By your definition, practically everything is a state. Yours is a useless definition. Anarchists mean the current structures of states. I.e. Rigid, hierarchical authoritarian structures with monopoly of violence.
Well, I mean after all it’s not like Marxist Leninists, especially in Russia were particularly known for targeting and slaughtering anarchists or something. Oh wait, they were and they did.
All theory no praxis. Talk about lack of self awareness / willful ignorance.
I know, that’s a key theoretical difference between marxists and anarchists. However it is the definition that marxists actually use. And it is precisely what makes marxists want to work together together with Anarchists under many circumstances. So even if anarchists have a different one, they should still be aware of what marxists mean, when they talk about state for one simple reason: to not discard potential allies simply because of a misunderstand in terms. Because marxists believe in this definition, they see no fundamentals contradiction with Anarchists, no class antagonism, only differences in strategy.
Now there are good reasons to use this definition, because it’s rooted in material facts, class analysis, productive forces and ultimately in how a society reproduces itself. It’s a natural definition. The anarchists definition is vague, idealist and ahistorical.
Rigid, hierarchical authoritarian structures with monopoly of violence.
The only words that are not vague in this definition are “structures”, “with” and “of”.
What is rigid? How much plasticity is need? What is hierarchical? What about the unspoken, inofficial, undemocratic hierarchies that dominate every anarchist project? What is authoritarian? Isn’t it authoritarian to defend against fascism? Aren’t anarchists who defend their projects violently forcing their own will on those reactionaries who would love to crush them and exploit them? What’s a monopoly of violence? Do the Zapatistas have a monopoly of violence in their territory? The “checks and balances” and “control instances” and all that bullshit of modern capitalists state are not enough to not speak of a monopoly of violence, right? What’s violence? Do you include structural violence? The threat of violence?
The Marxist definition is clear, simple, historically applicable across the ages, based in material facts and leads to clear conclusions for how to conduct struggle and who to ally with. Like anarchists for example.
By your definition, practically everything is a state. Yours is a useless definition. Anarchists mean the current structures of states. I.e. Rigid, hierarchical authoritarian structures with monopoly of violence.
Well, I mean after all it’s not like Marxist Leninists, especially in Russia were particularly known for targeting and slaughtering anarchists or something. Oh wait, they were and they did.
All theory no praxis. Talk about lack of self awareness / willful ignorance.
I know, that’s a key theoretical difference between marxists and anarchists. However it is the definition that marxists actually use. And it is precisely what makes marxists want to work together together with Anarchists under many circumstances. So even if anarchists have a different one, they should still be aware of what marxists mean, when they talk about state for one simple reason: to not discard potential allies simply because of a misunderstand in terms. Because marxists believe in this definition, they see no fundamentals contradiction with Anarchists, no class antagonism, only differences in strategy.
Now there are good reasons to use this definition, because it’s rooted in material facts, class analysis, productive forces and ultimately in how a society reproduces itself. It’s a natural definition. The anarchists definition is vague, idealist and ahistorical.
The only words that are not vague in this definition are “structures”, “with” and “of”. What is rigid? How much plasticity is need? What is hierarchical? What about the unspoken, inofficial, undemocratic hierarchies that dominate every anarchist project? What is authoritarian? Isn’t it authoritarian to defend against fascism? Aren’t anarchists who defend their projects violently forcing their own will on those reactionaries who would love to crush them and exploit them? What’s a monopoly of violence? Do the Zapatistas have a monopoly of violence in their territory? The “checks and balances” and “control instances” and all that bullshit of modern capitalists state are not enough to not speak of a monopoly of violence, right? What’s violence? Do you include structural violence? The threat of violence?
The Marxist definition is clear, simple, historically applicable across the ages, based in material facts and leads to clear conclusions for how to conduct struggle and who to ally with. Like anarchists for example.