Statism

[Viv]

let's see, I'm 20, my leaning is statist/populist for political ideaologies, not governmental structure. And that's about it.

What is statist, Oregon?

[Oregon Elephant]

What is statist, Oregon?

"The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism

It is very broad in it's definition, so that gives one mobility to define themself within it. It also isn't well known, if you google "statist" google thinks you mispelled "statistics," so there's nothing to find. If you wiki "statism" you get a few paragraphs with no links for evidence, so there isn't much out there for it. You'll also find tons of sites that are anti-statist and define it as

"Under statism, government is no longer a policeman, but a gang of thugs with the legal power to initiate force in any manner they please against a legally disarmed citizen."

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/statism.htm

There are virtually no sites that defend statism from capitalist attacks.

[Viv]

"The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism

It is very broad in it's definition, so that gives one mobility to define themself within it. It also isn't well known, if you google "statist" google thinks you mispelled "statistics," so there's nothing to find. If you wiki "statism" you get a few paragraphs with no links for evidence, so there isn't much out there for it. You'll also find tons of sites that are anti-statist and define it as

"Under statism, government is no longer a policeman, but a gang of thugs with the legal power to initiate force in any manner they please against a legally disarmed citizen."

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/statism.htm

There are virtually no sites that defend statism from capitalist attacks.

I was thinking in terms of federalism, but it is different then...more authoritarian?

[Oregon Elephant]

I was thinking in terms of federalism, but it is different then...more authoritarian?

I'd say totalitarian rather than authoritarian, as authoritarian means that it controls via a strong police force (which is what the capitalists want people to think). Considering that most people (at least in the USA) want the government to control and regulate business and the economy, it wouldn't need an over powering police force, and so wouldn't be consider authoritarian. Although, with it's broadness, authoritarians can honestly label themselves as statists.

[Viv]

I'd say totalitarian rather than authoritarian, as authoritarian means that it controls via a strong police force (which is what the capitalists want people to think). Considering that most people (at least in the USA) want the government to control and regulate business and the economy, it wouldn't need an over powering police force, and so wouldn't be consider authoritarian. Although, with it's broadness, authoritarians can honestly label themselves as statists.

Ehh...excuse me, just realised this is an intro thread. So I meant to say welcome to the forum...:D

You want to take this down to political theory and make a thread? I have a few more questions...

[Oregon Elephant]

Ehh...excuse me, just realised this is an intro thread. So I meant to say welcome to the forum...:D

You want to take this down to political theory and make a thread? I have a few more questions...

Sure, I'm good with that if you want to move it.

[Viv]

I'd say totalitarian rather than authoritarian, as authoritarian means that it controls via a strong police force (which is what the capitalists want people to think). Considering that most people (at least in the USA) want the government to control and regulate business and the economy, it wouldn't need an over powering police force, and so wouldn't be consider authoritarian. Although, with it's broadness, authoritarians can honestly label themselves as statists.

"Under statism, government is no longer a policeman, but a gang of thugs with the legal power to initiate force in any manner they please against a legally disarmed citizen."

Why ally yourself to this? You support disarming? And you do not support capitalism, or how does statism relate to capitalism?

And the broad spectrum, is this not a way to make it whatever you like...and avoid definition?

[Oregon Elephant]

"Under statism, government is no longer a policeman, but a gang of thugs with the legal power to initiate force in any manner they please against a legally disarmed citizen."

Why ally yourself to this? You support disarming? And you do not support capitalism, or how does statism relate to capitalism?

And the broad spectrum, is this not a way to make it whatever you like...and avoid definition?

Sorry, I wasn't clear about that quote. That is how the opponents of statism define it as propaganda, it shouldn't be listened to. Like how capitalist describe communism or socialism, it is nothing more than faulty propaganda.

It is broad as in it isn't as concrete as maxist-leninism, or Trotskyism (which have very solid stances on each issue), it's more like saying, 'liberal' as far as it's vagueness. It isn't completely vague, just not that accurate to a single point on a political chart.

Anyone who believes that the government should have a large or total control over the economy (including socialists, communists, and many fascists) can be considered a statist. Other issues, such as gun control or abortion or gay marrage or anything non-economic, it doesn't matter (that is what makes it broad). So some statists will support gun control, some won't.

[Enver]

I would consider myself an anti-statist as I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way to defeat capitalism is to destroy the state simultaneously. For a long time I agreed with the Marxist perspective that workers require the state in order to crush capital, but I no longer support this theory.

[Oregon Elephant]

I would consider myself an anti-statist as I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way to defeat capitalism is to destroy the state simultaneously. For a long time I agreed with the Marxist perspective that workers require the state in order to crush capital, but I no longer support this theory.

Do you disagree with the consept of the DoP? Understandibly, the true maxist's finally dream of government would be anti-statist, but the DoP path to reach that dream is usually very statist.

[quirk]

I would consider myself an anti-statist as I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way to defeat capitalism is to destroy the state simultaneously. For a long time I agreed with the Marxist perspective that workers require the state in order to crush capital, but I no longer support this theory.

But do you not think the old ruling class will attempt to recapture power and in such a situation I think a state would be necessary for the workers. We need a state to repress the bourgeoisie.

There is also the fact that any new society will be born out of the present unequal societies which exist through out the world. That inequality is the result of exploitation over centuries and must be put right but again how could you foresee the redistribution of capital throughout the world with out the state.

It would be great if we didn't have to have a state but I see it as a necessary evil.

[Oregon Elephant]

The state is ideally there to protect the country from the 'evils' of the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie mentality is a thing of the past (taking several generations), then it is safe to remove the state once the bourgeoisie mentality is no longer a threat.

So in concept, the state will eventually be removed.

[Enver]

But do you not think the old ruling class will attempt to recapture power and in such a situation I think a state would be necessary for the workers. We need a state to repress the bourgeoisie.

There is also the fact that any new society will be born out of the present unequal societies which exist through out the world. That inequality is the result of exploitation over centuries and must be put right but again how could you foresee the redistribution of capital throughout the world with out the state.

It would be great if we didn't have to have a state but I see it as a necessary evil.

Certainly the defence and distribution of the revolution are two areas where I'm not convinced about Libertarian theory, but besides that there is a lot to be gained by the destruction of the state. Workers control is automatically strengthened and scourges such as the monetary system and waged labour can be done away with a lot faster.

[quirk]

I agree with you on the benefits of removing the state but every time I think about it the same issues arise and I cannot see any way around them. This failure to see an alternative way of dealing with such issues convinces me of the necessity of the state to guard the revolution. We must examine past socialist states however, both the positive and negative so as to prevent the same mistakes happening again or at least the worst ones.

[Enver]

The article I posted on Anarchist Communism is very good:

http://worldagenda.net/forum/showthread.php?t=710

[quirk]

Avakian has some good articles on MLM v Anarchism and the need for a state. I will try to dig them up.

[Enver]

Avakian has some good articles on MLM v Anarchism and the need for a state. I will try to dig them up.

I've read one of them; the man is an embarrassment to Maoism and Communists in general.

[quirk]

He is especially in relation to the personality cult which gets more bizarre all the time. The RCP is fragmenting and as they do they seem to be withdrawing into themselves and becoming more extreme. There members are banned for example from using discussion forums like this.

In saying that though Avakian still has some good works, especially from years ago. His polemic against K Venu is excellent and I also hear the immortal contributions of Chairman Mao is a great book. Despite what he has become I think the articles I spoke about have some very valid points as does even what he says today (if you weed through all the crap).

[donquixote99]

Statism is often mentioned in libertarian circles, very critically, as the opposite of their core value, individualsim. I'm pretty much with the libertarians here: individuals are real, the state is just an idea, an abstraction.

Jerry Pournelle, is his two-axis scheme of classifying political thought, makes statism vs. individualsim one of the main classifying priciples. The other is rationalism vs. romanticism, but both the later terms must be defined properly. Rationalism is the belief that scientific/rational thinking trumps all other values; romanticism is the belief that there are non-scientific values (religious, cultural, nationalistic, whatever) that are of the highest importance.

Make the individualsim/statism scale the horizontal axis, with statism on the right, and rationalism/romanticism the vertical scale, with rationalism on top. In this space you get socialists in the upper right quadrant, with communists up in the upper right corner. Conservatives go in the lower right quadrant, with Nazi down in the corner there. Libertarians in the upper left quad, assorted populists and anarchists in the lower left quad. Right in the middle, where the lines cross, you get Eisenhower.

I like Ike.

[Plato]

Statism is a way for people who are real communists to hide from who they really are by slaping a different title on themselves. Like gay that are still in the closet, and refuse to admit the truth.

[White Rabbit]

I would consider myself an anti-statist as I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way to defeat capitalism is to destroy the state simultaneously. For a long time I agreed with the Marxist perspective that workers require the state in order to crush capital, but I no longer support this theory.
Very interesting. I'm inclined to agree with your analysis here, though it is entirely a matter of hypothetical speculation to me. If one has the goal of overcoming or to transcend capitalism, then the state certainly is your enemy and will never be your friend. ;)

That being said, I personally, I think it is absurd to speak of "defeating" capitalism. That makes no sense unless one seeks war for the sake of war. Transcending capitalism seems possible, seeking to defeat it appears futile.

Please note, I'm not a troll in the traditional sense of the word here. :) I'm a serious student of political philosophy, and I've certainly studied Marx along with a whole host of other 'dead white men'. Indeed, I've studied Marx almost more than any other 'dwm' save only Plato and Nietzsche. Though, I will also mention that I do take a rather unconvential 'evolutionary' interpretation of Marx's theory of history. And I stand as a classical liberal - a Whig of the old school, as it were. :)