You're viewing part of a thread.
It's not that it's a collective, it's that it's a body that governs the collective. What I was describing were acts of governance. Since a state is a governing body, I'd say what I described fits that bill just fine. States having a monopoly on violence is a great observation, but it's not a necessary part of the definition.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
For the record, I have not advocated for anything here. I can tell you can tell I'm not a socialist and that's fine, but I'm also not a full on capitalist. I just think it's silly to suggest that socialism doesn't rely on any state. The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
Name one state in history which doesn't have a monopoly on violence. You can use your less specific definition, if you want. But then arguing with other people will probably get nowhere and/or be very confusing.
And since I don't know what you mean by state, please tell me what you mean by "governing body".
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
I exclusively mean the workers ownership of the means of production. If there are no workers, because for example it's a patch of land (that doesn't require heavy farming), then the community who lives near that land and use it to feed themselves owns it. As soon as someone from the upper levels of some hierarchy latter (be it economic or bureaucratic) owns the means of production, I wouldn't call it socialism anymore.
The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
You're always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of "actual anarchy". Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership. Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Also, private ownership of the means of production is actually a dictatorship over those means. Or rather: the workers who work in them. If I can tell everyone what to do, or they'll have to leave, then that's an opt-out dictatorship. That's clearly a hierarchy. How can you call that "actual anarchy"? Especially if people need the job or whatever is produced in that factory/workshop/farm to survive.
For further info, I suggest you to read this. It's very informative. If you prefer videos, there's this one.
Name one state in history which doesn’t have a monopoly on violence.
I wasn't giving you push back on this idea. I outright said it's a great observation. It just doesn't fit in the definition. It's like saying humans always eat, so that should be part of the definition. Obviously not, the definition of human doesn't include food, but that doesn't mean it's untrue humans eat food. These kinds of definitions are set up to contradict other ideas in dishonest ways, often a priori, and usually in a way that neglects established theory, which is really bad for meaningful discussion.
please tell me what you mean by “governing body”.
and entity that enforces rule of law
You’re always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
This is interesting to me, because my play-by-play literally started out with worker rule and then explained step by step how they may or may not structure their organization. Although you missed it and implied the opposite, we actually agreed that it would be completely impractical for a collective of workers to vote on everything. Because of the impracticality of involving everyone on all decisions, some things have to be precompiled, rules and guides for how to do the job get created democratically. Eventually workers would see the need for someone to manage the logistics of operation, so manager positions get created.
And the thing is, I described this without suggesting it created a top-down hierarchy. I just described the decision making process and how these positions emerge, and you inferred the top-down structure yourself. Same goes for the authoritarian comment, I never said things go authoritarian, you inferred that when I suggested certain contexts involve certain rules of operation. If your bar for authoritarianism is any rules and regulation at all then I would say that yes there's need for authoritarianism, because there's need for rule. My bar for when it's authoritarian is higher than that though, and that's fine.
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of “actual anarchy”.
Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, which conversely means that a capitalist advocates against the non-private means of production. If all means of production are completely privately controlled, then there is necessarily no state involvement, because as soon as it's introduced, there would be some means that are not privately owned.
Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership
lol you did the thing I said! Right in the same comment, oh my. And it's actually the reverse logic which is even worse. You claimed statehood means monopoly on violence, but here you're saying a monopoly on violence implies statehood. That's not the same thing! For real, this is actual application of logic: statehood -> monopoly on violence is not the same thing as monopoly on violence -> statehood. Two different statements, and you can't derive one from the other.
It's also not even true, if we ignore the theoretical voluntary cooperation in the hypothetical, in the case of no statehood property would be protected by private militia. One person's militia would have no reason to protect other property inherently, and no one else would be restricted by the state from doing the same.
Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Private ownership stems from the human intuition of personal property. You can observe babies evolve a concept of ownership before they learn language. They understand what their space is, and it's incredibly common for babies to have a favorite toy they carry around. When you take it, they get upset, because it's theirs. These instincts don't go away, and people clearly evolve a natural concept of ownership. What people call or consider "theirs" has very little to do with their political ideas on ownership theory.
In reference to tribal people, it's a little silly to lump them all as one type of culture, but even still, they tend to have a lot of respect for personal boundaries and property, and this includes the means of production. When a tribal hunter takes home a hunt, they use it to provide for their family first and foremost, and unused excess is given to neighbors. This actually formed the basis of free market trade, when people realized if they adopted techniques to increase excess, I will have more to provide, and they can exchange their excess more readily with mine.
It just doesn't fit in the definition.
As stated in the other comment: You're missing the distinction between states and government.
and entity that enforces rule of law
But why is anything concerning the law outside of the governing body? Your definition doesn't seem complete.
Apart from details of the management body: I agree to your code of conduct for a democratically run. Cooperative. But didn't you imply that socialism automatically implies authoritarianism? Where does authoritarianism enter the picture, if the decisions are made bottom-up?
Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government.
Here we come to the definitions problem again. Anarchy is usually understood as the absence of any hierarchy. Economical hierarchy (I own something that you need to survive) is a form of hierarchy. Also, as "politics" describes anything concerning decision making in groups: Good luck having a society without political institutions. Even private corporations are political institutions. Why you exclude the economic sector from your exclusion of hierarchy, I also don't really know (well I'm guessing that it's convenient for your ideology, but that's just a guess).
