state apparatus

one major reason why trump’s muslim ban is going to fall pretty swiftly is that it reeks of poor management of imperialism. obama managed to keep muslims out of america pretty darn well, and liberals never complained (he even bombed thousands of them without a peep). “Pew Research Center said last October 38,901 Muslim refugees entered the United States in fiscal year 2016 from all countries - almost the same number of Christian refugees, 37,521.” the incoming syrian refugee total was 1% of lebanon’s, and again biased towards christians. the bush presidency actually built a database aimed at collecting as much biometric data on muslims as possible and subjecting them to numerous migration restrictions. obama kept it for 3 years and then suspended it because another biometric program pulled even more data and did so for everyone, not just muslims. none of this aroused any kind of anger or mass protests from liberals the way the current muslim ban is, and that was just how the american state apparatus preferred it. more than likely, this ban will fall in due time, and we’ll sit around crowing about how we defeated evil once again, while the previously mentioned issues will continue to plague muslims attempting to come to america.

anonymous asked:

How do u counter the people who say violent riots are bad bc ppl are destroying their own city?

The people who say “violent protests are wrong and immoral, and property damage does nothing” are the same types of people who think MLK ended racism in the US or some other mystified nonsense.

What a lot of people fail to understand is politics is inherently violent. It deals with people’s lives–whether they receive proper care and security or find themselves cast out into the elements. And if state/corporate power is threatening the livelihood of vulnerable people, then these people have a right to be hostile.

To those who say “property damage is dishonorable,” I say “you value property over people’s lives?” Its easier to rebuild or replace trashcans, windows, or cars than it is to rebuild a broken and vulnerable human existence. If this society which robs me of my access to health, security, or education values property over my participation in that society or my precarious living situation in it, you’re gonna see what its like to lose whats precious to you.

These are people’s lives. We care more about seeing tomorrow than having clean streets or aesthetically pleasing shop exteriors.

And to those who say “violence and riots are dishonorable,” i say “look at history. You will see time and time again that all social struggles were won through riots and acts of violence against state and capitalist power.” No where in history have we won concessions from the state by being complacent or polite. If we dont make any demands or follow through to show how much we need it, then the state/capitalists will never show us the light of day. Because why could the capitalist state bother to give us any amount of power or concessions that would put the hegemony at a disadvantage unless they were threatened?

We have a minimum wage because of riots. We got rid of child labor because of riots. We got women’s suffragr because of riots. Slavery ended because of riots. Segregation ended because of riots. We have worker rights and the 8 hour day because of riots. We have LGBT+ rights because of riots.

Never in the history of the bourgeois state apparatus have those in power ever peacefully granted us concessions. It was always taken by force. Merely being polite and gentle makes it easier for others to step on us, and see us as less than a bother to be taken seriously.

anonymous asked:

How can you be anti-capitalist and in support of decentralization? Seems pretty backward if you ask me

Well the first assumption that needs to be dissected in your ask is the assumption that capitalism is inherently decentralized in setup.

Capitalism is defined, both theoretically and realistically, by private ownership over the means of production and sustenance. Workplaces, apartments, natural commons – they’re all controlled in top-down fashion by property-owners who determine the use of them based on their own self-interest. “Top-down” is the key phrase there, because it is qualitatively important to include the individuals who aren’t lucky enough to own property under capitalism (most people) if you want a full picture of the system, something ideological text pieces celebrating capitalism deliberately leave out; it’s always empty praise about how the “decentralized market transactions” of job-creators and consumers lead to the best state of affairs. But the situation I described – top-down control of necessary, collectively-operated resources by property-owners – is a situation where power is heavily concentrated. By definition, class stratification is centralized power, a scenario where a ruling class commands infinitely more power than the working class by virtue of controlling the stuff necessary to reproduce society. You can call it “decentralized” because there are a bunch of competing property-owners rather than one hyper-centralized center of power in a state apparatus, but the point remains that you merely end up with a small handful of power concentrations in practice instead. 

The great majority of people under capitalism – the people who are not lucky enough to own capital – have no choice but to assume a subordinate role beneath the aforementioned property-owners. At work? No say in the decisions, forced to hand over their labor product to those at the top, with a tiny siphoned-off chunk of their total energies given back to them in the form of a paycheck. In living arrangements? Forking over large chunks of their already-slim paychecks to the landlords, landlords who do nothing other than own a piece of paper declaring the property theirs, living in other locations trying to maximize their gains at the expense of the actual tenants. You can argue that they can always “just go to another property-owner that treats them better,” but you’re still ultimately arguing within the confines of a system that irrationally hopes for the benevolent deeds of its most powerful class. The same argument could be expanded to include states – “if a nation is treating its citizens poorly, then they should just leave.” Most people are born into situations where they have very limited mobility to better those situations, because they are, again, locked into those situations of subordination beneath property-owners – forced to sell their time and energies to the centralized powers that be. These class relationships make up the majority of our lives; a lack of democracy in this realm of existence carries far more weight than an empty spectacle of democracy every two to four years, where we essentially just ratify decisions that have already been made and pick from a pre-arranged set of out-of-touch elites from the political class. (And it’s worth mentioning that these politicians have every incentive to prolong the aforementioned class relationships – the state acts in the long-term interests of capital accumulation when the disparate competing of capitalists leads to economic crisis and civil unrest. Far from being the antagonist to “free-market capitalism,” the state and capitalism actually have an intensely symbiotic relationship – concentrated power fuels more concentrated power.)

This leads us to the second assumption to unpack: that the alternative to capitalism must be inherently centralized. 

On the contrary, the only effective counter to capitalism must be a decentralized system, where power is distributed to all individuals in the community, based around a system of broader direct democracy at work and in the structuring of society. Collective operations ought to be controlled by their collective participants, democratically arriving at conclusions that benefit all and each. Living quarters ought to be managed by the actual tenants, not by some absentee owner with an incentive to privatize gains and socialize losses. This is how you decentralize power, this is how you reconcile the creative freedom of the individual with the collective justice of the community. 

The material conditions are already demanding a system change anyway:

  • Automation of menial work is a terrifying phenomena under capitalism because it means millions of people losing jobs and therefore access to livelihood; under a libertarian socialist system of production for use, there are essentially no downsides to it because it means that so much work can be automated away and communities can then divvy up the otherwise necessary work that can’t be automated, which would result in incredibly short shifts for people. More leisure time means more freedom to pursue what you want to pursue on your own terms, something capitalism fetishizes but never fulfills for the majority of people. Seriously, the libertarian socialist way of organizing things is both more efficient and more rational, two things capitalism loves to claim it has a monopoly on. Democratize the automation.
  • The rise of digital post-scarcity and its parallel capitalist development of intellectual property laws create a major contradiction that has been central to capitalism since its beginning: the forcing of scarcity onto resources that are otherwise not scarce. Scarcity is beneficial to property-owners because it means greater ability to milk profits out of workers and consumers. This can be seen with physical resources when sellers lock up dumpsters to prevent people from getting to thrown out goods and when they intentionally destroy excess goods in order to desaturate markets, rather than give the goods away according to community needs. We have recently started seeing that trend applied to immaterial information patterns, things that can be endlessly duplicated and shared, things that scream “communist open-sourcing potential.” Intellectual property law is capital’s attempt to make scarce and commodify digital patterns that defy traditional notions of scarcity. With the bureaucratic enforcement of intellectual property law abolished, this vast pool of information can be made accessible to all people, a beautiful digital parallel to communism’s aims of physical post-scarcity.
  • Global climate change exacerbated by infinite capital accumulation on a planet of finite resources is setting us on a dangerous path towards ecological collapse and widespread species extinctions. The logic of infinite market growth – the logic of a cancerous tumor – must be called into question and cast aside in favor of a new system that generates goods on a stable-state basis for human need and use, rather than on some conception of unlimited expansion for a small elite’s profits. We’d still probably have some work to do under a new system of libertarian socialism, but we could more readily tackle the problems without having to cross our fingers and hope “green capitalism” is graciously passed down to us by our benevolent job-creators. Climate change can only be dealt with through more democracy and participation, not through band-aid government regulations in an otherwise capitalist economy. 

