Dictatorship of the Proletarait Stays On

[ZeroNowhere]

Unfortunately it is a definition, although definitely not an useful one.

I don't see how Sedrox makes his point at all. Those questions can be answered perfectly well with the Marxist definition. Perhaps one thinks that one ought to use the word state differently, for aesthetic reasons, presumably, but that's not much of an argument. One could argue that the Marxist definition works better in explanation of the origin of the state, since it necessitates the look for its origins in civil society. According to Sedrox's argument, breaking up a fight would presumably make me a policeman, else our definition of 'policeman' is deficient (since, after all, policemen do that). The argument that something which is a definition of a state does not answer the question of what a state is is rather silly, of course it does. Another definition may be better for explanation, some definitions may be practically useless in explaining things, one definition may obscure social relations (fetishism), another may not fit with the historical movement it is supposed to describe, and this can be debated (as, after all, definitions are hardly something static or the language wouldn't have progressed one iota), but none of this means that the Marxist definition does not define the state (because it does, or it wouldn't be a definition).

The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

This definition, for example, is pretty much useless, and this is where objections such as 'If we go on strike, is the strike a 'state'?' and such can be brought up in a valid manner. It still answers the question of what a state is.

When one asserts that they own something they are claiming the right to destroy it, alter it, consume it, trade it, and give it away, and simultaneously that no one else may do the same.

'I own this guitar.'
'Can I use it?'
'Sure.'
'Can I destroy it?'
'Sure, that would be amusing. I hate guitars.'
'I think you only hate guitars to mask your repressed lust.'
'I think you're a psychologist. There is hope, however, you can take therapy at a place just off Orchard Road, administered by a professional non-psychologist. I own it along with some other guy.'
'But psychology is only crap because of our genes!'

As to Sedrox's definition's alleged helpfulness, have you taken many surveys confirming this? If most people didn't accept that a capitalist has any right to their property, are the capitalists now states? If most slaves didn't accept that slave-owners had any right to own them, are the slave-owners states?

Thats not a definition, thats what it does and where it comes from.

Please explain how, "A state is the organized power of a class used to suppress another class," cannot be a definition. What you're really saying is that you define the state differently. And the Marxist definition would describe what people usually refer to as 'states' right now well enough. It wouldn't make sense to say that your definition is better due to being 'the accepted definition' (accepted by whom?), nor because it's the commonly used one, as when people talk of 'the state', I don't see much reason to suggest that they have one or other essentialist definition in use (which is not to criticize the definitions, merely to say that one doesn't need to know of something common in all, say, games, in order to use the word 'game' correctly. After all, we don't) when they use the word 'state' (when somebody says, "Taxes are theft by the state", and one asks them to define the state, one is probably not likely to get 'a monopoly over blah' in response).

In an anarchist society, if a man WAS a landowner and protected it through a monopoly of force (not consensus), then ultimately he would be a state, because he would be able to do all the funtions of a state, make laws, enforce them, and so on.

Even if most people agreed that he should be able to do it, if he finds a thief and chases them out with a gun, he still has a monopoly over the use of force. So you're still defining the 'state' in terms of whether people think he should be able to do something or not. One could perhaps claim that he doesn't, because if the community did not think he should be able to do it, he would be punished, but have states never been overthrown and replaced with others? Of course, him doing the chasing is also legal. Unless one means the use of force through laws ('making laws, enforcing them', etc), in which case, I distinctly remember our teachers being able to make laws for our class (from 'speaking English is illegal' in language classes to 'using expletives is illegal' for a science teacher).

it also is'nt a definition because it requires more definitions on what property, what the inter-subjective criterea is and what it is based on, and so on

One could say in just as valid a manner that the other definition requires a definition of monopoly, force, etc. One does not say that something is not the last building on a road just because another could be built further along it.

[Nwoye]

Ownership in a Statist society would be the State using force to protect the land owner (if that is the law of the land), which would not make the landowner a state because he's not the one with the monopoly of force. In an anarchist society, if a man WAS a landowner and protected it through a monopoly of force (not consensus), then ultimately he would be a state, because he would be able to do all the funtions of a state, make laws, enforce them, and so on.

that's exactly my point. so if you have any form of property in land, you're basically a state according to that definition.

A definition is'nt dependent on your purposes, you have to build it around the accepted definition or use a different word, the State is'nt a theory or idea, its the description of a thing. The base array of situations are hypothetical, not in the real world, in the real world there are only states that fit that definitition sufficiently, you can't base definitions of things on hypotheticals to make ideological points easier.

I see your point here, but it assumes that the definition of a state has always existed - it hasn't. We've had states for thousands of years, and this definition of a state was developed less then two centuries ago. And when it was created, its goal was to describe the entities which we commonly referred to as states. I've explained how that definition doesn't fit with our preconceived notions of what a state is, and why we need to find a new one which can describe the actions of a state in any given situation.

