A Meaningful Smashing of the State (Part 1)

A Meaningful Smashing of the State:
A Critical Analysis of State Theory


By Salim (autonomous [at] mutualaid.org)


Contents

1. Introduction & Defining the State

2. Classical Conservatism & Classical Liberalism

3. Classical Socialism: Marxism and Anarchism

4. 20th Century Developments

5. Moving Forward: Autonomy, Multitudes, Post-Civilization

6. Conclusion: What Is To Be Done

7. Addendum: An Islamic Circle A


Introduction

The question of the “State” (see below for definition) is a dynamic in
our society. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the founding of new “states” such as the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and other supra-national states we have a new dynamic to question and challenge ourselves with in terms of the question of how to ensure communal well being. Concurrent with the new geo-political situation in the world, the devolution of states, the collapse of states, the founding of new
supra-national states is a new challenge, derived from old forms of revolutionary resistance, the new libertarian left with it’s
anarchists and left communists has arisen on the international and national stage laying a criticism of the State in the midst of tear gas, bullets, arsons, civil disobedience, bombings and street
protests. The mature democracies of the west have not seen such civil disturbances since the late 1960’s, outside of the context of national liberation struggles like Ireland or Quebec. The mature democracies themselves find that they are being driven in new directions with even mature democracies like the UK and Canada constantly having to
re-appraise their State constructs. The United States itself has
undergone divisive political campaigns where people have called into question the formation of the union and whether the US is still
united. Clearly, we are at a cross roads or a transitional period. A period which beckons that questions be answered, that new analyses be made and a reflection on principles of the State be made with a clear vision of how the state really functions in the reality of our lives.

In the following I attempt to delineate what has been written since the
Enlightenment in terms of “State Theory”. Exploring the foundations of the modern state and the philosophies which have criticized the State. I look at three perspectives on the State: Liberalism, Conservatism, and Socialism (“anarchists” and communists). I examine if in reality any of these theories on the State are actually based in modern
realities and whether a new critique of the State is needed with a new political movement to lead the criticism of the modern state. I write this paper as a member of the Libertarian Socialist Movement
(“anarchist”), but shall not limit myself to partisan criticisms or to the limitations of an ideological hermeneutic. In street protests, on banners, on graffiti in the streets you will see the circle A and the phrase “Smash The State” what you will not see is the theory behind such public outcries against an authoritarian system of control. The following is an attempt at explaining or giving meaning to the phrase “Smash the State”. It is only one person’s attempt at explaining this perspective it is not intended as a political ideology or dogma to be taken on by all. It is merely the opinion of one person poised in an attempt at holding a developed conversation on what it meant by
Libertarian Socialists when we say “Smash the State”, what are our alternative theories are, how we can achieve it, what it means today, how it could work and what it would mean to our communities.


What is a State?

For some when I use the word state it may conjure up the view of a
provincial or “state” government, a sub-division under a federal
system. This usage of the term “state” is just one aspect of the word “State”. The question of what the State is has been debated by
various sectors is the State a government? Is the State a separate apparatus from “government”? For the purposes of this article I use the term State as defined in it’s domestic context as:


“Looked at from the point of view of an individual nation, the state is a centralized organization of the whole country. Those studying this dimension emphasize the relationship between the state and its people. The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that in order to avoid a multi-sided civil war, in which life was “nasty, brutish, and short,” individuals must necessarily surrender many of their rights – including that of attacking each other – to the “Leviathan”, a unified and
centralized state. In this tradition, Max Weber and Norbert Elias defined the state as an organization of people that has a monopoly on legitimate violence in a particular geographic area. Also in this tradition, the state differs from the “government”: the latter refers to the group of people who make decisions for the state.”[1]


Leviathan is the State, the instrument that claims sole authority to force it’s will against those living under its sovereignty. It is a centralized instrument and has various bureaucratic organs to implement its
compulsion. Max Weber, who developed sociology of the state writes:


“'Every state is founded on force,' said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as 'anarchy,' in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state--nobody says that--but force is a means specific to the state. Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past, the most varied institutions--beginning with the sib--have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that
(successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the
characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.” (Politics as a Vocation)



