Re: AUT: Re: electorial politcs

[Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

Commie00 wrote (as a comment to Paul Bowman):

>gonna scale this down to the root essential, here...
>this first part contains the bsis of our
>disaggreement, methinks... that is: if this is cleared
>up, much of the rest will fall into place...
>
>> >this doesn't seem right either. or is too general.
>> >many anarchists i know work in the assumption that
>> the
>> >state is part and parcel of capital, and that
>> >destroying capital means destroying the state, and
>> >vise-versa... leaving part alive (kinda like a
>> worm)
>> >enables the rest to come back.
>>
>> The state is an instrument of class rule and the
>> class that rule are
>> the capitalist class. But the state precedes
>> capitalism
>
>this is not true. forms of hierarchical political
>structures precede capitalism, each corresponding to
>the particular form of class society and modes of
>production. but the state came into existance with
>capitalism, as (as hardt and negri note) the
>collective will of capital.

Paul Bowman, can answer for himself. I have tended
to view this as such:

Capital relations as manifestated within their state
form (i.e is states in any modern sense of the term)
and capital relations as manifested within their
"private" form, walked hand in hand into history. The
thing however is, capital relations did not emerge as
a full-blown, generalised reality from one day to
another, but first existed for long within other
dominant modes of production.

I further will insist on that states form an integrated
part of capital, operating within it not only as an
partially autonomous political agent but very much also
as a powerful economical agent. I find the view as some
hold of states merely as puppits of "private"/corporate
capital, as ridiculous, and as a denial of most of real-
life-history. Furthermore, states as capital and social
relations in general are perpetually being remade, and
as such formost need to be understood in their diverse
concrete manifestations, within the overall global frame-
work they exist within, of course, but also just as
crucial from the perspective particular historical social
relations within they emerge.

On a more transhistorical line: property means exclusion,
and is necessary an economical relations founded on re-
lations of power. Analytically there exists sound reasons
to also look at these in seperation, in particular when
divisions of labour and the development of the money-
commodity form as a semi-autonmous power, has reached the
state it has within modern capitalist relations. Still,
history surely has also demonstrated the dangers involved
in such (more or less) onesided perspectives.

Harald






  in solidarity,
  Harald Beyer-Arnesen
  haraldba@xxxxxxxxx



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---