I'd like to take a moment to discuss statism. Is statism an actual ideology? Or is it merely an attack word used by libertarians and anarcho-capitalists? I've met people who proudly identify themselves with all sorts of different philosophical and ideological labels. Yet I've never met someone who was admittedly a proud statist. In fact, the only time I ever hear the word statist used, is when a libertarian demonizes someone who advocates enriching the state over the people. Mostly mainstream politicians get called statists the most.
I suppose it's a hypothetical ideology. Doesn't seem to make much sense though, given that the state is the people in it, so enriching the state over the people seems contradictory.
Read both the dictionary and the wiki definition of statism which will provide an answer to your question. To me a Statist is one who believes that the ultimate source of power and authority is held by a centralized government. You might also read the U.S. Constitution, taking note of why the inclusion of the 10th amendment. And try looking up the definition of 'Republicanism', not to be confused with the republican party, who like the democrat party today provide a good example of statists once elected. How often do you get a chance to communicate with your representatives once they are elected to federal office?
Basically statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism. If you want some form of government from the minimal to the hard-line totalitarian then you are a statist – people like Indie are statist – in that he wants some form of government. Most right wing libertarians I’ve talked to are statists it just they want a minimal form of government that is about protecting property rights and works in favour of wealth.
Makes sense. Basically it sounds to me like Statism is just another word for Fascism. One interesting thing about fascism is how people who hold many fascist viewpoints will never admit to actually being a fascist (or a statist). It's an ism that people don't want to be a part of. I haven't talked to any high-status elected officials. But it makes sense they'd be the most statist of the populace, because statist laws will bring them more money and power.
I found the following definition, by Robert Alan Kimball, more fitting descriptively of my usage: The word "statism" (and its adverbial form "statist") is a bit of a neologism. Its meaning can be summarized in the following way. The word "state" refers to centralized executive authority (administration of laws and maintenance on what is sometimes called "monopoly on violence" -- police and military establishments). Thus the words "statism" and "statist" describe institutions and political practices in which executive authority gathers increasing levels and varieties of power into its hands. Statist authority is so strongly encouraged by such projection of power in the domestic realm that it is easily tempted to project its power beyond its borders into vulnerable surrounding territories. Statism acknowledges no enforceable external or internal restraint on its power. The total state thrives, or stagnates, or collapses, but all on its own terms. And I would define statism to be more accurately defined to be the opposite of republicanism, much like the differing views expressed between some of the founders such as those of Hamilton and Madison vs those of Jefferson and Mason.
Statism isn't the opposite of Republicanism, because Republicanism still requires the existence of a state, and this is especially true of the Republican party-- I mean, Bush banned stem cell research for 8 whole years because he thought it would make Jesus mad. That's not exactly a hands off approach to the subject... and the GOP has a lot of backwards ideas about what people should and shouldn't be able to do, especially as it pertains to religion, sexuality and gender. They throw around words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' because of the emotional weight attached to those words... but they're meaningless. The opposite of Statism is Anarchism... it literally is as simple as statists advocating the existence of a state, and anarchists advocating a lack of state. Both can be left or right wing... the Green Party is a left wing party that advocates decentralization, whereas the American Libertarians are right wing and advocate decentralization... but they obviously have different values and a different strategy for achieving their goals. Greens want to diminish the federal governments and give the municipalities more power and seem to envision a nation of communities looking out for each other's best interests, while Libertarians want the markets to decide who has all of the power and all of the wealth (some might argue this, but I think it's accurate). Of the two, I would say the Greens are less likely to buy into hierarchical power structures. Any political party that worships Ayn Rand is going to buy into the notion of natural hierarchies and natural superiority... sort of like Nazis, except with poor people instead of Jews and rich people instead of Aryan ubermensch.
Government, regardless of its form, requires the existence of an area wherein its' powers can be exercised. In addition you appear to be confusing republicanism with the republican party, much like many who confuse democracy with the democrat party. statism - a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. republicanism - is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic where the head of state is a representative of the people who hold popular sovereignty rather than the people being subjects of the head of state. It would be more accurate to say the opposite of anarchy is government. The extent to which government has the authority to exercise power results in creating a division of people who promote a more comprehensive single centralized source from which government is exercised which I call statists, and another division who promote greater individual freedom and diversity to be exercised by the people from decentralized government, or at State and local levels with the single centralized Federal government limited by the people and the States to the powers that they agree to allow it to exercise over them. Looking at the Green party platform it would appear that most everything they promote would require a very strong centralized government. Nazi Germany existed under a very strong centralized government. I'm totally unaware of ANY political party that worships Ayn Rand, Do the Left wing parties worship Karl Marx? The word 'statist' as I use it is synonymous with 'federalist'.
