The state.

[(A)]

I want to see how you can defend the right of a state to own private capital and property (Territory and state operated capital) yet claim to be socialist.

The very territory that country's claim to have authority over is a form of private property to anyone not a member of the state and even then is not freely accessible by
members of the state. In my country for instance the government "owns" all wild animals in its territory so that if I needed to hunt to survive I would have to pay them for the use of their property less I face arrest and possibly death at the hands of the police. Same with the use of land. To build a house the state requires I pay them to use and maintain that land.

How is this form of Property different then the state selling land to a corporation and allowing them to profit from it?
Does not the state ownership of land justly give them the right to lease that land to private individuals?
If the states ownership is considered legitimate then you must logically also support private ownership of land as the state (who's claim you think of as legitimate) grants the capitalist
their rights to own and operate property.

Unless you reject the right of the state to own land/territory then you cant logically reject their leasing the land to private individuals or groups for the use of profiteering. If you support the states ownership that would make you a Social Democrat who is fine with capitalism as long as the company's obey their rules. This either proves social democracy is a valid form of socialism or disproves that a state can be socialist and still maintain private property/territory.

If the latter is true then all state government by extension would have to be seen as Anti-socialist as it and its laws are based on the ownership of land. Without that ownership the state would not have the authority (Legal right) to dictate and enforce laws. Only voluntary relations would be the basis for society's structure and not Private property.

But please explain why you believe that states should have the right to own Land/territory/capital and operate them for profit; while dictating the laws for the people that live on that land.

[ckaihatsu]

I want to see how you can defend the right of a state to own private capital and property (Territory and state operated capital) yet claim to be socialist.

The very territory that country's claim to have authority over is a form of private property to anyone not a member of the state and even then is not freely accessible by
members of the state.

This is a strawman -- it's *not* socialism if private ownership exists, and it's not socialism if there's a fixed, standing bureaucracy of political-specialists.

In my country for instance the government "owns" all wild animals in its territory so that if I needed to hunt to survive I would have to pay them for the use of their property less I face arrest and possibly death at the hands of the police. Same with the use of land. To build a house the state requires I pay them to use and maintain that land.

Without apologizing for such, here's the difference: The 'permit' or whatever for permission to hunt, and the 'housing permit' for building a house are *outside the market*. The state has a monopoly on unowned land and 'rights' to use that land / natural resources, and so *regulates* such, using non-market economics. This is why such is often called 'public', or 'government-controlled', and *not* 'private', as you repeatedly erroneously contend.

How is this form of Property different then the state selling land to a corporation and allowing them to profit from it?

Because of the aspect of *regulation*. The state is not using a profit-based yardstick for its fees (and how could it, anyway, when it's the sole controller of such resources), and it's quasi-collectivizing all resources within its purview.

That said, there's plenty of public-expensed resources that are then turned right over to private interests, as with scientific / industrial research and development costs, public lands, tax-free operations, etc.

But the idea is that anything *government* controlled is one small step closer to a collectivization and regulation, which *wouldn't* happen under private control, since private interests are primarily for exploitation of resources (including labor) and expropriation of profits.

Does not the state ownership of land justly give them the right to lease that land to private individuals?
If the states ownership is considered legitimate then you must logically also support private ownership of land as the state (who's claim you think of as legitimate) grants the capitalist
their rights to own and operate property.

'Rights' is a bourgeois concept. Revolutionaries do not consider bourgeois states to be legitimate, despite your irresponsible accusations of such.

Unless you reject the right of the state to own land/territory then you cant logically reject their leasing the land to private individuals or groups for the use of profiteering. If you support the states ownership that would make you a Social Democrat who is fine with capitalism as long as the company's obey their rules. This either proves social democracy is a valid form of socialism or disproves that a state can be socialist and still maintain private property/territory.

Any existing bourgeois / capitalist state *cannot* exercise state authority over resources, as through sole regulation, and be socialist, because there's no workers control present.

If the latter is true then all state government by extension would have to be seen as Anti-socialist as it

Bourgeois state control of resources *is* anti-socialist because workers are not controlling it.

and its laws are based on the ownership of land. Without that ownership the state would not have the authority (Legal right) to dictate and enforce laws. Only voluntary relations would be the basis for society's structure and not Private property.

*Collective* *workers* control of resources and productivity would be the basis for a socialist society's structure and operations.

But please explain why you believe that states should have the right to own Land/territory/capital and operate them for profit; while dictating the laws for the people that live on that land.

This is more of your strawman, accusatory line that's unwarranted -- as if revolutionaries would / are upholding bourgeois state authority somehow.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

@chaihatsu Just a question in between but how would the state be set up in such a way that the proletariat actually controls it? Do you think it should be like in the USSR with a vanguard party? And how does your system defend against a small clique of bureaucrats holding real power and becoming a de facto ruling class?

