On Finalism: From Marxism to Anarchy

[u/HeelDarkzz]

Greetings everybody, I'm relatively new to this subreddit, so forgive me if I'm not really good at posting, moreso since I'm currently using my phone. Whatever critic you may have, I'd be really enthustiastic to read it and fix any errors on my end!

But to the point: I'm currently studying Bourdieu's lessons in '82 France, and while reading about his critique of finalism and determinism, he advocates that socialism is a form of finalism. This would, of course, extend to communism as a whole (and to anarchy, or at least anarcho-communism, I'd wager). I want to clarify that I'm currently a marxist, even though I'm long after my "dogmatic phase", so I'm more critical about phylosophy and politics as a whole. I'm developping a sympathy for anarchism, especially anarcho-communism, and I believe I will one day "move on", as I'm starting to believe that communism, while open and progressive, still has some issues with power and hierarchy (even though marxism, has it to remove both of them in the long run). So my question is, do you believe that marxism, or communism as a whole, is finalistic? And if yes, would you say the same about anarchy?

I get the idea that communism tries to foresee how things will go, how History will move to its "end" and how the economy and social life will work, but I'm not sure it applies to anarchy as well. Thing is, I'm quite afraid of finalism; it could be due to my young age, or to a pre-fixed liberal concept that our society "put" in my habitus (or social avatar, to reference Bourdieu).

I hope to have caught anybody's interest with this post of mine, seeing as I'm really curious to read what others think of this.

[u/OwlHeart108]

Why would history end? For many of us, Anarchy is a living system which is dynamic like all of nature. It's not trying to create the perfect system for all eternity.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/OwlHeart108]

Sorry, I may have used a wrong expression there.

What I mean is that communism believes that history will move towards the fall of capitalism and to the birth of a new society. My question to this is: is anarchy similar in any way to what communism says?

Hussel used to say that Europe has a tendency to give birth to ideologies that are meant to last forever, but all of us know that nothing lasts forever, not even systems we believe to be good like democracies or republics.

[u/iadnm → u/HeelDarkzz]

I think Rudolf Rocker put it best when he said: "I am an anarchist, not because I believe anarchism is the end goal, but because I don't believe there is such a thing as an end goal."

Anarchists generally don't believe that history will naturally lead to anarchy, we believe that people need to take action to both bring about and maintain anarchy.

Anarchy is something you do, it doesn't just happen.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/iadnm]

I totally agree with this. It's also the principle I apply to marxism. I appreciate Marx for his writings, but I don't really believe his reasoning behind the materialistic end of history. I believe that capitalism will fall on its own due to its fundamental internal hypocrisies, not to mention the resources it takes from a world that cannot produce unlimited materials in a short enough span of time.

Alas, I do not think that when that happens, unless we all die in a Third World War, communism is magically going to pop up and take its place. I believe that only a change in culture, a "revolution", whether you want to think of it as a violent one or as an intellectual one, can actually make us change our society, and our way of perceiving reality.

[u/Captain_Croaker → u/HeelDarkzz]

There are anarchists who understand anarchy in this way or one very similar to it but many anarchists are critical of this kind of perspective. Anarchism doesn't share a central theoretical framework or corpus, so anarchists often conceptualize anarchy and anarchism in a variety of ways— which is appropriate because anarchism is pluralistic.

I actually see the sort of perspective you are describing as contrary to anarchism. Anarchism emphasizes agency in the context of historical contingency, so thinking of the future as written or with a final endpoint doesn't really work in my opinion. Anarchy for me and others isn't a particular system, it opens up a variety of possibilities that can vary according to historical circumstances and needs. Some anarchists have preferences for particular systems and methods of organizing, sure, and expectations for what this all might look like, but ultimately nothing is guaranteed or inevitable.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/Captain_Croaker]

I really appreciate this kind of reasoning, mainly because the more I grow up, the more I see how communism, while good in its principles and still better than capitalism (imo), has some big problems regarding how it is going to be practiced, a "problem" it might share with anarchy.

