Statists of Holla Forums

Define a state and how it differs from a government. Because I absolutely think we need a strong, entirely democratically accountable government which governs many kinds of people and many different places so that we can institute global socialism Would you call this a state?

Anarchists never address the problem. They just complain that everyone else's ideas will not work. At least when the marxists are tasked with theorizing solutions they put ideas forward.

I would define that as weeb shit.

Reminder that the state is part of the base, not the superstructure.

...

Time to stop being an anarchist I guess

To be honest i havent came acros any anarchist theory that would adress revolutionary strategy incase of counter revolution. I would gues something along the lines of Platformism or syndicalism military organisation or anything among the lines of Yugoslavian partisans.

Can someone please explain how this base-superstructure works?

It doesn't work, it's a meme.

His version doesn't work. The state is an imaginary construct and thus is a part of the superstructure.

The base is material. The economic system is part of the base, because it is manifested by material goods being moved. The environment is also part of the base.

Materially/Economically speaking.. Yes, I think it is absolutely necessary that a democratically accountable state apparatus should be established to run the major heights of the economy to sustain socialism.

From a philosophical/ethical perspective, I do agree with the contention that: the state is a form of coercive hierarchy, however, from both a dialectical and contractual notion, I believe that man is made unfree and unequal by entering society, that they are exposed to the wills of the multitude of individuals in that society backed by their strength and cunning. I believe the initial solution to this degeneration of the will of man in society is the surrender of man's properties and natural liberty to the state, so that it may be returned to him in a higher form that will make him free and equal within society. Should we aim to abolish this hierarchical, coercive institution known as the state? Not de-ontologically or obligatorily. The tyranny that presides over civillized man under a Democratic Socialist State is nothing compared to the tyranny man would experience if he weren't to live under this state.

To demonstrate this, we should call Man with all his natural liberties (spooks, but for the sake of Metaphysics; "man unrestricted by other men, free from coercion"), the "Savage". Man is naturally free (in itself), but stemming from man is "Society" (out of itself), its antithesis, where-in man is exposed to the jealousies and aspirations of others, and he is made unfree and unequal, then from this state of society the natural liberty of man may be returned to him (In and for Itself), polished, refined, in a truer form, we may refer to this liberty as Civil Liberty that may only exist in a state of "Civilization", or perhaps even Positive Liberty.

An-sich > Anderssein > An-und-für-sich
Savage > Society > Civillization
or alternatively Natural/Negative Liberty > Tyranny of Man over Man > Civil/Positive Liberty.

tl;dr read Rousseau faggot and here's Azusa :)

That's not quite fair. While an individual anarchist territory surrounded by capitalist states would likely not be able to repel the superior capitalist military, there's no reason to believe a socialist state could repel the same force or be invulnerable to coups. There's no SU to arm these states or protect them from capitalist coups and so on. For any sort of socialist insurgency to be successful, capitalism would need to be either severely weakened to the point those states couldn't shut down socialist uprisings.

Dude.. literally in your diagram you've got "Relations of Production" in the Base, if you cannot see the role the state plays in that I probably won't be able to convince you of much else.

Its convenient it says "Bourgeoisie exploits the Proletariat" but fails to mention the Machinations through which they do this, i.e.. Private Property and Contracts enforced by the State.

My explanation here could have been better..

Rojava says suck my AK and eat out my democratic anus

A state is necessarily to maintain social order, protect citizens, and protect the environment.

Rojava is basically a state to deny this would be stupid.

But there is. A socialist state can establish a conventional modern military, which is impossible for a bunch of horizontally organized militias to do.

First of all we need to define what we mean by state, as there are different conceptions.

Do you mean a central structure?
Absolutely necessary.

Do you mean an undemocratic force?
Absolutely degenerate.

Marxists don't want the state either, specifically. They just want to use the state to get rid of classes first. Dictatorship of the Proles etc.

Hegelian communism best communism, is why I want a state.

Yeah, it is not the best illustration, but it was available. I should edit it.

Force is by necessity undemocratic, it's the abandonment of consensus for conviction.

basically a state but with a few key differences.

Everything is basically everything with a few key differences.

They also aren't even self professed anarchists, but what they do is as close to anarchism as we have in the current world and it is a success.

Very few anarchists want no organizational bodies, most pretty much just want them to be directly democratic

True true.. would you argue the kind of State me and would seek to establish would be "basically a state but with a few key differences." ?

It honestly depends, I don't think you can really create something that could be, at least honestly, referred to as "Stateless" that would last within Capitalist Modernity for longer than a few years. That's not to say that Statelessness is impossible, merely that it is unsustainable within Global Capitalism, and one ought to abolish the latter to establish the former.

I'd like to add that I'm very supportive of Rojava, but it irks me when people call it "Anarchist" or "Stateless".

Here's Azusa.

You can't have private property without a state. Either the superstructure shapes the base too or the state belongs in the base.

And the "conventional modern military" doesn't change the fact that a socialist state would have to fight off military that is going to be better armed and has international support. Not to mention that the capitalist states will be funding coups and attempting economic sabotage on the socialist state. As it is, no single socialist state or anarchist "not-state" would have the capability to survive under global capitalism.

I generally considered the term 'stateless' to just be a bit flimsy.

It would be sort of better I think if people just talked about horizontal organization, which is I suppose the 'stateless' state (but with a few key differences)

I want a gradual dissolution of the state and capitalism, I just think it should come as a mass democratic-not parliamentary, but the will of the people- movement. I also think that the two are so interlinked that the destruction of either necessitates the destruction of the other.

You can't really have capitalism without a state to enforce debts and currency and you can't have a state without accumulations of wealth and extractions of surplus value propping it up.

As far as I'm concerned though, anyone who wants a stateless, classless society is a comrade. Some of them are just comrades I'm going to have to browbeat.

Just like the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution did.

That is why we have to change the current reality to one that is more conducive to revolution. Fracturing the E.U., China, or the U.S. would throw the global capitalist system into a state of disorganization. In such a scenario, the response the a socialist revolution might not be so quick or overwhelming.

It's been over two centuries since the former and the latter happened after a war that drained most world powers of resources. Similar conditions are not likely to appear again and thinking a ragtag revolutionary force could compete with the full might of capitalist forces at the height of their power is foolish.

That's what I'm saying. Until that happens though no socialist uprising will be able to survive the onslaught of capitalist powers, state or not.

I don't know about that. As resource extraction nodes become more rare and the industrialization of China, India, and Indonesia srives demand for resources beyond what is practical, I figure that we are bound to start seeing large conflicts.

Of course, but what I am saying is that, once that happens, a revolution will require a state to succeed.

you can't even argue straight, you useless trash

come back when you can actually argue.