[ckaihatsu]

@chaihatsu Just a question in between but how would the state be set up in such a way that the proletariat actually controls it? Do you think it should be like in the USSR with a vanguard party? And how does your system defend against a small clique of bureaucrats holding real power and becoming a de facto ruling class?

It's 'ckaihatsu', thanks.

On this topic I can only give my own opinion / what I would advocate, which I just happened to have posted about at another thread this morning:

[C]onsider the scenario of a workers apparatus that functions as an *institution* as a whole, and *not* as a fixed, standing bureaucracy of political-specialists.

In other words, it would be an institution in which all workers *take a turn*, similar to military service today, so that no one has any specific careerist claim to extended participation. This would be a strategy for *supplanting* existing bourgeois institutions, carrying out necessary societal functions for larger working-class interests, while spreading the revolution as needed.

Differences between Libertarian Socialism and Libertarian Communism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/16...30#post2877030


So, to address your questions, I think the vanguard could exist *at-large* (in-general), as it does today, without any intentional formal formulation or vehicle -- a vanguard party may *have* to exist, in addition, to cover any situations where a decisive *decision*, or command, would be required. I'd imagine the party would be derived from the (general) vanguard as-a-whole, but with the baggage of having to have discrete membership -- organizational overhead, basically.

The *instrument* of this vanguard / party would be the workers state (at whatever size and extents worldwide), and, from my quote above, it should be thought-of as a routine revolutionary duty, so that it exists and is-empowered as a total *institution*, but one that has no careerist-type 'specialists' over the medium- or long-term (maybe 2 years within any 20 years, subject to adjustment according to realities). I assume that much, if not all, of its workings would be transparent anyway, so certainly its actions and functioning would be the subject of news and discussions far beyond its internal personnel anyway.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

It's 'ckaihatsu', thanks.

On this topic I can only give my own opinion / what I would advocate, which I just happened to have posted about at another thread this morning:




Differences between Libertarian Socialism and Libertarian Communism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/16...30#post2877030


So, to address your questions, I think the vanguard could exist *at-large* (in-general), as it does today, without any intentional formal formulation or vehicle -- a vanguard party may *have* to exist, in addition, to cover any situations where a decisive *decision*, or command, would be required. I'd imagine the party would be derived from the (general) vanguard as-a-whole, but with the baggage of having to have discrete membership -- organizational overhead, basically.

The *instrument* of this vanguard / party would be the workers state (at whatever size and extents worldwide), and, from my quote above, it should be thought-of as a routine revolutionary duty, so that it exists and is-empowered as a total *institution*, but one that has no careerist-type 'specialists' over the medium- or long-term (maybe 2 years within any 20 years, subject to adjustment according to realities). I assume that much, if not all, of its workings would be transparent anyway, so certainly its actions and functioning would be the subject of news and discussions far beyond its internal personnel anyway.

sorry about misspelling . and thanks for elaborating

i dont disagree with your idea per se, but i have some objections how vanguard parties were ruled historically. And i don't see how the state would stop to exist when the worker society is at the level at which the state is not necessary.

[(A)]

This is a strawman -- it's *not* socialism if private ownership exists.

So not a straw man. I contend that Territory held by a state should be considered private property. Externally it is 100 percent private and any attempt to use that land or even enter that land will be treated as an invasion and met with deadly force.

The state has all three rights over its territory for it to be considered private property. Just because Internal its "Public" (even tho it is most definitely not) externally it is undoubtedly private.
To test this I challenge you to cross a border where you have no citizenship and start building a house. You will be arrested and imprisoned for attempting to claim their property as your own.

A corporations holdings are collective property internally; but if your not a member its private. Basically as long as borders exist; so does private property.

Revolutionaries do not consider bourgeois states to be legitimate

My argument against State Socialism is that all states are bourgeois; regardless of what they call themselves. If a state owns property privately (internally collective / externally private) it cant be considered socialist so must be considered bourgeois.
Therefore ALL states are bourgeois and all true revolutionary must wish the abolition of all states.

Any existing bourgeois / capitalist state *cannot* exercise state authority over resources, as through sole regulation, and be socialist, because there's no workers control present.

Again I contend that worker control over private property is not enough for a state to be considered socialist. I believe you had stated that worker run enterprises in capitalism where "worker self exploitation"
Well why should the state blindly be considered exempt from the same standards.

*Collective* *workers* control of resources and productivity would be the basis for a socialist society's structure and operations.

But private property is not collective to the whole? If the property the workers control is exclusively controlled by one nationality based on territorial claim and not every single worker then it is not collective; its private to every non-member; just as a private corporation.

This is more of your strawman, accusatory line that's unwarranted -- as if revolutionaries would / are upholding bourgeois state authority somehow.

Yes the line is inflammatory but not a strawman.

Why should country's that own private property be considered socialist but non-state collective organizations be excluded.

Cuba or Bolivia for instance own and operate private property for the benefit of the citizens (theoretically).
Walmart owns private property for the benefit of its shareholders.

Because one is nationalistic should it be considered exempt from the same criticism we lay against company's?

