If you dilute the definition of the state so much that it loses all its’ characteristics, then anything can be a state, correct. If anything collective can be a state, then my gardening association is a state. Time to print ourown money and declare our garden sovereign territory. /s
My preferred definition of a state is the institution which pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. Another definition I like is based on David Graeber and David Wengrow, in which a modern state combines power over people through violence (police and military), control of knowledge (bureaucracy) and persuation (people believe in states, therefore they work).
Neither of these kinds of states are necessary to have a democratic society which makes decisions from the bottom up, instead of top-down.
You claim that thinking things through leads to “dishonesty inherent in the ideology”. Yst, you fail to bring up any examples. Just because you lack creativity, doesn’t mean you’ve disproven that basic democracy doesn’t work. People wouldn’t vote for “absolutely everything”, but people who are affected by political decisions have a say in those decisions, proportional to how much they’re affected. If I don’t care about something, I won’t vote on it. Easy as that.
And think of what you’re advocating: The “private unit” you’re describing is de facto a dictator. No one voted for my boss. Yet they can make any decision without hearing any of the workers out. It is an opt-out dictatorship, yes. But given how much I need that specific job, opting out could mean that I can’t pay my rent to the appartment-dictator. Opting out of that tenancy dictatorship would mean that I don’t have any shelter and probably get harrassed by cops.
I’m not sure that my ideology is the dishonest one, to be frank.
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.
If you dilute the definition of the state so much that it loses all its’ characteristics, then anything can be a state, correct. If anything collective can be a state, then my gardening association is a state. Time to print ourown money and declare our garden sovereign territory. /s
My preferred definition of a state is the institution which pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. Another definition I like is based on David Graeber and David Wengrow, in which a modern state combines power over people through violence (police and military), control of knowledge (bureaucracy) and persuation (people believe in states, therefore they work). Neither of these kinds of states are necessary to have a democratic society which makes decisions from the bottom up, instead of top-down.
You claim that thinking things through leads to “dishonesty inherent in the ideology”. Yst, you fail to bring up any examples. Just because you lack creativity, doesn’t mean you’ve disproven that basic democracy doesn’t work. People wouldn’t vote for “absolutely everything”, but people who are affected by political decisions have a say in those decisions, proportional to how much they’re affected. If I don’t care about something, I won’t vote on it. Easy as that.
And think of what you’re advocating: The “private unit” you’re describing is de facto a dictator. No one voted for my boss. Yet they can make any decision without hearing any of the workers out. It is an opt-out dictatorship, yes. But given how much I need that specific job, opting out could mean that I can’t pay my rent to the appartment-dictator. Opting out of that tenancy dictatorship would mean that I don’t have any shelter and probably get harrassed by cops.
I’m not sure that my ideology is the dishonest one, to be frank.
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”.
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.
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.