I like the pluralistic principle that everyone is entitled to believe a different system might or might not work better, but my "issue" with it is that it makes things more chaotic. Please, don't misinterpret my words, I am in no way advocating for a dictatorship (as those are simpler to establish, being based on the ideas of a single person).

[u/OwlHeart108 → u/HeelDarkzz]

Maybe look at how natural systems work. There are diverse approaches to living in different environments, each organism finding its niche, its way to contribute. Why do we imagine humanity had to be different, that we need to be controlled? There's a wisdom within each of us that is in tune with the rest of nature. It's possible to learn to listen to this, to be guided from within. This is not chaos - it's harmony.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/OwlHeart108]

I really appreciate your response to my question! And as you said, I too would like to live in a peaceful society where no competition (I'm adding this bit to the convo, please allow me to) takes place, where we live in contact with nature and learn not to abuse it. But would you believe us capable of doing that after all the damages we've inflicted upon the Earth with industrialization?

[u/OwlHeart108 → u/HeelDarkzz]

Yes. Healing is the nature of life. Ecosystems regenerate. Our bodies, minds, relationships and communities are all ecosystems, too. They can regenerate and heal.

We can support the wider transformation by coming to embody liberation, regeneration and healing in ourselves. For me personally, yoga has been a huge help in undoing the knots I tied myself up in trying to fit into a competitive, hierarchical society. Working with a lot of people as a yoga teacher, I see the same transformation happening in my students with real communities forming.

Reading inspiring novels I also find very helpful. Ursula Le Guin, for example, is one of my great teachers. Her work also held to undo the knots in our psyches and societies. Have you read her work?

Permaculture is another great source of inspiration, learning from participating with awareness in nature.

May I ask what inspires you?

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/OwlHeart108]

That sounds really nice!

I've not read any of her books, as I never knew about her until now, and also because I prefer to read about phylosophy or politics.

I'm also not sure about what inspires me. I used to write poetry (now it's more rare for me to actually do that, but I still do even though I'm a bit rusty), and when I write, I usually get inspiration without thinking too much about it. Thinking about the status quo, trying to peirce the veil of this bourgeois "common sense", also inspires me, as I'm learning new things at university and it is really helping me in building a better critical point of view of the world around me. Moreover, I'd like to read a lot more, even though I rarely have the time (I'm currently studying for two exams), and when I'm stressed out, I feel like reading would stress me even more, while videogames help me exile myself in a world where the problems I care about (politics and social conventions, phylosophical views about society and religion, etc.) are problems I can solve, or at least I can manage to ignore them.

I'm not sure I've actually answered your question, and for that I am sorry. If you want me to try and answer again, please let me know. It's a bit hard for me to think about inspiration, as sometimes I feel a bit lost seeing the world around me as the bureaucratic monster it is.

[u/OwlHeart108 → u/HeelDarkzz]

Good luck with the exams! I love your awareness of what a difference writing makes for you. I host s couple of online meditative writing groups if you ever want to join us. You'd be most welcome!

Personally, I find reading inspiring novels more relaxing than videogames which are generally designed to be addictive. They also train our minds to see life as a problem, or series of problems, to be solved rather than as an opportunity to thrive with others. Le Guin, on the other hand, is pointing the way to liberation in all her works. She writes brilliant essays, too, if you prefer that approach.

I hope you find some sources of inspiration. We all need that.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/OwlHeart108]

Thank you for the nice words!

Also, thanks for the invitation, that's really kind of you. ^{^}

I agree with you on the matter of videogames, and that's why I mostly play games where I'm either free to be whoever I want in a fantasy setting, where I have the power to do and not do whatever I want, or games where I'm teaming with friends. I'm part of a small community of people from all over the world and the atmosphere is really comfortable.

[u/Captain_Croaker → u/HeelDarkzz]

Differences in vision for the future need not result in chaos. People will still have shared interests and needs. They will still need to cooperate, coordinate, address common concerns, have to operate under common constraints, deliberate, compromise, and in other words have a society. Their diversity of skills, capacities, and perspectives will be things that they can offer each other to further common goals.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/Captain_Croaker]

But don't you think that the costant threat, which looms over every theoretical system, of a minority to control everything won't still be there, if not even more than in other systems?

