The state and its abolition

[Edric O]

I have been thinking about the concept of the (gradual) abolition of the state, which is supposed to be the main feature of the transition from socialism to communism under the Marxist conception of social progress. I am a Marxist and a communist, and therefore I support a communist society as the ultimate political goal - a society in which political, economic and social activity is organized in the most democratic fashion possible, a society based on communal property and an egalitarian distribution of wealth, and a society without a state. But I am beginning to wonder just what exactly does it mean to abolish the state.

Before we can talk about what it means to have a stateless society, we must first define the state. And this is where the problems begin. What is the state? Is it an organization with a monopoly over the use of legitimate violence in a given area, as Weber's Thesis declares? No, that is a useless definition. Under that definition one may "abolish the state" merely by persuading a large enough number of people that the state is illegitimate, or introducing a second, separate organization that has the right to use certain forms of violence within the territory controlled by a state. Weber's Thesis sets such a high standard for an organization to be considered a "state" that it becomes all too easy to "abolish the state" simply by making an existing state fall short of that high standard in some small way. In fact, many existing governments could not technically be considered "states" according to Weber's Thesis, because they do not have a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within their own borders. This includes every country with a significant rebel group, insurgency, mafia, paramilitary organization or tribal-controlled land.

The traditional Marxist definition of the state is "an organization that upholds the interests of a given social class by force or the threat of force." The state is seen as a class institution, and its purpose is to ensure the domination of some social classes over others. But this suggests that a truly democratic state would not be a "state" at all in the Marxist sense. It is possible to maintain the organization currently referred to as "the state" and make it serve the interests of the whole people rather than a capitalist ruling class. That is what a true democracy would do. Is democracy, then, sufficient to "abolish the state?" Marx would probably say yes - but then again, he lived in a time when universal suffrage seemed like a far-off utopian dream. Today we have universal suffrage, but we clearly haven't abolished the state. Of course our democracy is still imperfect and the state still serves the interests of the capitalist ruling class, but it is possible to imagine a perfectly democratic society that would still have an organization closely resembling our state. Could such a society be called "stateless?" No, clearly not.

So, to sum up, I am questioning the Marxist goal of abolishing the state because I have not been able to find any satisfactory definition of what counts as a "state." And if we don't know what is or is not a state, we don't know how to go about abolishing the state. Perhaps communism should only be defined in terms of grassroots democracy, communal property and an egalitarian distribution of wealth, rather than adding the slippery concept of a "stateless society."

Any thoughts? I would particularly welcome new attempts to define the state.

[Wolf]

It can only happen with great advancements in technology, which empower individuals. The abolition of the state, I mean.

[Dunenewt]

The Marxist interpretation of the state is that it upholds the interest of the individual, rather than a social class.

[Sneakgab]

The word: State... is just a symbol. It's definition lies in the dictionary. If you want to abolish something, there is no need to find an existing word that suits it or worry about it matching the word your using now. Just re-define with a new symbol with its specific meaning and do the same for the changes you want. We can instead describe it in terms of commonly agreed upon symbols that there are no trouble with. Ie: Instead of worrying about defining a tomato as a vegetable or a fruit, just say that it is a plant part with seeds, e.t.c that define it as a tomato or veg/fruit.

''It can only happen with great advancements in technology, which empower individuals. The abolition of the state, I mean.''

Why does it require great advancements. If we wanted to, we could all go bring down the state tomorrow and live ungoverned. Of course, if we wanted something to replace the governance of the state that would be a different story. Still, abolishing the state does not necessarily mean replacing it with anyone.

If you are suggesting that direct democracy would require great advancements in technology, then that is debatable. I haven't thought about it yet but if I had to make a decision right now I'd say it probably wouldn't require great advancements past what we have now.

[Edric O]

It can only happen with great advancements in technology, which empower individuals. The abolition of the state, I mean.

But what does it mean to abolish the state? What exactly is it that we would be abolishing? That is the question to which I cannot find an answer.

The Marxist interpretation of the state is that it upholds the interest of the individual, rather than a social class.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The Marxist interpretation of the state is that it upholds the interests of one social class against another. There is no such thing as "the interest of the individual", because different individuals have different and conflicting interests.