The way I see it; All. Country's. Are. Bourgeois.

[ckaihatsu]

sorry about misspelling . and thanks for elaborating

i dont disagree with your idea per se, but i have some objections how vanguard parties were ruled historically. And i don't see how the state would stop to exist when the worker society is at the level at which the state is not necessary.

I'm going to work through your post in reverse order.

If revolutionary society can get to the point where no 'state' of any kind is necessary (a communist-type gift economy), *very* quickly, then the whole transitional dictatorship-of-the-proletariat phase could be skipped altogether. This would translate to a *very* broad-based revolutionary upheaval worldwide that is all on-the-same-page and simply swamps the elite and their goons within a short period of time -- a few months, and less than a year. This would be the *optimistic* possibility, of course.

If that *doesn't* happen and something more along the lines of my scenario at post #4 takes place ('dotp'), I don't see how the workers state / apparatus *wouldn't* cease to exist after a finished, successful revolution, no matter how long it takes. (The historical facts of the unsuccessful Bolshevik Revolution and its devolving into Stalinism were due to invasions by the Whites.)

In other words, 'Nothing succeeds like success.'

A successful proletarian revolution would reach the point of generalization of socialized productive methods, and so the people and workers themselves would have the proper social environment in which to self-organize -- the workers state / dotp would become glaringly irrelevant in the absence of a continued class foe, and would have nothing further to do. (Consider that in terms of *numbers*, the formal workers apparatus would be a *subset* of all revolutionaries, and all revolutionaries worldwide would be lesser in numbers than all workers and people together.)

My concern with your statement, and any similar line, is that it's too presumptuously *pessimistic* concerning the results of a workers state as a potential *strategy* for dealing with the bourgeoisie. If actual conditions objectively call for a monolithic-scale implementation of workers power then that's what's socially-necessary and anything *less* than that would be insufficient in the context of protracted battles with the forces of the bourgeoisie -- we wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot, and any concerns about the 'leadership' (for lack of a better word) would have to take a backseat to the need to confront bourgeois forces at a comparable-or-superior magnitude.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

I'm going to work through your post in reverse order.

If revolutionary society can get to the point where no 'state' of any kind is necessary (a communist-type gift economy), *very* quickly, then the whole transitional dictatorship-of-the-proletariat phase could be skipped altogether. This would translate to a *very* broad-based revolutionary upheaval worldwide that is all on-the-same-page and simply swamps the elite and their goons within a short period of time -- a few months, and less than a year. This would be the *optimistic* possibility, of course.

If that *doesn't* happen and something more along the lines of my scenario at post #4 takes place ('dotp'), I don't see how the workers state / apparatus *wouldn't* cease to exist after a finished, successful revolution, no matter how long it takes. (The historical facts of the unsuccessful Bolshevik Revolution and its devolving into Stalinism were due to invasions by the Whites.)

In other words, 'Nothing succeeds like success.'

A successful proletarian revolution would reach the point of generalization of socialized productive methods, and so the people and workers themselves would have the proper social environment in which to self-organize -- the workers state / dotp would become glaringly irrelevant in the absence of a continued class foe, and would have nothing further to do. (Consider that in terms of *numbers*, the formal workers apparatus would be a *subset* of all revolutionaries, and all revolutionaries worldwide would be lesser in numbers than all workers and people together.)

My concern with your statement, and any similar line, is that it's too presumptuously *pessimistic* concerning the results of a workers state as a potential *strategy* for dealing with the bourgeoisie. If actual conditions objectively call for a monolithic-scale implementation of workers power then that's what's socially-necessary and anything *less* than that would be insufficient in the context of protracted battles with the forces of the bourgeoisie -- we wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot, and any concerns about the 'leadership' (for lack of a better word) would have to take a backseat to the need to confront bourgeois forces at a comparable-or-superior magnitude.

Thanks for explaining, it is very interesting and i shall think about it a little more to form my opinion

[ckaihatsu]

So not a straw man. I contend that Territory held by a state should be considered private property. Externally it is 100 percent private and any attempt to use that land or even enter that land will be treated as an invasion and met with deadly force.

I know you're all 'autonomous' and whatever in terms of thought, but your particular / idiosyncratic usage of certain terms, like the one here, is just *bad communication*. You're not incorrect on the underlying structure being described, but you're far from being accurate and clear because of your particular stubbornness over terminology, on many occasions. You may want to consider adopting *some* conformity / conventions of terminology, since you're communicating with others here, in the context of certain social traditions of such term-usage.

(Regarding the content here the USSR could be considered as having been on an 'internationally competitive' landscape, but it was far from being on equal material ground with the U.S. and was overshadowed in most arenas, as with the space race or the arms race.)

The state has all three rights over its territory for it to be considered private property. Just because Internal its "Public" (even tho it is most definitely not) externally it is undoubtedly private.
To test this I challenge you to cross a border where you have no citizenship and start building a house. You will be arrested and imprisoned for attempting to claim their property as your own.

A corporations holdings are collective property internally; but if your not a member its private. Basically as long as borders exist; so does private property.

(Ditto.)

My argument against State Socialism is that all states are bourgeois; regardless of what they call themselves. If a state owns property privately (internally collective / externally private) it cant be considered socialist so must be considered bourgeois.
Therefore ALL states are bourgeois and all true revolutionary must wish the abolition of all states.

I'll call this another *crude* interpretation, and accompanying dismissiveness, over a formulation that could potentially be the correct one for a proletarian revolution.

Note that no one here is calling for socialism-in-one-country, or 'state socialism'. This is a misconception on your part, or a deliberate strawman formulation -- the only possible reason to have any kind of 'workers apparatus' at all would be for the sake of wielding a concentrated, coordinated social power against the class foe.

If the composition of a dotp is entirely worker-revolutionary then it's *not* bourgeois.

Again I contend that worker control over private property is not enough for a state to be considered socialist. I believe you had stated that worker run enterprises in capitalism where "worker self exploitation"
Well why should the state blindly be considered exempt from the same standards.

No one is arguing for capitalism, or state-constrained "socialism", as a revolutionary end-point.

But private property is not collective to the whole? If the property the workers control is exclusively controlled by one nationality based on territorial claim and not every single worker then it is not collective; its private to every non-member; just as a private corporation.

(Again), no one is calling for a *bounded* type of collectivization, or socialism-in-one-country. I *often* use the terms 'worldwide' and 'global' to make-clear that a working class revolution has to be unbounded, or else it's not really socialism.

Yes the line is inflammatory but not a strawman.

Why should country's that own private property be considered socialist but non-state collective organizations be excluded.

Your idiosyncratic terminology is getting in the way of communication again -- countries don't 'own' private property in the sense that corporations do, rather the countries *control*, or *monopolize*, such resources. (The goal of any nation-state isn't to *make profits*, it's about *hegemony* over resources, including land, in general, in relation to other, competing nation-states.)

I'm not defending any existing purportedly 'socialist' countries as being *actually* socialist, except in the specific context of predations by *imperialist* countries (U.S., NATO, etc.).

Cuba or Bolivia for instance own and operate private property for the benefit of the citizens (theoretically).
Walmart owns private property for the benefit of its shareholders.

Because one is nationalistic should it be considered exempt from the same criticism we lay against company's?

The way I see it; All. Country's. Are. Bourgeois.

I have no disagreements here. I would just ask you to be a little more cognizant of what *others*, like myself, are *actually* saying, instead of your usual abrupt, arbitrary, incorrect *formulations* of-your-own of what you carelessly *assume* others are saying.

[(A)]

countries don't 'own' private property in the sense that corporations do, rather the countries *control*, or *monopolize*, such resources.

Also known as Ownership. You are thinking of ownership from a bourgeoisie legal standard and not a realistic one.

The right to Use, Destroy and Profit from property is ownership. The state has all three over its territory and over its citizens.

The state was created to pacify the revolutionary spirit. To create an illusion of freedom while mainlining the feudal relation between the royalty and the serfs. That even without capitalism the state is a exploitative relation that pretends freedom but is in fact more exploitative and more damaging then Capitalism could ever hope to be. Capitalism is systemic extortion; the state is slavery.

That our first duty during the revolution is to make a bonfire of all existing laws and well as all titles to property. -Law and Authority 1886
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...-and-authority

I *often* use the terms 'worldwide' and 'global' to make-clear that a working class revolution has to be unbounded, or else it's not really socialism.

Unbounded yet bound to one set of laws dictated by the vanguard and enforced by state law?

The rejection of ALL laws means the rejection of all things that stand against the freedom of the working class. By rejecting the authority of the Vanguard party and their predecessors you are ensuring the freedom of each individual to reject capitalism. A question was posed "How do you enforce Socialism?"

Well you dont need to enforce socialism. If you needed to enforce socialism it would not be in the interest of the working class.
The only objective of the revolution should be to abolish the systems of enforcement that prevent the working class from acting in their best interest's; individualistically and collectively.

The great falsehood of Liberalism is that the enforcement of law and order is to the benefit of the society and that without it; their would be Anarchy & that would be a bad thing.

Well they are right about one thing. Without the rule of law; it would be Anarchy... And Anarchy is order.
Ⓐ
That's what the circle around the A means. Its an O for order.
The working classes Law; our organization and our state; is Anarchy; a society without rulers.

[ckaihatsu]

Also known as Ownership. You are thinking of ownership from a bourgeoisie legal standard and not a realistic one.

The right to Use, Destroy and Profit from property is ownership. The state has all three over its territory and over its citizens.

The state was created to pacify the revolutionary spirit. To create an illusion of freedom while mainlining the feudal relation between the royalty and the serfs. That even without capitalism the state is a exploitative relation that pretends freedom but is in fact more exploitative and more damaging then Capitalism could ever hope to be. Capitalism is systemic extortion; the state is slavery.

