[SolarCross]

What else is the modern state but a combination of a protection racket with a permission racket with naked banditry when the first two fail?

[michael3]

What else is the modern state but a combination of a protection racket with a permission racket with naked banditry when the first two fail?

And the history of the world shows that the mask always falls from the face of the Terror of the State, with depressing regularity. Depressing, because then is the time for people to act and 'Brain the bloody beast' as Leon Bloy put it.

Like st. Augustine once said; "The rulers of this world are nothing more than crowned bandits."

'Socialism' so-called will always fail when supported by State power, and morph into a Capitalist society, and a Capitalist society will forever remain so unless out of temporary and localized weakness it loses its grip, or if in the future it develops such hubris as to venture without the State's protection.

[Malatant of Shadow]

What else is the modern state but a combination of a protection racket with a permission racket with naked banditry when the first two fail?

Oh, things like rule of law, maintenance of domestic peace, the reason why we don't kill each other nearly as often as our stateless pre-civilized ancestors did, the reason we can have a modern advanced economy, and lots of other things.

Honestly, I once had an attitude towards my father that was not unlike your attitude towards the state. It was no more rational, either.

[michael3]

While I can't speak for Taxizen, who is certainly more gifted intellectually than I am, surely you understand that his and for that matter my Anarchism is more subtle and nuanced than you would have it. You can have law without the State, domestic peace, and protection from outside aggression too. I myself am not oppossed to heirarchy as such, just coerced, non-voluntary, and permenant heirarchy.

[Decky]

Israel invaded lebanon, the lebanese government was completely useless so the people in the south had to make their own defence.

Yes and was totally shit compared to the Israeli military. What does the Israeli militarily have that they didn't? The backing of a state. This is the reason you anarchists will never achieve anything, you refuse to use the crushing power of the state meaning you will inevitably be destroyed by someone who does seize it and use it (right or left).

[SolarCross]

Oh, things like rule of law, maintenance of domestic peace, the reason why we don't kill each other nearly as often as our stateless pre-civilized ancestors did, the reason we can have a modern advanced economy, and lots of other things.

Honestly, I once had an attitude towards my father that was not unlike your attitude towards the state. It was no more rational, either.

The rule of law doesn't need government and it is generally regarded as suspect when it does come from government - as in the concept of an independant judiciary. Common law court system for example.
The government doesn't maintain the peace - it provokes hostility and contempt everywhere which soon or later boils over into unrest and revolution. Then there is war.
The economy is mostly an ugly shambles where poor get poorer the more they work and the rich get richer the more they bribe the bureaucrats. The good stuff is all technology but it is rare for bureaucrats to be inventors.
My attitude to the state comes from summing up it the positives and the negatives, principles and the vices and the alternatives, in the context of actual history and finding it no better than a scam and usually worse. I find vice and villainy repulsive.

[Malatant of Shadow]

The rule of law doesn't need government

Yes it does, because enforcement of the law requires government, and an unenforced law is effectively null and void.

and it is generally regarded as suspect when it does come from government - as in the concept of an independant judiciary.

An independent judiciary, like separation of powers generally, exists not because government is bad but because it is potentially dangerous, like fire, and we don't want to operate it without safeguards, like fire. But like fire, we can't do without it, and so we use it with safeguards in place, like fire, instead of putting out all the fires, eating nothing but raw food, and freezing in the winter. Which would not really be any better than burning the house down.

The government doesn't maintain the peace - it provokes hostility and contempt everywhere which soon or later boils over into unrest and revolution. Then there is war.

Yes, it does maintain the peace. "Unrest and revolution" are, with government, punctuation, occasional breakdowns rather than the constant factors they would be without government. That they do happen, and that wars do happen, is proof of nothing except that government isn't a perfect device and doesn't always work. We are still far better off with it than without it in terms of violence.

