.

Just like if there was a house fire or a forest fire.

All governments do is pass laws .If there is no laws under communism there is no governments .If there is not even a communist law there is no government.And no laws = no police or court.

But money ,power and hierarchy ,greed will have to me removed.Along with competition for a good society.

[bobroberts]

See, this is why I said that we need a good definition of "the state" before we can even begin to discuss if it's good or bad. So let me ask again: What kind of social organizations count as "states?"

Clearly, even an anarchist society needs some form of large-scale collective organization to coordinate not only defense, but also complicated production processes that require input from people and factories all over the world.

So, what is the dividing line between a state and a coordinating body for large-scale activities?

A good overview of the anarchist definition of the state can be found in Kropotkin's The State: It's Historic Role (http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/1897.state.html)

The state is a monopoly on violence and authority, which due to it's nature, is almost inevitably used by a minority against a majority. People tolerate the state only because they view it as necessary. Like those who think no one could be moral without the threat of eternal damnation, or that society would collapse without a king to rule, modern people believe that without a state our society would descend into chaos and violence. But throughout history, and within individual states, people will coordinate activities without interference from the state, and without need of forcing other groups of people to obey their will. People will self organize, and they find the state authority tolerable only so long as they are allowed to do this without the apparatus of the state stamping them down.

Modern states pretend to operate according to the principles of democracy and freedom. They pretend to step in with their authority only when one persons rights are violated by another, or to prevent another nation from imposing it's will upon them through warfare. They take it further and pretend that without a hierarchy of authority and power, of a tangled web of laws no one can fully understand, democracy and freedom would be impossible. The more I examine things, the more I am convinced that this is untrue. A central, hierarchical, authority is only ever used to perpetuate the privileges and power of a ruling elite, and whatever freedom and democracy is allowed by them will be repealed the instant those privileges and power are threatened.

The areas of your life which you find most rewarding are almost always the areas where the state, or any other authority, hasn't stepped in and forced it's will upon you. If you do things which are beneficial to society, it is almost never because the state forced you to. If you willingly follow the laws of a state, it is because you agree that those laws are just and practical, not because you don't understand the laws and only fear being imprisoned or fined for violating them. If people operate on a day to day basis by consensus alone, what good is the state, a central hierarchical authority?

[Os Cangaceiros]

No.

:thumbdown:

[spice756]

A good overview of the anarchist definition of the state can be found in Kropotkin's The State: It's Historic Role

The state is a monopoly on violence and authority, which due to it's nature, is almost inevitably used by a minority against a majority.


Well because the state like 50% Americans are Neoconservative and 50% center democratic.Other than small about of communist supporters:eek: most US people support big businesses , capitalists , power, hierarchy ,class struggle so on.




People tolerate the state only because they view it as necessary. Like those who think no one could be moral without the threat of eternal damnation, or that society would collapse without a king to rule, modern people believe that without a state our society would descend into chaos and violence.


It is laws not the state that tells people not to do crime like killing ,robbery ,staling,DUI ,B&E and on.And police that enforce it.


But throughout history, and within individual states, people will coordinate activities without interference from the state, and without need of forcing other groups of people to obey their will. People will self organize, and they find the state authority tolerable only so long as they are allowed to do this without the apparatus of the state stamping them down.

The state coordinate nothing look at FEMA,WTO,CDC or World Health Organization it is a other body.All the state does is pass laws.

[RedHal]

isn't this just an argument between, do you believe in a transitional socialist stage or directly towards a stateless, classless society. I don't think anyone here are for the beourgious state, but I believe a workers state is necessary during the transitional stage from socialism to communism.

[Bastable]

All versions of the state are bad. The bourgeoisie state is bad because it exploits the workers etc etc. My problem with the workers state stems from two tendencies: stagnation and centralization.

having a built in hierarchical structure can lead to the stagnation of the revolution. the revolution not being a single event (i.e a seizure of power overnight by the workers of some such), but a series of events that bit by bit break down the present order and eventually lead to communism. they can get too bogged down in the menial issues and too concerned about being invaded and overrun. An example is Stalin's socialism in one country.