That our first duty during the revolution is to make a bonfire of all existing laws and well as all titles to property. -Law and Authority 1886
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...-and-authority

Again I'm not going to bicker over one definition -- I prefer to think 'hegemony' in regards to state functions.

Unbounded yet bound to one set of laws dictated by the vanguard and enforced by state law?

Your profound mistrust of revolutionary self-activity is on-exhibit once again, and it's politically unbecoming.

You're overly concerned with boogeymen from the past (USSR, etc.), and with boogeymen from the future (an imagined internally-repressive workers state). This results in a political pessimism that's just inappropriate for a context of any seriousness.

The rejection of ALL laws means the rejection of all things that stand against the freedom of the working class. By rejecting the authority of the Vanguard party and their predecessors you are ensuring the freedom of each individual to reject capitalism. A question was posed "How do you enforce Socialism?"

To be clear, again, I'm *not* prescribing that the next revolution has to be 'this-way', with a mandated hierarchical specialized organization, as you claim.

I happened to have posted a good summary of my position on this issue, at another recent thread:

These days I'm quite dubious of the continued practice of representative political representation, since the practice itself is so *bourgeois* (politically).

While this proposed 'vanguard cabinet' may be the most nimble / agile vehicle available, and thus suited for certain time-sensitive situations, the glaring overall problem with it is its substitutionism, presumably / most-likely, if its decision-making doesn't depend on the larger population of workers (and people in general, arguably).

And if its decision-making *does* depend on the larger population of workers, then we'd have to ask *what process* is used for this, to purportedly 'concentrate' mass opinions and positions into a proportional reflection of it within this 'cabinet'.

I don't think that the regular, expected 'immediate recallability' provision is enough, because many representatives could be fairly transient anyway, with many of them ready to end their political careers for a final willfulness outside of what the masses indicate on a particular policy issue -- once the deed is done any reshuffling of personnel will be after-the-fact and too late to be significant or corrective for that policy.

I would certainly fall on the side of transparency in making public the realtime deliberations and tracking of all issues at-hand, if at all possible, since any steps towards opaqueness would also be steps toward a political specialization and elitism.

I've already developed a workflow structure and process that enable full inclusiveness of participation over any issues over time, with full tracking -- perhaps any perceived necessary detours into less-than-whole 'working-groups' should first be approved on a charter basis by the whole population up-front for specifically only those circumstances that really seem to require it.

I'll note that *any* substitutionism or specialization can potentially bring internal 'existential' issues into play, such as cabinet *composition* (ongoing), the relationship between cabinet and overall population, matters of process between the two, etc. -- basically everything arising from this dichotomization and duality for the payoff of expediency.


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'




ISSUER

AUTOMATIC TIMESTAMP UPON RECEIPT (YYYYMMDDHHMM)

ACTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)

FORMAL-ITEM REFERENCED (OR AUTOMATICALLY CREATED), IF ANY

FORMAL-ITEM NUMERICAL INCREMENT, 001-999, PER DAY, PER UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC UNIT

GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL INTENDED-FOR ('HSH', 'ENT', 'LCL', RGN', 'CTN', 'GBL')

GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE UNIQUE NAME, ABBREVIATED

FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_BIRTHYEAR(YY)

INDIVIDUAL'S ITEM RANKING, 0001-9999 (PER DAY)

RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')

TITLE-DESCRIPTION


WORK ROLE NUMBER AND TITLE

TENTATIVE OR ACTUAL HAZARD / DIFFICULTY MULTIPLIER

ESTIMATE-OF OR ACTUAL LABOR HOURS PER SCHEDULED WORK SHIFT

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS (MULTIPLIER TIMES HOURS)

ACTUAL FUNDING OF LABOR CREDITS PER WORK SHIFT (FUNDING ITEM REFERENCE REQUIRED)

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, BEGINNING DATE & TIME

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, ENDING DATE & TIME

AVAILABLE-AND-SELECTED LIBERATED LABORER IDENTIFIER


DENOMINATION

QUANTITY, PER DENOMINATION

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS PER DENOMINATION

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, BEGINNING

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, ENDING

"Class war" cabinets: most effective and efficient form of immediate class rule?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...25#post2876925


---

Well you dont need to enforce socialism. If you needed to enforce socialism it would not be in the interest of the working class.
The only objective of the revolution should be to abolish the systems of enforcement that prevent the working class from acting in their best interest's; individualistically and collectively.

The great falsehood of Liberalism is that the enforcement of law and order is to the benefit of the society and that without it; their would be Anarchy & that would be a bad thing.

Well they are right about one thing. Without the rule of law; it would be Anarchy... And Anarchy is order.
Ⓐ
That's what the circle around the A means. Its an O for order.
The working classes Law; our organization and our state; is Anarchy; a society without rulers.

[(A)]

Again I'm not going to bicker over one definition -- I prefer to think 'hegemony' in regards to state functions.