The reality is that someone living on Earth under governments IN 1942 would have a much, much smaller chance of dying by violence than someone living in a hunter-gatherer community without a government in prehistoric times. That's 19-fucking-42: arguably the bloodiest year in the entirety of civilized history, smack in the middle of World War II. That's life under government at it's WORST, at its MOST VIOLENT BY FAR, and it was STILL far less violent than our ancestors endured without government. Most people go through their entire lives without ever being seriously threatened by serious violence. That's due to government. How do we know? Because in all human societies that didn't have government, without exception, it wasn't true.

The economy is mostly an ugly shambles where poor get poorer the more they work and the rich get richer the more they bribe the bureaucrats. The good stuff is all technology but it is rare for bureaucrats to be inventors.

It may be rare for bureaucrats to be inventors, but technology is invented at a snail's pace without civilization and there's no such thing as civilization without bureaucrats. You're focusing too narrowly here. You're not seeing the big picture. I find that all the time. You look at what government does IMMEDIATELY to influence a business and you don't see the ripple effect from the whole existence of government. See above regarding the radical decline in violence. That decline in violence is a precondition of a modern economy. Toss in protection of property rights, enforcement of contract law, maintenance of courts for civil disputes, provision of infrastructure and an educated work force -- or rather, toss out those things -- and watch the economy collapse into ruin.

The economy is NOT "mostly an ugly shambles where poor get poorer." The economy IS something that produces vast amounts of wealth, too much of which goes to the top, while for the working class income stagnates. Is that stagnation a good thing? Of course not. Is it better than having essentially no economy at all? Well, I'd say yes. Do I think there's a solution? Of course I do; I'm a socialist. But it can't be implemented in a stateless society.

Or rather, a stateless society means that after most of us starve to death, the rest go back to hunter-gatherer and we no longer have a problem with inequality. But that still wouldn't be socialism, it would be communism. Socialism requires a state.

My attitude to the state comes from summing up it the positives and the negatives

List its positives, please. So far, I haven't seen you do that on any thread at all.

[Bounce]

— 7 —
In what way do proletarians differ from slaves?

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.

The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.

The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.

The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

I'm not sure whether credit should be given to Engels for this, as it seems he wrote it (but didn't publish it).

I'm sure if you faced true starvation you would submit your freedoms to slavery.

[SolarCross]

Yes it does, because enforcement of the law requires government, and an unenforced law is effectively null and void.

Enforcement of law does not require government, and when it is done by government it is generally done badly. Enforcement of law requires force only and not necessarily force in the sense of violence or threat thereof. Force may come from an armed society or from government gangsters. When Tony Blair insists on being put on trial and demands to be sent to be executed for crimes against humanity then I will believe it is possible for government to do law enforcement without fucking it up.

Yes, it does maintain the peace. "Unrest and revolution" are, with government, punctuation, occasional breakdowns rather than the constant factors they would be without government. That they do happen, and that wars do happen, is proof of nothing except that government isn't a perfect device and doesn't always work. We are still far better off with it than without it in terms of violence.
-------
Most people go through their entire lives without ever being seriously threatened by serious violence. That's due to government. How do we know? Because in all human societies that didn't have government, without exception, it wasn't true.

It may be true that many hunter-gatherer societies were more prone to homicide than modern societies but that says nothing about government. It may say something about modern medicine, education, culture, philosophy, economic incentives and so on. In a given modern society government is generally the foremost instigator of violence and threat thereof.

It may be rare for bureaucrats to be inventors, but technology is invented at a snail's pace without civilization and there's no such thing as civilization without bureaucrats. You're focusing too narrowly
----------
Or rather, a stateless society means that after most of us starve to death, the rest go back to hunter-gatherer and we no longer have a problem with inequality. But that still wouldn't be socialism, it would be communism. Socialism requires a state.

Technology flourishes with the sharing of ideas and mass communication. Government in general in seeking to preserve its parasitic position tends to try to control, manipulate and restrict information and its sharing.

