I've decided to create this post in order to get a discussion going about the state. More specifically, if seizing state power is a viable method of achieving our end of socialism/communism.
I will start first as I am the writer of this post. As an anarchist, I obviously do not believe that seizing state socialism is a viable means. This is due to 3 reasons:
1. Means-ends unity: one of the core principles of anarchism. According to means-ends unity, we must use adequate means to achieve our goals. As Malatesta said in An Anarchist Programme:
But it is not enough to desire something; if one really wants it adequate means must be used to secure it. And these means are not arbitrary, but instead cannot but be conditioned by the ends we aspire to and by the circumstances in which the struggle takes place, for if we ignore the choice of means we would achieve other ends, possibly diametrically opposed to those we aspire to, and this would be the obvious and inevitable consequence of our choice of means. Whoever sets out on the highroad and takes a wrong turning does not go where he intends to go but where the road leads him.
If we wanna create a free society, free from all kinds of oppression, including state domination, we must use adequate means. To achieve freedom, we will use freedom. To achieve statelessness, we will use statelessness. In order to achieve a communist society, we will need the kind of people able to reproduce it. As such, we should make use of non-state methods, such as popular assemblies, decentralized federations of community councils, etc. The masses have to engage in activities during the struggle against capitalism itself that transform them into people who want to and are able to self-direct their lives and their communities.
2. Power structures seek to perpetuate themselves: another core principle of anarchism. According to it, power structures seek to perpetuate themselves according to their nature. Hierarchical structures will seek to perpetuate themselves and as such maintain their hierarchy and monopoly over decision making power. On the contrary, horizontal power structures will seek to perpetuate themselves and as such distribute power the masses, diametrically opposing the monopolization of power.
As such, hierarchy only begets hierarchy. If we want a society where people self-direct their activities and self-organize instead of allowing themselves to be dominated by the state, we have to make use of horizontal structures wherein power is distributed more equitably among all people and all decisions are made by those who are affected.
3. Centralized state planning does not actually get rid of the value-form: this is less so an argument against the state itself and more so an argument against centralized state planning.
I have only recently began to take Marxist theory more seriously, because I find Marx' critique of the political economy to be scientific/objective and quite convincing. Keep this in mind and do correct me if I make a mistake.
Getting rid of the value-form entails 4 things. Getting rid of commodity production, instead producing things in order to meet people's needs instead of distribute things based on contribution. Getting rid of the abstraction of labor: no longer collapsing labor into 'x hours of labor power'. And finally, getting rid of Socially Necessary Labour Time (SNLT) and commodity fetishism.
All this entails a society comprised of communist social relations, unmediated by value. State socialist projects have historically failed to produce anything resembling such a society.
The state's central planners still measure labor in units of time, distribute goods based on contribution and calculate inputs & ouputs. This is as I am aware the critique of the Soviet state. It maintained commodity production, and furthermore enforced the taylor system, strict labor discipline and even compulsory labor, which was especially egregious early on when the Soviet state forced able-bodied adults (from ages 16-50) to engage in compulsory labor to grow the economy.
Your thoughts?
I will start first as I am the writer of this post. As an anarchist, I obviously do not believe that seizing state socialism is a viable means. This is due to 3 reasons:
1. Means-ends unity: one of the core principles of anarchism. According to means-ends unity, we must use adequate means to achieve our goals. As Malatesta said in An Anarchist Programme:
But it is not enough to desire something; if one really wants it adequate means must be used to secure it. And these means are not arbitrary, but instead cannot but be conditioned by the ends we aspire to and by the circumstances in which the struggle takes place, for if we ignore the choice of means we would achieve other ends, possibly diametrically opposed to those we aspire to, and this would be the obvious and inevitable consequence of our choice of means. Whoever sets out on the highroad and takes a wrong turning does not go where he intends to go but where the road leads him.
If we wanna create a free society, free from all kinds of oppression, including state domination, we must use adequate means. To achieve freedom, we will use freedom. To achieve statelessness, we will use statelessness. In order to achieve a communist society, we will need the kind of people able to reproduce it. As such, we should make use of non-state methods, such as popular assemblies, decentralized federations of community councils, etc. The masses have to engage in activities during the struggle against capitalism itself that transform them into people who want to and are able to self-direct their lives and their communities.
2. Power structures seek to perpetuate themselves: another core principle of anarchism. According to it, power structures seek to perpetuate themselves according to their nature. Hierarchical structures will seek to perpetuate themselves and as such maintain their hierarchy and monopoly over decision making power. On the contrary, horizontal power structures will seek to perpetuate themselves and as such distribute power the masses, diametrically opposing the monopolization of power.
As such, hierarchy only begets hierarchy. If we want a society where people self-direct their activities and self-organize instead of allowing themselves to be dominated by the state, we have to make use of horizontal structures wherein power is distributed more equitably among all people and all decisions are made by those who are affected.
3. Centralized state planning does not actually get rid of the value-form: this is less so an argument against the state itself and more so an argument against centralized state planning.
I have only recently began to take Marxist theory more seriously, because I find Marx' critique of the political economy to be scientific/objective and quite convincing. Keep this in mind and do correct me if I make a mistake.
Getting rid of the value-form entails 4 things. Getting rid of commodity production, instead producing things in order to meet people's needs instead of distribute things based on contribution. Getting rid of the abstraction of labor: no longer collapsing labor into 'x hours of labor power'. And finally, getting rid of Socially Necessary Labour Time (SNLT) and commodity fetishism.
All this entails a society comprised of communist social relations, unmediated by value. State socialist projects have historically failed to produce anything resembling such a society.
The state's central planners still measure labor in units of time, distribute goods based on contribution and calculate inputs & ouputs. This is as I am aware the critique of the Soviet state. It maintained commodity production, and furthermore enforced the taylor system, strict labor discipline and even compulsory labor, which was especially egregious early on when the Soviet state forced able-bodied adults (from ages 16-50) to engage in compulsory labor to grow the economy.
Your thoughts?
achieving freedom through freedom 