#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #GERMANY #ANARCHISM #News #Journal #Update - (en) Germany, FAU direkte aktion: A summary of ANARCHIST CRITICISM OF THE STATE AND ITS CONFRONTATION WITH MARXIST APPROACHES By: Kurt-Werner Pörtner (ca, de, it, pt)[machine translation]

 This text wants to discuss the current tendencies of anarchist theories, but does

without a comprehensive historical outline of the development of these theories.
---- The individual aspects of anarchist criticism of the state are subjected to
a separate appraisal, as if there were the state power itself (also in the form
of competition between state powers, which is expressed in nationalism,
patriotism and even war), the ideology of the modern democratic constitutional
state or the representative one Democracy and the state as a repressive form of
class rule. Part of this examination of the formation of anarchist state theories
is also a confrontation of these theories with modern Marxist positions on this
topic. Similarities and differences should be worked out in this context.

The following questions arise:

What are the "essentials" of anarchist critique of the state? And related: What
distinguishes the Marxist and anarchist critiques of (bourgeois-capitalist) state
power?

The problems of anarchist criticism of the state, let us anticipate this, lie in
its relative historical ineffectiveness and in its lack of ability to present
really convincing social alternatives. The reason for this is also the subject of
this discussion.

MODERN MARXIST CRITICISM OF THE (CAPITALIST) STATE USING THE EXAMPLE OF ALTHUSSER
In the 1960s, the French philosopher Louis Althusser used new terminology to
innovate the Marxist critique of the capitalist state apparatus. He spoke of
"ideological state apparatuses". It is quite illustrative to first contrast this
approach with anarchist criticism of the state, in order to be able to better
work out the special nature of anarchist criticism of the state.

In Althusser's "alternative" view of "ideology" he begins with the initial thesis
that any social formation is based on a dominant mode of production "that sets in
motion existing productive forces in and under certain production conditions"
(Althusser 1977: 109). Formation of society for the sake of survival that
constantly reproduces the productive forces and relations of production. However,
this does not just mean the means of production (machinery, etc., i.e. fixed
capital), but also (human) labor (variable capital), the reproduction of which,
however, takes place not only within, but to a large extent also outside of the
company. On the one hand, this is guaranteed by the wages paid, but also through
the permanently restored (reproduced) workforce competence in the sense of
"ability to work". M.a. W.: For Althusser, the reproduction of labor power in the
capitalist system does not primarily take place in the actual production process,
but outside of it, e.g. B. in school, at the university and at other educational
institutions, where the prerequisites for the utilization of labor power are
created in the first place (Althusser 1977: 111). In school, however, the
child/young person not only learns the necessary habitual (Bourdieu 1987: 277
ff.) and technical requirements for the sale of his (future) workforce, but one
also learns the "rules of decency", so to speak,

The Marxist division into "base" (mode of production) and "superstructure"
(ideal, legal, political, ideological, etc. reflection of the base) divides the
social system into different levels, which actually runs counter to the Hegelian
conception of "totality" (AG Politische Theorie o .J.). Althusser is of the
opinion here that the base "in the last resort" determines the superstructure;
however, this overdetermination leaves the superstructure a certain amount of
leeway, a relative autonomy in relation to this basis (Althusser 1977: 113). In
addition to the already mentioned relative autonomy of the superstructure in
relation to the base, there could also be a "feedback" from the superstructure to
the base, a reaction (Althusser 1977: 114). In order to make this "double face"
of the superstructure a little more transparent or more plausible,

Normally, in the Marxist tradition, the state is only thought of as an apparatus
of repression and oppression (courts, police, prisons), but this is not enough
(Althusser 1977: 114, 115). Following Althusser, Michel Foucault also later
criticized this reduction of the state apparatus to its mere repressive functions
and developed a "positive" concept of power, which he called "biopower" and
exemplified using sexuality (Foucault 1977). Althusser himself was of the opinion
that something had to be added to the idea of the state apparatus as a pure
mechanism of repression, because its functioning was structured too complex for
that (Althusser 1977: 119).

For Althusser, the (political) class struggle revolves around the poles of state
apparatus and state power, with the latter being about their defense or conquest
(Althusser 1977: 118). The state apparatus can be further subdivided into the
repressive and the ideological functions, the latter representing the ideological
state apparatus (ISA for short) (Althusser 1977: 119).

The ISA could be listed as follows:

Religious Apparatus (Churches)
School apparatus (educational institutions)
family
Political system including parties
trade unions, business associations
Information (press, television, radio, mass media in general)
Cultural institutions (literature, art, sport, etc.) (Althusser 1977: 119 f.).
In contrast to the repressive state apparatus, which represented a more or less
monolithic block, the ISA were characterized by a large plurality of practices.
The state authority in the true sense belongs to the public sector, while the
ISAs are organized partly publicly and partly privately. But the distinction
"public/private" is basically irrelevant because this differentiation is part of
civil law. The state is basically above the law and is the basis for this
distinction in the first place. For this reason, one can also add privately
organized institutions/apparatuses to the ISA, because they exercise their
function within this framework (Althusser 1977: 120). The difference between the
ISA and the repressive state functions lies in the fact that the former are based
on ideology, The latter in the last resort on sheer violence. Of course, the
repressive state apparatus is not exclusively violent, but also contains elements
of ideology, which ISA accordingly reverses (Althusser 1977: 121).

The unity of the ISA is guaranteed by its functioning, in the sense that it
reproduces the ruling ideology, which in turn guarantees the hegemony of the
ruling class. Therefore the ISA are also the arena of the (ideological) class
struggle (Althusser 1977: 122).

In contrast to Marxism, however, anarchism does not believe that a change for the
better can be achieved by overthrowing the state apparatus and that the
socialist-communist revolution can be brought about in this way. Even a
socialist-communist state apparatus ultimately leads to tyranny and authoritarian
structures of rule, or to the rule of a small clique of apparatchiks and a
rampant bureaucracy, which appropriated the means of production and are therefore
hardly better than the capitalists. This is the lesson that can be drawn from the
history and outcome of the Russian revolution from 1917 (cf. on the relationship
between Marxism and anarchism Loick 2017: 130-132). But we will come back to that
later.

CRITICISM OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
In his 2017 book "Anarchism for an Introduction", Daniel Loick also examines the
elements of an anarchist critique of the state, which will now be examined and
commented on in more detail below (Loick 2017: 119-140).

Loick first states, following Hannah Arendt, that the potential for destruction
of human societies has never been as great as it is today. However, he links this
to the existence of the central state monopoly on the use of force. Although
there used to be oppression and tyranny, these were always regional or local. It
was only the modern central state with its monopoly on the use of force and its
thoroughgoing organization and penetration of all areas of society that first
created the possibility of thinking of something like the total annihilation of
mankind - see the atomic bomb. Centralization and monopolization of state power
have progressed so far that there is practically no escape from this "straitjacket".

Loick comes to a sobering conclusion about the history of state power:

"In view of the centuries-long bloody history of actually existing states, it is
easy for them (the anarchists, author's note) to draw a negative balance of this
form of this social organization: States represent gigantic aggregates of
violence that are alienated from social life and opposed to it, they promote
privilege and moral corruption, they restrict the freedom of individuals and
social collectives through coercion and repression, they wage wars against each
other and incite patriotism and nationalism, and they show themselves unable to
solve the urgent problems due to institutional blindness and structural blockages
problems of their time." (Loick 2017: 119)

The states of the newer form, which today are called democratic states under the
rule of law, try to soften this impression somewhat by throwing on the cloak of
democracy, which represents the will of the people. The states are thus
practically only an expression of this will of the people, which z. B. in
general, free and secret elections. Therefore, the state authority only carries
out those decisions and resolutions that the people have expressed in these
elections. For this, the electorate sent people's representatives to parliament,
who, as the legislature (legislative power), poured this popular will into laws,
ordinances, etc. Therefore, a basic idea of the modern form of government is to
realize the assumption that there are people who can represent the will of
others. The key keywords here are "representation" and "compulsion". Loick
emphasizes that this is what all anarchist criticisms of the state have in
common, from Stirner to Kropotkin (Loick 2017: 121 f.).