That does'nt work, because the State in most countries does'nt "own" the country, it simply makes rules for it and holds an army.

but is there really a difference? the state has the power to sell, give away, alter, destroy, use, and collect wealth from the plot of land it rules over - isn't that the same thing as ownership?

[Nwoye]

zero, I emphatically agree with the Marxist analysis of the state and its role in the social and economic (super) structure, I just don't really care for how they push it as the very definition of a state. I wouldn't say that a state is class rule, I would say that the state is used by a given class to perpetuate that rule. The state is just a body of people doing various things over a geographic area, and those actions in essence equate to ownership (right to use, transfer, etc). This is in some sense a argument over semantics or at least very petty disagreements, but I think it's important when discussing whether or not its possible for a state to exist (or an entity which resembles a state) after classes cease to exist.

and in case people haven't figured it out, I'm sedrox

[RGacky3]

that's exactly my point. so if you have any form of property in land, you're basically a state according to that definition.

No because you don't have a monopoly of violence, that property is essencailly protected for you by the state.

I see your point here, but it assumes that the definition of a state has always existed - it hasn't. We've had states for thousands of years, and this definition of a state was developed less then two centuries ago. And when it was created, its goal was to describe the entities which we commonly referred to as states. I've explained how that definition doesn't fit with our preconceived notions of what a state is, and why we need to find a new one which can describe the actions of a state in any given situation.

Thats the point, the definition is a description of the entities, and that description is the thing that differentiates itself from other entities.

The fact is thats the way definitinos work, they describe things in a way that differentiates them from other entities. Thats the definition of a state, if you change it because it could hypothetically apply to other things, then thats the way it is.

Without a simple way to describe things like that, you get into philisphical mumbojumbo and can't get any meaningful discussions done.

but is there really a difference? the state has the power to sell, give away, alter, destroy, use, and collect wealth from the plot of land it rules over - isn't that the same thing as ownership?

Good point, but we have to look at it in the historical context. It has the power to theoretically. However, its never been that way, its always been (as marxists point out) to protect the ruling class, and its always been subservient to the ruling class, so it protects its property.

What differenciates itself from landowners (in this system) is the monopoly of force.

[Nwoye]

No because you don't have a monopoly of violence, that property is essencailly protected for you by the state.

I know. Which is why I consider the institution of private property an organ of the state. What we're talking about here is really an anarchic (particularly one where markets exist) society, where there is no centralized authority.

What differenciates itself from landowners (in this system) is the monopoly of force.

Property is a monopoly of force. And property in land is a monopoly of force over a geographical area (a "state"). If I own land, I can sell it, give it away, alter it, destroy it, consume it, profit from it, whatever. I can use force on that land in any way I want. Simultaneously, no one else may do the same (it's private property after all). I have a monopoly. Put it together, and I have a monopoly of the use of force over a geographical area.

Let me put it this way: if I went and lived by myself on a deserted island, would it make a difference whether I made the entire island my private property, or made the entire island a sovereign state ruled by myself? Would I not have the exact same set of powers?

Good point, but we have to look at it in the historical context. It has the power to theoretically. However, its never been that way, its always been (as marxists point out) to protect the ruling class, and its always been subservient to the ruling class, so it protects its property.

yeah I recognize this. And the way the controlling class uses the state very closely resembles the concept of property ownership.

[RGacky3]

I know. Which is why I consider the institution of private property an organ of the state. What we're talking about here is really an anarchic (particularly one where markets exist) society, where there is no centralized authority.

You could say that, or its because the other way around.

Let me put it this way: if I went and lived by myself on a deserted island, would it make a difference whether I made the entire island my private property, or made the entire island a sovereign state ruled by myself? Would I not have the exact same set of powers?

Your absolutely right, if you lived on an island on yourself you would be able to do what you want. If other people are on the island, then you have a problem.

Property is a monopoly of force. And property in land is a monopoly of force over a geographical area (a "state"). If I own land, I can sell it, give it away, alter it, destroy it, consume it, profit from it, whatever. I can use force on that land in any way I want. Simultaneously, no one else may do the same (it's private property after all). I have a monopoly. Put it together, and I have a monopoly of the use of force over a geographical area.

In the real word property means absolutely nothing without a state to protect it, the 2 are different, but property is dependant on the state.

yeah I recognize this. And the way the controlling class uses the state very closely resembles the concept of property ownership.

Not really, the State pretty much almost cannot apropriate any property from the Capitalist class, they have in the past, but only after a lot and a lot of trouble. The States job is to protect the Capitalisat class, and make over all laws, they don't wield direct control over private property.

The laws private property makes over its private property are only relevant because they are backed by the state, they are not states in themselves (private property).

[Nwoye]

Your absolutely right, if you lived on an island on yourself you would be able to do what you want. If other people are on the island, then you have a problem.

you're ignoring the question. If another person came upon the island looking to live there, would it matter whether I told him "this is my property and I will protect it with force" or if I told him "this is Organized Confusion-land and I am king".

In the real word property means absolutely nothing without a state to protect it, the 2 are different, but property is dependant on the state.

you're missing my point again. In an anarchic society, if someone defended just their small plot of land from a robber or counterrevolutionary or whatever, would they not be exercising a monopoly of the use of force over a geographical area?

Not really, the State pretty much almost cannot apropriate any property from the Capitalist class, they have in the past, but only after a lot and a lot of trouble. The States job is to protect the Capitalisat class, and make over all laws, they don't wield direct control over private property.

The laws private property makes over its private property are only relevant because they are backed by the state, they are not states in themselves (private property).

this is irrelevant.

[RGacky3]

would it matter whether I told him "this is my property and I will protect it with force" or if I told him "this is Organized Confusion-land and I am king".

No it would'nt, in that situation they are one in the same, however, the only areas where that is actualy the case in modern times are absolute monarchies, or fuedal systems (I doubt there are any left), and in those cases that is the case. However the real world is'nt like that.

you're missing my point again. In an anarchic society, if someone defended just their small plot of land from a robber or counterrevolutionary or whatever, would they not be exercising a monopoly of the use of force over a geographical area?

I suppose in a sense, however historically if there are no property laws the only way robbery would work would be if the robber stole something and took it to an area where there ARE property laws, which in that case would a bizzare situation. Most of the violence against anarchists historically in anarchist societies has been done by states.

[Nwoye]

No it would'nt, in that situation they are one in the same, however, the only areas where that is actualy the case in modern times are absolute monarchies, or fuedal systems (I doubt there are any left), and in those cases that is the case. However the real world is'nt like that.

Okay, but you get the point? Under that definition there is no difference between a state or someone holding property in land. And that makes the definition useless.

I suppose in a sense, however historically if there are no property laws the only way robbery would work would be if the robber stole something and took it to an area where there ARE property laws, which in that case would a bizzare situation. Most of the violence against anarchists historically in anarchist societies has been done by states.[/QUOTE]
anarchists (and most communists) believe in property, they just don't believe in (as Marx defined it) private property. It's fine for an average worker to live on a very small plot of land, maybe while growing fruits or vegetables there. If a robber tried to steal said fruit, or tried to encroach upon his land, then it's totally justified for the worker to defend it. If so, he's expressing his monopoly on the use of force over a geographical area.

[RGacky3]

Okay, but you get the point? Under that definition there is no difference between a state or someone holding property in land. And that makes the definition useless.

The difference is, who has the monopoly of violence.

anarchists (and most communists) believe in property, they just don't believe in (as Marx defined it) private property. It's fine for an average worker to live on a very small plot of land, maybe while growing fruits or vegetables there. If a robber tried to steal said fruit, or tried to encroach upon his land, then it's totally justified for the worker to defend it. If so, he's expressing his monopoly on the use of force over a geographical area.

Not property, in otherwords, if you have a plot of land, that does not deprive anyone else of food, inother words if this is just your land but its not needed by the rest of the community, you don't need property laws to protect that, now the only reason in that situation a robber would want to rob a plot of land (when he has access to other sources of what he needs), would be to juts mess with the farmer as an individual, in that case its not really robbery in the classical sense, its more .... sabotage, or whatever.

In other words, in a hypothetical situation you might be right, but its a hypothetical that won't happen.

[Nwoye]

The difference is, who has the monopoly of violence.

in an anarchist society where there was no centralized authority (what we know as the state) what would be the difference between a guy calling his land his own property or calling it a sovereign state, according to that definition?

Not property, in otherwords, if you have a plot of land, that does not deprive anyone else of food, inother words if this is just your land but its not needed by the rest of the community, you don't need property laws to protect that, now the only reason in that situation a robber would want to rob a plot of land (when he has access to other sources of what he needs), would be to juts mess with the farmer as an individual, in that case its not really robbery in the classical sense, its more .... sabotage, or whatever.

In other words, in a hypothetical situation you might be right, but its a hypothetical that won't happen.

I don't understand why some leftists don't get this. If I own and live on a plot of land it is property - personal property, but property nonetheless. And it's silly to say "robbery wouldn't exist" in a communist society - who can possibly know that? I understand that the usual motivator behind robbery (poverty, lack of access to material wealth) would be abolished, but what if someone had a really cool and personally made bike or something? Something that you couldn't just go out and buy. It's reasonably to believe that some asshole may try to take it given the opportunity.

Besides this argument is irrelevant. You just keep ignored the point - that there is no difference between a landowner and a state in this definition.

[RGacky3]

in an anarchist society where there was no centralized authority (what we know as the state) what would be the difference between a guy calling his land his own property or calling it a sovereign state, according to that definition?

None really, if he's taking control of reasorces that otheres might need and controling it with force there really is'nt a difference.

Thats what kings do.

Besides this argument is irrelevant. You just keep ignored the point - that there is no difference between a landowner and a state in this definition.

In that type of society ... no, but we don't have that type of society.