The problem with anti-anti-statism

[MarxSchmarx]

OK, this is a long post but I think I'm not the only non-anarchist who is bothered by some of the criticism of anti-statism.

Why are so many non-anarchists quick to criticize anti-statism?

Usually, these criticisms take the form of "well, how will YOU deal with the bourgeois reaction?" Which is fair enough, although it is not obvious to me why a socialist state should be any more effective than, say, a massive general strike in stopping the bourgeois reaction in its tracks.

However, sometimes these critics have an undertone of criticism consistent with bourgeois critiques of anarchism. When they make points such as (1) under socialism there will still be class conflicts and hence crimes, (2) that there will always be scumbags, (3) that society isn't ready for a stateless polity, they implicitly buy into the bourgeois critique of anarchism. This might be OK, except for the fact that non-anarchist leftists also profess a desire for an eventually stateless society.

Indeed, the problem with this critique is that presumably there is a leftist consensus that a stateless/classless society is the final goal.

Any argument in favor of statism during the socialist transition has to essentially assume abolishing the capitalist consciousness will take some time. And to a large extent this appears to be the justification for Leninist dictatorships.

But there are empirical examples that contradict this gradualist view of human nature. For instance, a generation or two ago, if you had said that the world's fiercest warriors would be Eastern European Jews and their children, and that some of the most pacifist cultures on earth would be Germans and Japanese, you would have been laughed at. Similarly, if you look at European immigrants to the Americas or Australia, within a generation many have effectively abandoned their old culture. Moreover, despite centuries of feudal rule, both the urban Soviets and catalonia were able to develop a non-capitalist economy within the span of a few years without a centralized state.

Finally, and perhaps most problematically, every Stalinist/Leninst regime has perpetuated class rule, and, arguably, facilitated the development of the national bourgeoisie, as in China and Russia.

Indeed, worker's consciousness does not need a worker's state to exist. Although it is certainly true that the state can facilitate the liberation of the working class, the working class must liberate itself. The state is one, but certainly not the only, tool that workers have at their disposal to this end.

Therefore, the gradualist argument, either based on a view that societies take time to adopt new values, or that the workers need to be "pushed along" towards self-liberation, doesn't seem very persuasive.

As far as the argument that "there will always be scumbags" against which society needs protection in the form of the state, this directly contradicts the professed consensus about a stateless society so cannot be seriously entertained.

Perhaps the most promising argument is that class conflict will exist under socialism, and therefore the state is necessary to keep these conflicts in check or guide them towards the working class. The problem with this analysis is that, if you take as a premise that capitalism will eventually end, a whole lot of good the very powerful, very competent modern bourgeois state did to save capitalism. Why believe the apparatus will be any more effective at saving socialism? Only the most doctrinaire, deterministic and absurd reading of Marx will argue that one need not worry about the matter, because the forces of economic transition will take care of themselves.

I consider myself a Marxian socialist and not an anarchist, but the case against anti-statism leaves much to be desired. Rebuttals against anti-statism, as I've hoped to show, are not persuasive. Part of this is because Marxists have not given serious thought to what precisely "the whithering away of the state" entails. This has all too often been deferred to the "post withering away" stage.

A related problem is that there is a deafening silence from the Marxist quarters about how a stateless society could be organized. This has allowed the anarchists to fill in the gap, and consequently define the terms of the debate. There is no monolithic anarchist consensus on this point either, and many anarchists do frame the criticism of the state in terms of class.

Another way to think about this is as follows. By conflating the means with the ends, the anarchist movement has failed to articulate precisely how the state will be dismantled. Thus, anarchists have a vision but their way of getting there is far from obvious. By contrast, non-anarchist leftists have a semi-coherent plan (win elections, build a global government, pass laws, etc...), they have no serious vision for a stateless society.

It is therefore time that the Marxists (or other non-anarchist leftists) take their own professed desire for a stateless society seriously and work to articulate this vision the way the anarchists have.

[ernie]

OK, this is a long post but I think I'm not the only non-anarchist who is bothered by some of the criticism of anti-statism.

Why are so many non-anarchists quick to criticize anti-statism?

