In political science, Statism is the belief in the primacy of the State over the rights of the individual. Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism and minarchism. Statism can take many forms from the legislation of morality to theocracy in the social domain, and from socialism through fascism to communism in the economic domain, with totalitarianism being the intersection of the most extreme forms of Statism in both the social and economic domains. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts. Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions. Welfare state adepts and other such options make up more statist territory of the scale of statism. Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state.
State, society and individuals
Some analyses[who?] use a dichotomy between state and market, viewing the state as a homogeneous institution capable of using political power to force policy on the market which is the sum of peaceful human action. Such an analysis depends on an elitist theory of power rather than a pluralist theory of power; that power is exercised by individuals and competing organisations within society.
Authoritarianism, on the other hand, views a strong, authoritative state as required to legislate or enforce morality and cultural practices. The ideology of statism espoused by fascism holds that sovereignty is not vested in the people but in the nation state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, prestige and well-being of the state. It repudiates individualism and the family and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline. Fascism and some forms of corporatism extol the moral position that the corporate group, usually the state, is greater than the sum of its parts and that individuals have a moral obligation to serve the state.
Economic statism promotes the view that the state has a major, necessary, and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.
The term statism is sometimes used to refer to market economies with large amounts of government intervention, regulation or influence over a market or mixed-market economy. Economic interventionism asserts that the state has a legitimate or necessary role within the framework of a capitalist economy by intervening in markets, attempting to promote economic growth and trying to enhance employment levels.
State socialism broadly refers to forms of socialism based on state ownership of the means of production and state-directed allocation of resources. It is often used in reference to Soviet-type economic systems of former Communist states.
In some cases, when used in reference to Soviet-type economies, state socialism is used interchangeably with state capitalism on the basis that the Soviet model of economics was actually based upon a process of state-directed capital accumulation and social hierarchy.
Politically, state socialism is often used to designate any socialist political ideology or movement that advocates for the use of state power for the construction of socialism, or to the belief that the state must be appropriated and used to ensure the success of a socialist revolution. It is usually used in reference to Marxist-Leninist socialists who champion a single-party state.
In some cases, state capitalism refers to economic policies such as dirigisme, which existed in France during the second half of the 20th century; and to the present-day economies of the People's Republic of China and Singapore, where the government owns controlling shares in publicly traded companies. Some authors also define the former economies of the Eastern bloc as constituting a form of state capitalism.
- Levy, Jonah D (2006). The State After Statism: New State Activities in the Age of Liberalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 469. ISBN 978-0-674-02276-8.
- Obadare, Ebenezer (2010). Statism, Youth, and Civic Imagination: A Critical Study of the National Youth Service Corps Programme in Nigeria. Dakar Senegal: Codesria. ISBN 978-2-86978-303-4.
- Kvistad, Gregg (1999). The Rise and Demise of German Statism: Loyalty and Political Membership. Providence [u.a.]: Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-57181-161-5.
- Bakunin, Mikhail (1990). Statism and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-36182-8.
- Machan, T (2002). "Anarchism and Minarchism: A Rapprochement". Journal Des Economistes et Des Etudes Humaines 12: 569–569–588. ISSN 1145-6396.
- Block, W (2007). "Anarchism and Minarchism No Rapprochment Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan". The Journal of Libertarian Studies 21 (1): 61–61–90. ISSN 0363-2873.
- Long, Roderick (2008). Anarchism Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6066-8.
- Parker, Martin (2010). The Dictionary of Alternatives Utopianism and Organisation. London, England: Zed. ISBN 978-1-84972-734-1.
- Friedrich, Carl (1974). Limited Government: a Comparison. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-537167-1. OCLC 803732.
- Marx, Herbert (1950). The Welfare State. New York: Wilson.
- Arendt, Hannah (1966). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.
- Cernak, Linda (2011). Totalitarianism. Edina, MN: ABDO. ISBN 978-1-61714-795-1.
- Friedrich, Carl (1964). Totalitarianism. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
- Gleason, Abbott (1995). Totalitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505017-2.
- Schapiro, Leonard (1972). Totalitarianism. New York: Praeger.
- Sampat, Mike (16 April 2013). "Logic and the case against Stiglitz". Toronto Star. Retrieved 28 April 2013.
- Timothy Mitchell (March 1991). "The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and Their Critics". The American Political Science Review 85 (1): 75–96. JSTOR 1962879.
The state has always been difficult to define. Its boundary with society appears elusive, porous, and mobile. I argue that this elusiveness should not be overcome by sharper definitions, but explored as a clue to the state's nature. Analysis of the literature shows that neither rejecting the state in favor of such concepts as the political system, nor « bringing it back in », has dealt with this boundary problem. The former approach founders on it, the latter avoids it by a narrow idealism that construes the state-society distinction as an external relation between subjective and objective entities. A third approach, presented here can account for both the salience of the state and its elusiveness. Reanalyzing evidence presented by recent theorists, state-society boundaries are shown to be distinctions erected internally, as an aspect of more complex power relations. Their appearance can be historically traced to technical innovations of the modern social order, whereby methods of organization and control internal to the social processes they govern create the effect of a state structure external to those processes
- Jones, R. J. Barry. "STATISM." Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy. 1st. Volume 3. New York, New York: Taylor & Francis, 2001. Print.
- Michie, Jonathan (January 1, 2001). Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 1595. ISBN 978-1579580919.
State capitalism has inconsistently been used as a synonym for ‘state socialism’, although neither phrase has a stable denotation
- Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 2459. ISBN 978-1412959636.
The repressive state apparatus is in fact acting as an instrument of state capitalism to carry out the process of capital accumulation through forcible extraction of surplus from the working class and peasantry
- Leviathan in Business: Varieties of State Capitalism and Their Implications for Economic Performance, by Musacchio, Aldo. 2012.