Statism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (December 2007) |
Statism (or Etatism) is a term that is used to describe:
- Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
- A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
- In anarchist parlance, support for the existence of a state
The term tends to be used most often with respect to economic policies. For instance, Merriam-Webster defines statism as a "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government." Advocates of economic liberalism typically use the term "statism" to refer to any economy that does not conform to the standard of laissez-faire capitalism. "Statism" is also used to refer to specific policies in countries that would not be identified as statist overall (for example, the state monopoly on mail delivery in the United States).
Contents |
[edit] Usage in relation to other concepts
State Socialism and state communism are considered "statist" because they rely on heavy economic intervention by the state.
Opponents of statism often use the term as a synonym for collectivism[citation needed]. However, there is no necessary connection between the two. It is possible to have a commune or some other form of collectivist society that is entirely stateless (indeed, this is the kind of society advocated by most anarchists, and the final goal of the communists). Conversely, it is possible to have a strong central state which does not implement any policy that may be regarded as collectivist[citation needed].
On another note, Fascist Italy openly espoused statism as its centerpiece, and it based its ideology around a positive conception of an absolute state to such a degree that the system of Italian Fascism was even accused of statolatry.
[edit] Criticism and advocacy
Opponents of statism usually argue that state intervention restricts individual freedom, and that this is immoral. They also tend to reject statist economic models in favor of a more liberal economic policy because they believe decentralized economic activity at the level of individuals and private organizations in a free market produces superior economic results. By way of contrast, supporters of statism argue that centralized economic planning, produces greater economic benefits for everyone than free market economics (see also planned economy). Both theoretical arguments and historical examples are used by both sides in the debate. Communist states, which are widely considered to be statist, are often the focus of such debate. Opponents of statism usually argue that Communist states have performed much worse than their free market contemporaries over the same time scale, that they failed to address the problem of poverty and that they created similar class divisions to those which exist in less statist countries. In response, most statists simply reject the economic model used by the Communist states and propose a different one. But there are also those who defend the Communist states by arguing that their economic performance was superior to what could have been achieved by free markets in similar circumstances, and that comparisons with the industrialized West are unwarranted.
With regard to individual freedom, some statists argue that statism provides more positive freedom than a market-oriented economy, by giving some individuals (especially the poor) options and choices that would not have been available to them under a strictly capitalist system. In contrast, many opponents of statism, notably Friedrich Hayek, argue that any move away from a market economy leads inexorably to loss of political freedom.
There are also many who believe that a limited degree of statism is beneficial, but only as long as it does not become excessive. This view is held by most supporters of a mixed economy or various middle-ground or third way ideas, such as the American School.
[edit] Idealist and Realist Approaches to the State
While the notion that statism is a term that necessary implies critique of the state, it may also simply refer to the application and projection of the very idea of "state" onto empirical artifacts and events (i.e. attribution of actions or events to a so-called "state" constitutes statism.)
As with racism, there are many approaches to defining the empirical status of the object presumed to be represented by the term, whether real, imagined, or both. This can be understood analogically to the realist and idealist conflict in approaching "race" as either a real biologically-genetically defined sub-species of humans (e.g. "the white race") or as an ideology that has history and consequences for individuals, but does not exist as an empirical reality or an essential feature of human biology (e.g. "white racism").
The realist approach to state may then be termed, "statism," to refer to the elevation of the ideology of state to the level of experiential reality (ontology.) The idealist approach, then, would emphasize the use of state-oriented language for describing empirical or historical events by "summing up" the actions of individuals or networks of individuals as "state actions." E.g. claiming that a state imprisons or provides assistance to a particular individual in contrast to referencing specific individuals such as a particular prison guard, administrator, the commander ("head of state"), or other "state interests," such as tax payers, as independently-acting individuals. "Independently-acting" then refers to the actors' status either as separate individuals or as a collective singular, not whether their actions are connected and/or coordinated. Logically, connection and coordination can only be seen to occur among distinct individuals, whereas collective actions attributed to "the state" may ignore (or obscure) the specific actions of individual constituents of "the state" and the relations among them.
Applying the language of state-reference thus contains an implicit assumption of collectivism in subscribing to historical descriptions that make reference to "the state" or "states" as actors in-and-of themselves. Recognizing statehood as an actual reality, as opposed to an idea or ideology that influences individual actions, is resonant with a collectivist view of politics.
[edit] See also
- Anti-statism
- Dirigisme
- Laissez-faire
- Neoliberalism
- Right Hegelians, a group of overtly statist German philosophers and thinkers
[edit] References
- Mikhail Bakunin (1873), Statism and Anarchy
- Nejatullah Siddiqi (1968), The Ideal of Statism. Islamic Public Economics.
[edit] External links
- Essays on Statism (2003). A critical analysis.
- Essays on post-statism (2006). Statism in the social sciences.
- Chapter 9 of The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky