Class warfare - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14258010
The way I see it the state is a venue in which competing factions attempt to impose their class interests upon others. Capturing control of the state rarely leads to the liberation that rebels were fighting for as their leaders seize power and oppress others. I.e. One ruling class in no better than another.

A better method is to attempt to weaken the state by making it more pluralistic. Do anarchists envision a future in which the state grows increasingly impotent and its leadership less remote? Could this lead to the abolition of the state as its institutions become increasingly localized and responsive to the public will?

Would this society see less class conflict?
User avatar
By Oakwood
#14258075
I reckon this has been spoken about quite a lot on here which is probably why no one has answered it yet haha. I'll give it a go though.


I think one of the first things I ever posted on this forum was about how I think anarchy wouldn’t work so I’ll try to go over what I said at that time. If what you mean by anarchy is something like “no unifying central power, everyone living in their tribes side by side with no interference from a government, or abolition of the state” which were the words you used, it would descend into civil war. Afghanistan is an example of a country that never really had a constitution or much of a central authority and has been at war with itself since the dawn of time- it only experiences stability when someone brutal oppresses them into obedience, a government of some sort like the Mongols or Taliban.

People always gravitate towards some sort of authority and hierarchy - even within small tribes there will be leaders and deputy leaders. If one tribe or group within the general area decides it wants to be a merchant group, make money and amass some sort of power, people outside their group will become nervous and/or envious at their power and wealth. They will want some kind of protection for their family and people against the growing power of this more powerful group and will have to make alliances with other groups around them (or join the more powerful group). This would no doubt involve negotiations and agreements that they would have to stick to or else risk some kind of punishment.

What’s to stop anyone killing anyone from a neighbouring tribe or your own tribe if there’s no law preventing it? The fear of the punishment that comes with breaking the law is what prevents things like this happening (this is talked about extensively in the book “Leviathan” by Hobbes). There is always a ruling class even in small groups.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14258105
Thanks for replying Oakwood. I'm reluctant to use the search function as its parameters are so broad that it throws up lots of noise.

If what you mean by anarchy is something like “no unifying central power, everyone living in their tribes side by side with no interference from a government, or abolition of the state” which were the words you used, it would descend into civil war.


Nation states often fight wars over the global trading system. The 20th century witnessed 3 of them. We could take the perspective that these were "civil" wars if the ultimate goal is global hegemony.

People always gravitate towards some sort of authority and hierarchy........They will want some kind of protection for their family and people against the growing power of this more powerful group and will have to make alliances with other groups around them (or join the more powerful group).


In the Origins of Political order Francis Fukuyama states that there is no account/ direct evidence of the formation of the first state level society but most states were formed in direct response to having a state located close by. State level societies are better able to mobilise resources then tribal ones and can field relatively large, dedicated armies.

What’s to stop anyone killing anyone from a neighbouring tribe or your own tribe if there’s no law preventing it?


Or authority to enforce it? International law is impotent in the face of USA aggression.

So I guess my question is how do we go about minimising peoples/ institutions desire/ ability to perpetrate aggression?
User avatar
By Oakwood
#14258158
AFAIK wrote:Thanks for replying Oakwood. I'm reluctant to use the search function as its parameters are so broad that it throws up lots of noise.


That’s quite alright, I’m quite interested in this subject so it’ll be good to talk about it. Last time I didn’t actually get to.

AFAIK wrote:Nation states often fight wars over the global trading system. The 20th century witnessed 3 of them. We could take the perspective that these were "civil" wars if the ultimate goal is global hegemony.


Indeed they do, but I would say there was a lot more to it than the global trading system. The political system, which I know is intertwined, would’ve played a massive part. Also, I would see wars between states (especially states as close as European ones) as civil wars of a sort. I wrote in another post not long ago that I’m a supporter of a “New World Order” under one world government as this to me seems to be the best way to lessen the number wars breaking out between peoples and also a way of putting things in order quickly when things go wrong within one of the states. Other states can act decisively and contribute reasonably quickly and equally. Free trade agreements are an example of a good way to bring people into contact with each other and begin a project like this. This was the way the European Union got under way and there has been no war between states of the European Union since it was formed. (I’m guessing two of the wars you were talking about earlier were World War I and II). Same as the states within the United States. People will give a second thought to causing some kind of animosity with their neighbour when their economies and trade are at stake and there’s the risk of being kicked out of a major economic block. The ASEAN seems to have had some success as well.

