Socialism and statelessness

[ThatGuy]

I encountered quiet a few anarcho-communists on this board and a lot of people saying that capitalism requires a state, as opposed to communism. But does the empirical evidence support that claim?

I did a quick search, and the data is pretty elusive, but comparing laissez-faire countries to socialist countries, it would seem that the latter have a higher degree of state intervention and state oppression. (a chart with government employees per country: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart...oyment-2011-11) I am aware that countries like the USSR weren't really socialist, because they still had money, classes and the division of labor, but I would dare to say, that the USSR was still more socialist than England or Hong Kong.

So from what I gather socialist/communist countries tend towards more government control of society and capitalist countries tend toward less control of society. Wouldn't that seem to suggest a positive correlation between statelessness and capitalism and a negative one between communism and statelessness, meaning that there is something contradictory with what you claim?

[BolshevikBabe]

I'd certainly argue the USSR was socialist, since wage-labour wasn't a commodity, but I'm probably in a minority on here.

First of all, communism by definition is a stateless, moneyless society without property. No-one has ever claimed the USSR achieved communism, even those who support it - the USSR claimed to be a socialist society in transition to communism. Socialism today would merely be taking what is already a largely planned economy - through the blend of monopoly and state capitalism which has been rising since 1850 - and making it work for the proletarian class instead of the bourgeoisie, through nationalization or collectivization of the means of production.

I'm afraid that analysis of social formations that begins from the state is inherently flawed, as it supposes the state is the centre of political life, when it isn't, the class struggle is. The economically given time period is what's actually important, and what class controls the state, and this sheds much more light upon the actual working of the state in question.

[liberlict]

Communists might point to capitalist totalitarian systems such as Fascism that aren't exactly stateless.

But generally communists hold dear the idea of "withering of the state". Basically it says after a genuine communist revolution a state would be obsolete and... well wither away.

You can find all sorts of arguments about why this never happened in the USSR, China etc.

The two main ones I've noticed are:

a) It's the fault of capitalist countries. I.e., if it wasn't for the threat of aggression from capitalists countries, NATO et al, the communist experiments would have been able to grow into proper examples of communism.

b) They were never real communism to begin with. The anarchist tendencies tend to have this view. They say that you cannot impose a revolution from the top down. It has to come from the people, not a self appointed revolutionary "vanguard". So you can pretty much ignore all of hitherto examples of communism as impostors. Except maybe the communards and the "red hordes" in the Spanish Civil War.

And there are positions in between.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Marxist method does not assume something to be quantitatively 'more' or 'less' socialist. The USSR wasn't more 'socialist' than Hong Kong or England, England isn't more socialist than Singapore. They are all equally capitalist. Also, essentially your argument comes down to pointing out that: free market-oriented governments are smaller than interventionist-oriented governments, which is merely pointing out the obvious. But government intervention to facilitate capital accumulation is in no way more socialist — at least not in terms of the Marxist method.
The argument that capitalism cannot exist without a state is that private property needs a coercive body to protect private property. This would be a nightwatchmenstate, all additional features added on to the government or state go beyond the bare necessity or minimum requirements of the bourgeois state (which may be to protect social peace, facilitate capital growth through intervention, or to maintain and expand the nation-state's power).

I'd certainly argue the USSR was socialist, since wage-labour wasn't a commodity, but I'm probably in a minority on here.

First of all, communism by definition is a stateless, moneyless society without property. No-one has ever claimed the USSR achieved communism, even those who support it - the USSR claimed to be a socialist society in transition to communism.

The Communist Party of Greece has claimed the USSR to have been communist and says communism is compatible with commodity-monetary exchange, a logical consequence of Stalinist logic (inverted Proudhonism) I suppose.

[exeexe]

If you have a capitalist company, say 1 boss and 100 workers and if you have a state with 10.000 police officers.
Can those 100 workers then take the company from their boss? No they cant because there would be 10.000 police officers swarming the company and giving it back to the boss.
But if there were no state and no police officers the 100 workers could easily manhandle that single boss and do what they want with their company.