SO what is ownership to you? If you disagree with the historical understanding of property rights and what is and is not property; then what is property to you?

and what do you mean by "'hegemony' in regards to state functions"

Your profound mistrust of revolutionary self-activity is on-exhibit once again, and it's politically unbecoming.

You're overly concerned with boogeymen from the past (USSR, etc.)

Shit that would be like me saying that your profound mistrust of Capitalism is politically unbecoming.

I am an anarchist not because I "Mistrust the government".

Also the rule of law is by definition NOT revolutionary self-activity.
If the USSR was revolutionary self-activity then it would have been Anarchistic. But instead it was Non-revolutinary law imposed by a madman's Dictatorship.
But this thread is NOT to discuss specifics of History but theory. Hence its location in the theory thread and not the History thread.

an imagined internally-repressive workers state

My argument is that all states are internally-repressive and that a workers state; being internally-repressive would be undesirable and closer to Fascism then communism.
Even with the Elimination of class a workers state can still be Nationalistic, internally-repressive and externally-capitalistic.

This results in a political pessimism that's just inappropriate for a context of any seriousness.

Despite the pointlessness of human existence I am an optimist in all things (at least when I am not tired). What you mistake for political pessimism is in fact unbridled Optimism in Humanity.
Misanthropy is a trait for Fascists and Liberals; not Socialists.

I believe that Humanity (Individually and collectively) is able to govern itself and that the self governance of society is fundamentally socialist and that anything less then then this is simply tyranny.

"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State."
http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

'vanguard cabinet' may be the most nimble / agile vehicle available

While I know you are not arguing FOR a vanguard cabinet I am going to stop there and go off for a second on the subject.
Yes I am sure that a Parliamentary Dictatorship is quite effective (nimble / agile) in controlling labor.
But its problem is not "substitutionism" but Despotism, tyranny bordering on fascism.
The workers must obey the commands of the cabinet ministers or be subject to state violence (AKA Slavery) so that the state may commit external state violence.

Even if their where no alternatives to a Military Dictatorship to protect the people (ASSUMING that this was due to an actual threat and not Imperialism) this would still be unacceptable.
Would you back Trump because of ISIS? They are a threat to the states population. Should he institute martial law to stop them?

Even if the state was necessary its still not justifiable as it is Involuntary for the workers. It is based on the principles of private ownership. That the state has the right to protect/control private property.

[ckaihatsu]

Again I'm not going to bicker over one definition -- I prefer to think 'hegemony' in regards to state functions.

SO what is ownership to you? If you disagree with the historical understanding of property rights and what is and is not property; then what is property to you?

and what do you mean by "'hegemony' in regards to state functions"

The capitalist-imperialist state organizes its force on a nationwide scale to protect the interests of its (private-property-based, labor-exploiting) corporations.


---

Your profound mistrust of revolutionary self-activity is on-exhibit once again, and it's politically unbecoming.

You're overly concerned with boogeymen from the past (USSR, etc.), and with boogeymen from the future (an imagined internally-repressive workers state). This results in a political pessimism that's just inappropriate for a context of any seriousness.

Shit that would be like me saying that your profound mistrust of Capitalism is politically unbecoming.

No, you're not recognizing that the USSR had a different *origin* than the Western capitalist-imperialist nation-states -- you / no one has the luxury of *glossing over* this fact. This error of yours regarding history yields strange statements like the one here, where you think that *any* non-internally-capitalist, revolutionary-minded formulation from the past or future will necessarily be as dysfunctional to human interests as any existing capitalist-imperialist nation-state.

I am an anarchist not because I "Mistrust the government".

Okay, you're again conflating *any* proletarian organization / collective self-activity with '[bourgeois] government', which is erroneous -- the two are *not* the same.

Also the rule of law is by definition NOT revolutionary self-activity.

Here's your blatant mistrust of worker self-activity again -- perhaps workers *would* benefit from their own collectively-agreed-upon adherence to a self-created set of operating parameters (for lack of a better term). This bottom-up practice would confer a sphere of known expectations on the part of everyone involved, *for* everyone involved -- really it's the very *definition* of organization, or 'collectivization', meaning that an organic, ever-emergent social process of group intentions-means-and-ends would be *clear* and doable by everyone involved, to mitigate any possible ambiguity or confusion.

If the USSR was revolutionary self-activity then it would have been Anarchistic. But instead it was Non-revolutinary law imposed by a madman's Dictatorship.
But this thread is NOT to discuss specifics of History but theory. Hence its location in the theory thread and not the History thread.

I *agree* that the USSR was not revolutionary self-activity, as I've already mentioned before -- it was burueaucratic-collectivist administration, which was *okay* internally, considering what it had to deal with internationally, but it *wasn't* worker-empowering revolutionary activity, or the resumption of the October Revolution.

My argument is that all states are internally-repressive and that a workers state; being internally-repressive would be undesirable and closer to Fascism then communism.