For anarchists, coercion is just the other medal of representation. If the state
really has the interests of all citizens in mind, coercive measures would not be
necessary to enforce this collective will against the resistance of others. As a
result, certain interests always fall by the wayside. Loick puts it this way:

"Even if A and B are democratically elected, A and B are not authorized to speak
for X, Y and Z because, firstly, the minority does not authorize representatives
elected by the majority, and secondly, the opinion of the majority can also
change over time . Anarchism is therefore a logical continuation of the
Enlightenment idea of maturity..." (Loick 2017: 122).

M.a. W.: Even in the most democratic electoral process, certain voices are always
ignored, preferably those of social minorities (be they of ethnic, religious or
sexual origin) or socially underprivileged "fringe groups". The crux of any
democracy is that it always tends to be a "majority dictatorship" against the
will of minorities (Loick 2017: 122).

The assumption that the citizens of a country give their approval for government
action and thus for the legitimacy of state authority through democratic
elections is therefore always a fiction to a certain extent (Loick 2017: 123).
Here anarchism puts its fingers in the wounds of the theory of the democratic
constitutional state. If necessary, the state is always forced to use direct
coercion so that the relationships of domination are preserved. If, for material
reasons, people do not have the opportunity to simply leave the state to go where
they like it better, that does not mean that they (have to) accept the actions of
the state in which they live placet (Loick 2017: 123).

THE MISUNDERSTANDING
to the growing power of multinational corporations) can no longer be the starting
point for political processes of self-understanding because the common basis for
this is increasingly disappearing. There is no longer even a common language. He
therefore assumes what he calls "misunderstanding": "Under misunderstanding one
will understand a certain type of speech situation: one in which one of the
interlocutors hears and does not hear what the other is saying at the same time."
(Rancière 2002: 9 ).

For Rancière, it is important to show that this disagreement represents a
"misunderstanding" between rich and poor or between different social classes,
which is about the "fair" distribution of the socially generated surplus product,
but both sides are not willing to accept the rules of the game to accept the
other side. In reality, then, the "disagreement" reflects a power struggle
between different social classes, or, to put it in "old Marxist" terms, a "class
struggle". The classes no longer sit at the common table of social discourse -
the poor are no longer heard, but increasingly excluded from the discourse and
marginalized. Your voice will no longer be heard, not least because the common
political language has been lost, as it was at least partially still given at the
time of the labor movement. And because the voice of the poor is no longer heard,
it is no longer heard in the democratic forum of representation (Doerr 2013: 3).

Of course, one can argue about who the "poor" are - whether social fringe groups,
migrants, "educationally disadvantaged" classes, the materially poor. All these
groups often have little in common and are often even hostile to one another, or
are simply an amorphous and atomized mass. The fringe group theorem was already
in demand during the 1960s - Herbert Marcuse propagated it in his works "The
One-Dimensional Man" (Marcuse 1967) and in "The Essay on Liberation" (Marcuse
1969). But nowadays this theory seems to be outdated. These atomized masses are
often perceived more as a threat than as a potentially "revolutionary subject" -
also and especially by people who still identify themselves as politically "left".

According to Rancière, the "misunderstanding" is based on the fact that in
Habermas' consensus-oriented model - typically bourgeois, so to speak - the
"misunderstanding" is not considered; it is the "blind spot" of
discourse-theoretical argumentation (cf. Habermas 1996, pp. 11-64) in the
liberal-democratic context (Rancière 2002: 12, 59). However, this
misunderstanding is not simply talking past one another or one that is based on
the imprecision of words or the diversity of languages. In reality, according to
Rancière, it goes back to power differences "which constitute a conflict
regarding the speech situation itself and the relationship between the speakers"
(Doerr 2013: 4). To put it more bluntly, the class struggle already takes place,
so to speak, at the level of speech acts. Rancière literally:

"Disagreement is not the conflict between the one who knows and the one who says
black. It is the conflict between the one who says 'white' and the one who also
says 'white' but who by no means mean the same thing.[...]The extreme situation
of misunderstanding is that in which X does not see the common object presented
to him by Y, because he does not perceive that the sounds emitted by Y form words
and combinations of words similar to his" (Rancière 2002: 9, 11)

Even what is "common" is different in this context. If you perceive the same
thing, that doesn't mean that you mean the same thing and have the same names for
it. To put it even more bluntly, the "misunderstanding" is based on the refusal
of the (non-)interlocutor: Inside to recognize the other as an interlocutor at
all. It is, so to speak, a dialogue between the deaf and dumb (really deaf and
dumb, on the other hand, have a common language): it is a struggle for
recognition, ultimately for the existence or non-existence of the other. Human
characteristics are denied to the other, he is not a "subhuman", but it is almost
even worse: he is "air", he does not exist as a counterpart at all (Doerr 2013: 4).

CRITICISM OF THE "EFFICIENCY" OF STATE POWER
In addition, from an anarchist point of view, criticism of the "efficient" action
of the state authority can be registered: Are the means and ends of the
application of the state monopoly of the use of force in an appropriate
relationship to each other? If you see this under the keyword "compulsion",
obviously not. One can use the example of criminal justice: are prison sentences
an efficient means of deterring criminals or helping to rehabilitate them?
Apparently not, considering the recidivism rates. Ultimately, the prison sentence
only serves to discriminate against and stigmatize socially deviant behavior,
with the latter - who would be surprised - being perpetrated primarily by the
lower classes.

Above all, the socially underprivileged classes are "criminal". When a
lower-class person commits a theft, the damage he or she causes is usually
marginal; he or she usually only does this because he/she cannot "afford" a
certain product or commodity, ie he/she doesn't have enough money. Hardly any
rich or wealthy person should get into this "embarrassment". The latter also has
many more opportunities to commit specific crimes that mostly go unnoticed, e.g.
B. Tax Evasion. A self-employed entrepreneur with not inconsiderable assets can
use "creative bookkeeping" and highly paid tax consultants or commercial lawyers
to "fudge" his tax return or "bunker" his assets in tax havens. where no one
notices; Normal employees, on the other hand, cannot do this because all tax
deductions and social security contributions for the state are deducted directly
from the wages in a very transparent manner, with this being done by the employer.

This is just one example among many that the law is applied very differently by
the state, depending on the social position in which a citizen is. This takes
place under the motto: "If two do the same thing, it is far from being the same".
In addition, numerous violations of the law can be found in the name of the law,
especially with regard to social minorities, e.g. B. People of color or ethnic
minorities: The number of black people incarcerated in the US is disproportionate
to their percentage of the total population. The state obviously also fails in
numerous cases where it is allegedly trying to establish "equality before the
law" (Loick 2017: 124).

Another criticism is that the bourgeois state is organized into nations that are
in competition or hostile to one another. This promotes not only irrational
patriotism/nationalism, but also a latent permanent state of war between nations
or groups of nations (as was the case in the Cold War between NATO and the Warsaw
Pact). Even if there is a UN, the "normal state" between the nations is always
latently hostile and warlike (Loick 2017: 125 f.). This is so obvious that even
bourgeois international relations theorists recognize it, the so-called
"Neorealist school" (Grieco 1988: 485-502). "Patriotism leads the exploited of a
country to see the enemy not in their exploiters, but to see in the exploited of
another country." (Loick 2017: 6) Nationalism/patriotism thus serves as a kind of
diversionary tactic to prevent solidarity among the exploited and to play them
off against each other. Nationalism/patriotism thus distracts from the class
struggle.

However, more modern anarchism no longer sees "the" state as a monolithic block,
but as a kind of "web of relationships", as a power conglomerate that ranges from
the "microphysics of power" (Foucault 1978) at the lowest level to large
international organizations ( e.g., NATO, EU etc. as "macrophysics of power"
(Wilk 1999: 17 ff.).