The word: State... is just a symbol. It's definition lies in the dictionary. If you want to abolish something, there is no need to find an existing word that suits it or worry about it matching the word your using now. Just re-define with a new symbol with its specific meaning and do the same for the changes you want. We can instead describe it in terms of commonly agreed upon symbols that there are no trouble with. Ie: Instead of worrying about defining a tomato as a vegetable or a fruit, just say that it is a plant part with seeds, e.t.c that define it as a tomato or veg/fruit.

I do not fully understand. Are you saying that "the state" is just an illusion or a meaningless label given to certain powerful organizations, so the only thing necessary in order to abolish the state is to persuade most people that the state has been abolished?

Why does it require great advancements. If we wanted to, we could all go bring down the state tomorrow and live ungoverned. Of course, if we wanted something to replace the governance of the state that would be a different story. Still, abolishing the state does not necessarily mean replacing it with anyone.

But what does it mean to live ungoverned? Does it mean to live in a society without laws? That would clearly not be desirable, as it would result in chaos and violence. A communist or anarchist society is still supposed to have rules that people must abide by and that are enforced by the community. Does that entail a state?

If you are suggesting that direct democracy would require great advancements in technology, then that is debatable. I haven't thought about it yet but if I had to make a decision right now I'd say it probably wouldn't require great advancements past what we have now.

I agree. The technology developed over the last two decades (I'm talking mainly about mobile phones and the internet) is enough to make direct democracy feasible on a large scale for the first time in history.

[SandChigger]

But what does it mean to live ungoverned? Does it mean to live in a society without laws? That would clearly not be desirable, as it would result in chaos and violence. A communist or anarchist society is still supposed to have rules that people must abide by and that are enforced by the community. Does that entail a state?

Thank you for pointing that out.

You know, before you waste any more time worrying about what the State is and how to abolish it (or worse, join some terrorist group and actually try to bring the State down), why not spend a bit of effort trying to figure out how that "society based on communal property and an egalitarian distribution of wealth" is going to be organized and function in practical terms? (Replacing the injustices of the current world order with a set of shiny new ones really isn't a solution, is it?)

Do something I have to wonder if Marx ever really did and take a good long hard look at the human animal and how it behaves. (I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to the details of Marx's life; is it true his wife supported the family while he was off scribbling in the British Library and that he never held an honest job in his life?)

[Edric O]

You know, before you waste any more time worrying about what the State is and how to abolish it, [...] why not spend a bit of effort trying to figure out how that "society based on communal property and an egalitarian distribution of wealth" is going to be organized and function in practical terms?

Many anarchists and some Marxists have already put forward numerous ideas for the organization of such a society. I have also given it some thought on my own. I think that a particularly good depiction of a communist society can be found in the novel The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin.

(or worse, join some terrorist group and actually try to bring the State down)

Don't be ridiculous. Terrorism always strengthens the state and the status quo, since it makes people support their leaders out of fear of the terrorists and out of a desire for security. Therefore, terrorism isn't just bad for society; it is stupid and bad even for the terrorists themselves. Terrorists are idiots.

(Replacing the injustices of the current world order with a set of shiny new ones really isn't a solution, is it?)

Of course not. Though, for history's sake, I must point out that replacing old injustices with new ones can sometimes still be a great improvement. A couple of centuries ago, for example, the unjust system of feudalism was replaced with the unjust system of capitalism. Yet capitalism, for all its faults, is much, much better than feudalism.

Do something I have to wonder if Marx ever really did and take a good long hard look at the human animal and how it behaves. (I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to the details of Marx's life; is it true his wife supported the family while he was off scribbling in the British Library and that he never held an honest job in his life?)

To be honest, I never took any particular interest in Marx's life, because a man's character has no relevance whatsoever in judging his ideas or his contributions to politics. An ideology must be judged on its own merits, and any attempt to appeal to the character of its supporters (for example saying that Marx was a wonderful guy so Marxism must be correct, or that Marx was a horrible person so Marxism is wrong) is nothing but an ad hominem fallacy.

As far as I know, Marx's main source of income during his exile in Britain came from his friend Engels; and given that he dedicated his life to studying human behaviour, I think it's fair to say he spent a good deal of time taking a long hard look at the human animal.

[Dunenewt]

Yes, and his work was worth it, as his works are still amongst the most influential in social science.  People forget that Marxism isn't just to do with Politics, it covered many areas and a lot of his thinking was quite ground breaking.

[Sneakgab]

''I do not fully understand. Are you saying that "the state" is just an illusion or a meaningless label given to certain powerful organizations, so the only thing necessary in order to abolish the state is to persuade most people that the state has been abolished?''

