Price on Laursen, 'The Operating System: An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State'

Eric Laursen
Wayne Price

Eric Laursen. The Operating System: An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State. Chico: AK Press, 2021. 258 pp. $16.00 (paper), ISBN 978-1-84935-387-8.

Reviewed by Wayne Price (Independent Scholar) Published on H-Socialisms (July, 2021) Commissioned by Gary Roth (Rutgers University - Newark)

Printable Version:

Anarchist Theory and the State

“The people without its monarch and without that whole organization necessarily and directly connected with him is a formless mass, which is no longer a State. In a people, not conceived in a lawless and unorganized condition, but as a self-developed and truly organic totality—in such a people, sovereignty is the personality of the whole, and this is represented in reality by the person of the monarch.” So wrote Hegel in The Philosophy of Law.[1] The opposite of Hegel’s view is anarchism, which rejects the state and any rule by a “monarch” (whether an actual king, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a “democratically” elected president and congress). Anarchism is not only against the state but opposes all forms of domination, exploitation, elitism, and hierarchy—including capitalism, white supremacy, sexism, nationalism, anti-ecology, and homophobia, among others. Yet its opposition to the state is a major theme. Therefore it is a little surprising that there is not more current theorizing by anarchists on what the state is and does, how it is structured, and how it came into being. (I have reviewed a couple of such books).[2] Eric Laursen is remedying this lack of discussion with this work. (I have known Laursen for many years and have worked with him on various projects, such as the New York Anarchist Book Fair.) While there have been states for thousands of years, his subject is the “modern state,” which began in the sixteenth century. This century is often described as the beginning of capitalism.

Much of this book is an account of how the state actually performs a variety of social functions. He begins with a review of how states responded to the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite the common claim that centralized national states are necessary to handle outbreaks of plague, he demonstrates how poorly the states actually did—and are doing. From the outbreak in China—originally denied, due to bureaucratic face-saving—to the disaster of Trump’s mishandling of all aspects of the pandemic to the unwillingness to share supplies and patents with all nations, the national states (and their profit-making big pharma partners) have made terrible errors. The scientific breakthroughs which have happened would have been better organized though publicly supported federations of scientists and community health agencies. Meanwhile, state-encouraged industrial agriculture prepares future pandemics as it ravages wild lands. Laursen reviews a number of other aspects of social functioning, such as education, climate change, and gender inequality, all poorly managed by the state. He focuses on the promotion of a state-supported and -supporting core identity group—such as the whites in the United States or the Han people in China. Such groups, while the majority of the oppressed population, are taught to identify with the ruling elites. They stand “above” those who are not “in” the privileged caste.

Theoretically, Laursen portrays current society as a network of institutions that are held together from above by a centralizing state. They are institutions but also active processes, an interlocking system. (I would describe “institutions” as the patterned, repeated, behavior of a large number of people—“behavior” including overt actions as well as private thinking.) Despite severe political differences, his view has certain similarities with Hegel’s. A disorganized society is pulled into a totality by the overarching state: “the State … is a form of human organization that aspires to create an encompassing social, cultural, and functional environment for every one of its inhabitants, one built on the creation of wealth…. The State is … a form and a set of institutions, a way of thinking” (p. 21). Like some other anarchists, Laursen distinguishes between the power-oriented state and “government,” which may mean general self-organization, social coordination, and group decision-making. Contrary to Hegel, he believes “the State is just one way” of carrying out these functions (p. 28). The “classical” anarchists and Marxists had defined the state as a body of armed people, with prisons and weapons, plus bureaucratic specialists and politicians. It is a minority standing above the rest of society and dominating it, ultimately by force but also using ideological influence.[3] Laursen does not reject this description: “the State relies on both ‘hard’ police and military power—domination—and various ‘soft’ forms of persuasion and inducement—hegemony—to enforce acquiescence” (p. 39), that is, “if violence is the State’s first and last method of control, it relies day to day on complex methods of cultural hegemony to keep the population loyal” (p. 112).

His basic metaphor for the state (he prefers “analogy”) is that of a master program, the operating system of an overall computer system. It directs and organizes all the subsystems, structuring them to conform with the overall pattern: “the State is a vast operating system for ordering and controlling functions and relations among human society, economy, populations, and the natural world, analogous to a digital operating system like Windows, Linux, or MacOS” (p. 59). This operating system metaphor rejects the view of society as composed of a bundle of static, parallel things, one of which is the state. It has the advantage of seeing society as a dynamic system with interacting aspects. But Laursen comes to present the whole system as one, and that one is the state. As Hegel saw all of society being organically held together in the person of the monarch, so Laursen sees everything, including the capitalist economy, as internal to the state. Like Hegel’s monarch-as-organic-totality, the super operating system has its own motives and personality. It “aspires to create an … environment” (p. 21); “the State [has a] knack for taking the long view” (p. 110); “it’s the State that leads the way here” (p. 115); “the State has a sense of destiny. Just as we dream about the State, it dreams about itself—and us” (p. 152); “the State wants to know everything so it can predict the future” (p. 138).

Laursen is entirely correct in presenting the state as a system or set of relationships, even including ideas, rather than a static thing. But he goes too far when ascribing aspirations, plans, and motives to the state organization. Such a view makes it easier to mistake the state for an intentionally active organism pulling all of society together in an “organic totality.” It overstates the unity of society under the state. It underemphasizes the internal conflicts and contradictions. This book covers various subsystems of the authoritarian society, semi-distinct from the state but ultimately dominated by it and formed by it—as Laursen sees matters. This includes the oppression of women as well as racism (the Core Identity Group discussion). Of all the subsystems, the one he most considers is the economic, which in modern society is capitalism.

The State and Capitalism

In precapitalist societies—before the “modern state”—it did not make sense to distinguish between the state and the economy. Under feudalism, for example, the lords were the state (they were warriors who led armed vassals) and they were the economic ruling class (they were the landowners, who lived off their serfs). Other functions, such as religion or art, were pretty well integrated into the whole society. There was no state without its one official church. Similar points could be made about other class societies, not to mention preclass hunter-gatherer societies. However, under capitalism a functional split appeared. Those who ran businesses—the bourgeoisie—were not the same people as those who ran the government. Often, European states were managed by the remnants of the old aristocracy, while the bourgeois “middle class” (middle in social status, not wealth) was busily getting rich by exploiting its workers. Under “liberal democracy,” the state is run by elected professional politicians, while the ultra-wealthy rule the semi-monopoly, multinational corporations (with no hint of internal democracy for their workers). To this day, conservative theorists insist on the independence of the state and the market economy. They claim to be fighting for “small government” and for “freedom” of the marketplace. Liberals insist that the government should intervene in the economy. But they start from the same premise, of the split between the state and market. They accept the basic independence of the semi-competing capitalist firms.

Laursen rejects this premise: “the distinction is false. The State is an economic entity, just as much as a corporation…. Modern capitalism … couldn’t exist without the State to supply the rules, enforcement, … and, crucially, the credit backstop and subsidies needed to keep it profitable” (pp. 104-5). Further, “the State … is … built on the creation of wealth” (p. 21), whereas “anarchism … fully recognizes the connection between capitalism and the State…. The fundamental problem isn’t capital or the wage system, it’s the State” (p. 20). The association of the state and capitalism is generally accepted by anarchists and Marxists. Some might agree with Laursen’s view that they are practically one institution, organized by the state: “the capitalist system [is] a component of the larger system of the State” (p. 111), whereby, “most importantly, capital is part of the State” (p. 22). This view may lead to overemphasizing the power of the state over capitalism: “when the State wants to address an economic disruption, its power is virtually unlimited” (p. 53). Perhaps—in theory—but its willingness to use that potentially “unlimited” power is limited by the pressure of the capitalists.

These limitations were demonstrated by the Obama administration’s barely adequate reaction to the 2008 Great Recession. More significantly, there have been a number of times in various countries when reformist socialists have been elected to office in the state. On the assumption that the state’s power over the economy is more or less “unlimited,” they sought to implement socialist measures (or at least liberal ones). But the capitalists fought back, sabotaging the economy with “capital strikes” (shutting down businesses, refusing to hire workers, sending money overseas, etc.). Generally, the socialist politicians caved. If not, the big bourgeoisie could subsidize fascist gangs or use their influence to promote military coups. (This is the history from the rise of fascism in Europe in the twenties and thirties to François Mitterrand in France, the British Labour Party’s governments, Salvador Allende in Chile, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s Workers’ Party in Brazil, Syriza in Greece, and many other examples).

Unlike Laursen, some radicals see the unity of the state and capitalism as two systems that are intertwined and interacting, supporting each other in many ways, without being the same thing. It is the capitalist economy which produces necessary goods and services, without which society would instantly crumble. The state also produces some goods and services which are underlying supports for the productive economy. These include roads and public schools. However, most of the “products and services” of the state are economic waste: armaments, police repression, military bases, or regulation of the already existing capitalist firms. The state needs capitalism to provide the wealth of society, while capitalists need the state to protect them from the working population as well as from each other.