CONFRONTATION WITH THE REGULATION THEORY
Anarchist critique of the state has different emphases than Marxist critique of
the state. Indeed, the focus of anarchist critique tends to be more on the
critique of the state, while Marxism tends to conceive of the state as an
'epiphenomenon' of capitalist socialization. The focus in Marxism is consequently
also increasingly on the area of the "Critique of Political Economy" (Marx)
(Anarchismus.at n.d.). There were and still are differences between Marxism and
anarchism in the area of the "organizational question", especially with regard to
the organization of the struggle against the capitalist system:

"Thus the Marxists, who led the authoritarian camp, advocated the establishment
of strong, central parties, entry into unions, participation in elections, and a
political struggle that would gradually improve the conditions of the working
class. The anarchists countered this program: organization on the basis of free
and decentrally organized federations, which should only come together to
coordinate their actions." (Anarchismus.at n.d.)

Of course, these fronts have softened somewhat since "1968", the so-called "New
Left" - in contrast to the rigid real socialism - was able to make friends with
the "petty-bourgeois individualism" of the anarchists, their central principles,
more than earlier Marxist representatives: inside Workers' self-government and
council democracy are (Anarchismus.at o. J.). The libertarian elements of the
so-called "social movements" (anti-nuclear, ecological, women's movements, etc.)
especially in the 1970s and 1980s - in addition to the "event of 1968" itself,
the Paris May etc. - gave the decisive impetus ( Wilk 1999: 13).

The fundamental questioning of the bourgeois understanding of representation is
of course not shared by contemporary Marxism - probably because from the point of
view of these theorists there are more important things. The latest view of the
state from the point of view of Marxism assumes that the influence of the nation
state is dwindling anyway, and is not completely replaced by "more anonymous"
organizational structures, but is nevertheless reduced to the status of a
"transmission belt". M.a. W.: The nation-state is now merely an accomplice to
transnational constellations of interests and organizational principles that
cannot be traced back to it and of which it is more and more a mere
"sub-division". The distinction between state, semi-state, purely private and
so-called "civil society" actors: obsolete anyway; the boundaries become blurred
(Valdivia 1997; Strange 1998; Kurz 1997: 51-105; Hirsch 1995; Becker et al.
(eds.) 1997; Wenig (eds.) 2000: 151 ff.; etc.).

Of course, there are still differences in the understanding of the state, with
contemporary Marxists seeing the state not only as an instance of repression, but
also increasingly as an instance of regulation, as will now be explained in more
detail using the example of the so-called regulation theory.

"This reveals the core of the epistemological interest of traditional regulation
theory: it lies in the social-hegemonic prerequisites for stable conditions of
capitalist reproduction. Hegemony is the form in which the periodization of
historical capitalism takes place." (Röttger 1997: 95)

Bernd Röttger very aptly summarizes the original intention of conventional
regulation theory. The regulation theory is very closely related to the critical
accompaniment of the Fordist mode of production; For this reason, it had to
change its paradigmatic approach when interpreting neoliberalism, although in its
more recent forms it had to borrow from an equally renewed political economy
(Röttger 1997: 95).

The regulation theory has its origins in France in the 1970s, when French social
scientists became interested in the reasons for the hegemony of the US economy in
the western capitalist hemisphere (Aglietta n.d.: 5-41; 1975: 260-285; 1979). The
regulation theory is interested in the social reproduction conditions of the
capitalist system, which are regarded as fundamentally unstable and can only be
temporarily brought to a certain stability through the institutional flanking of
the state and large social groups; the organizational structure of capitalism is
always dependent on the status of class struggles or class compromises.