Basically, what I'm saying is that instead of bothering with the meaning of the word state, just decide what the ideal government is and aim for that. Manipulate and sculpt through whatever means till you have the ideal. So, you needn't label the problems with current society to effect change. You can say the problem with the state is that is not your ideal form of communist governance. If you need to refer to particular aspects of something, then create your own words if there is fogginess on the issue.

Take the example of the pirates thread in the general section where we speaking about buccaneers, corsairs, and privateers. Instead of worrying about if a buccaneer is one given freedom to pirate from other countries in trying to clarify what I wished to speak of, I could have simply said directly that I am speaking of one given freedom to pirate other countries.

So instead of wondering what a state is and how to change it, we should look at the problems there are and give words to them and speak of them.

I do not mean to say that the state is just a symbol, though that may be true. I mean to say that state is just a word. Something that is a state has characteristics A,B,C,e.t.c. What is important are those base characteristics than when gathered together define something as a state. We use word that define something with multiple characteristics because it is more convenient to say something is a state than to say something is an object with characteristics A,B,C,e.t.c. However, when a term becomes to muddy, it's clarity to others to unsure and it's validity to far in question, it is better to explain what we speak of by reffering to the base characteristics that are not in question as opposed to the questionable term in question.

''But what does it mean to live ungoverned? Does it mean to live in a society without laws? That would clearly not be desirable, as it would result in chaos and violence. A communist or anarchist society is still supposed to have rules that people must abide by and that are enforced by the community. Does that entail a state?''

I never said it would be desirable. I was just saying it is clearly possible if wished.

[SandChigger]

Many anarchists and some Marxists have already put forward numerous ideas for the organization of such a society. I have also given it some thought on my own. I think that a particularly good depiction of a communist society can be found in the novel The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin.

Ah, lovely world, that. But no thank you.

If you young idealists want to fly off to the moon or Mars, however, and create your new society there, I have no objections. ;)

Seriously, what are you going to do with those of us not interested in your vision? Up against the wall? "Re-education" in lovely resort camps?

Anyway, I'll leave this thread alone from here on; I sense too little common ground to make the exchange worthwhile.

[nemafakei]

"Seriously, what are you going to do with those of us not interested in your vision? Up against the wall? "Re-education" in lovely resort camps?"

A better life than most of us not interested in the vision forced on us by the status quo today.

[Sneakgab]

Indeed, right now we are also living with what was once a vision currently forced us on. It is pretty obvious that almost any form of governance, society, and economy require rules and their enforcement, including the one were living in now.

[Caid Ivik]

I have been thinking about the concept of the (gradual) abolition of the state, which is supposed to be the main feature of the transition from socialism to communism under the Marxist conception of social progress. I am a Marxist and a communist, and therefore I support a communist society as the ultimate political goal - a society in which political, economic and social activity is organized in the most democratic fashion possible, a society based on communal property and an egalitarian distribution of wealth, and a society without a state. But I am beginning to wonder just what exactly does it mean to abolish the state.

Before we can talk about what it means to have a stateless society, we must first define the state. And this is where the problems begin. What is the state? Is it an organization with a monopoly over the use of legitimate violence in a given area, as Weber's Thesis declares? No, that is a useless definition. Under that definition one may "abolish the state" merely by persuading a large enough number of people that the state is illegitimate, or introducing a second, separate organization that has the right to use certain forms of violence within the territory controlled by a state. Weber's Thesis sets such a high standard for an organization to be considered a "state" that it becomes all too easy to "abolish the state" simply by making an existing state fall short of that high standard in some small way. In fact, many existing governments could not technically be considered "states" according to Weber's Thesis, because they do not have a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within their own borders. This includes every country with a significant rebel group, insurgency, mafia, paramilitary organization or tribal-controlled land.

The traditional Marxist definition of the state is "an organization that upholds the interests of a given social class by force or the threat of force." The state is seen as a class institution, and its purpose is to ensure the domination of some social classes over others. But this suggests that a truly democratic state would not be a "state" at all in the Marxist sense. It is possible to maintain the organization currently referred to as "the state" and make it serve the interests of the whole people rather than a capitalist ruling class. That is what a true democracy would do. Is democracy, then, sufficient to "abolish the state?" Marx would probably say yes - but then again, he lived in a time when universal suffrage seemed like a far-off utopian dream. Today we have universal suffrage, but we clearly haven't abolished the state. Of course our democracy is still imperfect and the state still serves the interests of the capitalist ruling class, but it is possible to imagine a perfectly democratic society that would still have an organization closely resembling our state. Could such a society be called "stateless?" No, clearly not.