The question of how the State has its legitimacy is the major question
involved in State theory. The other question of the State is why must there by Force, why must there be a Centralized Administration. These where the questions which led to Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes and Locke to pen the first “modern” theories of the State in what
would become known as the “Classic Liberal” school of thought which was counter-posed to the “Classic Conservative” school of thought. Which in modern terms is mirrored relatively in the dynamic of
neo-liberal and neo-conservative, although both of the modern variants are based on Classical Liberalism, the term conservative is used to refer to classical conservatives active in today’s political scene.
>From a sociological view point Max Weber says that political authority
is derived via three ways:


“First, the authority of the 'eternal yesterday,' i.e. of the mores sanctified through the unimaginably ancient recognition and habitual orientation to conform. This is 'traditional' domination exercised by the patriarch and the patrimonial prince of yore.


There is the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace (charisma), the absolutely personal devotion and personal confidence in revelation, heroism, or other qualities of individual leadership. This is 'charismatic' domination, as exercised by the prophet or--in the field of politics--by the elected war lord, the plebiscitarian ruler, the great demagogue, or the political party leader.


Finally, there is domination by virtue of 'legality,' by virtue of the belief in the validity of legal statute and functional 'competence' based on rationally created rules. In this case, obedience is expected in discharging statutory obligations. This is domination as exercised by the modern 'servant of the state' and by all those bearers of power who in this respect resemble him.”



Authority is vested in the leaders of the State and and in functionaries of the state, the government or State administration, those instruments which execute the force or compulsion of the State.


The modern sciences of Anthropology gives us some more information
regarding State theory from an non-ideological view point:


“…the basic distinction between so-called civilized and primitive
societies lies in social organization. According to Robert Adams, the principal characteristics of civilized societies are social
stratification, the development of political and religious hierarchies administering territorially organized states, and a complex division of labor with full-time craftsmen. Servants, soldiers, and officials. A principal feature of early civilizations and of many later ones was a large peasantry whose agricultural surplus supported a relatively small elite and their retainers. As Marshall Sahlins points out, what
differentiates civilization from the tribal organization is a sovereign government, separated structurally form the underlying population and set above them. The state is thus an extension from kin based to
territorially based power.” Pg. 253, “Anthropology Today” Del Mar 1971


Anthropologist Barbara Price remarks regarding the state: “States are
defined on the basis of institutional power, first in the form of
socio-economic stratification (differential access to strategic
resources), second and supporting the first, in the centralized
arrogation and control of force.”[2] Price also finds that states must expand and are inherently expansionist since States almost always develop out of high-energy consumption urban centers demand more
energy to maintain themselves. Other Anthropologists note that
warfare occurs out of a competition for energy sources. It should be noted that one of the prime Classical Liberal arguments for the state is that mankind existing in a “natural” state, that is in a non-state such as bands, tribes or chiefdoms, are continuously at war with one another, However, the archeological and the anthropological record indicates that warfare is a activity directly linked with the founding of the State, that is warfare occurs more and more with the founding of States.[3]

Anthropologists are divided into two main theoretical camps in regards
to the founding of States. The two theories are Conflict Theories and Integration Theories. Loosely analogous to theories regarding the state by political philosophers Conflict Theories reflect Socialist thought on States and Integration Theories reflect Classical Liberal viewpoints on States. A General Outline of the theories follows:



CONFLICT THEORIES[4] (also called "coercion," "class" theories):


* Governing institutions of the state initially developed to repress
intra-societal conflict arising out of economic inequality--state is REPRESSIVE

o To protect own property and interests, some people take rights
away from others and impose themselves as rulers over others

o Maintain their positions by FORCE--conflict theories emphasize
coercive force


INTEGRATION THEORIES (also called "consensus," "benefit," "managerial" theories)


* Governing institutions of the state initially arose to coordinate
and regulate the different parts of complex societies--state is
INTEGRATIVE, beneficial

o Some people voluntarily cede rights to others in return for
having those others serve some widely recognized need or solve
some widely perceived problem

