Review: The Modern State
| Published date | 01 September 1984 |
| Date | 01 September 1984 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070208403900311 |
| Author | Richard B. Day |
| Subject Matter | Review |
Reviews
THE
MODERN
STATE
An
anarchist
analysis
J.
Frank
Harrison
Montreal:
Black
Rose
Books,
1983,
227pp,
$22.95
cloth,
$12.95
paper
According
to
Aristotle
the
function
of
the
state
is
to
instruct
men
in
the
ways
ofjustice:
to
live
apart
from
a
state
one
must
be
either
a
beast
or
a
god.
According
to
Frank
Harrison
the function
of
the
state
is
'to
reinforce
principles
and
practices
of
inequality
and exploitation'
(pp
13-14):
the
existence
of
a
state
requires
some
men
to
claim the
power
of
gods
while
treating
others
as
if
they
really
were
beasts.
In
Harrison's
view
this
elementary
truth
applies
equally to
capitalist
'wel-
fare
states'
and
to
the
communist
regimes
of
Eastern
Europe.
All
states
are
founded
upon
force
and
deception.
Harrison
develops
this
argument
by
reference
to
Godwin,
Stirner,
and
Bakunin,
as
exemplars
of
the
anarchist tradition.
Godwin
is
said
to
have
thought
'reason'
would
free
men
from
'the
realm
of
Necessity'
(P
45);
Stirner
believed
the
end
of
the
state
would
result
from
'cul-
tural
revolution'
(p
63)
and
'the
power
of
ideas'
(p
55);
Bakunin
like-
wise
put
his
faith
in
the
propaganda
of
revolutionary
enlightenment.
All
three
saw
the
state
as a
fraud
perpetrated
upon
the
innocent,
and
all
three
believed
it
would
disappear
with
the
triumph
of
reason
and
the
flowering
of
mankind's
'instinctive
sociability'
(p
98).
The
difficulty
with
this
approach
is
the
assumption
of
'instinctive
sociability'
in
the
context
of
the economic
problem
and
the
resulting
social
division
of
labour.
The
distinguishing
feature
of
the
modern
state
has
been
its
assumption
of
unprecedented
economic
responsibil-
ities.
Liberal
economists
explain
this
tendency
as
a
response
to
'mar-
ket
failure'
in
complex
industrial
societies;
socialists
refer
to
the
need
for
planning
to
accelerate
economic
development.
Neither
school
subscribes to
what
Marx
called
a
'servile
belief
in
the
state,'
but
both
acknowledge
the
need
for
authoritative regulation
of
economic
con-
flicts.
Arguing
against
'systemic
thought'
on
the
grounds
that
it
leads
to
To continue reading
Request your trial