So, to sum up, I am questioning the Marxist goal of abolishing the state because I have not been able to find any satisfactory definition of what counts as a "state." And if we don't know what is or is not a state, we don't know how to go about abolishing the state. Perhaps communism should only be defined in terms of grassroots democracy, communal property and an egalitarian distribution of wealth, rather than adding the slippery concept of a "stateless society."

Any thoughts? I would particularly welcome new attempts to define the state.

In islamic politology people have the similar problem: there were attempts to compare modern democracies to muslim states and they found out that in the roots of Islam was no idea of a "state" at all. One could reduce it to shari

[Mihail]

I know that I'm getting into the deep end of the pool while not knowing how to swim(metaphorically speaking) with this one, but - I believe that the state is an illusion or mental construct kept going in the minds of the masses by a group of powerful individuals, or in other words, the government. So the notion of the State and the government are inexoribly entwined, so to abolish the state would mean also abolishing government, which leads to a little something called anarchy. So to me it seems that the goals and ideals of the anarchist school of thought and Marxism are almost the same.

(I have a feeling that I didn't understand the question :- )

[Edric O]

Ah, lovely world, that. But no thank you.

If you young idealists want to fly off to the moon or Mars, however, and create your new society there, I have no objections. ;)

Sorry, but that is one part of LeGuin's vision that I object to. Even if we had the option to go to the Moon or Mars, that would be cowardly and irresponsible. We must stay here and continue the struggle until all mankind is free of capitalism. Workers of the world unite and all that. ;)

Seriously, what are you going to do with those of us not interested in your vision? Up against the wall? "Re-education" in lovely resort camps?

As Nema and Sneakgab already pointed out, every society contains a certain amount of people who would rather not live in that kind of society. I am not interested in the capitalist vision, but I have to live in a capitalist society anyway. In a communist society, you would have the same options that I have in a democratic capitalist society: (a) accept it and get on with your life, (b) leave the country, or © try to change society from within. I have chosen option ©. i hope you would find communism pleasant enough to choose option (a), but it will not be forced on you.

Anyway, I'll leave this thread alone from here on; I sense too little common ground to make the exchange worthwhile.

I have common ground with anyone who is interested in the greater good of mankind.

I know that I'm getting into the deep end of the pool while not knowing how to swim(metaphorically speaking) with this one, but - I believe that the state is an illusion or mental construct kept going in the minds of the masses by a group of powerful individuals, or in other words, the government. So the notion of the State and the government are inexoribly entwined, so to abolish the state would mean also abolishing government, which leads to a little something called anarchy. So to me it seems that the goals and ideals of the anarchist school of thought and Marxism are almost the same.

(I have a feeling that I didn't understand the question :- )

You did understand the question, actually. But regarding your answer, the problem with considering the state merely an illusion is that you could "abolish the state" just by removing the illusion from people's minds, without changing anything in the way society functions. Also, if you're talking about abolishing government, what do you mean by "government?" :)

In islamic politology people have the similar problem: there were attempts to compare modern democracies to muslim states and they found out that in the roots of Islam was no idea of a "state" at all. One could reduce it to shari

[Caid Ivik]

Thank you; that was very informative and went a long way toward answering my question. So we could be talking about "abolishing the state" in the sense of abolishing the distinction between state and citizen, between rulers and ruled. In that case, the abolition of the state would require the participation of all individuals in the state to the point where everyone can be said to be "in power" in some small way. In other words, radical participatory (or direct) democracy. So we're back to one of the ideas I suggested in my first post - that the state could be abolished merely by extending democracy. If political decisions are no longer made by a ruling minority, but by a majority of citizens, then there is no state any more. Would you agree with that statement?