Most of all, capitalism is a mechanism for squeezing a surplus out of the workers, laboring to produce an extra amount of wealth for which the working class is not paid. This surplus is not only used by the capitalists for luxuries and for reinvestment in an expanding economy—but it is necessary to pay for the state (mainly through taxes and loans). The core of the state—police, soldiers, politicians, bureaucrats—does not produce wealth. It uses up the wealth produced by the workers in the capitalist economy. If the state is necessary as the monarchical operating system to hold society together, the capitalist economy is necessary to provide that society. The state may be the necessary top of society, but capitalism is the necessary base—“necessary,” that is, for this authoritarian society, not for all possible societies.

Laursen understands that capitalism is a mechanism for expanding wealth, for growth and accumulation, which is essential for the modern state. It is not clear if he understands capitalism as a system of exploitation, of pumping surplus labor (value) out of its work force. Instead, he focuses on selling on the market and mass consumption as the source of profits: “for capital, the objective is to create markets that are as large and uniform as possible, since this makes them more predictable and easier to extract maximum profits from” (p. 112), and also “the desire of capital and the State to encourage consumption … promote[s] the capitalist model of relentless economic growth” (p. 179). This view would make it difficult to understand the attack on the living standards of much of the world’s working class since the end of the post-World War II prosperity (around 1970). In the United States and internationally, the capitalist class and the state have cut back benefits, driven back unions, and lowered wages. Laursen knows this and describes the process. But it would make no sense if profits were primarily dependent on expanded consumption rather than on increasing the rate of exploitation.

Perhaps more importantly, this view leads to seeing capitalism as lacking much internal conflict. Both the capitalists and the workers would seem to have a common interest, namely in raising popular consumption. In reality, the interests of the workers (and their families and communities) clash with those of the capitalists, over how much they are paid and worked. Capitalism is fundamentally conflictful, competitive, and contradictory. Therefore, there is a popular class which has a self-interest in overturning capitalism and its state.


Discussing class conflict brings us to Laursen’s opinion of Karl Marx’s theories of capitalism and the state. From Michael Bakunin onward, many anarchists have held that there are aspects of Marx’s work which can be useful. This includes his analysis of how society and the capitalist economy work (historical materialism and the critique of political economy). The appreciation of Marx’s insights has not prevented such anarchists from rejecting his statist strategy or—especially—the degeneration of Marxism into an ideology of totalitarian state capitalism.

Laursen’s opinion of Marx is highly critical, although surprisingly he acknowledges that the anarchist theorist Peter Kropotkin held views similar to Marx: “Karl Marx considered the State to be a creature and enforcer of bourgeois economic interest…. The Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin agreed with Marx’s definition, so far as it went” (p. 56). The problem, the author thinks, is that “Marx defined the groupings that control the State too narrowly, denying that the State has any ‘will’ or trajectory of its own. Kropotkin, likewise, failed to see the State as more than the sum total of the selfish interests behind it” (p. 58).

As a description of Marx’s theory of the state, this is imperfect. (I will not go into Kropotkin’s views here.)[4] It ignores Marx’s writings on “primitive accumulation.” For Marx, capitalism began through state actions. States dispossessed European peasants from the land; seized colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Americas (and Ireland); waged genocidal wars against Indigenous peoples; kidnapped and enslaved Africans; looted the environment; and generally promoted the centralization of wealth while creating a population of landless workers: “these methods … all employ the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force of society, to hasten, hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode…. Force is … itself an economic power”.[5] Kropotkin agreed with Marx on the key role of the state in creating capitalism, but he criticized any implication that the state did not continue to maintain capitalism.

Marx developed his concept of the state further. This was expressed in his analysis of the French dictatorship of Louis Napoleon III in his 1852 The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. He developed a concept of “Bonapartism,” which was also expressed in Friedrich Engels’s writings on Bismarck in Germany. They noted that the state was balanced among various class forces. Even within the upper class there were fractions of classes and agents of fractions of classes, which put conflicting pressures on the state. They saw that the state had its own interests as an institution and so did its bureaucratic, political, and military personnel. Sometimes the bourgeoisie had mostly direct control of the state, under parliamentary democracy. At other times, they were shut out, as under Louis Bonaparte’s “Empire” or Bismarckian Prussia (or, later, fascism), while the state pursued its own interests. Even without democratic rights, the bourgeoisie continued to exploit their employees and accumulate profits—which is their main concern.

According to Marx and Engels on “Bonapartism,” there is a tendency for the state—especially its executive branch—to develop increased autonomy relative to the rest of society, even under bourgeois democracy. This reaches its height under political dictatorship. The state is less and less directly controlled by the bourgeoisie, and may clash with the immediate interests of particular sectors. Yet overall, it maintains capital-labor relations, the market, the stability of the capitalist system, and the interests of its nation’s capitalists versus those of other nations. This conception is consistent with anarchism. In Saul Newman’s opinion, “Anarchism took Marx’s notion of the Bonapartist State to its logical conclusion.”[6]

Also essential to understanding the Marxist theory of the state is Frederick Engels’s discussion of state capitalism. Marx expected the increased concentration and centralization of capital. His colleague, Engels, discussed the tendency toward the eventual merger of productive capital with the state. Individual bourgeois would become marginalized parasites while the stratified economy would be managed by bureaucrats (“salaried employees”). Yet this would still be capitalism: “the official representative of capitalist society—the state—will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production.… The modern state, whatever its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers—proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head.”[7]

Whether Engels or Marx expected this tendency to actually reach fulfillment is uncertain. However after the Russian Revolution, many Marxists accepted stratified capitalism as a form of “socialism” or a “workers’ state.” Anarchists, remaining true to their tradition, rejected it as “state capitalism.” In short, it is a distortion to describe Marx’s theory of the capitalist state, as Laursen does, as simply, “a creature and enforcer of bourgeois economic interest … denying that the State has any ‘will’ or trajectory of its own … as [no] more than the sum total of the selfish interests behind it” (pp. 56-58). My point is not to praise Marx or to criticize those anarchists who regard the state as the dominant institution of capitalist society. I am aware of the weaknesses of Marx’s theory and I appreciate the work of those anarchists, such as Laursen, who focus on the state. My point is that it is possible to understand capitalism’s internal contradictions and class conflicts as basic to the functioning of society—and still to understand the autonomous “‘will’ and trajectory” of the state, its own dynamics, as described by Laursen. These bureaucratic drives interact with the dynamics of capitalism (and also with the dynamics of other subsystems, such as patriarchy or white supremacy). This is as true from a Marxist perspective as from that of revolutionary class-struggle anarchist-socialism.


Laursen concludes that an anarchist transformation “is not just a socially desirable outcome to work toward, but an existential necessity” (p. 17). We face economic decline, pandemics, and wars (with the danger of nuclear war), as well as other social evils: “today with catastrophic climate change looming, we are fighting for more than a just society; we are fighting for survival” (p. 47). Often expressed as Rosa Luxemburg’s phrase, “socialism or barbarism,” this recognition does not rule out struggles for reforms and limited improvements, but it raises the strategic goal of a transformation of society. From his analysis of the central role of the state and its connection with capital, Laursen draws certain programmatic conclusions. He rejects the program of reformist state socialism (“democratic socialism” or social democracy). The state cannot be taken over through elections and then used to change the very system it exists to maintain. The same rejection applies to “revolutionary” programs of overthrowing the existing state and replacing it with a new state—and then using the new state to change society. Laursen compares this to “replacing iOS with Windows—swapping one version of the State for another.” (p. 204).

But a state remains a state, a bureaucratic-military socially alienated machine standing over and above the rest of society, serving a minority elite in exploiting the mass of the population. Laursen points out that “anarchism” is one of “the forms of socialism” (p. 15). It is anticapitalist and in favor of a collective, cooperative, and nonprofit economy. But “to get rid of capitalism requires getting rid of the State” (p. 111). Similarly, Laursen rejects reformist and gradualist strategies of anarchism. Many anarchists propose to live alternate lifestyles and to build alternate institutions, intending to ignore the state and big capital. They hope to work around the state and to peacefully create a new society with minimal, if any, direct clashes with the elite and its armed forces.

Still, Laursen favors building alternate organizations that do not depend on the government or big business, such as co-ops. And he favors building social forces in opposition to the establishment: community organizations; unions; movements against war, racism, or sexism. Even reforms are most likely to be won when the state is challenged from outside and below: “every important advance in working people’s material well-being and political status, from … decent pay and dignity for industrial workers to racial equality, has been thanks to social movements that first formed outside the State and in opposition to its power structure, and … those advances were lost when those social movements atrophied or were subsumed by the State” (p. 215). To turn such movements against the state requires “making demands [the state] can’t meet” (p. 205). These are sometimes called “transitional demands” or “non-reformist reforms.” In the end, Laursen insists, there will have to be a revolution, an overturning of the state and the institutions it supports. A revolution will require a period of build-up, when independent popular organizations and mass movements are growing, and a period afterwards, when new systems take root and solidify. In between, there will have to be some sort of insurrection, some kind of clash: “the State … will fight to preserve itself at all costs…. There will almost certainly be an armed struggle at some point…. The State will not go away until we force it to” (p. 220).