My issue with centralization mainly lies with the oxymoron of democratic centralization, meaning they are either not truly democratic or not truly centralized. So, to have a centralized workers state is to lose a great deal of democracy which is important in any workers organization.

Many believe that to protect the revolution one needs to form such a state, but they are incorrect in believing this. The revolution is not a glass flower that needs to be coddled and protected. It will either happen or it won't, and it will not rest on the backs of a hierarchical state, but on the backs of the united workers.

[spice756]

All versions of the state are bad. The bourgeoisie state is bad because it exploits the workers etc etc. My problem with the workers state stems from two tendencies: stagnation and centralization.


What do you mean by tendencies and stagnation ? Are you talking about where all the goods and service are centralized? Like a plan economy?




having a built in hierarchical structure can lead to the stagnation of the revolution. the revolution not being a single event (i.e a seizure of power overnight by the workers of some such),


I think you meen by having communist party members over the working class.The communist party members rule.No that was not happen in the USSR but it did.



My issue with centralization mainly lies with the oxymoron of democratic centralization, meaning they are either not truly democratic or not truly centralized. So, to have a centralized workers state is to lose a great deal of democracy which is important in any workers organization.


The state does not rule but the working class over the elite, to the elite is gon.The only think that is centralized is goods and service .China and the USSR was not really democratic .

So do you define Institutionalised and political a state?

I explain my views what a state is but for some reason the debate is still going on.

[Vendetta]

If you have a military, you have a state.

How?

[ShyFox]

As a social democrat I'd say that it certainly can be. Think: social programs, security, stability, organization, balanced off by the ability of the people to check it's power if need be. Provided, of course, that the populace is well-informed and cares enough to ensure that they actually exercise the power they theoretically have over the gov't.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No, the state is not good. At best it's a necessary evil.

[nuisance]

It is laws not the state that tells people not to do crime.........All the state does is pass laws.
:mellow:
I certainly hope that people are ignoring Spice's contributions and not agreeing with them by not replying.

[spice756]

:mellow:

I certainly hope that people are ignoring Spice's contributions and not agreeing with them by not replying.

You looking at the state at a supernatural leval thus the reason I'm asking clarification.The state in a capitalism society pass laws .

I don't know know all you all are coming to the conclusion that centralization is authority ? Or are you referring to a group of people her have administrative power ?

Becuse the word centralization can be different things.How do you come to the conclusion that institutions /organizations are authority:( it is be on be.On less the institutions /organizations hold power over the people.

Has for a hierarchical structure define it.On less the state,institutions /organizations hold power over the people it cannot be authority .

I'm trying to understand this in a logical sense.



No, the state is not good. At best it's a necessary evil.

Again I'm trying to look at it what causes the evile than the evile it self..



So, to have a centralized workers state is to lose a great deal of democracy which is important in any workers organization


I thought we came to a conclusion under communism there is liberty rights?You can do what ever to you self , has long has you do not cause harm to others.

Other thing that needs clarification is how will liberty rights and democracy be implemented ?

[nuisance]

You looking at the state at a supernatural leval thus the reason I'm asking clarification.
Is the State centralised? Is it hierarchical with political authority? Does it have a professional monopoly on violence? Evidently this is not a supernatural observation.

The state in a capitalism society pass laws .
The State would be nothing without being able to enforce these laws, thus you can see that police and army are all part of States' apparatus to maintain the status quo.


I don't know know all you all are coming to the conclusion that centralization is authority ? Or are you referring to a group of people her have administrative power ?
The State has centralised power, power from a central place.


Becuse the word centralization can be different things.How do you come to the conclusion that institutions /organizations are authority:( it is be on be.On less the institutions /organizations hold power over the people.
What?


Has for a hierarchical structure define it.On less the state,institutions /organizations hold power over the people it cannot be authority .
Also, come again?

[spice756]

Tell me how centralization = authority ?On less you are talking about a group of people her have administrative power ?




Does it have a professional monopoly on violence?



Sorry I don't understand you here.


The State would be nothing without being able to enforce these laws, thus you can see that police and army are all part of States' apparatus to maintain the status quo.

Mark this down.I can agree on this point.



The State has centralised power, power from a central place.


Again we need clarification on the word centralised and power and who has power over who and what type of power.


We need to stop putting words in here and understand each word we use.We need to understand the word centralised of what ? , hierarchical of what or who , authority what type of authority ,monopoly what type of monopoly , violence agin more clarification.

---
A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population. These may be nation states, sub-national states or multinational states.

government: a country's government and those government-controlled institutions that are responsible for its internal administration and its relationships with other countries
-----

[nuisance]

Tell me how centralization = authority ?On less you are talking about a group of people her have administrative power
The centralisation entails having a minority with power.


Sorry I don't understand you here.
The State can use violence without it being illegal, while others cannot. That is a monopoly of violence, with they try and legitimate by branding it with fancy names, like 'law enforcement'.


Again we need clarification on the word centralised and power and who has power over who and what type of power.
We need to stop putting words in here and understand each word we use.We need to understand the word centralised of what ? , hierarchical of what or who , authority what type of authority ,monopoly what type of monopoly , violence agin more clarification.
No, you just don't appear to know what these words mean. It really is pretty self-explanatory.



A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population. These may be nation states, sub-national states or multinational states.

government: a country's government and those government-controlled institutions that are responsible for its internal administration and its relationships with other countries

Yes? What are these quotes relevant to?

[spice756]

The centralisation entails having a minority with power.



How can it?


I centralisation of all the goods
I centralisation of all the money
I centralisation of all troops
I centralisation of people.

It has different meanings



The State can use violence without it being illegal, while others cannot. That is a monopoly of violence, with they try and legitimate by branding it with fancy names, like 'law enforcement'.

I agree here.And yes law enforcement do have power and special treatment.They can have a gun and shoot and you cannot.




No, you just don't appear to know what these words mean. It really is pretty self-explanatory.



hierarchical of army rank
hierarchical command structure
hierarchical government ( on less there is no hierarchical in government )
hierarchical in rules

authority of ruler
authority of working class
authority of government
authority of community
authority of worker council
authority of all
authority of some.
authority of same level
authority privilege class
authority lower class
authority of middle class
authority of upper class

monopoly of food
monopoly of goods
monopoly of power ( elite rule )
monopoly of resources


Again the words have different meaning.

[nuisance]

I centralisation of all the goods
I centralisation of all the money
I centralisation of all troops
I centralisation of people.

It has different meanings
No, the word centralisation still means the same thing.


hierarchical of army rank
hierarchical command structure
hierarchical government ( on less there is no hierarchical in government )
hierarchical in rules

authority of ruler
authority of working class
authority of government
authority of community
authority of worker council
authority of all
authority of some.
authority of same level
authority privilege class
authority lower class
authority of middle class
authority of upper class

monopoly of food
monopoly of goods
monopoly of power ( elite rule )
monopoly of resources


Again the words have different meaning.
Those words still have the same meaning, whatever use them in.
I suggest you find out what those words mean, then read them in context.

[spice756]

I know what the words mean but you not elaborating on the context and the post is lacking info.



I still do not know how you can have a centralisation goverment or a monopoly goverment .


And there is different types of authority .

[nuisance]

I know what the words mean but you not elaborating on the context and the post is lacking info.
Hint, we are talking about politics.

I still do not know how you can have a centralisation goverment or a monopoly goverment .
Monopoly government?
Centralised government is when political power is concentrated in one place! Thus it is central!

And there is different types of authority .
Political authority.

[spice756]

Centralised government is when political power is concentrated in one place! Thus it is central!



And the point ?



Political authority.


authority of ruler
authority of working class
authority of government
authority of community
authority of worker council
authority of all
authority of some.
authority of same level
authority privilege class
authority lower class
authority of middle class
authority of upper class


So state authority of lower class ,all ,worker council ,community ,working class are all bad.

Than explain why .

It not like we are talking about authority of ruler ,authority of upper class.

[nuisance]

And the point ?



authority of ruler
authority of working class
authority of government
authority of community
authority of worker council
authority of all
authority of some.
authority of same level
authority privilege class
authority lower class
authority of middle class
authority of upper class


So state authority of lower class ,all ,worker council ,community ,working class are all bad.

Than explain why .

It not like we are talking about authority of ruler ,authority of upper class.



You literally make no sense. Is english your first language?
Do you actually know what the State is?

[spice756]

The posts here claims that authority of the lower class ,all the people ,worker council ,community ,working class are all bad .I'm telling people here to explain why .Than I will give you my thought or view on it .

Do than I'm done with is thread.Stop grabbing labels authority, centralisation , monopoly ,hierarchical and explain you self better.

Becuse if you go talk to anyone on the street and was saying the state is bad do to centralisation , monopoly ,hierarchical and authority people will just laugh and walk away.

[nuisance]

Do than I'm done with is thread.Stop grabbing labels authority, centralisation , monopoly ,hierarchical and explain you self better.

Becuse if you go talk to anyone on the street and was saying the state is bad do to centralisation , monopoly ,hierarchical and authority people will just laugh and walk away.


Erm, I was stating what a State is, opposed to you claiming that the State merely makes laws, which is not true.
:laugh:

[spice756]

Ya but the people here are talking about the state is bad do to authority, centralisation , monopoly ,hierarchical.

Sorry I don't understand. May be the communist manifesto talks about it :( but this is the first time for me to hear the state is authority, centralisation , monopoly and hierarchical .

The average person on the street will say the state pass laws that what the state does.

I also believe there is different types of authority and for different class of people.

[nuisance]

Ya but the people here are talking about the state is bad do to authority, centralisation , monopoly ,hierarchical.

Sorry I don't understand. May be the communist manifesto talks about it :( but this is the first time for me to hear the state is authority, centralisation , monopoly and hierarchical .

The average person on the street will say the state pass laws that what the state does.

I also believe there is different types of authority and for different class of people.
The State isn't merely the government.
I don't know about you, but I reckon most people would beable to understand these definitions. Authority mean power over others, therefore that creates a hierarchical structure, with power having power over others. Monopoly means that they exclusively own the rights something and centralisation means that it is central thus gives power out from that place. Really, what's not to understand?

[spice756]

Authority mean power over others, therefore that creates a hierarchical structure


So if the working class had authority or community had authority that is bad?




centralisation means that it is central thus gives power out from that place


That is the part I do not understand.

[nuisance]

So if the working class had authority or community had authority that is bad?
As an anarchist, I'd yes. The States structure is designed for minority rule, therefore workers state will, and have, inevitably deformed into buearucracy ridden dictatorships. Also I reject the idea that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the State the state communists aim to install, will eventually 'wither away', as the State by nature and design perpetuates itself.

That is the part I do not understand.
Opposed to communities deciding things between themselves locally, a small central body, of the nation for example, obtaining political authority dictates what should be done to the rest of society.

[spice756]

As an anarchist, I'd yes. The States structure is designed for minority rule, therefore workers state will, and have, inevitably deformed into buearucracy ridden dictatorships. Also I reject the idea that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the State the state communists aim to install, will eventually 'wither away', as the State by nature and design perpetuates itself.


In capitalism but if there is no capitalists why would minority rule ? The people vote .The laws are base on the people not a minority group.



Opposed to communities deciding things between themselves locally, a small central body, of the nation for example, obtaining political authority dictates what should be done to the rest of society.


So you are opposed to communities that have authority or state?

So if there is 200 communities in Canada that is bad or just one big working class state in Canada that is also bad?

So working class that has authority or community that had authority are both very bad?