I made the distinction between republicanism and the Republican party in my post... and I focused on the Republican party because I expect others to make the same error you're accusing me of making. And I'm still not seeing how 'governing a society or state as a republic' translates to the opposite of statism. I mean, in the definition you gave they explicitly mention that they are governing a state. I don't see how making a distinction between government and state is helping your case. Republicanism is a form of government that dictates how a state operates... and makes changes that affect the entire population of the state. These changes aren't even decided on an individual basis-- they're decided by elected representative(s) who purport to represent the people. Republicanism is decidedly MORE statist than even straight democracy, where all state decisions would be decided by referendum. I am unaware of any definition of anarchism that suggests anarchists are even a little bit pro-state. If there is no common ideology, no common values, no universal standards for education, no universal culture, no universal political system... then what is the state? Anarchy is a state in the same way that zero is a number. Anarchy means local communities would probably make their own decisions according to their own systems that exist independently... and these systems could potentially always be in flux, incorporating elements republicanism, democracy, communism, depending on the specifics of the issue. Or the decisions would be made based on the values of the community. The absence of centralized government would in that case be a given. And just because you personally cannot conceive of a society where the Green policies wouldn't require a strong centralized government doesn't mean such a society could not exist. I mean, come on. You can't just look at their platform, dismiss it as unrealistic, and then say that they MUST be advocating a strong centralized state... especially when their platform specifically states that decentralization is one of their key values. From their website: http://www.gp.org/tenkey.php 5. DECENTRALIZATION Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens. I believe this is similar to what libertarians believe about centralized government... the difference here is that the Greens see social cohesion and co-operative egalitarian communities as the key to a healthier, happier state... while Libertarians effectively promote Social Darwinism, the concept of the 'great man' (a naturally better, superior human who deserves wealth because of his ambition and ingenuity), and hierarchical jungle law. If citizens collectively agree on certain principles (which the democratic election of the Green Party would certainly suggest), then force shouldn't be required. Laws would still exist, but they wouldn't need to be backed up by military force-- I mean, we have to assume that people would be still capable of peaceful compromise and acting in the best interests of the country. Of course, some people want to believe that the police/military are the only thing standing between everyone and total chaos, but I'm pretty sure a big part of that is because the presence of police automatically puts communities and the government in an antagonistic relationship, especially in ethnic neighborhoods where police presence is always increased. Inequality plays the largest role in people breaking the law. The only way that force would be involved is in the case of an armed rebellion-- which is possible in any society, including the one you're currently living in. I mean, if the Koch Brothers started building a private army with the intention of staging a Libertarian coup, what do you think the current government would do, exactly? Don't people have a right to defend themselves and their way of life? If I decided I wanted to live without money, without paying taxes, without obeying private property laws, what would happen to me? The only real obstacle to such a nation is the same cynicism, paranoia and self-doubt that helps to keep the current political parties in power. And I have to say... considering that we're on a hippie forum, I'm really surprised that you're not more familiar with what the Green Party represents. I mean, if you took the hippie movement and made it into a political party, it would be the Greens.
Frag: The word 'statist' as I use it is synonymous with 'federalist'. The word 'statist' came into existence in the mid 20th century, and I don't remember it being used even once when I was schooled, however the words 'Federalist' and 'Anti-Federalist' seem to have been employed during my education to the same ends as the words 'statist' and 'anti-statist'. Changing words and/or their definitions results in confusing conversation. The documents resulting in the founding of the United State(s) of America have been reinterpreted to the point they bear little resemblance to what I was taught. stat·ism noun \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\ : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry Most of your post goes off on a tangent relative to the OP question, although some parts of it might make good fodder for a thread of its own, however I'm not interested in the Green party, but some of their ideas may have some worth.
It is not an absolute term. A pure statiist would be an absolute authoritarian. It is the opposite of an anarchist but most things fall between the extremes.
I don't think statism is used by a group to describe its own beliefs and values so much as it is an term used by scholars to describe a politically relevant point of view characterized by glorification of the State. In the nineteenth century, the German idealist philosopher GWF Hegel, in particular, idealized the Prussian State as an actualization of the General Will and the supreme instrument of moral development--an entity much greater than the sum of its parts or the citizens within it. Hegel's Philosophy of Right: The State For Hegel, the State is the product of a dialectical development toward a final collective end which "has absolute right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State."(Hegel, Philosophy of Right:The State", p. 258) Needless to say, this is a romantic, quasi-mystical notion by an idealist metaphysician who was extremely influential, not only on Marx, who stood him "on his head" by stressing materialism over idealism, but also by Fascism, which glorified the State above individuals and advocated corporatism, by which the State co-opts employers and unions into the mechanisms of the government. It's a mode of thinking which (fortunately) is out of style in secular, individualistic modern society. Even Elizabeth Warren and the Bern haven't gone that far!