TLDR: Libertarian socialism is the viable alternative to capitalism. It ought to be readily embraced for its expansion of freedom, equality, and solidarity; for its ability to more effectively deal with the contradictions laid out by capitalism; and of course for its decentralized/horizontal organizational structure. Capitalism is a highly centralized economic/political system both in theory and in practice, and the only way around its concentration of power is to disperse power down to the individual through a more robust system of direct consensus democracy and worker self-management. Democratize workplaces, democratize living arrangements, democratize the infrastructure. Our choices are socialism or more barbarism at this point. 


heres the rules: if amerika likes your country then the apparatus the state uses to spy on people is called a “security agency". if amerika doesn’t like your country then it’s called “the secret police”.


Anti-AK Parti / Anti-Erdogan posters seen in Istanbul.

Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP party have ruled Turkey for the past 15 years. In that period he has increasingly centralised power around himself, purging thousands of civil servants, judges, military figures, from the state apparatus, replacing them with party loyalists.

He is now campaigning to further strengthen his executive power in an upcoming referendum.

In person, it can sometimes be tough to jump right into a debate with someone who adamantly defends the status quo, someone who uses extensive bourgeois ideology and “common sense” to defend the capitalist mode of production. We all naturally get frazzled because it’s an uphill battle trying to win people over, away from the safe ideology they’ve grown up absorbing. Not only that, but there’s also a whole set of ideas and facts (noted in the above picture) that probably need to come together for someone of that nature to arrive at socialism. Trying to condense all of the above facts into quick little soundbites is a super uphill battle, and I wish there was some way we could have this process made easier for the lot of us. 

Most capitalism-apologists rely on a few basic ideological points, each of them off-base. Here are eight of perhaps the most important:

  1. Capitalism is about voluntary exchange and it’s pretty much any economic activity that doesn’t involve the state
  2. Capitalism is the end of history and the pinnacle of human development
  3. Capitalism is the same thing as markets
  4. The state is antithetical to the interests of the capitalist class
  5. Socialism is when the government does stuff; the more stuff the government does, the socialister it is
  6. “Small government” and anarchism imply laissez-faire capitalism
  7. There can only be top-down control of the economy by a bunch of separate capitalists (private capitalism) or top-down control of the economy by a concentrated state apparatus (state capitalism)
  8. Imperialism is caused by corrupt politicians, disconnected from an economic system that demands endless growth and capital accumulation among elites

I feel like the above picture covers most of these ideas in a very quick way and puts them to rest; further elaboration on each of the points is necessary of course, but that’s to be expected. Destroying these bullshit claims ought to be of paramount importance if you ever find yourself in some kind of political argument with a cappy. 

All being said, I can totally understand if there are those of you who just have no fucking interest in debating cappies. It’s a draining, disheartening process. Avoiding debate can be a self-care tactic, honestly. I generally only recommend it if you think there is any chance of converting them – if they’re running around in expensive suits handing out Cato Institute newspapers, then our arguments about capitalism being a particular historical development rooted in bloody conquest will probably have little to no effect whatsoever. There are, however, plenty of working-class and middle-class people who may be much more receptive if you meet them where they’re at, point to history, and commit some time and energy to talking to them about the topic; usually this works best with people you already know. 

Any further input on this topic is encouraged and appreciated.

People talking about Jews being rich and “greedy” ignoring that Jews have been forced to work in fields of money for centuries because it was easy to scapegoat them and liquidize their wealth without anyone really raising a fuss. Or the complex interaction between Jews, wealth, and the state apparatus with money as both a target and their only form of protection.

People literally built their economies over jew exploitation. The modern banking system is a direct descendant of that. And then people have the gall to say “well, the jews are the bankers, so that means they have and do control the world”. Get the fuck out.

I think Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is one of the most creative tendencies of Marxism. I say this with the full acknowledgement that Maoism is often put forward as a stock answer to complex questions. “Mass line” “cultural revolution” and so on. Theoretical ideas that, within their dictionary definitions, satisfy the questions they’re responding to in a way that seems almost too easy. And yet within those ideas there is a lot of tension and a lot of nuance that builds off of history in a more materialist way than you might think. 

I remember considering that the idea of cultural revolution, in theory, was abstracted from the actual events of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to a degree that was almost unhelpful or obscuring. I had thought that the idea of cultural revolution hinged so much on changing old ideas that it didn’t have a real plan of action to change these ideas. After all, in the abstract world of opinions or ideas, it isn’t always the correct one that wins out. And to me it was not a coherent strategy against the sheer power of a state apparatus set on revisionism. The mass line can’t be expected to be kept to by sheer benevolence on behalf of the communist party. That’s very clear idealism. 

That’s when I took a second look at what the productive manifestation of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was in history, and to me it was the idea of empowering people at a very direct, local level with the revolutionary committees. Only with a platform, with a tool of empowerment of all people in cooperation, can a truly communist ideology be created. Direct democracy, a realistic degree of local autonomy with regards to production, a culture not of complacency, of liberalism, but of justice for all, and furthermore of innovation in achieving that. 

Anarchists are completely correct in their assessment that a new hierarchy cannot dissolve the old hierarchies. That workers being alienated from production by local and national hierarchies is both disastrous (The Great Leap Forward) and un-socialist. Where they miss the mark is the rejection of the state. The state is a tool, and the most vital one in coordinating socialism across a large area, of consolidating it against the very real material force of capitalism. 

The communist party is in service to the people, but it is a service that must be kept in line, on a leash. The people make the mass line. The people make the cultural revolution. The communist party is the set of tools given to the masses, and as the communist party builds a communist consciousness among the people it soon becomes quite a bit more complex, and before long it is the people that keeps the party communist. This give and take is what defines the Maoist theory most vitally. 

In my mind it gets to the heart of socialism, the socialism that is often labeled libertarian or autonomist or so on to differentiate it from Marxism-Leninism. But it gets to that heart through a way that actually deals with the pragmatics of power. It isn’t about abolishing power. It is about creating people’s power. The people’s power that is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the people’s power that is the local institutions of direct democracy. 

You may draw connections to many other tendencies of Marxism from my evaluation but none of them have seemed to me quite so living and open, or for that matter, modernly relevant. If it seems to you that I’ve strayed too far from what is popularly considered Maoism than either you’re a dogmatist or I’m a revisionist, either way, studying the events of the Chinese Revolution (in a very amateur capacity) has showed me to this conclusion, and taking that my conclusion is very much supported within the theory, I am very much a Maoist, and in my life I hope I see Maoism thrive against imperialism and capitalism. I leave you with a relevant quote from Mao:

“Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, “Show me where it’s written in the book.” When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership” but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.” 

from Oppose Book Worship

anonymous asked:

I feel like with the election of trump in America proved people are to dumb for democracy. The president is the head of the military and appoints a huge number of our leaders. It shouldnt be up to a popularity contest to choose him/her. Especially since barely anyone knows enough about economics/geopolotics/government/choose-ur-subject to legitimizes their opinion on who should be president. Only people educated enough to have an intelligent opinion should be legitimate. We need free college too

There’s a simple solution then: abolish the presidency. Tear down the corrupt state apparatus that only serves the interests of capital accumulation. Bring social organization down to directly-democratic interconnected federations and stop concentrating power into the hands of bureaucrats and capitalists. Trump absolutely shouldn’t have that much power, but that’s not the fault of the American people as though it exists in some isolated vacuum. The Democrats elevated Trump to the seat thinking he would be an easy defeat; the neoliberal status quo bred social unrest on both ends of the political spectrum; a rich sexual predator douchebag with no experience was allowed to weasel his way into the elections in the first place. A bullshit political system crafted by elite slaveowners to prevent genuine direct democracy of economic power laid the groundwork for this to happen eventually. Plenty of people voted for Trump out of racism and xenophobia, definitely, but to ignore the fact that racism and xenophobia thrive under divide-and-rule capitalism in the first place is to ignore the root cause.

