The Essence of the Left

[Linkman226]

Great, but what does this have to do with the topic? Unless you believe the essence of the left is smallpox.

No, the essence of the state is that it produces inequality and hierarchy. Definitionally.

Places where states have no effective power are equivalent to places with no state at all, and in those inequality doesn't magically disappear - you end up with the bad parts of Sicily, the parts of the inner cities which the police give up on, and Somalia.

Ah, argumentum ad Somalium. A classic.

The notion that you can just magically remove certain sections of the world from their broader context is laughable. You think the inner city isn't composed of proles who rely on working for the capitalists to survive? You think Somalia didn't have states- what do you call the various feuding warlords then, if not states?

 

[Flying Pig]

I know, but I don't think it was the point, as it were. Even if you can show that the modern liberal state entrenches class distinctions and inequality through force, that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't simultaneously reduce class distinctions and inequality by the use of that force. It certainly favours a particular kind of ruling class, of the sort which is much less unpleasant than others you might think of.

That presumes great criminal activity. What if, God forbid, you're part of that criminal activity?

Not really, but the state is one thing which (by definition) works against criminal activity. It's possible for a stateless society to do the same, but it's also possible for it to fail to do so, or for the 'criminals' themselves to become quasi-state actors.

what do you call the various feuding warlords then, if not states?

There's a difference between strongmen and states: states need the monopoly on the legal use of violence. Strongmen who don't pretend to be enforcing any law are not states, and a stateless society wouldn't make them disappear. Unless you're defining a state as something different?

 

[gay_Aleks]

No, the essence of the state is that it produces inequality and hierarchy. Definitionally.

In our current state of affairs, and history, a truly equal society would essentially be an apocalypse.

 

[aelf]

Again, the claim that was made is this:

It's a (silly) Marxist myth that our modern liberal state "enforces" class distinctions and uses violence and threats of violence to "maintain inequality".

 

[Linkman226]

I know, but I don't think it was the point, as it were. Even if you can show that the modern liberal state entrenches class distinctions and inequality through force, that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't simultaneously reduce class distinctions and inequality by the use of that force. It certainly favours a particular kind of ruling class, of the sort which is much less unpleasant than others you might think of.

Since you're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

As for the last sentence, I don't know. The crimes of the capitalists are too long to list and too horrible to not provoke a deep sadness of the heart. The fact that America or the UK, etc. are peaceful, for example, completely ignores the fact that we simply export violence: by shelling the Middle East, by propping up dictatorial regimes, by buying goods produced by what is essentially third world slave labor. I might not be opposed to this system, but it would be selfish of me to only look at my own interests.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not sure about that one, I think you could well say that 'a stateless society has less inequality' is itself a positive claim. After all, it's those claims which need justifying, not null hypotheses.

 

[Pangur Bán]

That presumes great criminal activity. What if, God forbid, you're part of that criminal activity?

Not really, but the state is one thing which (by definition) works against criminal activity. It's possible for a stateless society to do the same, but it's also possible for it to fail to do so, or for the 'criminals' themselves to become quasi-state actors.

You can't have 'criminal activity' without a state, just like you can't have deviance without society ... or 'permission' without 'authority' (or graduates without a university).

 

[gay_Aleks]

You can't have 'criminal activity' without a state, just like you can't have deviance without society.

What if you're living in a currently stateless-place, filled with other rich states? Much as, if you're lacking a society, but you're surrounded by others?

 

[Linkman226]

Not sure about that one, I think you could well say that 'a stateless society has less inequality' is itself a positive claim. After all, it's those claims which need justifying, not null hypotheses.

This seems to be fairly trivial to prove. Hunter gatherer societies have astonishingly low amounts of inequality.

 

[Borachio]

Are you an anarcho-primitivist, then?

 

[gay_Aleks]

The thing is, what does this "equality" bring us, and what does this "inequality" detracts from us?

How would knowing that hunter-gatherers had no equality would have any effect today, considering how the world has changed?

 

[Pangur Bán]

What if you're living in a currently stateless-place, filled with other rich states? Much as, if you're lacking a society, but you're surrounded by others?

Crime, by definition, is a category of action that a state has forbidden and will 'punish'. Of course you can have areas where no state-level structure 'punishes' anything very regularly because of lack of power, but the concept of 'crime' is meaningless without states.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Crime, by definition, is a category of action that a state has forbidden and will 'punish'. Of course you can have areas where no state-level structure 'punishes' anything very regularly because of lack of power, but the concept of 'crime' is meaningless without states.

What about silly people who do not know of the grand concepts of civilization, but yet stick around for the plunder and looting? They do not know it is wrong.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Sorry, don't understand the question.

 

[gay_Aleks]

What about tribemen who attack settlements? Is it a crime or not?

 

[ArneHD]

The thing is, what does this "equality" bring us, and what does this "inequality" detracts from us?

How would knowing that hunter-gatherers had no equality would have any effect today, considering how the world has changed?

There is a TED talk which addresses the effects of Inequality:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

 

[Linkman226]

Are you an anarcho-primitivist, then?

No, anarcho-primitivism is a dangerous idea that would cause the death of billions. I am civ-critical though, meaning I question whether civilization as we know it (but not necessarily technology) is sustainable.

The thing is, what does this "equality" bring us, and what does this "inequality" detracts from us?

How would knowing that hunter-gatherers had no equality would have any effect today, considering how the world has changed?

Equality is an end in and of itself.

I'm not saying we should return to hunter-gatherer society, but that such societies have much to teach us with regards to how to run and manage a society without a state.

 

[gay_Aleks]

That's weird. So, you're supporting something that would eventually lead to the death of billions, and you're trying to make people believe it has a lot to teach us?

 

[Flying Pig]

Equality is an end in and of itself.

I'm not saying we should return to hunter-gatherer society, but that such societies have much to teach us with regards to how to run and manage a society without a state.

So are things like prosperity and security, though. The whole point of having a state is that we give up a little liberty to gain a little security. Removing a state is, by definition, taking back that liberty and gambling it out in a different way - we've already thrown the dice with our states, and by and large they're working for now, though that's not to say that all states are perfect or even satisfactory. It's not so much that a stateless society cannot provide safety and comfort and more that we know that a stated one can, and the outcome of getting rid of it is uncertain at best.

 

[Borachio]

I think studying hunter-gathering societies, and gardening non-state controlled societies like Papua New Guinea, tells us they don't manage conflict very well. Sure, sometimes they do, but mostly they exist in an almost continuous state of warfare with their neighbours, in a continually shifting system of alliances.

Which is pretty much how states manage things, too. Or have done in the past. Overall, there seems to be a trend towards greater peace.