You are on page 1of 3

State, class struggle, marxism and anarchism A few basic thoughts By the hierarchical organisation of society, a situation which

h is mainly the result of the economic and social exploitation by the all means by the bosses, big social stratifications were created which had diametrically opposite interests from each other, the classes. The historical development of humanity until today it has been marked and continues to be marked by this struggle between the two basic social classes, the bosses and the proletarians (by what these terms mean today). The substance of every dominating and exploitative society are these hierarchical structures which constitute a generalised reality. Every change that occurred and continues to occur into the frames of these structures (slavery, feudalism, capitalism) was substancially and still is in the transformation of the conditions of exploitation and also the practise of the power (authority). What the marxists call efficiency of the superior phases regarding the inferior phases of growth of the authoritarian societies is it nothing else but the rise of efficiency of the exploitation on behalf of the superior classes at the expense of the inferior classes because it is precisely found in that point all the substance of the exploitative and dominating system that is expressed in multiple levels both individually and socially by the mesh of the social and economic relationships up to the family relations and the sexual oppression. The base of this system is the class sovereignty that consists the segregation of people in orderers and executers, directors and directed, authoritarians and dominated. But this class sovereignty is not only limited by the existence of the privileges and titles of property, but is also extended as the possibility of control that the authoritarians are able to practise on every aspect of the social life. This is also expressed by their very managerial and preferential relationship itself with the remainder society as well as by their preferential place in the process of production, distribution and consumption. Against the marxist assertion that the State is only the mechanism of the class sovereignty, we must contrast also the generalisation of the meaning of the significance of class sovereignty in the entirety of social relationships. Because the Capital is not simply and only something material, but at the same time constitutes an entire spectrum of

relationships and under these conditions it is that the production of surplus value constitutes the most basic characteristic of exploitation at the expense of the people. But also again, the emphasis given by the marxists in misappropriation of the surplus value and not in the production itself is something crafty. The State is not a abstract expression of power, as various are trumbeting, but its unique expression. The moment when the State incorporates itself economically with the Capital, is when its role takes a more significant importance. The tragedy with the marxists and their fellow-travelers is consisted in that their efforts led always to vulgar strategies of occupation of the power and the State and not to the struggle for the overthrow of the existing relations f exploitation and sovereignty. To the extend that the relations of sovereignty and exploitation continue to be repeated, that the authoritarian objective for the acquisition or misappropriation of more and more property, money and privileges goings on to the same extend the social relationships will be determined by this process. The State is the fundamental super-institution of the modern hierarchical and class society. It organises the natural repression (army, police, prisons, psychiatry etc.) against those who question it or fight for its destruction. t extends every artificial segregation, in a wonderful collaboration with the globalised Capital. It organises the economy and regulates the process of production, distribution and consumption of products, in an also wonderful collaboration with the Capital. It manipulates and subjugates the knowledge and the science including it in its own projects. In conclusion, it is the supreme institution of reproduction and perpetuation of the authoritarian system. Power (authority) is not simply the political governing or the political expression of sovereignty. It is, above all, the entirety of the social relations. The class struggle was carried out and it continues to do so in the base of the class segregation of the society in rulers and dominated and it acquires qualitative and quantitative dimensions, depending on the objective conditions of each time. Those dominated constitute a social class which, beyond its consideration as an entirety, presents nevertheless a big internal inhomogeneousness entity, by the meaning that its every particular section maintains a

different type of relations with the power (authority). Marxists insist that a preferential place in between these particular sections has this section which is related immediately to the production, the working class. They claim that because the working class is the most oppressed is also the most revolutionary. Without to deny by ourselves the central role of the working class towards the social revolution, we say that this position is completely mechanistic and reflects a partial only interpretation of the class struggle. It does not perceive that the relation between class position and class conscience is not always direct because here intervenes the element of alienation. As well as for the stubborness of marxists to always declare the revolutionary spirit (or the historical role) of the working class we must see that today the majority of the organised workers have done so through reformist revolutionary parties and trade unions which have no relation with the revolutionary visions. The class revolutionary conscience can be realised only through the selfrefusal of the dominated position concerning the work, through the struggle for the abolition of waged work, money, competitions, segregation of time in work and free time, intellectual and manual work. Moreover, in order the exploited classes to be emancipated we must abolish the classes as themselves and organise the society in the base of equality and freedom. Besides, anarchism has been enriched by a variety of such social outbreaks, revolts and revolutions that sought precisely this reality. For the anarchists, the social revolution depends on subjective conditions (the will of the revolutionary subject) but also on objective conditions (economic crises, wars, inter-authoritarian conflicts and forms of decomposition of power). The social revolution cannot be as determined quantitative and temporal. For the anarchists means and ends are steping on together and interlinked, as the growth of one corresponds to the growth of the other. The anarchist intervention in the society has as its motive the subjective but also the objective conditions. Even the struggle for the conquest of certain rights or the various claiming struggles having a real value only in the metre of promotion of the idea of the revolutionary practice, the social inversion.