So with a state you a far away from socialism and without a state you are close to socialism.

The state, far from being a neutral referee standing above the class struggle, exists to defend the interests of capitalism.
The origins of the police reflect this. London’s Metropolitan Police—generally considered the first modern police force—was set up in 1829, as the new working class gathered strength.
Unions had only been legalised five years before, under pressure from massive illegal strikes.
In 1848 the Chartists—the first mass working class movement in the world—organised a huge demonstration of some 150,000 workers on Kennington Common in south London.
They wanted to march to parliament to present their six million signature charter—but the government banned the march, fearing revolution.
They tried to march, but were stopped by the police, who had sworn in 100,000 special constables.
A common argument is that we need the police to protect us against crime.
But the police’s own figures show that the average officer “on the beat” only encounters a crime once every 14 years. They are more likely to spend their time stopping and searching black people or harassing working class communities.
When they do investigate crimes, they concentrate on those against property—thefts from businesses and the rich.

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/203...ist+society%3F

[Drowned Phoenix]

If you have a capitalist company, say 1 boss and 100 workers and if you have a state with 10.000 police officers.
Can those 100 workers then take the company from their boss? No they cant because there would be 10.000 police officers swarming the company and giving it back to the boss.
But if there were no state and no police officers the 100 workers could easily manhandle that single boss and do what they want with their company.

So with a state you a far away from socialism and without a state you are close to socialism.

Am I allowed to offer a contrarian view of this situation?

[suddenly state vanishes] The 1 boss with the 100 worker company is now without police protection.

The boss immediately promotes 10 of his most loyal workers to foremen, with an increase in salary (perhaps bonuses based on performance). These foremen are tasked with oversight of production and also further recruitment.

The boss also hires the services of a security firm. The contract he signs stipulates that 10 private security workers are stationed at the company premises, to guard against internal and external threats. A further 50 security workers are able to arrive within 30 minutes, according to the contract.

The boss has spent his time at the company developing contacts with the suppliers the company is dependent on. The boss has also spent his time at the company developing contacts to the customers the company is dependent on. These vital business relatonships are built upon trust that contracts will be fulfilled in both ends.

How are the workers able to take over the company in this situation?
Is police and state really needed in order for the boss to still be boss of the 100 worker company?

[ThatGuy]

The Marxist method does not assume something to be quantitatively 'more' or 'less' socialist.

That is exactly what I suspected. How can it then differentiate between capitalism and feudalism though?

The argument that capitalism cannot exist without a state is that private property needs a coercive body to protect private property.

It doesn't really require one centralized coercive agency to do that though. My home is currently being protected by a private security organization, while the state police is occupied by enforcing state legislature, that is usually in complete violation of private property. I really don't get this argument that protecting property titles requires force, therefore you need a state. If this was the case, communism also requires a state, because protecting people from rape requires force. Or you can claim that in communism there would magically be no rape, but that is kinda retarded to be honest.

[exeexe]

Am I allowed to offer a contrarian view of this situation?
...

If the boss had accepted the socialist fate peacefully he could have continued his life like a worker like every else worker. If he choose to stand his ground, he would have to look behind his back 24/7...

Not even the Russian Tsar Alexander II could achieve that

[ThatGuy]

Am I allowed to offer a contrarian view of this situation?

[suddenly state vanishes] The 1 boss with the 100 worker company is now without police protection.

The boss immediately promotes 10 of his most loyal workers to foremen, with an increase in salary (perhaps bonuses based on performance). These foremen are tasked with oversight of production and also further recruitment.

The boss also hires the services of a security firm. The contract he signs stipulates that 10 private security workers are stationed at the company premises, to guard against internal and external threats. A further 50 security workers are able to arrive within 30 minutes, according to the contract.

The boss has spent his time at the company developing contacts with the suppliers the company is dependent on. The boss has also spent his time at the company developing contacts to the customers the company is dependent on. These vital business relatonships are built upon trust that contracts will be fulfilled in both ends.

