Again with the State

Michael Walzer's got me all sorts of messed up, mentally. His latest missive from the pages of Dissent is essentially a paean to the state. His main point is that it is the (leftist) state that protects people. That stateless societies are societies where people are victimized. I've got a critique, but first I want to pause and acknowledge that he's got some seriously strong points here.

"The only political agency that can “take care of things,” that can provide security, welfare, and education, is the state. The least well-off people in the world today, the most desperately needy people, are those who live in failed or failing states, who are the prey of warlords, predatory gangs, ruthless entrepreneurs and speculators—all of them uncontrolled by any political authority. So those of us who have effective and decent states ought to be patriots, at least in this sense: that we should be committed to the common political work of sustaining and improving the states that we live in."

This strikes me as being a rock-solid argument; I don't think you could pay me enough to live for a week in Mogadishu or Baghdad, for instance. But there is a price to pay for the benefits of security offered by the state, and not everybody pays the same price. For some, I would argue, the price to pay may be higher than the benefit earned. And for others, the price is much lower, perhaps negligible. Furthermore, I tend to think of the state as being organized power. People who live in "failed" states are victimized by disorganized power. But it is possible to be victimized by organized power as well (I'm thinking of the Darfuri's). I think Walzer is correct in positing that stability brings security, but the bigger problem ultimately is power itself - not whether it is organized or disorganized.

But it comes back to my position on the state: I've come to reject the idea of the state, at least theoretically, as ideal. That I would prefer it not to exist. But to the extent that it does exist, I agree with Walzer. And especially agree with the idea that it ought to be guided by a generally leftist agenda - one where the state intercedes to protect the vulnerable, but otherwise leaves people alone.

Coincidently enough, looking for the electronic version of Walzer's essay, I found this article on the Dissent site. It makes an argument for US involvement in Afghanistan that I tried and failed to make when discussing the war with leftist friends that believe that all war is wrong. I had the idea, but couldn't articulate it as well as this:

"The best argument is that we have an obligation to the Afghan people – especially to the feminists, secular teachers, labor organizers, health workers, democrats, all those working to build a secular, civil society. We encouraged them to help create a real alternative to religious fundamentalism. It would be wrong now to abandon them to the Taliban."

I also sympathize with the idea that war/violence is wrong, but this is one war that I think we got into for the right reasons (9/11) and that we must continue.

Finally, fellow blogger posted this thought-provoking piece the other day. I thought the comments people left described my thinking exactly. In elementary school one of my friends got indignant at being called black - "Do I look black to you? What color is this? (pointing to his arm) Does this look black to you? No, it doesn't. 'cause it's brown." Or at least, that's how I remember it.

On the other hand, I'm also a fan of the Black is Beautiful school of thought. To what extent is rejecting black terminology really just an exercise in self-hatred? I suppose this is rather impertinent coming from a white guy, but for a number of reasons I don't have time to go into here, I steeped myself in Black Panther literature, propaganda, dreams of fighting at the top of the barricades, in my youth, and it's stuck with me.