My thoughts on the term "state"
Artikel ansehen
Zusammenfassung ansehen
Should all the state's functions be abolished e.g. collective decision making?
No, of course that is also part of anarchy.
This prompts a question of semantics:
- Abolish the "state" and replace it with something else.
- Implement a "state" which complies with anarchy.
The Definition of the State
All definitions are logically valid but they aren't equally useful.
The widespread definition according to Max Weber (namely an institution that claims a monopoly on the use of violence on a given territory) is not very useful because it is legalist.
It is about as useful as a legalist definition of sexism:
- "There are no more sexist laws, ergo there is no sexism"
- "Excluding cis-men from one bathroom is sexist"
Political dominance can exist without Weberian statehood.
Imagine everybody had the right to exert violence,
but only the police had the right to use firearms.
You don't even have to go that far.
Our state would remain a political dominance hierarchy even after simply dropping the claim to the monopoly on violence.
Even if everybody could acquire a license to use every weapon, the real access to weapons and the practical knowledge regarding their use would remain almost entirely concentrated in the "state", and that wouldn't quickly change (for the better).
Further examples are anarcho-capitalism and the tyranny of structurelessness.
1. Anarcho-Capitalism
If you shoplift, the store will sick one or more para-policiary firms on you to enforce the NAP (non-aggression principle). Best case scenario: They'll only take you spoils. Even that would constitute poltical dominance, wouldn't it?
Autonomous social centers will often produce poltical dominance even with a few dozen members and no firearms.
Now imagine the
FAI within the
CNT within "civil society". Was it really as devoid of poltical dominance as we like to think and if so, would that have remained stable beyond
the civil war?
Right vs. Access
Right to violence ≠ access to violence. Equal right to violence (or firearms) is neither sufficient nor in the short term necessary for equal access to violence (or firearms).
Analogy: Speech
In discussions equal right to speech ≠ equal access to speech.
Giving every participant equal right to speech (i.e. absence of moderation) is neither sufficient nor in the short term necessary to provide maximally equal access to speech.
Depending on circumstance and implementation, introducing a hierarchy regarding the right to speech (i.e. moderation) can equalize material access to speech.
Legalist definitions of forms of domination tend to be of limited use because domination is often informal and even
emergent (i.e. they arise spontaneously rather than by design).
The presence of moderation can be misconstrued as a "speech state", even though it may circumstancially provide the greatest possible material equality; just as the bathroom excluding cis-men can be misconstrued as sexist, despite equalizing quality of access.
Conclusion
I am "opposed to the state" in that I am opposed to political dominance. To me this does not imply that I am against all hierarchies regarding the right to use violence or firearms. In terms of propaganda, I find it rather counter-productive to position ones' self "in opposition to the state" because
- this is often interpreted as a categorical rejection of all hierarchies of right, or even rules in general.
- in terms of "realpolitik" it's quite common that expanding certain state functions effectively reduces dominance.
Among leftists the snappy term "state" would be useful as a synonym for "political dominance".
"Political" means non-identitarian and "non-economic" while recognizing that the spheres of politics and economy cannot be strictly separated; thus "non-identitarian, less economic dominance".
I am opposed to the state as I am opposed to sexism. It is a partly formalized, partly concsciously informal and partly genuinely emergent system that as such cannot be abolished by decree or lack thereof. Rather, its abolition constitutes a massive project requiring both theorizing and experimentation. I am aware that the process may require adopting positions that can be misconstrued as "hypocritical" through a legalist lense.
Like Us