Well the point of revolution *isn't* ultimately to set up a workers state, or socialism-in-one-country -- it would be a *means* to worldwide socialism, by definition. Problems only pop up when there's *stagnation* -- the lack of a continuous *spreading* of the revolution to remaining parts of the world that still function according to private property and the profit motive.

Even with the Elimination of class a workers state can still be Nationalistic, internally-repressive and externally-capitalistic.

No, this is more of your *pessimism* on display -- the elimination of class, by definition, means that there is no longer any socio-material *basis* for elitist (substitutionist) rule, and labor-exploitation. Without the existence of the class divide everyone, to the "last" individual, would have undifferentiated claims to nature's bounty and the material legacy of past labor accomplishments -- the means of production.

(In practice the usage of such would have to be socially organized / collectivized -- it wouldn't be 'grab a factory of your own quickly or else lose-out'.)

Despite the pointlessness of human existence I am an optimist in all things (at least when I am not tired). What you mistake for political pessimism is in fact unbridled Optimism in Humanity.

Not on the political / revolutionary *specifics*, you aren't. (And your personal existential nihilism is irrelevant.)

Misanthropy is a trait for Fascists and Liberals; not Socialists.

I believe that Humanity (Individually and collectively) is able to govern itself and that the self governance of society is fundamentally socialist and that anything less then then this is simply tyranny.

"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State."
http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

I'm not arguing for 'state socialism', or socialism-in-one-country.

While I know you are not arguing FOR a vanguard cabinet I am going to stop there and go off for a second on the subject.
Yes I am sure that a Parliamentary Dictatorship is quite effective (nimble / agile) in controlling labor.
But its problem is not "substitutionism" but Despotism, tyranny bordering on fascism.
The workers must obey the commands of the cabinet ministers or be subject to state violence (AKA Slavery) so that the state may commit external state violence.

Well, you're presenting a certain political-economic formulation, or scenario, one which I do not support.

Even if their where no alternatives to a Military Dictatorship to protect the people (ASSUMING that this was due to an actual threat and not Imperialism) this would still be unacceptable.

You keep using 'strawman' formulations like this one, which is going-off-on-a-tangent.

Would you back Trump because of ISIS? They are a threat to the states population. Should he institute martial law to stop them?

My position on ISIS is here:

[C]redibility *doesn't exist* when the 'political' aspect of the political-economy, or ideology (Islamism), is *Sharia law* -- which is religious-sectarian regarding civil rights matters.

There's no 'phobia' expressed here, in the sense of a *fear* or *knee-jerk* reaction to such a potential regime -- let's call it a 'serious concern', considering today's existence of the Islamic State. (Eliminating the Islamic State could be done in an instant *politically* among the major powers like the U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, but it *isn't* being done, thereby exposing the tacit support these countries have for each other despite the problem of ISIS / IS still existing.)

Is Islamism Right Wing ?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...98#post2876398


---

Even if the state was necessary its still not justifiable as it is Involuntary for the workers. It is based on the principles of private ownership. That the state has the right to protect/control private property.

Agreed -- I don't advocate socialism-in-one-country.

[(A)]

Okay, you're again conflating *any* proletarian organization / collective self-activity with '[bourgeois] government', which is erroneous -- the two are *not* the same.

NO I AM NOT! I am stating very clearly that "proletarian organization / collective self-activity" can not occur as a state. A "state" is an involuntary relation between those who make the laws (Dictator, Cabinet, Majority) with those who are subjected to that tyranny (the oppressed)

Even if you found a truly democratic state where the majority was in command of all state functions; it still remains an involuntary relation to the Minority. They being bound to the laws set forth by the Majority or they will be subjected to "legitimate" violence.

I will restate

"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State."

My argument is that collective self-activity by definition is not involuntary. That the USSR or any other form of state/government/corporation can not be considered collective self-activity. Self-Activity is an activity free from external rule.

Every form of External rule (rule being non-consensual) is based squarely on private property rights and the use of force to maintain them.

"You have to obey my rule because I own the land you live on"

[contracycle]

SO what is ownership to you? If you disagree with the historical understanding of property rights and what is and is not property; then what is property to you?

I think the flaw in your argument is that it is NOT historical. You seem to be dealing with property exclusively as private property, but that is itself a capitalist conception of property, not a historical one. Prior cultures and many and vaired ways of assigning rights, exclusivity, and exploitation, all of which capitalism collapsed into the singular right of private property. Straight off the bat we can distinguish between property proper (MoP) and chattels, and we can look things like the right of usufruct, which gives you the right to exploit a thing, but not necessarily to prevent others from exploiting it.


So, the presumption that capitalist property is the only form of property, and that any future society, communist or not, would have to use the capitalist form of property, is not at all valid.

Your arguments seem to me heavily based on Austrian school analysis, and I think you would do well to broaden your sources.