Who will make this eventual revolution once events have become ready? Laursen writes of “activists [and] … the majority of the population … [when it] stops cooperating with [the present system]” (p. 220). However, most of that population majority is composed of the working class: people who work for wages or salaries (without being supervisors) and their dependents. These people are many things, including various races, religions, ethnicities, immigration statuses, ages, one of two genders, and various sexual orientations and identities. All of these are important and most have reasons to oppose the established power (call it the “operating system” or whatever). All these categories overlap with each other and especially with the working class. Together they have at least one advantage over the state: their numbers. This is counterposed to the minority ruling class’s money and armed power (but the ranks of the military are mostly the sons and daughters of the working class). Even more, the potential power which the population has against the state and capital comes with being mostly working class. It is as workers that they have their hands on the means of production, distribution, communication, transportation, and services. As the working class, the people can shut down all systems, and start them up again in a different way.

In his only reference to the working class, Laursen writes, “The working class has been divided and neutralized” (p. 44). This is true, but it means that the US population, largely working class, is divided and neutralized. Parts of it are liberal and some parts are quite reactionary. There has recently been a growth in the number of young working-class people who regard themselves as “socialists” and even as “anarchists,” although what these terms mean to them is uncertain. Yet this is still a minority. That almost all the US population—identified as workers or otherwise—is not in favor of revolutionary anarchism is what makes revolution a strategic goal, not an immediate project. However, if we look at the internal conflicts in capitalism, the clash between the interests of working people and the corporate rich and the failures of the capitalist-supported state to serve the interests of working people, we might see the possibility of anarchists once again building “an effective mass revolutionary movement” (p. 17).


The state is the central institution in this society. It has drives of its own but is intimately tied up with capitalism in all aspects. It is also integrated with all other subsystems of oppression. To get rid of capitalism, to avoid climate catastrophe, to end racial and gender and all other oppressions, it will be necessary to overthrow the state. These concepts are raised in Eric Laursen’s book. They are essential ideas if anarchism is to become a coherent and effective revolutionary force.

However, there are some limitations in his book, from my point of view. His overriding metaphor of the state is as a master operating system. Whatever its advantages in showing society as dynamic and interacting, it leads to underestimating the internal conflicts within the society, such as between capitalists and the state. Particularly, it leads to downplaying the class conflict within capitalism. The book is also weak in considering what an alternate social system might be like. At times he makes passing references to the possibilities of people organizing themselves in decentralized, participatory, and cooperative ways, now and in the past. These are too limited. He does not address questions which are commonly raised, such as how will people be protected from antisocial actors, or from aggressive imperialist states? How will modern technology be used in a libertarian society? (I have previously discussed some of this.)[3] I do not want to criticize Laursen for not writing a different book, but the argument against the state requires more of a vision of how society might function without one.

In summary, Eric Laursen presents us with an important attempt to develop anarchist theory about the state and its relation to capitalism and the rest of society. It is well worth reading, discussing, and thinking about.


[1]. Quoted in Dwight Macdonald, Memoirs of a Revolutionist (Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1957), 58.

[2]. Wayne Price, “An Anarchist View of State Formation—Review of Peter Gelderloos, Worshipping Power: An Anarchist View of Early State Formation,” Anarksimo, December 13, 2018,, and, “Post-Anarchism on the State—An Anarchist Critique,” Arnarkismo, September 9, 2018,

[3]. Wayne Price, The Abolition of the State; Anarchist and Marxist Perspectives (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2007).

[4]. Wayne Price, “An Anarchist View of the Class Theory of the State,” Anarkismo, July 27, 2018, ps://

[5]. Karl Marx, Capital: Volume 1 (New York: Modern Library, 1906), 823-24.

[6]. Saul Newman, “Anarchism, Marxism, and the Bonapartist State,” Anarchist Studies 12, no. 1 (2004): 38-39,

[7]. Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring (Moscow: Foreign Languages, 1954), 384-86.

Citation: Wayne Price. Review of Laursen, Eric, The Operating System: An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State. H-Socialisms, H-Net Reviews. July, 2021. URL:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Eric Laursen Rejoinder:

I have to believe H-socialisms didn’t publish this review without expecting the author in question to respond! Here, in all modesty, are my somewhat disjointed comments. But first, thanks to my very esteemed comrade Wayne Price for paying me the compliment of reviewing my modest contribution to what I hope will be a renewed discussion of the nature of the State, and thanks to H-socialisms for publishing it.


I want to start by underscoring a slightly clunky distinction I make between the state, with a small s, and the State, with a large s, which I think Wayne glosses over a bit. This isn’t just a distinction between individual states and the model they all follow, more or less. Individual states have many things in common, and many important differences. But they all contribute to the formation of something larger, which I call the State and which is the global system that encompasses all of them. States with a small s have their own governments, police, economic systems, cultural institutions, etc. The State does provide a model, but it consists not just of individual states but of norms of international relations, commercial practices and conventions, diplomatic, elite, and commercial networks, modes of exploitation, international institutions from Interpol to the Red Cross, treaty systems like NAFTA and the WTO, multinational corporations and their cross-border activities, etc. It’s an aspiring universal monoculture that every state has been contributing to, despite all the conflicts between them (and between capitalists) since the advent of the modern State. (When people on the right talk about the New World Order, there’s a small grain of truth in it, although they infuse it with a lot of craziness and bigotry, and it’s not as “new” as they think.)


This is critical, because the vantage point we adopt makes all the difference in understanding what’s going on. From the perspective of an individual state or states, what we see is primarily conflict: between states and between capital and the state (with a small s). But from the perspective of the State, these conflicts become less important than the ways in which the parties cooperate and contribute over time to the common project of building the monoculture.


According to Wayne, I overstate the unity of society under the state and underemphasize the internal contradictions. Also, that I give short shrift to the working class and downplay class conflict. But the unity I emphasize is between the state, capital, the propertied class, and the Core Identity Group—the groups that are crucial to the development of the State; I don’t deny the existence of conflicts between these groups and the working classes (not just one thing), although there is some overlap here. What is this unity?


“The State therefore was the original capitalist, and it remains the greatest. Its fundamental aspiration is to incorporate every inch, every corner of the society over which it presides into a vast wealth-producing machine. The capitalist class (that is, the class of owners of property and other forms of capital) steadily emerged as its critical component because it served the State’s need to marshal resources for economic growth.”


The modern State is an economic unit, just as a corporation is (although with somewhat different specific functions). Capitalists of course have their own interests, which are sometimes at odds with the state, but never with the State since both are laser-focused on the pursuit of economic growth. What I’m saying is that capital functions within the system defined by the State, or it doesn’t function at all. Likewise, the State can’t pursue its project of creating a universal monoculture without the aid of capital.


It’s worth discussing here briefly who “runs” the State. Wayne notes that there was no distinction between state and economy before the modern era; afterward, the bourgeoisie began to see themselves as a separate class who ran business, not government. In fact, the modern era was typified by the gradual takeover of government administration (if not the military, diplomatic services, and the sovereign’s court) by members of the bourgeoisie. The representative figure here was Louis XIV’s finance minister, Colbert. The State (with a capital S) was, increasingly, the project of individuals from the business class working within government (including under Bismarck’s Germany).


Wayne notes that I only refer to the working class in one place in my book; actually, a quick search shows that I discuss the working class as such 18 times, including crucially, the failure of social democratic governments to resolve tensions between capital and the working class and the way sections of the working class are bought off and culturally coopted by recruitment to police forces, appeals to xenophobia, etc.


Wayne is certainly correct that the capitalist state’s failure to serve working people’s interests opens up the possibility of rebuilding an anarchist mass movement. I’m only suggesting that this is not a simple matter; the critical function of the modern State is to manage populations, including the cultivation of the Core Identity Group, in order to squeeze maximum surplus value out of them (we don’t disagree about this) but also to cement their loyalty or at least their acquiescence. Increasing exploitation and the creation of a widespread consumer culture are two sides of the same coin, not mutually exclusive. In recent decades, it’s been achieved through the exponential growth of the consumer credit system, such that poorly paid working people can continue to buy stuff (the small-s state plays a role too, through income subsidy programs like food stamps). Anyway, the State cand capital are very good at managing this tension. We, as anarchists, have to be better at exposing it and finding ways to move past it.


Many of the points Wayne raises have to do with tensions between my argument and Marx-Engels. Let me address some of these. First, I appreciate the comparison between my argument and Hegel’s analysis of the State in The Philosophy of Law. There certainly is a similarity, if one accepts that the State is not something I made up, but something that’s been developing for 500-plus years and that Hegel regarded as the highest level of human development.


Wayne says that I ignore Marx’s writings on primitive accumulation, and it’s true that I don’t use the term in my book. But I don’t disagree at all with this analysis—I just think that it wasn’t a phase, in fact it continues to this day. Capitalism began through State actions, but it never weaned itself from the State. It depends on the State just as much today to facilitate its activities, open up new territories for it (from the Arctic to high tech), and save its bacon when it overreaches.


I don’t disagree either that the state balances different class and factional interests. (This is the stuff of everyday Washington politics, as well as class conflict.) But again, this applies to the state, rather than to the State. So I take Wayne’s point that it’s possible to understand capitalism’s internal contradictions and class conflicts as a basic feature of society AND to understand the State as a developing entity with its own will and trajectory. In fact, that’s what I’ve tried to lay out in my book.


I also agree generally with Marx-Engels’s notion of Bonapartism (in the form of either Soviet-style state capitalism or fascist-era corporatism). But it’s worth mentioning, as a side note, that the historical success of these sorts of regimes hasn’t been great—they haven’t so far turned out to be the “next stage” of anything, but more of a digression. The one state today that I might describe as Bonapartist in some respects is China, which is a lot like the corporatist state that the likes of Mussolini, Salazar, and Peron tried to create.


Finally, Wayne argues that I downplay class conflict and am skimpy on alternative social systems. On the first point, my focus was on understanding how the State (and capital) work to neutralize class conflicts, which is not the same as glossing them over or implying that workers have less potential power in their hands than they do. But I would point out also that if we want to create a new decentralized, participatory and cooperative society (as we do), class struggle is not by itself a satisfactory answer to how we get there. A society forged by a revolution of a working class defined and conditioned entirely by the industrial and post-industrial capitalist economic system—and the State—may wind up recreating that system. What I’m arguing for is that as radicals, anarchists, and grassroots organizers, we have to work to bring about a social revolution that precedes the political revolution. That’s not easy and I don’t have a detailed roadmap to get us there—that wasn’t the objective of the book—but that’s the project. Prefiguration, and building new social structures outside the State, is the first step.


If these comments have gone on a bit long, that’s because Wayne’s given me a lot to think about, as always. I’m looking forward to continuing the conversation.

Response to Eric Laursen by Wayne Price:

Eric Laursen has graciously written a lengthy rejoinder to my lengthy review of his short book. Here are some responses:

Eric emphasizes the totality of the State (if not of states), encompassing every aspect of society. “The unity I emphasize is between the state, capital, the propertied class, and the Core Identity Group.” On a world scale, “The State…is the global system that encompasses all of them. …The State…consists not just of individual states but of norms of international relations, commercial practices and conventions, diplomatic, elite, and commercial networks, modes of exploitation, international institutions…, treaty systems…, multinational corporations and their cross-border activities, etc.”

I agree with certain key concepts being asserted here. Despite internal divisions and conflicts, society (nationally and internationally) is an interconnected “global system.” That system is everywhere authoritarian, hierarchical, and centralized, with divisions between order-givers and those who carry out orders.

Yet the ubiquity of authoritarianism is not the same as the State being everything. If the State is everything, then it is nothing. It is simply society. I prefer the anarchist and Marxist class analysis of the core of the State being a bureaucratic-military-police socially-alienated body which stands above the rest of society, backed up by ideological forces, and serving a ruling minority. The State is not everything, but it is essential for an exploitative society.

My point about Eric’s understanding of Marx and Engels was that Eric misstated Marx’s (and Kropotkin’s) views as simply seeing the state as a reflection of class influence. The issue was not about Marx (I am not a Marxist as such) but the validity of a class-based analysis for understanding the interaction of the State and capital. This was appreciated by Kropotkin, Bakunin, Malatesta, Guerin, and other anarchists.

Eric states that I overlooked the 18 times he mentioned the working class in his book. I accept that he must be right. But he still doesn’t seem to see that the whole of the “global system” rests on the work of the big majority, from whom a surplus is squeezed out of their labor. This is done in the process of production—through the market’s exchange of commodities, including the commodity labor power. It is only backed up by the power of the State.

Eric does refer to “crucially, the failure of social democratic governments to resolve tensions between capital and the working class and the way sections of the working class are bought off and culturally coopted by recruitment to police forces, appeals to xenophobia, etc…. My focus was on understanding how the State (and capital) work to neutralize class conflicts….” These are all negative references to how capitalism, its ideology, and its state, oppress and co-opt the working class (most of the population). They are all true. But they are not all that’s true. There are forces pushing in the other direction, as is shown by the increase in labor struggles or in the massive George Floyd demonstrations. It is not just that, as workers, the oppressed have “potential power in their hands.” It is also that as workers there are ways in which capitalism pushes the working class in the direction of struggle and possible eventual revolution.

However, Eric fears that “class struggle [and]…a revolution of a working class defined and conditioned entirely by the industrial and post-industrial capitalist economic system—and the State—may wind up recreating that system.” Thereby he proposes a “social revolution that precedes the political revolution.” I am not sure what he means by this. He did not go into this topic in his book and, of course, his comments did not have enough space for him to spell out his views.