How are the workers able to take over the company in this situation?
Is police and state really needed in order for the boss to still be boss of the 100 worker company?

Also you know, just don't hire any crazy looking violent people that only talk about class warfare on the job interview and you should be safe.

The example makes no sense anyway, there may be 10.000 cops, but there are 10.000.000 workers in the country, who could easily take control of it if they wanted to. Turns out they don't, because having a regular steady job isn't that bad a deal at all.

[Tim Cornelis]

Also you know, just don't hire any crazy looking violent people that only talk about class warfare on the job interview and you should be safe.

Indeed, that's the dictatorship of capital. Accept its dictates, the interests of the minority, or find yourself without livelihood.

The example makes no sense anyway, there may be 10.000 cops, but there are 10.000.000 workers in the country, who could easily take control of it if they wanted to. Turns out they don't, because having a regular steady job isn't that bad a deal at all.

Really? Because in Syria the people who wanted Assad gone heavily outnumbered the soldiers and police Assad had/has at his disposal. So why didn't the people "easily take control" when they wanted to? As for the rest, that's a debate on class consciousness and revolutionary situations vs. non-revolutionary situations.

That is exactly what I suspected. How can it then differentiate between capitalism and feudalism though?

I don't get what you mean. You differentiate between them on the basis of the social totality of relations and institutions that exist. The transition from modes of production in these cases is also different.

It doesn't really require one centralized coercive agency to do that though. My home is currently being protected by a private security organization, while the state police is occupied by enforcing state legislature, that is usually in complete violation of private property. I really don't get this argument that protecting property titles requires force, therefore you need a state. If this was the case, communism also requires a state, because protecting people from rape requires force. Or you can claim that in communism there would magically be no rape, but that is kinda retarded to be honest.

It doesn't require one centralised coercive agency, indeed, though that's what the argument is — which I don't necessarily agree with. However, one centralised body is the most effective as it does not rely on fragmented actors with each their own private interests. A state is much more capable to maintain capitalism than private agencies.

If this was the case, communism also requires a state, because protecting people from rape requires force. Or you can claim that in communism there would magically be no rape, but that is kinda retarded to be honest.

Force is not the same as a state though.

[ThatGuy]

Indeed, that's the dictatorship of capital. Accept its dictates, the interests of the minority, or find yourself without livelihood.

Also known of the dreadful dictatorship of nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Really? Because in Syria the people who wanted Assad gone heavily outnumbered the soldiers and police Assad had/has at his disposal. So why didn't the people "easily take control" when they wanted to? As for the rest, that's a debate on class consciousness and revolutionary situations vs. non-revolutionary situations.

I'm not really all that familiar with the situation in Syria, but generally no government can work without at least the passive support of the majority.

You differentiate between them on the basis of the social totality of relations and institutions that exist.

I have no idea whatsoever what that means.

It doesn't require one centralised coercive agency, indeed, though that's what the argument is — which I don't necessarily agree with. However, one centralised body is the most effective as it does not rely on fragmented actors with each their own private interests. A state is much more capable to maintain capitalism than private agencies.

So you believe that anarcho-capitalism is possible then? I strongly disagree on centralization being more effective, but that's a question of economics. If it turns out that having a really big central organization is the best option for providing security services, then people would probably form one without the need of coercion, which means it wouldn't be a state.

Force is not the same as a state though.

But that's precisely my point.

[exeexe]

Turns out they don't, because having a regular steady job isn't that bad a deal at all.

Yes recently (after 1960ish) capitalism have successfully implemented globalisation and was able to keep the endles hordes of workers at bay by sending production to the poor countries and give them a poor wage thus in return the endles hordes of workers found themselves to be satisfied with cheap products on the market.

But this is like peeing in your pants. It only delay the inevitable fact that capitalism are no good if you are a worker.

