1190
Ancaps (don't) rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
1190 points (99.9% liked)
196
16535 readers
2054 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's assuming anarchists agree with Marx's definition of the state. Which, famously, they don't. It's far too nebulous to be useful for analysis, theory or prefigurarion. Marx isn't the end all be all of left wing politics. Here's a short video going into more depth on anarchist criticisms of the Marxist conception of the state.
To quote Malatesta "Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force."
If you're going to debate anarchist ideas, you should use anarchist definitions so at the very least you understand what you're criticizing.
Definitions matter and communism has been understood as a stateless, classless, moneyless society for as long as the term has existed. The only people who would contest that definition are either ignorant or anti-communist actors who have a vested interest in muddying the waters. And I don't think those individuals should have the final say on what is and isn't communism.
Lenin didn't practice or install a communist society, and as you've noted, he didn't intend to. Council communists and even libertarian marxists (Marxist autonomists for example) are both horizontal ideologies and despite some linguistic differences from anarchism, I consider them comrades. They can call it a state if they want, anarchists would disagree. But if the only difference between us and them is definitions, I don't really see an issue. That's something that can be debated post-revolution
I know Malatesta's definition trouble is I consider it just as problematic as the other definitions as it obscures horizontal structures already existing within the overall hierarchical structure, dismissing all of it because it's part of the overall usurpation of power, while we have way better terms to address the parts that matter (hierarchy and horizontal). Back in Malatesta's time, the state indeed was horizontal, and peasants organised horizontally apart from the state. Things are way more intertwined and fuzzy now.
But more generally speaking I wanted to point out, to the general audience, that different definitions are in use.
I don't have a good definition of state, either. I'd even go so far and ask why the hell should anarchists have a definition of state? Why should we cling onto a concept which can either only ever be used in the negative, or bog down to something so generic as the ML one? Neither is theoretically productive.
And on yet another level I'd say that's all egg-headed gobbeldygook without any practical relevance whatsowhatever. Including my meta-thoughts on this. So I just avoid the term state and talk about power to vs. power over/hierachy vs. horizontal.
I generally agree with you but I do find it useful to have some description of the state. If anything, I'd say Malatesta's definition is more relevant now than it was when he wrote it. At the very least when speaking to non-anarchists who may not have a grasp on how power functions. It points out specific areas of statehood that are broadly problematic and shifts the conversation towards the lack of political power and self determination present in our everyday lives. It's a useful rhetorical device, perhaps a bit dated, but most people aren't familiar with politics outside of electoralism. Having a short description on hand can help others towards radicalization.
Having negative terms isn't inherently a bad thing either. Every ideology has things they're for and against. Being able to clearly describe the things we're against is not only helpful, it's necessary. We use terms like domination, coercion and heirarchy almost exclusively in the negative, should we get rid of those as well?
It is a bit nerdy lol, but I feel the concept of a state still has relevance in our day to day work, even if onyl as a rhetorical device. It can, and still is, used to write good theory and analysis. At the end of the day, MLs and other authoritarians use the term positively and seek to grow state power. The state is still present in our everyday lives as I (and I think plenty of other anarchists) view it as part of the kyriarchy/mega machine/whatever you want to call it. What would you refer to this particular apparatus as?
The state. But in the usual politigological sense, not a special anarchist one. Anarchists can also talk about bananas, and solve issues and organisational problems regarding bananas, without having a specifically Anarchist definition of bananas: A specifically Anarchist understanding and approach suffices.
More practically speaking: There is a metric buttload of horizontal organisation that can be done in the average liberal democracy, without stepping on the state's toes but still prefiguring Anarchism, strongly challenging hierarchical realism. Depending on where you are, the state will even actively support your work, even if it's specifically Anarchist, say, increasing rapport and horizontal enmeshment between civil society actors. If, in such a situation, we're theoretically fixated on opposition of "the state" we're, in my mind, by pure equivocation of the Anarchist vs. politicological concepts of state, less effective than possible. "Let's apply for that state funding pot, it meets our goals and principles" shouldn't be a taboo thing to say in a meeting, just make sure to have an erm diplomatic corps in place when dealing with entities that are mixed hierarchical/horizontal to avoid becoming hierarchical by osmosis.