I do not believe that the working class, or the population as a whole, is “conditioned entirely by the capitalist system and the State.” Capitalist society is conflictful and contradictory, producing all sorts of cracks in its authoritarian ideological unity. In the course of struggle, people can learn, change, and fit themselves for freedom. Like Eric, I am for “prefiguration,” but I do not emphasize “building new social structures outside the State,” if this means building co-ops and free schools. I am for that, as a side matter, but mainly prefiguration means learning participatory democracy in the course of building mass movements to fight the bosses, the police, the powers-that-be, the Democratic and Republican politicians, and the fascists.

Again, I appreciate Eric’s response as well as his original (in many ways) book. In our exchange we have focused on our disagreements, which is appropriate. But in most ways we are in agreement, I think.

Thanks again to Wayne for his further comments on The Operating System. And again, my apologies for not replying sooner. Many of the points Wayne raises here are not really areas of disagreement, I think. Here goes.

A problem, at least potentially, with my definition of the State, Wayne argues, is that it would seem to encompass everything in society, so that it runs the danger of losing all meaning: if the State is everything, then it is nothing. Of course I don't agree, but I can understand why he would think so, since I'm taking a more anthropological view of the State (and states collectively), looking beyond institutional labels to the State as a network or system. He prefers to think of "the core of the State being a bureaucratic-military-police socially-alienated body which stands above the rest of society, backed up by ideological forces, and serving a ruling minority." I agree with this so far as it goes, but it leaves out the one absolutely crucial element: the economic. The State is an economic actor, an active organizer and conductor of economic activity. "The State was the original capitalist, and it remains the greatest," is how I put it in my book. Leave this out, and the State is mainly a facilitator of the capitalist class, and we're forced to rely on this to explain aspects of the State's behavior that are more complex (and aspects of capital's behavior that are harder to understand on their own).

Wayne also argues that I fail to recognize "the validity of a class-based analysis for understanding the interaction of the State and capital." I think what he means is the validity of the class-based analysis for understanding the interaction between the State and capital on one hand and the rest of society (i.e,, the working class) on the other. He also says that I fail to see that "the whole of the 'global system' rests on the work of the big majority, from whom a surplus is squeezed out of their labor." I don't disagree with this at all. It isn't the focal point of my book, but I do note that "among the most dramatic features of the modern era are the dogged resistance of subject populations and the State’s relentless efforts to beat them into submission." Workers have always exercised their power with varying degrees of success, including through the general strike; indeed, their resistance is what's responsible for any and all progressive or humane measures we've enjoyed the past couple hundred years. (I would also point out, however, that the working class is not something monolithic; traditionally, in the modern era, substantial portions of the population have worked for the State, as civil servants, police, military, or indirectly dependent on these, and their forms of social identity are often quite different from those of other working people.)

I don't agree with Wayne's conclusion that the global system and its process of production are "only" backed up by the power of the State, because again, I see the State as itself an economic actor, that (among other things) promotes the global (capitalist) system of production for its own purposes.

I take Wayne's point about my statement (not in my book but in my last set of comments) that "a revolution of a working class defined and conditioned entirely by the industrial and post-industrial capitalist economic system—and the State—may wind up recreating that system." I should have left out the word "entirely." But I do think it's a concern with any class-based revolution that the forces that helped mold that class will reassert themselves when it seizes power (even though other forces mold it as well, and it plays a strong role in the development of its own identity). That's why I argue that a social revolution must be in motion before a political revolution takes place: otherwise, the revolution just ends in recreating the State. Wayne is unsure what I mean by social revolution: is it just "prefiguration," coops, free schools, learning to build mass movements? It's more than this. The examples I give are the Zapatista free zone, Rojava, and the councils that the Local Coordination Committees of Syria began setting up during the Arab Spring. The common denominator is that these movements sought to create new, non-state community forms in spaces that the State had abandoned or had little or no control of, to organize as many aspects of people's lives as possible outside the State and capitalism--not just primary school and buying groceries. On a large enough scale, a general strike can be the focal point of a social revolution as well (see Hannah Arendt's On Revolution for an interesting exploration of this topic). Also in each case, the line between prefiguration and mutual aid on one hand and insurrection on the other, blurs. If we want to organize a non-exploitative society without the State and without capital, these are the sorts of projects that have to precede a direct political revolution.

I certainly agree with Wayne on his last point: that we agree more than we disagree. When I wrote The Operating System, I was hoping that it would encourage more discussion of the nature of the State, its relationship with capital, and how we can challenge both of them. I'm happy to discuss further.