struggle against the state: order and law vs. harmony and dynamics

 The evolution of the states throughout time and its many nuances in finality are a very interesting historical object of research. States are in se human organizations sprung from a certain human initiative to accommodate human needs and expectations, or at least those of the elites. These needs and expectations and the initiatives that answer them have changed radically throughout history. Where the original “state” in her western, European tradition was a mere defender of right and order, she has evolved these last two centuries from a slave of progression to the nurse of the helpless imperfect creature that is the human being. Also the legitimacy has changed a lot and became more nuanced. Originally, the state relied on charismatic and traditional legitimacy, while today’s states are merely legitimized on a legal-rational basis. In the aftermath of Enlightenment the state can not permit itself to take decisions on any level than the legislative one via democratic control. The state is heavily tied up in a legislative uniform, because we know what totalitarianism is capable of. In order to escape this social pressure and democratic supervision, the states often adapt a complicated procedural structure to scare off democratic elements (all of us) and elevate the threshold of democratic participation. Result is our contemporary elected officials are but lawyers, jurists, economists and lobbyists and that these few “chosen” people posses a hidden monopoly to the executive and legislative (and judicial!) power of a state. Hereby, the entire people – who are never the less the sovereign owners of the general will – are systematically put aside. Is this fundamentally democratic? Is this considered freedom? The liberal and the social-democrat argue that from the meritocratic ideal image jurists and lawyers are the most adapted people who have benefited the best education to execute something as important as the state’s policy and represent the general will, stating just for the sake of argument that there is such a thing. So they are making a clear segregation between who can and who can not claim representative governance. So they are creating their own elites who only have to answer to their interest groups. The media could play an important role of true democratic control, but often political pawns are dropped within the media and have polluted the speaker box of the people, and turned it into the speaker box of the state. A two-party system, like in the United States of America, would not be an ideal, but at least a better solution to the problem, at least of we want society to answer to ‘democracy’ as strictly as possible. A two-party system makes particracy impossible  because the parties (and therefore the interest groups too) are not forced to reach a fundamentally undemocratic compromise. But why should we fight the state and who should fight it in what way? It is necessary to fight the state whatever the cost for a variety of reasons, including particracy itself and the power of a perpetual elite. But the state is not the government and is not tied to governing and structural model is adapts. The liberal argues that the state is the best qualified to defend the capital’s interest, because it has valuable connections to new and distant markets and a wide range of resources. The state can also provide the means for economic growth, because they hold the plug for a fertile economic environment. However the nuance of a “plan economy” is big, the libertarian, the solidarist and the socialist question the liberal interpretation of the state’s true task and finality. As the liberal, the socialist is convinced that a strong state must support a strong economy in a continuum of economic growth and eternal increasing life standards until a real human limit is reached. Until this point, the liberal and the socialist go hand in hand. The socialist however puts more stress on the role of social correction than economic growth. The liberal instead states that wellbeing is a direct causal consequence of economic prosperity, while the socialist contradicts him by stating that wellbeing is a necessary premise to reach and maintain prosperity and that the state should optimize the labor and production force first and harvest the benefits from it later (with the finality of redistribution contained in it).

So the liberal suggest that the economy is but a servant of progress and prosperity in the tradition of Enlightenment. The socialist pretends that the economy should be a servant of mankind and man’s growth from imperfect helpless creature to an Enlightened social creature in economic and socio-economic balance. Both of them accept never the less the role of the state as maintainer of order and justice and proclaim that only the just government, lead by Enlightened and just people, can posses the monopoly on knowledge of good and evil. But is that so? Are the statesmen and the statesmen only the keepers of judgment over right and wrong? How disrespectful is this towards the social subject who place their trust, their lives in the hands of the illegitimate minority that calls herself a government? This is contrary to the ideals of Enlightenment that man is on a linear evolutionary curve towards perfection. This would imply that man will reach a certain point where the state is superfluous to himself and his society. But the liberals don’t take it this far. Hypocrisy? Or just ignorance? Libertarians on the other hand are more principal and less contradictory on the matter. They do not recognize the linear evolution of man because man’s evolution can not be objectively measured or proven. I believe that it is not because we perceive our evolution as progress that we are actually progressing. We do not perceive the earth spinning, but yet we know it is. If seeing is believing, the liberals contradict their own dogma of empirical science and inductive knowledge. The libertarian claims that the time is ripening to throw off the yoke of the state and therefore man is emancipated from the superfluous subsidiary level that is “the state”. The state and all her monopolies can be maintained and executed by either higher or lower levels. The higher levels being the state conglomerates (EU, EFTA, NATO, NAFTA, OPEC, UN) or the nations themselves (being the structural societies including culture, customs and the generational surplus). Separate organs dependent on a regulated and involuntary financing (taxes) of her territorial and contractual subjects are a clear “no-go”. Man has reached the point in time (whether it is perennial or not) where the decisions, made on the subsidiary level above the subjects, must be made with consensus, with the blessing of every subject individually. This is of course not realistic and therefore the subsidiary levels will drastically drop down to small communities or even on the individual level. I believe and sincerely hope that the Hobbesian era of the silent subject and the thieving state are coming to an abrupt end. The number of these small governance communities will be variable, the conditions of the contract are clear, de benefits equal and the disadvantages only to the extent that it hurts the contract breakers, not the contract enders. Expulsion will be impossible, unless on a voluntary basis and can not contain any disadvantages on itself. Any uncomfortable outcome can only be an outcome of circumstance, not group retaliation. The right to the advantages of member-ship is after all meant to be equal to the right of voluntary retreat without disadvantages.