AFAIK wrote:In the Origins of Political order Francis Fukuyama states that there is no account/ direct evidence of the formation of the first state level society but most states were formed in direct response to having a state located close by. State level societies are better able to mobilise resources then tribal ones and can field relatively large, dedicated armies.


I don’t think I understand to be honest. By “state level society” do you mean a society that has grown to state level? If so, how can there be no first state level society? If they were formed in response to a state being close by, was that state close by not a state level society? As for the last sentence, I agree.

AFAIK wrote:Or authority to enforce it? International law is impotent in the face of USA aggression.


Exactly, so the citizens being fearful of the punishment of breaking the law would entail that certain group would be responsible for enforcing the law through punishment etc.

AFAIKS wrote:So I guess my question is how do we go about minimising peoples/ institutions desire/ ability to perpetrate aggression?


Under a New World Order, like in nearly all countries today, there would still likely be a dominant actor or actors, akin to the capital city. But because the other countries are united as they hadn’t been before, the combined might of them together would outweigh the might of the most powerful country. Although the Germans are by far the strongest in Europe and still throw their weight around, I don't reckon we'll be seeing a repeat of their past behaviour any time soon
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14258184
Oakwood wrote:That’s quite alright, I’m quite interested in this subject so it’ll be good to talk about it. Last time I didn’t actually get to.


A mutually- beneficial symbiotic relationship. What could be better?

Indeed they do, but I would say there was a lot more to it than the global trading system. The political system, which I know is intertwined, would’ve played a massive part.


Agreed. How can we modify and influence this system to reduce the states capacity for violence?


I wrote in another post not long ago that I’m a supporter of a “New World Order” under one world government as this to me seems to be the best way to lessen the number wars breaking out between peoples.....


I'd be concerned that the politicians would become increasingly remote from the populations that they represent making them less responsive to the negative impacts that their actions have on the population.

Free trade agreements are an example of a good way to bring people into contact with each other and begin a project like this. This was the way the European Union got under way and there has been no war between states of the European Union since it was formed. (I’m guessing two of the wars you were talking about earlier were World War I and II).


Agreed and yes I was referring to WWI + II. I'd like to clarify that genuine free trade agreements are beneficial, not bull-shit misnomers.

I would like to add that pacifism and a lack of appetite for violent conflict after experiencing so much death and destruction also contributed. Compare/ contrast with post war Japan.


Same as the states within the United States. People will give a second thought to causing some kind of animosity with their neighbour when their economies and trade are at stake and there’s the risk of being kicked out of a major economic block.


I agree again! One of the causes of the USA's civil war was a lack of economic integration between the industrial north and agricultural south.

The ASEAN seems to have had some success as well.


Not so sure about that but I'll leave if for now to avoid a complicated off topic discussion.

I don’t think I understand to be honest. By “state level society” do you mean a society that has grown to state level? If so, how can there be no first state level society? If they were formed in response to a state being close by, was that state close by not a state level society?


1- Yes, but you have paraphrased- If 1+2=3 does 2+1=3?
2- Fukuyama examined the causes/ processes of political structure formation. Every society that formed a state did so in response to the external threat it faced from a neighbouring state . He was unable to discover a "virgin birth" or "origin of statehood".
3- Yes it is a state but where did those state institutions come from? How/ why were they formed? The 1st state pro-actively become a state. All other states formed reactively.


Exactly, so the citizens being fearful of the punishment of breaking the law would entail that certain group would be responsible for enforcing the law through punishment etc.


But this group would be above the law. US president don't indict themselves but they do grant immunity/ pardons to themselves. e.g Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment and was later pardon by a successor.

Under a New World Order, like in nearly all countries today, there would still likely be a dominant actor or actors, akin to the capital city. But because the other countries are united as they hadn’t been before, the combined might of them together would outweigh the might of the most powerful country.


So a balance of power? When 1 group is massively more powerful then another there is little war as instigators would be swiftly crushed. When groups approach a balance of power the dominated state attacks the dominant state in an attempt to gain better terms for itself. Compare the past 500 years of European history with that of China. Europe experienced a series of civil wars because no 1 group was able to seize and hold the entire continent. In China dynasties were able to maintain hegemony over the political system for extended periods.
User avatar
By Oakwood
#14258857
Evening, AFAIK, I just got in from work so apologies for the late reply. Anyway, here it is.

AFAIK wrote:Agreed. How can we modify and influence this system to reduce the states capacity for violence?


By making all the players more politically and economically integrated to the point that they are actually the same country but subdivided into states. There would be a world constitution which, although reasonably descriptive, allows room for manoeuvrability so that at the individual state level, states are free to write their own laws, as long as they don’t breach the highest constitution. This as you might have guessed, is to account for the inevitable problems that differences in geography, population and culture etc would bring about.

AFAIK wrote:I'd be concerned that the politicians would become increasingly remote from the populations that they represent making them less responsive to the negative impacts that their actions have on the population.


It would be reasonable to think that, but this is how it works in a lot of countries already- some members of the government barely ever see the people they supposedly represent. Of course, you always need a direct link to the people of some sort and this is why government is, and would continue to be layered- having certain councillors/politicians who act as the mouthpiece and ear of the higher politicians . I think it’s unrealistic to expect all politicians to be able to be councillor style politicians like we have here in Britain.


AFAIK wrote:Agreed and yes I was referring to WWI + II. I'd like to clarify that genuine free trade agreements are beneficial, not bull-shit misnomers

I would like to add that pacifism and a lack of appetite for violent conflict after experiencing so much death and destruction also contributed. Compare/ contrast with post war Japan.


Yes I agree with that. I think Japan having a certain pacifist constitution basically forced on them by the Americans had something to do with their current attitude to international relations as well. Although from what I read, the attitude of the Japanese is beginning to change in that regard now.


AFAIK wrote:1- Yes, but you have paraphrased- If 1+2=3 does 2+1=3?
2- Fukuyama examined the causes/ processes of political structure formation. Every society that formed a state did so in response to the external threat it faced from a neighbouring state . He was unable to discover a "virgin birth" or "origin of statehood".
3- Yes it is a state but where did those state institutions come from? How/ why were they formed? The 1st state pro-actively become a state. All other states formed reactively.



1)Yes 1 + 2 = 3 and 2 + 1 = 3
2)Well I don’t know to be honest because it’s hard to decide at what point a society becomes a state and history goes back a long way, much further than we have written recording of it. The idea he states though actually sounds intelligent to me. If you look at my first post in this thread, you can see from that that my idea(s) line up quite well with his.
3)The institutions are necessary for a stable and peaceful state. My guess as to how/why they were organised would be that one tribe or group became the dominant group after a lengthy period in a state of civil war (or inter-tribal warfare). This successful group realised that if they were going to remain the dominant group and have the others obey them, stay loyal and basically give up their freedom, they would have to at least provide something in return. This provision came in the form of protection from outsiders, possibly employment and a (very primitive) legal system which is essential to economic prosperity. Add in a nice bit of religion to keep them in fear for their souls and you’re in a strong position.

AFAIK wrote:But this group would be above the law. US president don't indict themselves but they do grant immunity/ pardons to themselves. e.g Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment and was later pardon by a successor.


There would need to be multiple groups responsible for justice. Having just one would no doubt lead to abuses and these groups would need to be distinctly separated from each other to avoid collusion and corruption. In the same way you don’t have the police acting as the judge and jury as well as the investigators and preventers of crimes. The case you mentioned is an American one, I wouldn't use their system as a template for mine.

AFAIK wrote:So a balance of power? When 1 group is massively more powerful then another there is little war as instigators would be swiftly crushed. When groups approach a balance of power the dominated state attacks the dominant state in an attempt to gain better terms for itself. Compare the past 500 years of European history with that of China. Europe experienced a series of civil wars because no 1 group was able to seize and hold the entire continent. In China dynasties were able to maintain hegemony over the political system for extended periods.


Europe was never ruled by one government, you could maybe say the Romans and Napoleon came close, but it’s nothing like what we have now and there is very little chance of war breaking out between the member states of the European Union. As for the one extremely powerful group that’s needed for a hegemony you mention, that would be the World Government itself. As for China, certain dynasties did reign for a long time but do you actually think there was peace, security and prosperity in that country?

Well I'm off out to town now but if you or anyone else replies while I'm out and I check PoFo, I'll see if I can reply while I'm there. Don't know what my friends will think of me being all anti social sitting there typing away a message while they talk about something unimportant and uncontroversial but fuck em!
User avatar
By Poelmo
#14258907
AFAIK wrote:The way I see it the state is a venue in which competing factions attempt to impose their class interests upon others. Capturing control of the state rarely leads to the liberation that rebels were fighting for as their leaders seize power and oppress others. I.e. One ruling class in no better than another.

A better method is to attempt to weaken the state by making it more pluralistic. Do anarchists envision a future in which the state grows increasingly impotent and its leadership less remote? Could this lead to the abolition of the state as its institutions become increasingly localized and responsive to the public will?

Would this society see less class conflict?


Or you could just reduce class differences by increasing the meritocratic character of your society, that saves a lot of blood and guts...
User avatar
By quetzalcoatl
#14258952
The actual levels of violence, both interpersonal and state-sanctioned, have declined quite radically over the past few centuries. And that's taking into account some of the horrors of the previous century, including two world wars and numerous lower level conflicts.

The modern state has indeed much to criticise, but blaming it for an untoward level of violence is simply not justified, outside of a ritual incantation of standard libertarian memes.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14259075
Thanks for all the replies. I agree with most comments.

Oakwood wrote:By making all the players more politically and economically integrated to the point that they are actually the same country but subdivided into states. There would be a world constitution which, although reasonably descriptive, allows room for manoeuvrability so that at the individual state level, states are free to write their own laws, as long as they don’t breach the highest constitution. This as you might have guessed, is to account for the inevitable problems that differences in geography, population and culture etc would bring about.


Geography will hinder this process significantly. The cost of transporting goods by land is much higher than water especially if the terrain is challenging. Some would oppose the process for ideological reasons.
User avatar
By Suska
#14259087
People always gravitate towards some sort of authority and hierarchy
Some do, some do the opposite. It's not just taking a dim view of human nature, it's assuming the impossibility of genuine egalitarianism.
By Baff
#14259784
AFAIK wrote:Agreed. How can we modify and influence this system to reduce the states capacity for violence?


Easy, refuse to pay your taxes.
Learn to live in such a way as not to generate any taxes.

Vote for low taxatation even.

Take their money away and their ambitions will be reduced organically.
The appartus of state, its ability to affect us is 100% dependant on our contributions to it.

So I advocate tax cuts. Tax avoidance. Tax evasion even, if you are willing to become a criminal for your poltical beliefs.

Other ways to reduce the power of the state is to demonise it. To refuse to work for it and to socially ostracise those who agree to.
A policeman for example has few friends outside the force. A politican may need a bodyguard. A tax man is unlikely to physically survive any revolution and he is even more unlikely to ever get invited to one of my parties.
A state sector employee doesn't get the social kudos a private sector employee does.

To raise your children to think of the state as their enemy and not their friend.


There is one more way that I have found to work very well with riot squads. Vastly outnumber them.
It sucks all the violent thoughts right out of them.
By Someone5
#14259948
AFAIK wrote:The way I see it the state is a venue in which competing factions attempt to impose their class interests upon others. Capturing control of the state rarely leads to the liberation that rebels were fighting for as their leaders seize power and oppress others. I.e. One ruling class in no better than another.

A better method is to attempt to weaken the state by making it more pluralistic. Do anarchists envision a future in which the state grows increasingly impotent and its leadership less remote? Could this lead to the abolition of the state as its institutions become increasingly localized and responsive to the public will?

Would this society see less class conflict?



There are two scenarios for the gradual weakening of the state; the state is weakened while corporations are empowered, or the state is weakened while corporations are crippled. In the first case--what anarcho-capitalists push for--would create immense class conflict, and it would almost certainly become extremely violent in a short period of time. It would utterly divorce state institutions (the empowered corporations) from public will.

The other option, where both are weakened at the same time, could lead to a society where the institutions of society grow increasingly local and directly responsive to the public they serve. This, I think would be the only outcome that would reduce class conflict.
User avatar
By quetzalcoatl
#14260215
Someone5 wrote:The other option, where both are weakened at the same time, could lead to a society where the institutions of society grow increasingly local and directly responsive to the public they serve. This, I think would be the only outcome that would reduce class conflict.


This outcome, while desirable, doesn't appear likely to me, at least not as the result of natural political evolution. Corporate power can't be restrained unless people are willing to endure a long and bitter struggle.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14260259
Scenario 2 is what I'd like to see.

Aren't corporations artificial entities created by the state originally in the form of joint stock companies?
Can they survive without state laws such as limited liability? Will we allow them to claim "personhood"?
Would corporations attempt to recreate feudalism by paying employees in stock?
This could lead to labour serving capital's interests.
Do we need "big government" to prevent this or can anarchists solve the problem?
What do you think of move to amends proposals?

Move to Amend's Proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution wrote:Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.


https://movetoamend.org/
By Baff
#14260436
quetzalcoatl wrote:This outcome, while desirable, doesn't appear likely to me, at least not as the result of natural political evolution. Corporate power can't be restrained unless people are willing to endure a long and bitter struggle.


I think corporate power is best restrained by a larger corp.
Such as a govt for example.

But truthfully that's comicbook talk. Corporate power is really really easy to curb. Don't buy from them. Works everytime.

Corporations are not originally formed by the state. The are the co-operations of private citisens.
Some corporations are requisitioned by the state. Nationalised.

And some previously requisitioned corporations are privatised.

I'm struggling to think of any state originated companies.
That's not really the states style. Why build for yourself what is far easier to just take from others who have already built it and already are operating it.
Just take a skim.
User avatar
By Oakwood
#14260580
Baff wrote:I think corporate power is best restrained by a larger corp.
Such as a govt for example.

But truthfully that's comicbook talk. Corporate power is really really easy to curb. Don't buy from them. Works everytime


What you mean by "comic book talk"? I actually agree with your first idea more than the second in terms of it being more realistic, sensible and capable of being carried out. With big companies its important that they don't get out of control and start creating a monopoly for themselves because that hinders progress for other companies who need some kind of income to innovate and challenge the big ones. But buying from small businesses just because they're not big ones wouldn't be the best option for most people because bigger companies offer much better prices and are held up to higher standards. Also it would encourage more of these small inefficient companies to start up.

I'm interested to know a few of your political/economic beliefs. Its seems as though in your last 2 posts you weren't necessarily saying "I think you shouldn't pay taxes, we should ostracise government workers" etc. It seemed you were more saying "if you want to do this, this is how you should do it..."

But what are you actually thinking?
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14260606
Baff wrote:I'm struggling to think of any state originated companies.
That's not really the states style. Why build for yourself what is far easier to just take from others who have already built it and already are operating it.
Just take a skim.


The south sea company (?), BBC, state utilities, Singapore airlines, dozens of Chinese state-owned-enterprises, key industries, infant industries, Toyota (?).
Read up on the industrial revolution. I think the idea (of joint-stock) originated in Victorian England.

Depends what you mean by "Just take a skim." I think current Thai and British monarchs can claim legitimacy to their wealth. (I'm pretty ignorant as to its origins though.)
User avatar
By Eran
#14267280
Poelmo wrote:Or you could just reduce class differences by increasing the meritocratic character of your society, that saves a lot of blood and guts...

How would that help? Wouldn't it merely realign classes, with those with merits becoming the ruling class?

AFAIK wrote:Aren't corporations artificial entities created by the state originally in the form of joint stock companies?
Can they survive without state laws such as limited liability? Will we allow them to claim "personhood"?
Would corporations attempt to recreate feudalism by paying employees in stock?
This could lead to labour serving capital's interests.
Do we need "big government" to prevent this or can anarchists solve the problem?
What do you think of move to amends proposals?

Limited liability is a state construct, but not nearly as consequential as some people present.

Corporations, in the broad sense, include all forms of people organising to work together towards a common end, be it economic, political or social.

Removing civil protections from corporations is equivalent to allowing government to suppress any social efforts not to its liking, and involving more than one person.

At the end of the day, such amendment would effectively put government in charge not just of for-profit, but also labour unions, charitable organisations, political parties, newspapers, special interest groups and so on.

It is a terrible idea.
By TristanPEJ
#14287159
I wanna weigh in on the power of socialization. Things like violence, property, possesiveness, cruelty, are all learned, and thus can be unlearned. It is this that keeps me an Anarchist.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going on[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]