The idea of a state as the distinction between rulers and ruled is only one of many, reflecting the monarchies (and thus searching more for a "just state"), but there is also the "constitutionalist" stream, trying to define the state by its function. In the line of marxist ancestry, Hegel wrote an essay on constitution as an answer to Napoleon's conquest, beginning with "Germany is no longer a state". The idea of abolishment of a state is there that when a nation (or other group forming the state we speak about) loses its ability to unify its powers (ie to raise an army against French, or at least collect taxes) for a common goal. Abolishment seems to be described as a division, like that of Poland or post-Westfalen Germany. In a certain way, such an abolishment does imply also the division of power to smaller units than before, but I wouldn't expect a direct democracy. Such democracy would be a kind of state - if it is able to "unify the powers of a nation for a common goal". Of course, there remains a question - do we want this? Any possibility of "unifying powers" implies the possibility of its abuse.

[Sneakgab]

Although in that German-French example you refer to, though one state has been abolished the relation of ruler and ruled has been established with the conquerors and the populace of the conquered.

Suggestion:

The idea that the government or state has power over the individuals it rules over to enforce it's power is an illusion (although, it seems to me this is all but a certainty as opposed to something that would merely be suggested). The gov/state derives it's power from the individuals. It is supposed to be collected and organized extension of the will of the individuals who have all decided by one means or another that they all shall enter into the same contract and combine their wills.

The problem is that right now all the populace can do (without changing the system) to control this extension of power that is actually theirs is to decide which ruler/wielder of this power will best correlate with their wishes when using said power. Of course, the people could do many things which involve changing the system.

People only choose to have a person or organization wield their power because the body is greater than the sum of it's parts in some cases and because it is sometimes most convenient and efficient to have a central entity collecting all data and then issuing orders on the usage of power based on this data. To this effect, it would probably be best (in accomplishing shared objectives) to construct a super computer to direct the powers and will of those who agree upon the same objectives as we would see in various sci-fi novels and the like.

The idea of changing wills and agreements brings us to the idea of ''refreshing''. The super computer would update the collection of people who have agreed upon seperate goals (or the goals it has been specified to handle) along with data.

In the typical ''democracy'', this updating only happens every 4 years. Only every 4 years can the people change the exertion/influence of their  power to update with their goals. It should also be remembered that all they can do is provide some influence via voting in controlling the extension of their will. Hence our current democracy leaves people able to do little with their will and able to re-direct that small effect only every 4 years. If 60% of the populace desire the death sentence and marijuana being illegal simultaneously, they may have to settle for a party which only claims to have one of those things affirmed/pursued in a policy. Even then, the party once elected can decide they will then pursue neither.

The improvement would be direct democracy. There would be no ruling state. However, there would be the rule of the people within in an agreement. If disagreement for some is to strong, they can choose not to enter the contract by leaving and what not. This could lead to unfair impositions and terms by the majority, but it is certainly an improvement over todays system's which leave individuals with only these choices anyway. Anyhow, ''everybody'' would rule by exerting their influence and power to any goal/objective. With the objective decided upon, a council  or computer would manage it's following out allowing for efficiency but without said council or computer deciding on the direction of said power thus avoiding this absurdity of today's systems. ''Refresh rate'' could be decided upon via optimization. Ie: The avrg refresh leads to a %incr in efficiency and hence value (of any kind, not neccesarily physical, the values are determined by the cost efficients which decide relative worth set up by agreement). If this incr is greater than the cost of the refresh it is carried about. Clearly, this is a matter of rates. The longer the duration without a refresh, the more and more valuable one becomes. Once the value of a refresh >= than the cost of a refresh it is carried out. If the cost and value of the refresh are both static, then one can assign a refresh rate. As long as they adhere to some mathematical forms a variable refresh rate or system can be established (of course refresh rate as a term would then change to only an average sense as it varies over time).

Also, different councils/comps could be set up as required. If 1 million people decide that this system is not in their best interests, then another council can be set up for them to allow a seperate collection and wielding of power for them. If one were given total power over the population of the Earth (or whatever) then one could divide to greatest effect. Of course, different people have different objectives. Optimizing your own objective is different to the optimization of everybody's objectives and such a thing may be paradoxical when their are different objectives. In the case of different objectives, it may be up to the power holders to decide how much they care about others objectives and assign a cost co-efficient to them and then make their decision as per these considerations. If we assign infinite importance to the idea of people following their own objectives, then what would be best would probably be to give councils to each set of agreed upon objectives to have all these groups optimize the power held by all those with the same agreement/s.

Of course, while individuals can be threated until mind control is applied there is no such thing as absolute power to enforce one decision over an alternative. An individual can choose to do something that the state or whatever does not accept even if he dies for it as opposed to doing whatever the power holder decides.