We published this theoretical intervention in five parts. We welcome further contributions and comments.
Part one at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=615
Part two at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=621
Part three at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=622
Part four at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=623
Part five at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=624
Comment from Kevin Carson, received by email:
Erik’s points about stateless society are well taken. The question of whether a structure in a “stateless” society is analogous to a state hinges on whether it has the ability to initiate force on behalf of a community. But that, in turn, hinges on the question of what constitutes the initiation of force. Depending on the way property rules are defined at the outset,
the same action may be construed either as a legitimate defensive action or as invasive force. For example, if the land on which a village is situated is considered common property, without severable rights of individual or family possession, then the right to regulate behavior on that land arguably falls within the private sphere. Likewise, in a system of usufructory property (like a Georgist system of community rent collection), a body might perform functions analogous to a local government in collecting rent and disbursing funds for “public good” services; but the actual functions, by the community’s property rules, would be those of collective bailiff/property manager on behalf of the common owner.
As for workers’ associations for mutual aid being strengthened, in their sense of institutional identity, in opposition to the state, they are arguably developing in opposition to the state a form of organization that might otherwise fall under the category of Erik’s insitutions analogous to the state if it were free-standing (which brings us back to square one).
Just a couple of things I thought I’d toss off, although I haven’t fully digested it all yet.