Usually, these criticisms take the form of "well, how will YOU deal with the bourgeois reaction?" Which is fair enough, although it is not obvious to me why a socialist state should be any more effective than, say, a massive general strike in stopping the bourgeois reaction in its tracks.

However, sometimes these critics have an undertone of criticism consistent with bourgeois critiques of anarchism. When they make points such as (1) under socialism there will still be class conflicts and hence crimes, (2) that there will always be scumbags, (3) that society isn't ready for a stateless polity, they implicitly buy into the bourgeois critique of anarchism. This might be OK, except for the fact that non-anarchist leftists also profess a desire for an eventually stateless society.

Indeed, the problem with this critique is that presumably there is a leftist consensus that a stateless/classless society is the final goal.

Any argument in favor of statism during the socialist transition has to essentially assume abolishing the capitalist consciousness will take some time. And to a large extent this appears to be the justification for Leninist dictatorships.

But there are empirical examples that contradict this gradualist view of human nature. For instance, a generation or two ago, if you had said that the world's fiercest warriors would be Eastern European Jews and their children, and that some of the most pacifist cultures on earth would be Germans and Japanese, you would have been laughed at. Similarly, if you look at European immigrants to the Americas or Australia, within a generation many have effectively abandoned their old culture. Moreover, despite centuries of feudal rule, both the urban Soviets and catalonia were able to develop a non-capitalist economy within the span of a few years without a centralized state.

Finally, and perhaps most problematically, every Stalinist/Leninst regime has perpetuated class rule, and, arguably, facilitated the development of the national bourgeoisie, as in China and Russia.

Indeed, worker's consciousness does not need a worker's state to exist. Although it is certainly true that the state can facilitate the liberation of the working class, the working class must liberate itself. The state is one, but certainly not the only, tool that workers have at their disposal to this end.

Therefore, the gradualist argument, either based on a view that societies take time to adopt new values, or that the workers need to be "pushed along" towards self-liberation, doesn't seem very persuasive.

As far as the argument that "there will always be scumbags" against which society needs protection in the form of the state, this directly contradicts the professed consensus about a stateless society so cannot be seriously entertained.

Perhaps the most promising argument is that class conflict will exist under socialism, and therefore the state is necessary to keep these conflicts in check or guide them towards the working class. The problem with this analysis is that, if you take as a premise that capitalism will eventually end, a whole lot of good the very powerful, very competent modern bourgeois state did to save capitalism. Why believe the apparatus will be any more effective at saving socialism? Only the most doctrinaire, deterministic and absurd reading of Marx will argue that one need not worry about the matter, because the forces of economic transition will take care of themselves.

I consider myself a Marxian socialist and not an anarchist, but the case against anti-statism leaves much to be desired. Rebuttals against anti-statism, as I've hoped to show, are not persuasive. Part of this is because Marxists have not given serious thought to what precisely "the whithering away of the state" entails. This has all too often been deferred to the "post withering away" stage.

A related problem is that there is a deafening silence from the Marxist quarters about how a stateless society could be organized. This has allowed the anarchists to fill in the gap, and consequently define the terms of the debate. There is no monolithic anarchist consensus on this point either, and many anarchists do frame the criticism of the state in terms of class.

Another way to think about this is as follows. By conflating the means with the ends, the anarchist movement has failed to articulate precisely how the state will be dismantled. Thus, anarchists have a vision but their way of getting there is far from obvious. By contrast, non-anarchist leftists have a semi-coherent plan (win elections, build a global government, pass laws, etc...), they have no serious vision for a stateless society.

It is therefore time that the Marxists (or other non-anarchist leftists) take their own professed desire for a stateless society seriously and work to articulate this vision the way the anarchists have.
Good post. I think what you may be getting at is something I've believed for a long time: the revolutionary organizations needed to overthrow capitalism must be a convergence of the Marxist and anarchist traditions. I also think it's already happening; Marxists are becoming more anti-authoritarian and anarchists are adhering more to Marxist theories, in particular historical materialism. Furthermore, the Leninist resistance to this trend is quickly becoming irrelevant.