"In the perspective of regulation theory, social and political institutions as
well as normative networks, in which competing and conflicting interests of the
social classes are integrated into a mode of regulation, were understood as
necessary prerequisites for stable reproduction. As an attempt to explain phases
of relative stability in capital accumulation, the interest in knowledge was
oriented towards how the structural contradictions of capitalism are processed
through social and political forms and brought into a stable social context."
(Röttger 1997: 97)

In Aglietta's words: "To speak of the regulation of a mode of production is to
try to formulate in general laws the way in which the determinant structure of a
society is reproduced." (Aglietta 1979: 13) Based on a remark by Röttger (1997:
93) one could speak of the "classical" regulation theory as a functionalist
theory of capitalist regulation that describes the processes such as the
contradictions of capitalist accumulation through institutional
political-administrative and para-state regulation mechanisms (e.g. "social
partnership", Collective bargaining autonomy, state labor market and employment
policy, etc.) are dampened in their impact and the centrifugal forces of the
system are defused by balancing the diverging interests of the social classes.

 From this point of view, the basis of the stability of capitalism is always the
class compromise, which does not eliminate inequalities and contradictions, but
reduces them to a tolerable level. A prime example of such a relatively stable
regime of socio-political balancing of interests for this form of regulation
theory is the Fordist-Keynesian state, as it existed in western metropolises
after World War II until around the mid-1970s and produced a class compromise
cushioned by the welfare state, who accepted the hegemony of the US economy and
was thus "dependent on the political regulation of global economic constraints."
(Röttger 1997: 95)

As is well known, this form of social regulation of capitalist accumulation has
meanwhile (since the late 1970s at the latest) fallen into a serious crisis.
Under the onslaught of neoliberal criticism, goals such as full employment and
state redistribution policies have not been completely, but to a large extent,
lost sight of and have been replaced by other "regulative ideas" (Kant) and
maxims of action (Hickel 1998: 33 ff.). As a result, the regulation theory also
got into a legitimation crisis and a research-strategic dilemma, which Röttger
outlines as follows:

But with this, a fundamental contradiction in the regulation theory had to break
out: in the mid-1970s, as a critique of neoclassicism and as a claim for the
further development of neo-Marxist analyzes of social formations, by formulating
a new explanatory model for the phase of stable reproduction conditions of
capitalism, it was immediately forced to expand its analysis categories to direct
the dissolution of the overall social conditions that they actually claimed to
understand." (Röttger 1997: 96)

In order to overcome its nation-state fixation and the increasingly obsolete
reconstruction work on the "class body" (its compromises, its struggles, its
victories and defeats ...) in view of the global economic development, or at
least to adapt it to the new capitalist production relations, the regulation
theory tries to catch up with the To win global political economy, a neo-Marxist
current that - based on the political theory of the Italian communist leader
Antonio Gramsci, who was imprisoned under Mussolini - seeks to analyze the global
changes in the capitalist world economy from a transnational point of view
(Röttger 1997: 106 ff .; Gramsci 1967, 1980, 1983, 1991 ff.). Robert W. Cox
(1983: 162-175) defines the concept of hegemony,

"Hegemony at the international level is thus not merely an order among states. It
is an order within a world economy with a dominant mode of production which
penetrates into all countries and links into other subordinate modes of
production. It is also a complex of international social relationships which
connect the social classes of the different countries. World hegemony is
describable as a social structure, an economic structure, and a political
structure; and it cannot be simply one of these things but must be all three."
(Cox 1983: 172 f.)

The social, political and economic each have their own logic and can therefore
not - as happened in vulgar Marxism - be applied to flat economic
basic-superstructure schemes. The rule of the world economy thus goes through
numerous mediation processes at different levels and cannot be "purely" passed on
to the national-regional level; however, in this perspective, the nation-state
becomes just one "agent" of capitalist rule among others, and sometimes not even
the most important. At best, it is still an "intermediary organ" or a
"transmission belt" of the global capitalist structural logic. There is a
"diffusion of power in the global system" (Röttger 1997: 108), the rule of
capital tends to take the form of "structural power" (Susan Strange; cf. Strange
1988) can therefore, if necessary, completely dispense with non-economic means of
violence by the state. "Structural power refers to the ability to set framework
conditions and thus determine the way others act by setting structural
margins..." (Röttger 1997: 108 f.)