This has been more or less realized by the workers in the poor countries and they are resisting. Once they get a better wage and better work conditions and less work hours per week (and this is already happening), the prices on the products will increase, and this will lead to the workers in the rich countries to be unsatisfied with capitalism. So they will ask for a higher wage to be able to buy the products they were used to be able to buy, but it wont happen because there is no more room for capitalism to run to.

And then there will be class warfare and we will have either socialism or fascism.

[#FF0000]

How are the workers able to take over the company in this situation? Is police and state really needed in order for the boss to still be boss of the 100 worker company?

The boss just hired a private police force to defend his holdings, so yes.

[ThatGuy]

Btw, does quoting not work normally for you guys as well?

Yes recently (after 1960ish) capitalism have successfully implemented globalisation and was able to keep the endles hordes of workers at bay by sending production to the poor countries and give them a poor wage thus in return the endles hordes of workers found themselves to be satisfied with cheap products on the market.

But this is like peeing in your pants. It only delay the inevitable fact that capitalism are no good if you are a worker.

This has been more or less realized by the workers in the poor countries and they are resisting. Once they get a better wage and better work conditions and less work hours per week (and this is already happening), the prices on the products will increase, and this will lead to the workers in the rich countries to be unsatisfied with capitalism. So they will ask for a higher wage to be able to buy the products they were used to be able to buy, but it wont happen because there is no more room for capitalism to run to.

And then there will be class warfare and we will have either socialism or fascism.

Boy you got that one wrong

It's actually workers in developed countries that are protesting companies moving their production facilities to poorer countries, the people in China and India are much better off because of it. You know, because they wouldn't be taking the jobs if they had any better options. A few random hits from google:

http://archive.indianexpress.com/new...rotest/798709/
http://www.examiner.com/article/unio...actory-closing
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03...stoindia_move/

[ThatGuy]

The boss just hired a private police force to defend his holdings, so yes.

So private enterprise = state?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The boss just hired a private police force to defend his holdings, so yes.

I don't think the notion of a "private police" makes much sense, to be honest. The entire hypothetical doesn't make sense - "suppose the state disappears". Well, how? Did it fall in the shower? Did it catch a cold and die? It puts the cart before the horse - class society sustains the state, not the other way around.

Incidentally, being "a bit" socialist is like being "a bit" dead, you either are or you aren't. The same goes for capitalism, feudalism, the Asiatic MoP etc.

[#FF0000]

So private enterprise = state?

Nope. A state does more than just provide a police force, though. A state is necessary to set boundaries and establish what is property, what is not, and the laws that a police force (private or otherwise) are to enforce.

And aside from that, the fact of the matter is that the state was necessary for the primitive accumulation of capital, with the outright plunder of colonial conquests and things such as the enclosement acts creating a landless, propertyless working class.

I don't think the notion of a "private police" makes much sense, to be honest.

What do you mean?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What do you mean?

Well, the police, it seems to me, is a special body of armed men associated with the state; it is "inherently" public because it needs to adjudicate disputes between private persons, usually competing claims of private property (it is a part of the public power).

[exeexe]

Boy you got that one wrong

It's actually workers in developed countries that are protesting companies moving their production facilities to poorer countries

Quoting works fine..

Yes they are protesting because there will be more unemployment here. But protesting for less unemployment does not mean you like capitalism.

And another reason why the unions are protesting the unemployment is because the more unemployment there is the easier it is for the capitalist to pressure the workers in the developped world to accept lower wages. And the result of this will be workers in the developped world getting unhappy with capitalism.

This is just another front line being drawn for the upcoming class war..

[#FF0000]

Well, the police, it seems to me, is a special body of armed men associated with the state; it is "inherently" public because it needs to adjudicate disputes between private persons, usually competing claims of private property (it is a part of the public power).

Ah, right. Well, private police are non-government enforcement agencies that are enforcing government laws. So yeah, even in that case there's needs to be an independent body to establish the boundaries the private police are to enforce.

EDIT: Also, yeah, the quote function is pretty spotty from time to time, ThatGuy