People aren’t “too stupid for democracy” – that’s reactionary, elitist propaganda. We don’t even have full democracy as it is, so how can you even be a sufficient judge of that idea? We sure as hell don’t have democracy throughout most of our lives – most of the time we take orders from people higher up a corporate chain. First we need economic democracy and THEN we can have the discussion about whether or not people are “too stupid” for it.

Many an anarcho-capitalist has asked and been asked the question of collective self defense in a stateless society.

This is, of course, for good reason. National Defense is considered by most to be a public good in the valid economic meaning of the term. For those libertarians who are not anarchists, it is generally considered one of the three valid functions of the state apparatus, behind making and enforcing laws.

The point of this post isn’t to answer that question. Anybody who responds to me asking that I do isn’t asking in good faith anyway, since I’ve devoted quite a bit of time to the question and, like many things about our philosophy, one can use their own intuition.

This post is, however to clarify something about an underlying assumption that some people may have in the question. Particularly those people who are asking in poor faith.

As we describe our system of mercenary subscriptions, insurance contracts, and Dead Man switches, there will be those who insist, simply, that our solution “isn’t enough.” You know how it goes.

“What if they carpet bomb you before you can react?”

“What if they can churn out more conscripts than you have bullets?”

“What if the Russians have a psychic who brainwashes all of the mercenaries and causes Ancapistan’s missiles to explode in their silos so that they can send in aircraft from all directions while ground troops push up through Mexico?”

And on and on it goes. Because ultimately the question they’re really asking is beyond their vocabulary. What they are asking is really this:

“Can an anarcho-capitalist society mobilize into a state of total war?”

So let me answer that question. Consider this an official Fatwa from your Grand Mullah of the NAP.

No. No it cannot.

This is a feature, not a bug. Total warfare is a moral abomination and the 20th century would have demonstrated it to be the single most destructive idea in the history of the human experience if it weren’t for Marxism making such a strong late showing halfway through the first World War.

In our stateless society, civilians will be treated with all of the dignity they deserve as innocent non-aggressors, resources will be devoted to the war effort at socially optimal amounts as determined by market forces, and the only people fighting for us will be the people who agreed of their own free will to fight for us.

So, my fellow ancaps, when you are asked how a free society would react to an attack by Gort if nobody knows the code phrase and Klaatu won’t tell us, remember to think about what you are really being asked, and further that the person asking is not worth attempting to convince.

German National Socialism was attracted to ancient German blood religions, race mysticism, and racial science. Almost everything they believed was both apocalyptic and utopian. They switched together the irrationalism of German romantic and mystic writers with the scientific racism and anthropology that gained rooted in their universities. Capitalism and liberal values such as individualism were as much an enemy to them as Marxism and the dogma of Moscow, probably more so. They wanted a Germany with a socialism based on racial nationalism so they ran state funded programs for families, eugenics, health care (to ensure the survival of the German race), and the science and arts directed by ideology.

Romanticism and syndicalism also influenced French Fascist movements that saw fascism as a true workers movement and the way to rekindle the souls of Frenchmen. They leaned more toward race mysticism (the idea that the battles of race was a conflict of fate between good and evil).

Italian Fascism was influenced by futurism and romanticism as well. Race was less of a marking point here but they still championed the State as a means of cultural and spiritual revival. Heroic violence leading a charge toward the future.

Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and the Imperial League of Fascists were revival groups differing only on the degree on how much they hated Jews but they borrowed from Mussolini and Hitler. Yet their fascism was uniquely British believing that England lead the fascist crusade to recreate civilization into a new kind humanhood.

The common thread among these groups was that they believed in going forward never backwards.  The myth of the past and its symbols served as inspiration for a new revolution against decadent individual liberalism and the internationalism of Soviet Marxism which was believed to be guided by a Jewish conspiracy. Heroic violence and crusade for its own sake based on emotion and raw passion was their common ethos.

I would be wary of any group people who advocate violence for its own sake or the sake of a heroic crusade especially against ordinary people or unmask unseen enemies.

You wear a black shirt and attack people in the streets under the belief that this is a crusade you are embracing a fascist ethos. Smashing in banks and coffee shops all black and brown shirt tactics. Directing violence against business and your fellow citizens but not the State apparatus itself is fascist.

Most Americans reject such a notion about irrational heroic violence of this kind. I hope it stays this way and these small number of people who wish to act like the Neo Nazis they hate will washed away in the dust bin of history.

anonymous asked:

What is horseshoe theory normally? Your horseshoe post says "corrected"

Capitalist ideology intended to make liberalism appear “neutral” and “above the fray”. In the capitalist political spectrum, it is true that liberalism is generally at the center (with some very slight leeway into center-left and lots of leeway into full right-wing), but that doesn’t make it “neutral”. Political centrism is merely ideology that challenges nothing about the status quo. (The left seeks change that brings about less class distinction and the right seeks a reassertion of old traditions that maintain class stratification.) 

I’ve said before that liberalism is the dominant ideology under capitalism, and it’s true. It permeates our political landscape in how it sees capitalism as the end of history, how it contextualizes ideology as a “marketplace of ideas” where the best ideas inevitably outcompete, how it holds steadfast to giving “all viewpoints” a platform (with no class analysis or understanding of how dominant ideas remain dominant), how it believes that the system can be peacefully reformed to eventual perfection (even if there’s disagreement over what those reforms should entail), etc. 

The horseshoe frames communism and fascism as though they were fundamentally similar in practice, if not in rhetoric. This is ahistorical, and it ignores what the true grit of politics has always been about since the dawn of civilization: class struggle over the gears that reproduce daily life (i.e. the resources and the means of production) and the accompanying social ideologies; in other words, power, as realized through control over the sources of social wealth. I took the horseshoe and grafted it to the way in which “liberal” and “conservative” are viewed as rhetorical opposites – but are in fact both the same in practice. Modes of production (feudalism, capitalism, etc.) have material interests that dictate how they behave, typically focused around those with a dominant class position and around the broader longevity of the system as a whole. Under capitalism, this is realized in both the capitalists (those with the dominant class position) and the state (the apparatus that looks out for the longevity of the system as a whole). In the end, I boiled it down to this:

I don’t know if it’s altogether perfect, since assigning positions to political ideology along a line or a compass is hard to quantify, but I think it’s certainly better than the original liberal horseshoe chart. Of important note, I wouldn’t say that social democracy is a “halfway point” between capitalism and socialism, nor would I say that of distributism. But in terms of ideology, I think they come close to mapping between the two modes of production. Mutualism or market socialism is probably a better “intermediary” mode of production between the two (it involves markets but with collective control of means of production and banking). 

TLDR: It’s bullshit to write off political leftism and political rightism as fundamentally similar when they are founded upon opposing ideas about who ought to control social production in society. Centrism and liberaltarianism try to avoid this question, but they are just as ideological as either side – they assert that we should just “leave people to their own devices”, but their political ideology is one where capitalists control the means of production in top-down fashion as realized through private property rights, a fundamentally right-wing conception of society. There is no political “objectivity” – the centrist position inevitably supports those with power in society. 

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor” -Desmond Tutu


anonymous asked:

do you consider obama to be a lesser evil compared to trump?

I disagree with the very notion of “lesser evil”. Lesser evil is still evil. Obama dropped a bomb every twenty minutes for the last eight years and built the massive state security apparatus that permeates every instant of our lives. Blue Team liberals are no better than Red Team liberals, they’re just more judicious; here’s a post you should read about that (link).

To translate that for the liberals reading this, the Galactic Empire might not have been as overtly shitty as the First Order, but that doesn’t make them good.