* Potential source of confusion: one of needs or problems often cited
is chronic WARFARE

o Theories of this sort that deal with conflicts among different
societies are usually INTEGRATION theories

o Conflict theories deal with conflicts WITHIN a single society


Modern Integration Theory


Governing institutions of the state arise to meet widespread needs or solve widespread problems


* Elevation of certain individuals or groups to positions of authority
for the common good

* Change tends to be gradual, not "revolutionary"

* Voluntaristic, not coercive


Elman Service[5] was the leading theorist behind Integration Theories in terms of his critique of Conflict Theories he noted that early
civilizations were not divided into propertied and non-propertied classes.
Stratification occurred in terms of unequal political power, not unequal
access to basic resources necessary to sustain life. Additionally there were no true class conflicts in early forms of communal living (band, tribes). For Service, there was no reliance on physical force as a governing mechanism in early civilizations. The need for centralized government evolved gradually as a response to the increased size of societies as such in urban high energy consumption societies. Not to mention making a more efficient war machine. It should be noted that Service distinguishes between civilization and the State, this is a confusing topic and will be addressed shortly. For Service the State arises only when secularization and reliance on force is introduced. His archaic civilizations rely on kinship-based organization which are egalitarian, there is no separation of religious and political power, nor reliance on coercive force. Service sees the archaic civilization as being stable whereas Fried (Conflict Theory) sees archaic civilizations as being unstable.

Fried and the Conflict Theory school criticize Services theories by
saying that the absence of coercive force in early civilizations can’t be proved.

It should be noted that much of these theories can be traced back to
the 18th century theoretician Lewis Henry Morgan directly influenced the socialist Fredrick Engels and what would later be undertaken in socialist thought the ‘Division of Town and Country’ which we see even today in modern America with the so-called Red and Blue States.
Morgan in Ancient Society (1877) postulated there are two kinds of civilizations one based on ‘Societas’ which is based on kinship, the whole society is one big family (genes>phratry>tribe>nation); the
other based on ‘Civitas’, which is made up of geopolitical and
economic interests (city>country>national territory). The early
sociologist Emile Durkheim found that there exist two types of social solidarity, of which the libertarian socialist Peter Kropotkin would write about in terms of evolution as Mutual Aid. The Israeli
anthropologist Juval Portugali remarks:


“According to Durkheim one can identify two elementary forms of social solidarity. ‘Mechanical Solidarity’, in which the whole social group is governed by a collective consciousness or conscience (the French word implies both), would typify Morgan’s societas. The other form is termed ‘organic solidarity’. Here the social group is composed of individuals, or sub-groups, sharing the consciousness that their political or economic collaboration is for the benefit of all parties. Organic solidarity, which fits Morgan’s civitas, provides the conditions for the division of labor in society.”[6]


Roughly speaking the modern state is a form of ‘civitas’ especially as concerned with the modern dominant Liberal theories on states which most states are based on, almost entirely in the Western hemisphere. The State is based on social organization it should be noted there are different types of states according to the work of Braudel[7] there are feudal states, such as existed in pre-Revolutionary Russia, some Socialists argue that the US is a neo-Feudal state with the advent of the Corporate State’s rule by Corporations, the other form of the state is the Market State. The Markets state although typically identified with the modern
in-egalitarian State can exist in pre-State societies based on
Egalitarianism, these egalitarian markets existed in local economies which is loosely analogous to some of the argument being put forward by some Socialists and Greens. The Market state was also based on the development of the “labor market” which was a freeing up of peasants from their feudal relationship with their Lord. Peasants could now leave the feudal estate and gain employment in the urban centers and sell their skills in a labor market. This developed synchronously with the development of
Enlightenment thought and the advent of Classical Liberalism in the 16th Century. It is interesting to note that Classical Liberal thinkers based much of their opinions on Biblical references. Portugali notes that the distinction between societas and civitas in the Israeli kingdom denotes the distinction between the societas of King David and the civitas of King Saul. Robert Carneiro, noting the evolution of the State contends that the next development of the State will be the development of what he calls a world State where power becomes more and more centralized and
competition between autonomous states is decreased.[8]

