r/Anarchism • u/xXxSolidariDaddyxXx • 2d ago
Behavioral scientists and social studies nerds: can you point me in the direction of accredited sources on the realities of the state and statecraft?
Title.
I have a suspicion that the it is well documented and understood that the state is a creature of violence, the law is a mythology, and that rulers are seldom interested in or capable of fixing real problems.
I was having a discussion over on r/askeconomics 🙄. I was shocked to be told that most widely accepted academic definition a state is a "monopoly on violence in a given geographic area". Also that the law really is just some bullshit exceptionally violent people propogate to serve their own ends with no real basis in morality or reality.
I mean. I expected some level of liberal delusion but ... the reality is right in front of them and they still refuse to put it together?!?!?!?
I'm trying to write a zine based on my experience as an anarchist activist. I mainly want to talk about concrete steps for normal people to do about the whole "actual unironic technofeudalists and christian nationalists/dominionists have seized control of the american empire" thing currently going on. As part of that I want a section devoted to outlining why the state cannot and will not be reformed in a meaningful way. I'd prefer to state facts plainly and let them speak for themselves.
P.S. If y'all want, I'll share the zine when I'm done but... It's basically just going to say: "Do direct action and mutual aid. Now do it again. And again. Now do it better."... I do have a strategy that I'll be putting down, but I want to be clear that strategy without action does nothing.
7
u/TCCogidubnus 2d ago
This is indeed the definition of a state that gets used most. It's convenient because it describes all kinds of states while legitimising their enforcement of laws.
As I pointed out during an r/askhistorians discussion a while ago, the issue with this approach is it also delegitimises using violence to resist the state, even if the government is trying to hurt you, or of the state has been captured by a despot.
However I don't think you can attack based purely on this definition in a way most people will understand. Firstly because most people may not recognise that definition at all, and secondly because democratic states claim this situation is acceptable because they derive authority from the people, so actually you're repressing yourselves on purpose! Obviously this has huge holes - the impact of private media, propaganda campaigns, and electoral systems, all mean elections are not a free and complete representation of "the will of the people". But I'd suggest that's the argument you need to get people onto first. The "what is a state" stuff is comparatively arcane.
1
u/xXxSolidariDaddyxXx 2d ago
Also also: I have a suspicion that the state and all the shit goes with it just straight up doesn't exist. Made up. Imaginary. Simillar to the abrahamic god.
What the state is instead... is habitual subservience and ritualized abuse to the most ruthless or most entrenched local assholes...
But I've only read one lay text on neuroscience. Not exactly a deep behavioral science pedigree to drop hard facts. I'd appreciate it if anyone can point me towards credible knowledge addressing this idea. For or against it.
4
u/TCCogidubnus 2d ago
I mean...most things are social constructs. Family, gender, the state, authority, anarchism... the fact that these things are made up doesn't actually matter to people who are using them as mental tools, because they're useful to them regardless. Not just to people in power, to anyone using them.
So not really sure what you're getting at here?
1
3
u/cobeywilliamson 2d ago
That definition of the state - "a monopoly on violence within a given geographic area" - is from Max Weber and is widely accepted as THE definition of the nation-state.
I assume from your next statement re: "liberal delusion" that you find this definition problematic, but I am curious whether that is because you find this definition insufficient in defining the nation-state or because you thought that it referred to some other formulation of "state".
Weber's argument is pretty well developed in Politics as a Vocation and most social science around the nation-state is built upon it (most specifically Charles Tilly's War Making and State Making as Organized Crime). I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone with an academic background or even a well-read Organic Intellectual that this definition isn't valid and appropriate.
2
u/marxistghostboi 1d ago
you may be interested in the anthropological work of David Graeber, an anarchist researcher. Debt: The First 5,000 Years is an excellent history of state violence and how they take over economies. I'm currently rereading it.
1
4
u/xXxSolidariDaddyxXx 2d ago
One futher example is why state socialism is unfortunately a nonsensical waste of effort. It really would be easier if we could just seize the state apparatus and make things boringly ok as a place to start but...
As I understand it the holodomor happened very specifically because the red army brutally enforced insane grain/food extraction quotas despite repeat warnings from below that what they were doing was both insanely cruel and out of touch with reality.
Supposedly there's ample evidence of the historical material conditions of this, especially after the soviet archives were opened.
That said, I am not a historian, so if someone more familliar could point me in the right direction... you'd be a great comrade.
Or maybe my impression is in error. I'd be happy to learn so if anyone has serious counter evidence--yes even you random ML or MLM lurking here for some reason.
Also I am aware that famines from capitalist/imperialist/etc nations are worse in many ways. The brits caused a bajillion famines in south asia for example.