A disturbingly large amount of theory seems explicitly to undertake the proliferation of only one affect, or maybe two, of whatever kind – whether ecstasy, sublimity, self-shattering, jouissance, suspicion, abjection, knowingness, horror, grim satisfaction, or righteous indignation. It’s like the old joke: ‘Comes the revolution, Comrade, everyone gets to eat roast beef every day.’ ‘But Comrade, I don’t like roast beef.’ “Comes the revolution, Comrade, you’ll like roast beef.’ Comes the revolution, Comrade, you’ll be tickled pink by those deconstructive jokes; you’ll faint from ennui every minute you’re not smashing the state apparatus; you’ll definitely want hot sex twenty to thirty times a day. You’ll be mournful and militant. You’ll never want to tell Deleuze and Guattari, ‘Not tonight, dears, I have a headache.

Sedgwick, “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading, or, You’re So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Essay is About You” in Touching Feeling, p. 146

This continues to be one of the most incredible things ever said about theory/theorizing

anonymous asked:

I was wondering if you could help me understand the withering away of the state. Is it that after the dictatorship of the proletariat and the need for the state is obsolete, the communist state turns into anarchism? Or am I oversimplifying this and missing something?

There are various tendencies within leftism that understand the whole concept of an intermediary “dictatorship of the proletariat” differently. Anarchists don’t typically see this intermediary period as particularly needed or helpful. Marxists of most stripes, on the other hand, typically see the D of the P as a scenario where the workers control the means of production in some collective/democratic fashion, but where the state still exists to ideally smooth out the transition from capitalism – in other words, the D of the P is just fancy terminology for socialism. Socialism would still involve money and scarcity in some capacity as well. As communal ownership over the means of the production and resource abundance become the tenets by which everyone lives, the social system progresses towards communism. By definition, if you’re at communism, you’re also at anarchism – communism is necessarily stateless and anarchism is necessarily classless. This scenario ceases to be a D of the P because the proletariat ceases to exist (as do social classes in general).

It’s important to recognize that communism/anarchism would still involve a horizontal “administration of things” for the maintenance of society, but the state as we understand it would become obsolete – that is, the state being an apparatus that enforces the material interests of the class with power in society. (By this logic, socialism would involve the majority working class taking power over from the minority bourgeoisie and using the state to uphold the interests of working class human need rather than bourgeois capital, eventually integrating all people as fellow travelers democratically controlling the collective means of production.) If communism/anarchism involve “government”, it’s fundamentally in the context of SELF-governance – no class domination of one group over another as legitimized by an apparatus over and above the people. In other words, direct democracy to its ultimate conclusion.

Hope this helped!


so anyway i have been thinking about the force and how it is leveraged as a kind of political thing in the rebellion versus the empire conflict - where the formal aspects of the empire (beyond palps and vader) are like THE FORCE IS FAKE while the formal parts of the rebellion go around saying ‘may the force be with you’ in a way that is obviously meant to be deeply political - and because i binge read through grievous’ legends wookieepedia page for reasons yesterday, i’m now wondering about how the separatists who merged into the rebellion would think about this

because like, the force as expounded upon and performed by the jedi was effectively a state sanctioned religion under the old republic which means that any belief in the force would have been especially inextricably bound up in the problem of the state and its apparatus of power. the jedi occupy the weird space of being obviously spiritual and yet obviously deeply involved in the politics and the diplomatic fabric of the galaxy. they’re also involved militarily, even if as a last resort kind of thing so i imagine there’s a fair bit of resentment against them (this is the interesting strain of thought i picked up from grievous’ page) floating around, especially amongst the separatist camp. obviously the rebellion is a coalition formed on the basis of political expediency, but there’s obviously one particular strain of thought that’s gained primacy in there - one that dictates ‘may the force be with you’ as a political saying which marks difference from the bureaucratic indifference of the empire, which is simultaneously also a very jedi saying as compared to the kind of saying from any other conceptualizations and belief systems wrt the force.

and like, this is a charged saying! there’s a history to it! some of it politically violent, some of it being bound up in one group of people being more successful at lobbying the jedi into action than another group of people - and ofc the dynamics of power here are crucial to examine wrt who was able to lobby the jedi more successfully into action and who had the resources in the first place, to be able to push the jedi into action - some of it bound up in a history of jedi and republic interventionism that has its own fraught political complications. and especially wrt rebels who came from separatist planets: its likely that they saw a great deal of republic sanctioned violence and specifically, state sanctioned violence enacted by the jedi, on their planets and their homes before the republic transformed into the empire. and now, of course, the jedi are framed politically as martyred heroes because the empire has rendered them taboo and calls them traitors, which automatically makes the political expediencies of the rebellion expand to include the extinct jedi in their fold.

