Reversal:
communist: I’m all for ending this oppressive system, but only if we do it with a state that will wither away
anarchist: So… by magic?
deleted by creator
The basis of the state is class struggle, so to eliminate it you eliminate class. The basis of class is differences in relation to the means of production, so the answer is to collectivize all production. Until we get there, classes will remain, thus elements like police are necessary to keep the proletariat in control and capitalists oppressed, and as production and distribution collectivizes then so too will the basis of the state itself become unnecessary as class struggle fades alongside class itself.
It isn’t by magic, it’s based in sound analysis of socialism and the economic basis of class and the state itself.
The basis of the state is class struggle, so to eliminate it you eliminate class.
thus elements like police are necessary to keep the proletariat in control and capitalists oppressed
That is the main basis, but it is not the only one, and police are a good example of it. More often than not police enjoy the power that their position gives them. The job itself attracts people who enjoy having power over others, and that’s not strictly a mechanism of classes existing.
The state backs up their power, and so they are influenced to protect the existence of the state. Anybody who commands the police will see the police as an extension of their power and will be similarly influenced.
Power corrupts and makes people want to retain power.
This is more idealist than materialist. “Power” isn’t a real substance, it has no ability to “corrupt” people or turn them “evil.” Police exist to protect the ruling class, the state itself is not a class but an extension of the ruling class in society. The state does not exist to prop itself up, it’s a tool by the ruling class of society to entrench itself, prop up ruling class ideology, and suppress any resistance from the working class.
People act in their own interests, and in capitalism profit is the driving factor. The capitalists at the top are the ones that best get the most profits by any means necessary, so the ones at the top are typically more morally bankrupt. It wasn’t that power corrupted them, but capitalism as a system selected for them.
In socialism, this isn’t the case, and when we measure it up to how socialism exists in practice we don’t see this kind of “power corruption.” That isn’t to say corruption doesn’t exist in socialism, it absolutely does, but that isn’t because of metaphysical powers of corruption. The closest is that people’s existing material conditions and the way they interact with production does change their thought-process (called class consciousness), but that isn’t the same as saying anyone with any degree of authority is being mentally poisoned by it into becoming evil.
Further, as Dessalines said, socialist planning and administration is more collectivized, both by intention and by necessity. You physically couldn’t have a single person, or elite few, making all of the decisions in socialist society.
This is more idealist than materialist. “Power” isn’t a real substance, it has no ability to “corrupt” people or turn them “evil.”
But you are suggesting we create organization structures with authority over others. Immeasurable or not, it has an effect on human behavior which cannot just be ignored.
People act in their own interests, and in capitalism profit is the driving factor. The capitalists at the top are the ones that best get the most profits by any means necessary, so the ones at the top are typically more morally bankrupt. It wasn’t that power corrupted them, but capitalism as a system selected for them.
And police organizations select for those who enjoy (or are at a bare minimum comfortable with) having power over others. The same goes for government structures.
That isn’t to say corruption doesn’t exist in socialism, it absolutely does, but that isn’t because of metaphysical powers of corruption.
I never said anything about this being a metaphysical effect. This is an effect in relation to human behavior, organization, and economic structure.
Further, as Dessalines said, socialist planning and administration is more collectivized, both by intention and by necessity. You physically couldn’t have a single person, or elite few, making all of the decisions in socialist society.
As I told Dessalines, it doesn’t have to be one person. A council, committee, or other group of people can always be incentivized to retain and accumulate power.
You didn’t address that your analysis is idealist and not materialist. Power does not select for power. This kind of vague, metaphysical explanation for what actually goes on, class struggle, is why you’re running into opposition from Marxists. A materialist answer requires that we analyze class, and why we even form hierarchies to begin with. As I said in another comment:
That’s a bit like saying you can have battlefield success with only footsoldiers and no tacticians or strategians, or like saying a factory can run smoothly without foremen, or that a ship can sail safely without a capitain. We develop administrative positions because of their utility even within a class, not just class-based hierarchy like workers and owners. The latter, class-based distinctions are a product of unequal ownership and control, the former are a product of material necessity.
Cooperative production can work, but only for certain industries and certain scales. Agriculture is a good example, but for something more complex like smartphone production that involves global supply chains and intense safety risks for mining, shipping, silicon processing, etc, it’s just not feasible to do cooperatively and horizontally. Even then, for agriculture, as we advance to more efficient industrialized production we too develop beyond the basis for cooperative ownership to function.
Administration is not a bad thing. What’s bad is class society, which allows a small portion of society to plunder the vast majority of the spoils of social production.
In short, administration is not inherently bad. Like violence, like fire, like any tool, it can be good or bad depending on how and why it’s used. In socialist, collectivized society, the basis of class is eroding. The state is not independent of class struggle, but rather fully dependent on it and within it, while not itself being a class. As production and distribution is collectivized, class struggle erodes alongside class itself, as do the oppressive mechanisms of society we call the “state.” Administration, as far as it is legitimately useful, remains, as it should.
Step 1: everyone be nice to each other
Step 2: please bro
Step 1: everyone be nice
Step 2: or else
idea: we do the whole leftist infighting thing after we win against the common enemy, deal?
But the state is my enemy.
the state as an idea is bad yes i agree. but there are better and worse states, and if i have to live in a state because us anarchists can’t organsie well enough to create a state-less society, then i’d rather live in a better state rather than a bad one
The Spanish socialist revolution would like to disagree with communists I think
Not at all. The Spanish revolutionaries were communists. Some in the communist party, but even the Spanish anarchists called what they fought for “libertarian communism”.
