💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp001106.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:47:22.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
************** The State **************
from Workers Solidarity No 31
ONE OF THE best known catch phrases of
Anarchism has got to be "Smash the State". It's
also one that's easily open to misunderstanding.
Particularly in Ireland, where the 26 counties
once had the rather humorous title of "Free
State", many see state as meaning the
geographical area of a country. This slogan has
also been misrepresented by anarchism's
opponents as meaning opposition to all forms of
organisation and decision making. Obviously
neither of these is what anarchists mean, but
what exactly is the state and how do we smash
it?
Anarchists see the state as a mechanism by which a
minority imposes its will on the majority of the
population. To maintain its hold of power the state
forms whatever armed forces and judicial apparatus
are deemed necessary to keep the level of dissent
manageable. This is different from how most
Marxists define the state, concentrating on the
mechanism by which the state stays in power (bodies
of armed men) rather then the function of the state.
It is the characteristic of minority rule which defines
the state for anarchists, the 'bodies of armed men'
serve to protect this minority rather then defining the
state in itself. This distinction has some important
consequences.
The state apparatus cannot maintain a permanent
separation from the ruling economic power. In fact
most of the time its function is carrying out a crude
expression of the wishes of the ruling class. It
represents the limited ability of this class to control
and plan the economic life of a country. In advanced
capitalism the state is used to regulate the level of
exploitation of the workforce through various labour
laws.
THE 'CARING' STATE
At the outbreak of World War 1 Britain found that a
huge percentage of the working class had been so
exploited that they were unfit for military service.
Although the almost unhindered exploitation had
been good for individual bosses up to that time, in the
war when it came to using the working class to win
colonies and markets it turned out to be against their
collective interest. At the end of the war revolutions
and army mutinies swept across Europe.
To defuse the level of class struggle and prepare for
the next war the bosses used the state apparatus to
impose limitations on themselves and the level of
exploitation they could use. It also started to use it to
divert part of every workers' wage to form a new
social wage which would be used for the education of
workers and limited social security. In this it hoped
to head off future periods of struggle.
The state is the collective body through which the
bosses keep themselves in power. It's judiciary and
police force protect each boss from his own workers,
intervening where necessary to smash strikes,
criminalise activists and censor critics. This is its
most direct and obvious intervention but through its
control of the education system and its ability to
criminalise social behaviour which goes against the
bosses wishes it intervenes into every aspect of
workers lives.
SCAPEGOATS & SAFE CHANNELS
In it's scapegoating of single mothers, immigrants or
Travellers it directs the anger of workers away from
the real causes of their poverty. It ensures that much
of the care for the sick and the raising of new
generations of workers is kept cheap by keeping it in
the home. It therefore is hostile to non-family
relationships, or even family relations which might
challenge the prevalent ones and thus pose an
indirect threat. This is why the state is so opposed to
single parent families or families where both parents
are of the same sex.
The state in modern capitalism provides safe
channels for dissent. By funding unemployed centres
it achieves a political veto on their activities,
effectively ensuring a concentration on services like
the production of CV's - with campaigning limited to
minor tinkering with the system. Through the use of
elections it creates a veneer of ordinary people being
in control while the decisions are being made
elsewhere. By pretending neutrality it can set up
and arbitrate on disputes between workers and
bosses through the use of bodies like the Labour
Court. All these are methods to defuse and control
social unrest.
The state can also be the organ of transformation and
creation of a new ruling class. With positions in the
state hierarchy come powers over both people and
goods. Well placed individuals can make a fortune in
bribes. After the Russian revolution a minority, in
the shape of the Bolshevik party, came to control the
state.
'STATE SOCIALISM' - A CONTRADICTION
Their distrust in the ability of workers to run the
economy themselves was to result in armed force
being used against the very workers they claimed to
be liberating. From that point on the party attracted
power seekers, within a short period of time this
resulted in a new ruling elite. Socialism can not be
built through use of the state structure, the existence
of such a structure will lead to the development of a
new ruling elite.
The anarchist rejection of the state as an organ for
the transformation of society is often deliberately
misrepresented. Leninists, for instance, typically try
to confuse undemocratic and unaccountable state
regimes like those of the Bolsheviks with democratic
bodies like workers councils or 'soviets'. In general it
is implied that anarchism is against all forms of
organisation.
This says a lot about the people making such
arguments. Do they believe that the only form of
organisation that is feasible is one where the mass of
society are told what to do by a leadership?
Anarchists say socialism can only be created by mass
democracy, that why we define the state as being an
unaccountable leadership capable of forcing its will
on society. We explicitly reject any form of running
society that relies on such methods.
Against the statists we propose; decision making at
the lowest possible level: election of recallable,
mandated delegates for decisions that cannot be
made by mass assemblies, and for all delegates to
remain part of the workforce where possible. Where
this takes them away from their workplaces their
positions should be held for short periods only, and
without any special privileges. This, a society based
on mass democracy, is our alternative to the state.
Its not just our aim to achieve such a society after the
revolution but also to use such methods now in our
struggle for such a society. We argue for such
methods in our unions, associations and campaigning
groups.
Andrew Flood