Of course, I agree that that might be completely impossible or just too much of an headache depending on how the local state bureaucracy functions. Over here the long march through the institutions has been quite successful, they don't really have an idea what to really do with those newly-gained positions, but they and with it many parts of the apparatus are amenable. You deal with them just like you'd deal with, what, the Rotary Club: At arm's length, but not antagonistic on principle (even though they're a bunch of elitist bourgeois snobs). Antagonism should be directed specifically at hierarchy, and not attack imperfect and only barely principled other structures, those should be left room to see the light for themselves, absorb horizontalism by osmosis.
Or, differently put: If your local city council wants to move a homeless camp to proper housing and to organise that they call you first, not the Salvation Army (six hierarchy steps from "soldier" to "general") because they think you can do it better you've already won, the system just hasn't fully understood it yet.
If bananas were a central part of anarchist ideology and, through decades of discussion and theory, we came to a more holistic and useful conception of what constitutes a banana than the common understanding of what a banana is, I would argue in favor of using the more distinct definition. But the state is also infinitely more complicated than a banana. It's character has changed over time, often progressing in ways that past anarchists have predicted. The fact that a hundred year old conception of the state still has legs shows that not only is it accurate, but useful. You could define so many horizontal societies as states using the common definition. If we're trying to build a society distinct and separate from what currently exists, shouldn't our language reflect that? It's important to distinct, concrete markers for progress in our struggles. And the abolition of the modern state is among the top of the list in matters of importance.
Just because we can peacefully coexist and even work with the state apparatus for a time doesn't mean we don't seek it's elimination. If we're calling our end goal by the same name as the thing we wish to eliminate, it only serves to create confusion. What's the point of saying "the state is our enemy, we seek to recreate the state but minus all of the things that most people would consider functions of the state?"
Language can also be prefigurative, and part of that is using terms held in common among our group in the way we understand them. It's far easier to mold this facet of the world we wish to change if we're not immediately contradicting ourselves and confusing others. Even if you went through the route of focusing strictly on power dynamics and heirarchy without mentioning the state. Eventually it's going to come up, people are going to ask if we want to get rid of the state/government. What do you say? "We don't want to get rid of the state, we want to turn it into the state but one that's completely unrecognizable as a state to the average person"?
You're doing it. That's the equivocation I was talking about: We're not co-existing with the state Malatesta put at the core of his definition, we cannot seek its abolition because it does not exist in that form, any more. We're not out to eliminate the muncipical organisation of garbage collection yet when you say "eliminate the state apparatus (that we currently can work with)" you're saying exactly that. Malatesta's state would never fund a rag-tag group of peasants doing things the lord didn't order.
Honestly? Yes. If in doubt just say that you want a better democracy: More participatory, more direct, delegates instead of representatives. I have no idea whether there will actually be a revolution or not because noone, anywhere, has ever actually come close to implement what's possible in liberal democracies, without changing the constitution, without changing laws. Take over at least a municipality before judging how the broader state will react -- over here our federal states don't really care, aren't allowed to care (subsidiarity), how a municipality collects garbage what's mandated is that garbage is collected which isn't really a thing I feel like rebelling against. There's some doubts I have about constitutional requirements, OTOH the law on municipal constitutions actually does contain an experiment clause, so you could make a council structure municipal law and state courts would uphold it. Is it undignified to have to beg state bureaucracy to let you organise your municipality in the way you want? Possibly, but also remember that the laws are in place to prevent fascists from abolishing municipal democracy, any anarchist federation would have a similar mechanism, "here's five standard municipal constitutions to choose from, if you like something else and it's still anarchist we can talk". In the mean time you can elect people to the official city council that take being a delegate of their neighbourhood council instead of mere representatives seriously. Yes, form a party if that's what's needed.
Zen (bear with me) talks about "sudden enlightenment, gradual refinement", what I want to say is that the revolution might actually already have happened, and what's necessary now for society is to find our bearings, to cast off old habits, that resistance we still face is not due to hierarchy still being in a strong position, but due to inertia and our own incapability to come up with horizontal modes of organisation to replace existing structures, and the courage to implement them, that this "the state is the enemy" talk is actually a mistake of ours, preventing ourselves from doing what we could because we confuse Malatesta's state for the one that currently exists.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
short video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.