Finally before proceeding to the Political Philosophers I would like to
discuss the distinction between State and Civilization this has been a confusing topic in the discussion of the State because in some
instances State is equated with Civilization and in other instances Civilization is not equated with State. As noted:

“For a long period, "civilization" was synonymous with "culture" in Latin
or related languages and appeared long before the term "culture" in French, English and German. It originated from the Latin word "civis" (citizen) and later extended to "civitas" (city-state) and "civilitas" (qualification of citizen). Therefore, it originally implied to both city and city-state. It was Jean Bodin who first started to use the term "civilization" in the 16th century with the implication of "culture". Before the end of the 18th century, the term "civilization" in English and German always implied "educated people with culture" or "influential people with politics". In "History of Civilization in England", Henry T. Buckle for the first time in 1857 used it no differently than "culture" as historic content. In French, it was used as "culture" until the 19th century.” (http://www.carleton.ca/~bgordon/Rice/papers/tong89.htm)


The notion of state equaling civilization and citizen is traced back to
the start of the Enlightenment so that in terms of this work it should be noted different philosophers use different terms for State and
Civilization so that it should not be assumed that the State equals Civilization. This will become an important distinction to note later when we discuss the 20th century developments of political philosophy especially with the Socialist ideas of the Anarcho-Primitivists, although it should be noted many Anarcho-Primitivists do not adhere to the
Socialist label, as noted:


“Primitivism does not adhere to a single definiton. Any person has as much claim to define this concept as any other. Some define it as a philosophy on the origins of civilization—that interconnected web of social, political, and psychological institutions that control and suppress individuality and desire. Those who identify this interlocking system as something to be dismantled often wish to do so as an end unto itself, believing that in the absence of these institutions, cooperative social relations will prevail”.[9]


>From this authors perspective the issue of the State is equated with
Civilization, Civilization is the State and the definition of the State from this works definition of the state of a centralized instrument of coercion the anti-Civilization critique is an anti-State critique. However, not too much should be assumed from this position a much more detailed critique of all political ideologies is presented in the closing of this work.

To conclude, for this work the State is the sole authority to use
coercion or force to achieve it’s will it has a centralized
bureaucracy or administration. Government is not the same as State, even in anarchy there is government. The State is not the same as the People or Civil Society. So for now let us proceed with the
survey of conservatism, liberalism and socialism on the theory of
the State.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author: Salim is a libertarian socialist and a Shi’a Muslim Sufi. He fired his boss and runs his own petit bourgeois web design shop, autonomi.net. His favorite magazines are “Green Anarchy” and “Earth First! Journal”. He is currently looking for a publisher for “A Meaningful Smashing of the State: A Critical Analysis of State Theory”. If interested please email him at autonomous [at] mutualaid.org. He also is in need of a research grant to buy some more books for this project.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1]See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

[2]Barbara Price, “Secondary State Formation” page. 170 in “Origins of
the State: the Anthropology of Political Evolution” edited by Ed. Ronald Cohen and Edman R. Service

[3]see Jonathan Haas, “War and the Evolution of Culture”,
http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/workingpapers/98-10-088.pdf

[4] see Morton Fried The Evolution of Political Society. 1967

[5] see Cohen, Ronald and Elman Service Origins of the State: The
Anthropology of Political Evolution Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1978

[6] see Portugali, J. (1994). “Theoretical speculations on the transition
from nomadism to monarchy”. In I. Finkelstein & N. Na'aman (Eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy (pp. 203-217). Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Press. (Hebrew)

[7] see Fernand Bruadel, Civilization and Capitalism (1985), this part taken from Prof. William Croft (U. of Manchester) paper, “Social Evolution and Language Change” at
http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/Info/staff/WAC/Papers/SocLing.pdf

[8] see Carneiro, Robert: “Political Expansion as an Expression of the Principle of Competitive Exclusion”. In Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution, edited by Ronald Cohen and Elman R. Service, 205-233. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. (1978)

[9] as defined by Wildroots Collective, “Reconsidering Primitivism, Technology, & the Wild” in Fifth Estate, Summer 2004, pg. 17
(fifthestate.org)