I do agree with you in that we need more discussion regarding the details of how to achieve a stateless society immediately following (or as close to it as possible) a proletarian revolution. I think a message board such as this one is an ideal place for such discussions to take place, but I must admit I have seen very little of this since I joined this board. Perhaps your post will spark some...:)

[manic expression]

Why are so many non-anarchists quick to criticize anti-statism?Because it's impractical, counterproductive and basically in opposition to revolution. Revolution consists entirely of one class forcefully overthrowing and suppressing the former ruling class. You need a state, the means of suppressing other classes, to do this. Let me try to deal with some of your arguments.

Saying that society "isn't ready" for classless society isn't bourgeois at all. It's simply stating the scientific fact that classes don't disappear when you click your heels three times. Again, if you define what a revolution actually is, you quickly come to the conclusion that the so-called "libertarian" understanding of revolution contradicts that.

Communists do not think that "capitalist consciousness" needs to disappear, that's secondary or even tertiary to the main point. The main point is that so long as there are potent enemies of the revolution, the revolution must defend itself with violence and force, which is what a state is.

I'm not going to address the point about Jews and Germans because I think it's a strawman that depends on bigotry. However, your point about Catalunya is valid, yet misled. The anarchist communes there were not lasting models. Their militias were woefully ineffective and they fell at the earliest sign of resistance (namely, the May Days). The Paris Commune's greatest mistake was in not smashing the capitalist state and enforcing its control when it had the chance; why are anarchists trying to emulate this central error?

On your comparison of a socialist state to the presently-dominant bourgeois ones ("a whole lot of good capitalist states did"), you are forgetting their defining difference. Capitalism falls in spite of the state, not because of it. The internal contradictions of capitalism, the reliance on and opposition to the working class, is its problem. Your argument doesn't go anywhere because you, like the anti-statists, are focusing on the effect and not the cause: class conflict.

You raise some interesting points, but the basic facts remain the same. Anti-statism is not revolutionary because revolutions need a state to win and, most importantly, defend their victories. Why should we be afraid of organizing the working class against its enemies? It is, as I said, counterproductive at best.

[Revy]

The main problem I have with anti-statism is because it focuses so much on the State, rather than capitalism. If we smash the state, how are we to assume that capitalism withers away? This is the belief of many anarchists. That somehow, smashing the state is the means to destroy capitalism.

I have postulated the idea that capitalism does not need a state to survive. Rather, it could well operate on its own. The centralized corporation replaces the state, with private militaries, private police, etc. This is why smashing capitalism must be the central focus...

[ZeroNowhere]

It depends completely on what one means by the 'state'. Marx meant the enforcement of one class' interests over another, thus as long as the bourgeoisie still existed (that is, the revolution was not yet successful internationally), there would still be bourgeois class interests, and thus 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to signify that a revolution (whether violence is involved has nothing to do with it) is the enforcement of proletarian class interests, and a process rather than simply an instantaneous event. This was Engels' point (presumably) in his comment that revolution was an inherently authoritarian act, though his application of this as an argument was merely being cheeky.


I have postulated the idea that capitalism does not need a state to survive. Rather, it could well operate on its own.
Certainly not. However, capitalism would simply create a new state, perhaps in another form, such as the privatized states that 'anarcho'-capitalists fight for. So basically, anti-statism is synonymous with anti-capitalism, as without some means to enforce bourgeois class rule, capitalism would collapse.

[apathy maybe]

First, great first post.

Lots of people don't seem to understand that anarchists use the term "state" in a different manner to Marxists. Thus anarchists reject "states", but might not reject what some autonomist type Marxists would call a state.

Also, without a state, there is nothing to defend capitalism. Capitalism relies upon a state to exist, police, army, legal system are all needed for capitalism. And of course, most anarchists around here at least, would say that you destroy both at the same time. So to say that anarchists don't focus on capitalism is just wrong.

Personally I see the people with guns as the bigger issue, but that doesn't mean that I don't also want to destroy capitalism as well as the state.

Otherwise, continue with your ignorant rantings folks.

[apathy maybe]

I have a question for you as an anarchist: Does your opposition to the State mean you would oppose a proletarian State?