If all means of production are completely privately controlled, then there is necessarily no state involvement, because as soon as it’s introduced, there would be some means that are not privately owned.
But without any state involement: How are the property relations maintained? Private armies? That would result in warlord-feudalism.
You can also view capitalism through class-relations: The owners of the MOP and the people they employ. The employed have to follow the orders of their private boss in order to survive. If you switch out the private property owning boss with a party bureaucrat and the class relations don't actually change, that's called state capitalism. That's how language works. Adding a word to another word can create a new term.
Two different statements, and you can’t derive one from the other.
Lol, are you seriously trying to formal-logic me? A monopoly on violence is a necessary feature of a state (state -> monopoly on violence). If the means of production are privately owned, class tensions between the people with private ownership of the means of production. If these tensions are not resolved (which the owners have no incentive to in capitalism), they would lose their property through the violence of the employed class... or they'd "invent" something that pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. A state.
It’s also not even true, if we ignore the theoretical voluntary cooperation in the hypothetical, in the case of no statehood property would be protected by private militia. One person’s militia would have no reason to protect other property inherently, and no one else would be restricted by the state from doing the same.
That's what we had in the middle ages in Europe. It's called feudalism. Or warlord-ism. People with more economical power have more resources to fund a private army. And why would I refrain from overpowering my market rivals, if I have the means to do so?
Private ownership stems from the human intuition of personal property.
The jump from personal to private property is incredibly big. Native Americans didn't have any concept of absentee-ownership. Or of ownership of anything that other people need.
In reference to tribal people, it’s a little silly to lump them all as one type of culture, but even still, they tend to have a lot of respect for personal boundaries and property, and this includes the means of production. When a tribal hunter takes home a hunt, they use it to provide for their family first and foremost, and unused excess is given to neighbors.
Lol, you A) have no idea of antropology and B) are committing the same thing that you are claiming is silly. :D No, that's not how "a tribal hunter" generally behaves. Immediate return societies are overwhelmingly incredibly egalitarian (and don't really have the modern notion of one's family, which must come first). They share everything.
I agree to your code of conduct for a democratically run. Cooperative. But didn’t you imply that socialism automatically implies authoritarianism?
You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question. Good work requires organization, organization requires planning and logistics, rules are created and/or people appointed to take the job of handling logistics. I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers, is that where you inferring authoritarianism from? Again, I didn't say authoritarianism. If you think having any authority over anything strictly means authoritarianism, then that's where it falls.
Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian? That's where the answer to your question lies. I don't have much skin in this evaluation.
Anarchy is usually understood as the absence of any hierarchy.
This was in my definition. Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government. And yes, I did mean state and government when I said state and government. They advocate against the ruling organization itself, and they also want to take power away from the people who rule it.
But without any state involement: How are the property relations maintained? Private armies? That would result in warlord-feudalism.
I agree. Remember when I said I'm not an anarchist? We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society, that doesn't mean that anarchism doesn't refer to a lack of statehood.
I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so I'll type it out again. Humans eat food, it's necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of "human" absolutely has to include "something that eats food"? No, it doesn't. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I can't stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.
I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the most important part of my previous comment. I will not respond to you anymore if you don't entertain this thought. Do you disagree that "something that eats food" should be part of the definition of human? If so, why should you include "something that has a monopoly on violence" to the definition of a state? You keep appealing to definitional problems, so let's work it out instead of ignoring an incredibly important point.
You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question. Apparently, you didn't really make it clear to me.
I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers
You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question.
Apparently, you didn't really make it clear to me.
I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers
I begin to see where the misunderstanding is coming from. I don't think that some logistical management implies authority. By "authority" I mean a position of command and control. Just because someone is in charge of logistical planning, doesn't mean they get to fire me.
Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian?
When any questioning of an existing hierarchy is being punished by the authority.
This was in my definition.
No it wasn't. You said "without political institutions or hierarchical government". This leaves out other hierarchies, like economic, ethnic or gender hierarchies.
Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government.
Pardon my french: That is some grade-A bullshit. From the very beginning of the political movement we call "anarchism", it was at least also about the abolition of capital. Yes, the abolition of the state is always an important part. But anarchism is rooted in power analysis which is highly skeptical of any hierarchy. One of the most famous quotes by Proudhon was "Property is theft", after all.
We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society
That's not what I'd call an anarchist society. This would be an "anarcho-capitalist" society. In anarchist society, all means of productions would be held in common.
I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so I’ll type it out again. Humans eat food, it’s necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of “human” absolutely has to include “something that eats food”? No, it doesn’t. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I can’t stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.
You are really not talking sense. You said "eating food" is necessary for humans. That means that it's a necessary feature of a human. It is however not a sufficient feature of a human. Not everything that eats food is human. But if something doesn't eat food, you can rule out that it is a human, since it doesn't satisfy a necessary condition. Here's the Wikipedia page, since it's such an important point for you.
I never claimed that monopoly of violence is a sufficient feature of a state. It is necessary, though. If something doesn't have the sufficient property of a monopoly of violence, it is not a state. That is not a definition I made up for my world-view to function. There is consensus in political science that this is a necessary property of a state.