- - - Updated - - -

NO I AM NOT! I am stating very clearly that "proletarian organization / collective self-activity" can not occur as a state. A "state" is an involuntary relation between those who make the laws (Dictator, Cabinet, Majority) with those who are subjected to that tyranny (the oppressed)

You may be stating it, but it is not clear why your statement should be taken as fact.

Even if you found a truly democratic state where the majority was in command of all state functions; it still remains an involuntary relation to the Minority. They being bound to the laws set forth by the Majority or they will be subjected to "legitimate" violence.

This is merely democratic collective responsibility; you get a vote, in exchange for which you agree to adhere to the majority position, even if you lose. You don;t even need a state for this to apply, it occurs automatically among humans all the time. Sometimes you want to see film A but everyone else wants to see film B and you go along with it.

"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State."

If you wanna get laid, you have to play nice with the rest of us.

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, you're again conflating *any* proletarian organization / collective self-activity with '[bourgeois] government', which is erroneous -- the two are *not* the same.

NO I AM NOT! I am stating very clearly that "proletarian organization / collective self-activity" can not occur as a state. A "state" is an involuntary relation between those who make the laws (Dictator, Cabinet, Majority) with those who are subjected to that tyranny (the oppressed)

You keep bringing up this 'disclaimer' / caution, but it's simply *not topical* here -- no one at RevLeft is advocating for socialism-in-one-country. Would you *please* consider us 'informed' on this don't-duplicate-the-USSR message of yours, and leave-off with it from now until eternity -- ? (!)

Even if you found a truly democratic state where the majority was in command of all state functions; it still remains an involuntary relation to the Minority. They being bound to the laws set forth by the Majority or they will be subjected to "legitimate" violence.

You're making stuff up again by assuming 'violence' -- perhaps there are different factions in existence over policy alternatives, but that doesn't automatically imply violence. You're also imputing a standing hierarchy (the 'state') where one is not necessary and would not necessarily have to exist.

I will restate

"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State."

My argument is that collective self-activity by definition is not involuntary. That the USSR or any other form of state/government/corporation can not be considered collective self-activity. Self-Activity is an activity free from external rule.

Every form of External rule (rule being non-consensual) is based squarely on private property rights and the use of force to maintain them.

"You have to obey my rule because I own the land you live on"

Yes, we're both anti-capitalists.

[(A)]

Neither of you seem to understand consent.

Nation states are non-consensual collectives. Your membership is forced by the collective. As I was born in Canada I am forced to be a member of the state. If I reject this they will remove me from their collective property by force. Here alone one can logically conclude then that the territory claimed by the Canadian Collective is Private property as they possess the right to exclude me from it.

Your idea of a socialist one world state would again be a forced collective. Everyone MUST be a subject of YOUR system or else you will be imprisoned or worse.
Your very concept of the state is a reactionary one.

It could be compared to sex. At birth we are assigned a sex. Anarchists believe that despite our genetics we should be free to choose our own relation to the social construct of gender.
Unless you are a reactionary you support this yes? That we should be free to chose our own gender/sex.

Well we believe the same for society as a whole. Society should be formed around consent. That is; each member of society should be free to chose which community's they will belong to.
If I dont want to belong to your collective of Utopian socialists then I would not have to. I could form my own collective that will be as equally legitimate as yours.
Society will be formed wholly by voluntary collectives.

That means you will be free to form a world wide union of individuals who want to use Chris's Labor credit scheme; or to leave that union as you will.
Even if you could create your one world collective; I dont consent to abide by your rules. I will act as an individual and decide who is and who is not my comrade.

No means no.

[ckaihatsu]

Neither of you seem to understand consent.

Nation states are non-consensual collectives. Your membership is forced by the collective. As I was born in Canada I am forced to be a member of the state. If I reject this they will remove me from their collective property by force. Here alone one can logically conclude then that the territory claimed by the Canadian Collective is Private property as they possess the right to exclude me from it.

All you're doing these days is making accusations without even bothering to reference the other's arguments.

This isn't discussion -- it's you repeating certain unjustified rants at others like myself.

Your idea of a socialist one world state would again be a forced collective. Everyone MUST be a subject of YOUR system or else you will be imprisoned or worse.
Your very concept of the state is a reactionary one.

Same thing here -- unfounded assertions.

It could be compared to sex. At birth we are assigned a sex. Anarchists believe that despite our genetics we should be free to choose our own relation to the social construct of gender.
Unless you are a reactionary you support this yes? That we should be free to chose our own gender/sex.

Well we believe the same for society as a whole. Society should be formed around consent. That is; each member of society should be free to chose which community's they will belong to.
If I dont want to belong to your collective of Utopian socialists then I would not have to. I could form my own collective that will be as equally legitimate as yours.
Society will be formed wholly by voluntary collectives.

That means you will be free to form a world wide union of individuals who want to use Chris's Labor credit scheme; or to leave that union as you will.
Even if you could create your one world collective; I dont consent to abide by your rules. I will act as an individual and decide who is and who is not my comrade.

No means no.

And with this like you're continuing to mischaracterize me and my politics.