Within the world (market) society, which is asserting itself through the effects
of globalization, there is a hierarchy of states which, following the world
market theorist Immanuel Wallerstein (1979: 31-67), can be divided into
metropolitan countries, semi-periphery and peripheral states. The leading
countries of the world market system can impose their political-economic
guidelines on the "rest of the world" by means of hegemonic agreements and
alliances, sophisticated legal regulations (e.g. GATT or WTO), but also with
simple economic pressure (e.g. via IMF and World Bank):

"On the basis of hegemonic-mediated dissolutions of internal and external
factors, a combination of internal and external compulsion prevails, which sets
practical limits to the scope for action of national governments and acts as a
force for global economic standardization." (Röttger 1997: 110)

SUMMARY
The state criticism of anarchism was essentially hung here on the terms
"representation" and "coercion". Anarchism is fundamentally "state-phobic" (Loick
2017: 137), Loick borrowing this term from Foucault. It is not for nothing that
one calls e.g. For example, Stirner's criticism of the state is "individual
anarchist" (Laska 1994), although Stirner did not describe himself as an
"anarchist". In any case, it is evident that the critique of the state of
anarchism - despite all internal differences and differentiations - is mainly
based on defending or attacking the individual against large collective,
anonymous organizations, with the state being the most hierarchical and
thoroughly organized form of these collective formations is to be considered.

The state tends to form oligarchic to monopolistic elites, as it were its
"natural" tendency, whereby this elite tends to seize everything from material
resources to the means of violence and bases its power/domination on it. This
(not just anarchist) interpretation is not wrong in itself, but one must
critically object that there have also been numerous more or less successful
attempts in history to rein in the power of the state with its monopoly on the
use of force and to give it legal and constitutional ( constitutional) chains,
whereby defensive rights of the individual against the state not least form a
basic idea of bourgeois liberalism (Sasse 2011). Basically, anarchism has only
radicalized this basic idea,

As far as the "question of representation" is concerned: In highly complex
societies that are extensively networked on all sides, with their enormously high
degree of division of labor in the most diverse fields of economic, social and
political life, it will probably be difficult to apply the anarchist principles
of council democracy, self-government and decentralization (anarchism .at o. J.)
into practice, even if capitalism as an economic form were to be overcome. First,
there is already a tendency towards decentralization and "learning organizations"
(Agyris/Schön 2008) in the private sector, where, in other words, these anarchist
"network" principles were implemented within the framework of the capitalist
paradigm, on the other hand, the Marxist regulation theory,

In the age of global agendas and organizations, in which transnational
corporations and supranational institutions play the decisive role, the nation
state may not have become obsolete, but its importance has been greatly reduced.
As we know from the European Union, lobbyists and the Brussels bureaucracy have
long been determining the direction of neoliberal economic and social policy. The
nation states either have to adapt to this or face enormous problems if they want
to resist it (the example of Greece speaks for itself; subject matter 2015). The
regulation theory states that the nation states still have a certain amount of
leeway, but have to reckon with increasing structural barriers (constraints),
which e.g. B. set strict limits on their fiscal policy. In addition, there is now
an almost unmanageable jumble of private, civil society, semi-governmental and
state actors who are involved at various levels and have a say in the actual
design of EU policy, for example. These are all developments that are not even
grasped by anarchist theorizing or are even diametrically opposed to it - not in
the sense that they are opposed to it, but in that they do not even come into the
focus of attention of anarchist criticism of the state. who get involved at the
most diverse levels and have a say in the actual design of EU policy, for
example. These are all developments that are not even grasped by anarchist
theorizing or are even diametrically opposed to it - not in the sense that they
are opposed to it, but in that they do not even come into the focus of attention
of anarchist criticism of the state. who get involved at the most diverse levels
and have a say in the actual design of EU policy, for example. These are all
developments that are not even grasped by anarchist theorizing or are even
diametrically opposed to it - not in the sense that they are opposed to it, but
in that they do not even come into the focus of attention of anarchist criticism
of the state.

https://direkteaktion.org/anarchistische-staatskritik-und-ihre-konfrontation-mit-marxistischen-ansaetzen__trashed/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca