Interesting idea. How do you determine what is and is not an inclusive state, though? I, for example, would argue that all capitalist states are exclusive by definition, and that it's simply a matter of degrees. Would that imply that insofar as I am conviced of this reality, I possess a right of revolution if the state is not willing to reform in a socialistic direction? Or is there some third party, a neutral arbiter that is neither myself or the state, that is able to judge for us when that would and would not be permissable?
(Also, on an historical note, I think it's a bit much to describe the Union c.1961 as an inclusive state, given the depth of exploitation of working people, and the political exclusion suffered by many immigrants, particularly non-white immigrants. Even if you regard an inclusive capitalist state as possible, I can't see a reasonable argument for one existing until the development of the welfare state at a rather later date.)
Well I suppose if you insist on taking a Marxist definition of it, then nothing works. Ever. And so you have no other options but to find some god to take your side.
There is no outside arbitrator that that will give you hard and fast rules that apply in all times and places. Forget that. There is no point in even discussing things if you are only going to insist on formalized and unchanging rules.
As to capitalism, capitalism is the most dynamic and creates the most wealth where political institutions are inclusive. The difference is whether the state is protecting the existing wealth and power at the expense of the creation of new wealth, or is it protecting the opportunity to create new wealth?
In the Union v Confederacy, the Union states were initially less prosperous because there was huge wealth to be extracted from the institution of slavery. But as time went on, the Union areas were far more dynamic economically. There was much more political participation, it was more open and responsive. The result was the common Northerner had at least a basic education. The common Southerner did not. There were far more patents granted in the North. More Northerners owned their own land, homes, businesses. More Northerners prospered or failed based on their own personal efforts, and not their inheritances or political positions. As a result, the North's economy grew in a much stronger and more sustainable way. And when the South seceded, the North had not just a large manpower advantage (because immigrants overwhelmingly chose the North over the South as the better place to live), but also had financial and industrial advantages that the South simply could not stand against.
The Union was far more free, and so the Union was far stronger.
Now maybe it sucks to be an industrial prole, but the system as a whole for the majority of the people offered far more inclusiveness and freedom, in politics, in economics, and in life. It was certainly better than any alternative anyone else was offering. That is why people moved from throughout the world to be a part of it.
Now are there limits on this? Certainly. And one of the themes of the book is that achieving an inclusive state is not the end, but that then it must be maintained. The authors make the point that the city state of Venice was once the most dynamic and wealthiest place in the world. And at the time it was highly inclusive politically and economically. But the old money interests over time succeeded in closing down the realm of political participation, and in doing so Venice's economy stagnated. It became a backwater, and essentially no more than a tourist destination.
And this can happen again. Conservatism in the US today is primarily about the distribution of wealth at the expense of the creation of wealth. I have argued that 100 times on this forum at least, if anyone cared to remember. If you look at the presidential candidates now, what they are really arguing for is to do to the US what was done to Venice, and to end the creation of wealth for the purpose of concentrating wealth and power. They don't see it that way, but they are actually blind and indifferent to the creation of wealth, and are only concerned with the concentration of it.
What do we see? Proposals to limit political participation. Voter suppression. Citizen's United. Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate. Right to work, anti-union activities and rhetoric. Opposition to minimum wages. Cut entitlements cut welfare. Cut taxes on the rich. End the "death tax". End capital gains taxes. End income taxes.
Every one of those things, and many more, are attempts to turn the US from an inclusive state to an extractive one.
Funny, isn't it, how many libertarians and anarchists would choose to do those things rather than the opposite.
There's a difference between claiming that the state is A Bad Thing, and claiming that all Badness is located exclusively and eternally in the state. How many anarchists actually do this? Only those like Abegweit, as far as I can tell, and they're what you might politely call highly idiosyncratic in their thought. All that's claimed is that coercion is a Bad Thing, and that insofar as the state is coercive (which most would argue is intrinsically the case) it is a Bad Thing. It doesn't mean that Bad Things can't exist outside of the state, any more than the fact that Nazism was a Bad Thing means that all Bad Things are Nazi.
In this case, what's being suggested isn't that it would be impossible to enslave people or kill indigenous peoples without the existence of a state- that's patently nonsensical- but that those engage in slavery and genocide were by and large acting within the terms of the state- whatever particular legal structures a given state may have possessed.
There is a fundamental difference, morally as well as practically, between an act of omission and an act of commission. The financial crisis the US went through in 2008 was an act of omission on the part of the US government. It both could have, and should have, acted preemptively to prevent it. But choose not to, largely because Big Finance in the US fought tooth and nail for decades to convince the government to get out of its way. The financial crisis was an act of commission on the part of Big Finance. They did it. They are responsible. It was their actions, taken for their interests.
But libertarians and anarchists (and conservatives, what strange bedfellows these people keep) say that it is all the government's fault, Big Finance was forced into it. It is a fundamental shifting of responsibility. And by doing so they justify not taking the steps that would prevent it from happening again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
When you shift responsibility like that, from those who did an act of commission to those who committed an act of omission, you not just failed to learn the lessons that would prevent it from happening again and again, but you reward instead of punish those people who actually are responsible.
And that is why it matters that the difference between omission and commission be kept clear.
When you blur the distinction of the matter, such as say slavery in the US, and say it was a governmental institution, when in reality the government simply declined to deal with it, then it leads to fundamentally wrong conclusions on what to do going forward.
Well, it's what we've been discussing for the last umpteen pages, so...
And that's precisely where you and I always have the discussion hang up.
As I understand it, a system of private property reliant on good will rather than violence would tend to imply that acting in an anti-social manner would have more serious reprucussions than leaving those you've harmed going
. The "sucks to be you" model of interpersonal relations only works if you're guaranteed some immunity from them simply declining to acknowledge your property rights and continuing to engage with trade in you, and in the absence of the state, that does not necessarilly appear to be the case.
Now, do I think that would work? Almost certainly not, which is why capital loves loves
loves the state and all its pointy accoutrements. But we should at least lay out clearly how it would unfold and thus what it is that would fail to work, rather than simply assuming that it would just be the Gilded Era minus the postal service, as you seem to be doing.
Oh, it would not be nearly as good as the Gilded Era. There just is not anything I can see in human history that would lead me to believe that it would work.
What you need to understand is that private violence is a profit maximizing strategy. Everyone is best off if they harm others. What kind of social stigma do you really think you can apply that will overcome that? In small, cohesive, and isolated communities social stigma as a control method may work. But it does not scale up. You cannot do it in a city. Much less a country.
How so? It's true that the power of capital is rooted private property, isn't it? And it's true that, in principle, you support the use of state violence in defence of private property. Two plus two being four, this means that you support the use of state violence in support of the power of capital. That may not be why you support propertarian violence, but by the same measure Amadeus doesn't support the abolition of industrial regulation because he wants more air pollution, as may be the result of a stateless capitalism.
The point is that the actual violence a person is likely to receive in their lives is far greater in Somalia than it is in the US. You are far, far, more likely to be the victim of violence in a place without a functioning state than in a place with one. Amadeus may not want the system he wants because he wants unlimited violence, but that's what he will get. I want the system I want because the amount of violence is trivial in comparison to what he will have.
So saying I want violence, when what I want is a vast reduction in actual violence, is insulting at the least.