there had to have been some kind of resentment among the rank and file of rebels wrt blithely accepting the jedi conceptualization of the force as the conceptualization of the force (i mean, we’re also more or less given a nod towards there being multiple understandings of the force outside of the light/dark and jedi/sith binaries in the rogue one novel so i am taking it to its obvious furthest conclusion) and moreover, to accepting what was once the republic sanctioned conceptualization of the force which was practiced by their spiritual military enforcers. like, if you’ve lived your life in a conflict where your planet was ruined, your home destroyed and your people killed by the republic and the very visible jedi, i can’t imagine you’d take ‘may the force be with you’ with anything except deeply bitter resentment. or a kind of grudging acceptance, at best, because you recognize that this is part of political positioning on the part of the rebel leadership (again, who is the leadership and who amongst the leadership gets to elect this as the appropriate thing to say to each other while going into battle, while coming out of battle, while dying, while living - that is also a deeply deeply political choice: both mon mothma and bail organa are from planets that were loyal to the republic during the clone wars and the mon calamari were all on the side of the jedi & republic during the conflict on mon cala so their approach to the conflict and the role of the jedi in the conflict is going to be immensely different from someone who grew up on a separatist world and learned separatist politics and then watched the republic tumble it.). 

tl;dr i wonder if the separatist-turned-rebel factions of the rebellion actually grit their teeth and say ‘may the force be with you’ out loud or if the rebellion is democratic enough to allow them to use and voice their own conceptualizations of their beliefs in the force - and even if it is, i do wonder if there isn’t a deep-seated resentment that remains even through the tenuous coalition and what that means in the long run for the rebellion and for the new republic when it’s finally reinstated.

Are you vehemently against anarchists? Do you fear not having an overlord? Well you’re in luck kiddo!

“Golly gee mister! Really? How?”

There’s a thing you can do with prostitutes! They can domineer you entirely, tie you up, beat you and cage you even, everything you love about the state apparatus! But wait! That’s not all!

Now, you too can enjoy not subjugating your neighbor while still reaping the perceived benefits of a boot on your throat. Everybody wins!

Call your local sex workers today, and get *deep 80’s voice* DOMINATED!

anonymous asked:

hey, i was reading einstein's article "why socialism" from the 1949 monthly review (via this link monthlyreview*org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) and was wondering what he meant by "the economic anarchy of capitalist society" - does he mean a free market type of economy or? i'm not well versed in this area so your input is much appreciated!

I think he meant that capitalism doesn’t utilize democratic planning as a socialist society would, resulting in people having vast differences in resource access and social power. I don’t know if this was the right word for that sentiment, though. (For a couple reasons – both because anarchism is necessarily socialist by design and because capitalism does utilize planning and order in such a way that the ruling class makes out like bandits and a bureaucratic state apparatus maintains their interests.) Democratic planning for need would, according to Einstein, contrast with the chaos of a hierarchical market economy. I still argue that democratic planning will have degrees of order and chaos, similar to capitalism but in different increments. Just as socialism is the dialectical reconciliation between individual and collective (liberation of the individual from property hierarchy and liberation of the collective from poverty and artificial scarcity), I think it can also be understood as a system that finally takes people for what we are – that is, emotional/collaborative/dissenting/hard-working/leisurely animals that function best when both our physical and spiritual needs are taken care of, understood through social ownership over that which is socially-operated. Democracy is a process, and it can be orderly or chaotic, collaborative or competitive. But it’s the only way we can dismantle class and finally meet each other on a shared ground of common humanity.

The broadening of the state apparatus leads to an increase in the numbers or people making decisions in the name of the state. The circle of rulers, that is the number of people whom citizens must obey is widened. The single tyrant with his few associates is replaced by a host of petty tyrants.
—  Maurice Duverger