It is plainly stupid to say that the end of protection / permission rackets (government) means we all have to go back to foraging for berries and smacking each other around with stone axes. Lets say the Queen of England went a bit lala and decided to dissolve parliament and then by royal decree end the monarchy. Unlikely sure but if it happened the UK would still have farms, technology, courts, schools, roads, factories, shops and everything else that really mattered. Alternative approaches to funding would need to be organised for some things but no we would not all suddenly forget how to make electric light, read books or repair a leaky roof.

List its positives, please. So far, I haven't seen you do that on any thread at all.

I haven't found any yet. When I do you will be the first to know.

[mikema63]

The way I see it, politicians will always work for themselves, you freely admit that capitalists won't simply surrender their power but then you turn around and suppose that the politicians of a socialist regime will not eventually grow and abuse their power in the same way?

Worst still the communists actually expect the state to wither away and the politicians to simply surrender their power entirely.

It's trite nonsense at the face of it.

[fuser]

The way I see it, politicians will always work for themselves

This is a meaningless statement, "Politicians" is not a class, Is Obama currently building an army for himself? or amassing personal wealth at the expense of common American citizens? Politicians represent a specific class as in this case the capitalist one, any politician will require his/her source of power, assuming that he/she can be "superhuman" without any support (from any class) is ridiculous. Even if it happens, history shows us he/she can't last for much long.

then you turn around and suppose that the politicians of a socialist regime will not eventually grow and abuse their power in the same way?

What? You are comparing "capitalist class" with politicians, this makes no sense at all. And of course their will be abuse of power, until their is state their will be abuse of power and oppression, communists never have said otherwise. But then, this is a necessity as we don't live in a dream world where everything will be good and dandy by change of hearts of bourgeoisie.

Worst still the communists actually expect the state to wither away and the politicians to simply surrender their power entirely

Of course, it will wither away. Communist didn't just dream of withering away of state unlike utopian anarchists, their is a solid reasoning behind it (which you chose to ignore) that, as their will be no classes, their will be no need of an institution which has been hitherto an instrument of oppression of a class by another class.

[mikema63]

No you just created a political class. The idea that communism will produce a classless society while simultaneously giving politicians all the power of evrybody else is also nonsense.

I compare the capitalist class and the political class because that is exactly what communism and socialism does. Trade in one master class for another.

[fuser]

What do you mean I created? Is political class (there is no such thing as political "class" anyway.) non existent in current society? If it is already present then we are merely replacing it rather than creating it and of course we say that we will take the power of state ergo there will be a new political class.

The change is that from where does that "political party" will derive its power from, bourgeoisie or working class. or you think that politicians derive their power from some supernatural entity or they are superhuman who don't need support of any living being?

I compare the capitalist class and the political class because that is exactly what communism and socialism does. Trade in one master class for another

This makes no sense at all. Why are you implying that there is no political class in present system and only comes into being in a socialist government? And how many times will I have to repeat that until there is state, there will be repression, communists don't shy away from that fact but they also don't believe in utopian dreams where state vanishes without massive social/economical changes in the society and overnight just after a revolution.

[mikema63]

Of course there are politicians now, they are just controlled by capitalists.

You give all the power to the politicians and when the time comes for them to go away they will show you how much they work for the working class with guns.

[fuser]

And how did you know that? I don't recall a time in human history (after hunter gatherers) where government had become obsolete.

[Decky]

Class is defined by your relation the means of production Mike.

Politicians don't have any specific relations to the means of production and are thus not a class. QED.

Honestly Mike.

[Conscript]

I think he means the state, no matter its character, is just gonna 'take over'. It's a liberal thing.

[mikema63]

No actually, under communism the means of production are controlled by the political system, nominally in the name of the workers, but ultimately the political system and the politicians control it.

Thus since in Marxian analysis class is defined in relation to the means of production and the politicians control those means of production they qualify as a class.

[Decky]

Thus since in Marxian analysis class is defined in relation to the means of production and the politicians control those means of production they qualify as a class.

State is controlled by the Communist party and the Communist party is the will of the international working class made flesh. What is not to understand?

[mikema63]

The part where communists fall for the same magic idea as liberals that government will actually represent who they say they represent?