Ultimately, the solidarist bases himself on class reconciliation and doesn’t start from the social ideal, nor the capital ideal, nor the personal will. The solidarist struggle against the state is a struggle wherein the people oppose the state and wherein the capital is but the puppet in between them. Their strength, namely their appeal to the best of both worlds, is in the end also their weakness. Making the state a useless or degraded level by fusing capital and society is virtually impossible. After all, they’re not fighting the actual solid “state”, but the democratic system of it and their aim is to man the state with the entire people, and not just the elites. Contradictory, they want to reduce the influence of the state by inflating it. Like the socialist and the liberal it is not the aim of the solidarist to give the state up, but they proclaim that the state is a vassal to society. Important to point out is that de solidarist does not subscribe the socialist and liberal mantra of linear human evolution, but as a cyclic period. This is why it is hard for the solidarist to accept, at least if he sticks closely to his beliefs, that states adapt themselves to the needs of time. Because solidarism is a perennial philosophy, time is for them a relative and immeasurable phenomenon and evolution does not fit into that idea. However most of us still see advantages in the static uniform (e.g. the best level to maintain law and order, redistributor and social correction, protector of national interests, protector of cultural heritage and norms and values) we must keep asking ourselves, always and everywhere, what surplus value the state has under her present form and if its tasks could not be outsourced to other constructions, who can do it better and more efficiently. Whatwe can not do is see the state as a self-evidence of the human nature and accept het absolute and eternal presence, like the liberals and socialist proclaim. But we can neither stick to the dogma that everything the state does is naturally bad and could be done better, just because she has no democratic legitimacy. We can never stick to absolutions, neither the absolution of democracy, like the libertarians tend to. Nor can we pin ourselves down with any other evidence or natural self-evidence. Nor the evidence of freedom, life, liberty, the present, the future or the past.



{In my point of view, the struggle against the state is of a more fundamental nature than the struggle against society. But my struggle against the state is not of an anarchist nature, in the contrary. However I tend to follow classical anarchism, which means I think power should be radically individual. My nuance claims however that man in his natural law process of emancipation needs to question everything of both material and immaterial nature by initially rejecting it. Even the state. States may not become evident, and that is the sorrowful case today. We forgot to think farther than state borders and farther than the parliamentary benches and the holy shrine of democracy. This is the very essence of liberal hypocrisy. They heckle faith in religious writings and the strict interpretation and the impossibility of freedom that is contained in it. But they solemnly swear allegiance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now what is the structural difference with the Bible or the Koran? I can see no difference between the liberal and the orthodox Chassidic Jew or the fundamentalist Shiite. These self-proclaimed “Enlightened” who are so full of their Enlightened ability to be critic and question everything are questioning everything but themselves. And the self is the first thing that needs to be questioned. However claims to own the truth, is fundamentally wrong in his beliefs, even if they are right. Even worse. There is no absolute truth because nothing is absolute. And if there would be truth, it can not be perceived by man and would lie outside the cosmos. In our world, only interpretation and will matter. Science makes the big mistake to believe in what it sees and perceive their perception as truth. If man is imperfect, what nobody among us doubts, than our perception of nature is imperfect and we can never perceive truth. For the scientist who claims to know truth, is fundamentally wrong in whatever he says, even if it is true. As for the state. The state is like everything else not absolute and everyone who claims that it is, needs to be freed from the static yoke. For they can not see the imperfect nature of himself and the world. But maybe there is no need to free him. If he is free in his unfreedom, he is free to me. But I feel it as my duty to present him an alternative. But in my holy struggle against absolution and determination, we must seek constantly and perpetually for alternatives for everything imaginable. Even the state. There are only two absolute concepts in our world: emancipation and imagination. But I’m afraid it is therefore wrong, if it is true.}


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: