#Terrorism #Technology #State #Capitalism #Marxism #TechnologicalProgress #Evolution #Freedom #Future
Does the Decline of States Have to Be Communist?
Why Don’t States Disappear?
States rarely go bankrupt in an economic sense – and even if they do, they don’t vanish. Most often, states cease to exist due to losing wars or being partitioned. Yet, other victorious states always take their place. Even if the ruling power in a given territory isn’t recognized as a state by others, political authority exists everywhere. States have dominated nearly all human-inhabited areas.
Terrorism as the Foundation of States
Since humans settled into agricultural societies, there has always been someone who extorted tribute from inhabitants under the threat of violence. This form of “terrorism” was profitable because the minority in power had organizational and military advantages over the majority. This dynamic defines all states: the weaker majority is subordinated to the stronger minority.
Can Technology Bankrupt Terrorism?
If technological development reaches a point where those working for the apparatus of coercion can earn more in the private sector than through extorting tribute from residents, the system will become unsustainable. Organizations will emerge to offer services traditionally provided by the state but funded through voluntary, market-based payments. This will render the state’s coercive and violent foundation obsolete.
An Evolutionary, Not Revolutionary, Process
The decline of the state will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. This process has already begun and is progressing slowly. Technology is gradually making terrorism less profitable. Importantly, this process doesn’t require changes in human nature or economic laws – it only requires development driven by natural economic mechanisms.
The Communist Vision of State Decline
Communists and Marxists also predict the decline of states, but their vision hinges on a revolt against capitalism. Their goal is communism – a system without exploitation or private property, where everyone receives what they need and gives what they have in excess. Achieving this requires drastic social transformations and the creation of a “new human,” supported by ideologies like political correctness and social revolutions.
Key Differences in Approaches
The difference between the evolutionary decline of the state and the communist vision lies in the fact that the former doesn’t require changes to human nature or economic laws. The communist diagnosis mistakenly equates the state with capitalist institutions like banks, stock markets, or factories. In reality, the state – as a monopoly on violence – can exist without these institutions, and capitalist institutions can function without the state.
Marxism and the Reinforcement of Terror
The Marxist diagnosis of oppression as a result of business activities leads to a paradox: strengthening the state’s apparatus of coercion to eliminate supposed oppression. As a result, instead of reducing oppression, communist practices increase terror and monopolistic coercion.
The Future of the State in a Technological World
Technological progress will enable the provision of services traditionally managed by the state in a more efficient, voluntary, and competitive manner. Private companies are already offering alternatives for education, healthcare, and legal services. In the future, even the poorest will be able to afford these services because the costs of a coercive state apparatus are significantly higher than those of private alternatives.
Conclusion
The state doesn’t have to disappear entirely, but its nature could undergo fundamental changes. Evolutionary technological progress will render coercion and terror unprofitable, paving the way for more efficient, voluntary organizational structures. This process doesn’t require ideological support or mass revolutions – it will naturally result from economic and technological changes that are already shaping the future.
Grzegorz GPS Świderski