If you answer yes you're an agent of imperialism, that is the bottom line.

Well, how about you read my fucking post again?

Anarchists use a different definition of the word "state" to Marxists.

So, by my definition of the word "state", there can be no such thing as a "proletarian state". So fuck off with your bullshit imperialism agent shit.

I oppose all states, from the little to the big. Anyway, other idiots have said things similar to what you just wrote, and I've also responded to them. How can an anarchist be an "agent of imperialism", when said anarchist oppose imperialism and everything to do with it?

That sounds like crazy talk to me.

[MarxSchmarx]

Thanks for the replies, everyone:)

There is a strong temptation to return to Marx's original conception of the state. There's an ongoing thread on this here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-and-state-t93935/index.html?p=1280220

For better or worse, the issue isn't the desirability of the "forceful imposition of (working) class rule". Nor is the crucial distinction here the use or non-use of violence. Clearly a determined, violent state can be defeated both by largely non-violent means (British in India) or by largely violent means (British in America).

So, let me try to focus the issue. Indeed, I question whether the destruction of capitalism requires taking over the functions of all of the bureaucracies, armies, the judiciary, etc... that comprise the capitalist state. None will say these are sufficient conditions - but are they even necessary? In essense, this strikes me as the central disagreement between "statists" and "anti-statists".

It is simply that I don't see why Marxists have to be committed to this point. There are other tactics (like massive, sustained military desertion, sabotage, etc...) that don't involve taking state power, and which are hypothetically available, and which don't require anything most of us recognize as "the state" to do.

In the interest of concision, and to facilitate the conversation towards a uniquely historical-materialist critique of statism (which anarchists may or may not share), I will focus the remainder of this post to the issue Manic Expression brought up: that capitalism's own inherent contradictions, and not its reliance on the state, will ultimately destroy it.


Admittedly capitalism has its own material contradictions. Nevertheless, capitalism uses the state to mitigate such conflicts, and has proven quite versatile with it so far. It has even managed to co-opt nominally socialist states like China. Perhaps these conflicts will reach such a crescendo that the state will no longer be able to keep up. However, if this is to be, it would, if anything, strike me as being in favor of anti-statism, rather than in opposition to it. After all, what need have we for a socialist state apparatus if capitalism will "self-destruct" anyway?

This is not to suggest a fatalistic attitude. Rather, I am in agreement that the state is a by-product of class rule designed to benefit the capitalists.

Indeed, one could go further and advance a Marxist critique of statism: that there is something inherently troubling focusing on this by-product of capitalist rule as our best and perhaps only tool for liberation. Unlike, say, the proletariat unchained from farming, there is no inherently liberating (much less reediming) quality of this particular by-product of capitalism. Once one takes the possibility that there are alternatives to the state, we have let the anarchists focus on precisely what those alternatives should be, rather than developing our own, "authentic" answers.

[davidasearles]

Marx Schmarx:

Rather, I am in agreement that the state is a by-product of class rule designed to benefit the capitalists.

DAS:

Agreed. Essentially Marx said the same thing. But whatever its origin, the state is a social tool (which we oftentimes dwell upon it's coersive capabilites) But when the workers take over collective control of the indutrial means of productiona and distribution it would seem that reality would dictate that coersive powers associated with the state be availabe to subdue and punish wrong doers and that those powers also be available to enforce legislated political norms such as anti-polution requirments and established land/resourse use regulations .

Only once that we honestly admit that there will be a state in the next society can we plan on having the state responsive to the democratic will of the people Lenin denied that there would be a state, and we know how that turned out.

[apathy maybe]

David: Do you think that it is ever possible to get to a society without a "state" (however you define it) and without classes?

Do you recognise that not all anarchists agree with the definition of the state as a tool of the ruling class?

---

Most anarchists, around here at least, recognise it isn't possible to go overnight from capitalism to a future perfect society. We argue, however, that a centralised body (in my words, but maybe not yours, a "state"), is not only unnecessary to "defend the revolution", but antithetical. We can point to history for evidence that when a centralised state has been established, power has been removed from the workers, and the "revolution" fails.

I think that the slogan "all power to the soviets", is good, so long as it means all power to the workers. If you want to call a decentralised "federation" of soviets a "state", go ahead, feel free. And if that's what you mean, then for the "transition", we are probably thinking similar things (and just arguing semantics).

But it must be recognised that anarchists don't think that's a "state". So to say we reject the "proletarian state" is ingenious, because we don't think such a thing is possible (by our definition of the state). But we still support the notion of soviets.


So yeah, fuck having a central organ (parliament) (elected or not) which decides things for a large geographical area, and has it's decisions enforced by a police system and a judiciary. If that's what you want, then of course I'm going to fight against it. In all of history this sort of system has failed to bring about a future perfect society (anarchism, communism, whatever).

[davidasearles]

AM to das:

David: Do you think that it is ever possible to get to a society without a "state" (however you define it) and without classes?

das answers:

I don't dwell much on classes and class rule - instead I look at what could be accomplished by collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution by the workers. I look at the relationship of the workers to the means of production. It is not what it ought to be, and I look at what could be done to alter that relationship. To me it simplifies a lot of things.

That said, I do believe that the workers having collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution would stop extraction of surplus value from the workers. It would establish the workers as the prime influence through out society including in the body politic. We would still have a state though- and hopefully the workers harmonious operations of the means of production will bring about material conditions where the need for a state will grow less and less. But I think that for as long as I can reasonable project there will be a need for a state. A worker influenced state, but a state none the less.

[apathy maybe]

Well thank you for the answer. Just to let you know, if your state is anything like what we see today as states, then you will always have anarchists fighting against it.

Fuck the state.

[davidasearles]

As well they should. What's the sense of having anarchists without them having something to fight against?

[The Feral Underclass]

You need a state, the means of suppressing other classes, to do this. Let me try to deal with some of your arguments.

[...]

revolutions need a state to win and, most importantly, defend their victories.

Can you define for me what a state is?


Why should we be afraid of organizing the working class against its enemies?

Ignoring the obvious autocratic/paternalistic sentiments of this question, it implies that organising without a state (although I don't know what your definition of a state is) means that the working class will not be organised. Once you have provided me with a definition of the state I would like you to either correct what you said or qualify it.

[davidasearles]

T.A.T. asks M.E. for a definition of the state.

It's a good question. In the US we have an arrangement political government through the 50 states, local government charted by those states, and the federal republic which derives it's authority through a constitution of the people. To me collectively those governments in and of themselves and the agencies that they create are the state.

Now how far away from that set up you would have to get to reach a point where it would no longer be "the state", I haven't the slightest clue. To me the state in and of itself is not the problem. The problem to me is the workers have not yet come to accept the idea that workers ought to be in collective control of the industrial means of production AND that we have a left wing that for a multitude of ideological reasons cannot bring itself to deliver a clear message to the workers that they need to put themselves into collective control of the means of production.

[Le People]

I see the "state" as the oppressive tool used by the bourgise to keep the Working class in line. The state is organized religion, police, military, mass media, government, the sick fucks at the DMV etc. All these organizations, whether if they are considered a part of the Marxist Lenninst definition of a state, are institutions that hold the working class in wage slavery. Some of these institiutions can be done away with just by a general realingment of class power. A primary example of this is the Corporations. By simply ceasing control of the means of production, capitalism as we know is vanquished. Other institiutions, such as the military, are going to require force. When force is needed, that's when the new society's weapon's are drawn, but for the first time in history, not to subjucate, but rather to liberate the general population. I agree with any body on this board who thinks that this can be done with soviets and militias.

[manic expression]

Can you define for me what a state is?

Briefly, the apparatus for the suppression of one class by another.


Ignoring the obvious autocratic/paternalistic sentiments of this question, it implies that organising without a state (although I don't know what your definition of a state is) means that the working class will not be organised. Once you have provided me with a definition of the state I would like you to either correct what you said or qualify it.

It's not autocratic or paternalistic at all, it's simply necessary for class struggle. As you can see above, the state is nothing but the means with which one class suppresses another class (or multiple classes). When I imply that organizing working-class control of society without a state is not "organized", I mean precisely that. Specifically, I mean that working-class control of society necessitates the suppression of the bourgeoisie, and this necessitates a state apparatus.

The point is that the state is not just necessary for revolution, it is inherent in any revolution. A revolution is nothing but one class overthrowing a former ruling class; this is nothing but the suppression of one class by another, and in this lies the function of the state.

[davidasearles]

You say that it is THE functions of a state, as if that presupposes the impossibilty of it having any more benign function under other circumstances. The logic simply is not there.

[Bilan]

Briefly, the apparatus for the suppression of one class by another.

This stems from an inability to understand anti-statism.
You equate it with anti-Marxian-statism, which it isn't. Anti-statists, generally, oppose states which adhere to a more specific definition: centralized, hierarchical organs of class rule, which in turn, perpetuate the existence of a certain relationship to production.
Your critique is off because you're critiquing the wrong thing.

[KC]

centralized, hierarchical organs of class rule, which in turn, perpetuate the existence of a certain relationship to production.
Your critique is off because you're critiquing the wrong thing.

Please define "centralized" and "hierarchichal".

[Bilan]

Do we need to go through this a million times again?
Honestly, KC. I'm not even defending the position, I'm just showing why you're critiquing it in the wrong way, and suggesting that if you're going to critique the ideas, critique them for what they are.

[Bilan]

Do we need to go through this a million times again?
Honestly, KC. I'm not even defending the position, I'm just showing why you're critiquing it in the wrong way, and suggesting that if you're going to critique the ideas, critique them for what they are.

[RedSonRising]

Ive read the arguments on this page. I personally beleive that the State (as a vehicle through which legal policies are enacted) has been a tool by the capitalists to oppress the working masses, although I beleive the creation of a State is a natural component of societal organization. Decentralizing that power is a feasible idea, complimentary to the idea of a future civil democratic proletarian society, though I think that all of the bureaucratic obstacles that the modern state has provided the Left are simply infected with Classism and authoritarian control. In my opinion, the State will exist no matter what, whether it is a binding and ever-present one like it is seen today, or a loose confederation that exists to solve occasional but inevitable collective problems among smaller populations. Applying real economic and political democracy (maybe as a form of grassroots establishment) to the State allows the legal format of society to assume a form that more easily uses their services for popular benefit. The police to protect (not intrude and abuse), the Industry for production (not merely profit), politicians (dont shoot me) for leadership and legal rule-based decison finalization, and all other outlets of State organization for public utilization, free from the constraints of an economically empowered minority. While some beleive this is the wrong way to have transition into independent anarchist communes and locals, I think such organization is sort of important. If it doesnt reach such Utopian heights, I'm fine with a workers' State (in my own definition).

[Le People]

Red Son Rising I've seen many of your posts and I must ask if you are a reform socailist?

[RedSonRising]

I do not consider myself one, no. I may seem one as I do seem less "radical" to some, but I beleive in replacing the current model of most nations with one consisting of authentic democratic socialism (not welfarist social democracy, ugh). To be honest I do not beleive you can have reform without some sort of direct revolutionary change, and direct revolution must have with it some absortion of older foundations in order to increase stability, production, and basically not fixing what isn't broken. In southern India communism spread like Wildfire and resulted in their lasting democratically installed Party rule, while Che Guevara stated that guerrilla movements are unjust without popular support....the two compliment each other though one must be dominant over the other, and I prefer a revolutionary vain. I may seem reformist in many of the things I defend, such as the State, but that is simply because I find that many revolutionaries tend to disregard practices or establishments utilized or infected by capitalism and view them as evils or anti-worker in themselves...But I assure you I do not propose the meaningless support of bourgoise parties married to owners of production. Perhaps to reformists I seem more drastic, violent, and revolutionary, and in a revolutionary forum such as this one I may come off as less eager and passive, but the masses are beyond saving by institutional means, at least without the aid of revolutionary action complimenting political progress. I hope that answers your question :)

[Le People]

There's nothing wrong with it. Even Lenin had the Bolsheviks particapate in a reactionary parliment.