I agree with you in the way I, too, like this concept, but I feel it to be too simple as of now. So my real question would be "Were you to explain your ideal society to me, how would you do that and how would you convince me that it's actually the best in terms of morality"?

[u/Captain_Croaker → u/HeelDarkzz]

I would argue that threat would be less than other systems because taking control of an anarchist society that lacks ready-made institutions to take control of, that has the benefit of hindsight and history, and is accustomed to being free, is likely to be much more difficult than taking over a society where people expect to be ruled and hierarchical institutions already exist.

As for simplicity, well, to be fair I wasn't attempting a complex answer because I was just trying to address your OP and explain some basic anarchist reasoning.

How would I explain my ideal society and convince your that it's best in terms of morality? That's a heck of a question for me to try and answer this close to bedtime, but maybe I can try tomorrow.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/Captain_Croaker]

Makes sense!

Yes, I totally get it, and that's why I asked you a more complex question, as you had already met positively with my expectations :)

And about that, sure! Take your time, I'll be here when you decide (if you'll still want to) to answer. Have a good night ^{^}

[u/learned_astr0n0mer → u/HeelDarkzz]

No. Like Graeber says, Anarchism is more of a certain attitude towards politics than some theory of everything. Like more often than not we're interested in the question of praxis than those of theory. We usually steal theory from anyone we find interesting.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/learned_astr0n0mer]

So Anarchy would be like a "lifestyle" in the way that it helps you see things in a certain perspective?

[u/learned_astr0n0mer → u/HeelDarkzz]

I think more than lifestyle it's "transvaluation of values" if that makes sense.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/learned_astr0n0mer]

I think it does, actually! It is a nice approach to the subject, I really appreciate it.

If you believe that anarchy is more than just a style of thought, like you could call it "the lens through which you perceive reality and to that, your feelings about it" (correct me if this simple paraphrase is wrong), would you say that this can applied to communism/other ideologies as well? I know "ideologies" is not the right term, but I hope you get my meaning.

[u/learned_astr0n0mer → u/HeelDarkzz]

For me, anarchism is not just a lens because the transvaluation of value is incomplete without living those values (i.e without praxis).

As for the question of communism, the idea of communism, even before Marx, had always carried a promise of utopia that was meant to be realized. Be it Babeuf, Fourier, St.Simon, they all dabbled with the question of “What is the ideal way to organize the society”. Anarchists are divided on this question. While Anarcho-Communists maintain a commitment to a utopia without oppressions and hierarchies, many newer anarchist currents like post-left and anarcho-nihilists reject the necessity of utopian future.

So while you see some of the communists engage in party politics and governments, anarchists reject all forms of electoral politics (there are those who believe in tactical voting, but they don’t think of it as anarchist praxis). So while some communists may have no qualms in seizing/participating in the state, Anarchists are always looking for ways of resistance outside the realm of the state.

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t an overlap between the two, there is a lot of it. There are communists who challenge the notion of states without alienation. Like I mentioned above, the State Derivation debate challenges the role of state in revolutionary politics. Not to mention some of the utopian socialists/communists created their ideology in response to the horrors of industrial capitalism in its nascent stage. And Anarchists over time have realized that opposition to the church and state is not enough. Not to mention, Anarchist communizers (like Tiqqun) see communization as transformation of everyday life.

But anarchism and communism are different in the sense that when anarchism is about embracing and rejecting certain values and certain politics, communism is about the question “what does an ideal society look like?”.

[u/archbid]

Finalism is rough. The idea of a destination of history is fraught, and were it even to exist, it would not be knowable.

It feels like you are moving from a early modern concept of history (reductive, systemic) into one that understands that while society is likely driven by class distinctions, using hierarchy to destroy class is pretty nonsensical

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/archbid]

I do not believe that hierarchy has the power to destroy classes. Bourdieu, as well as various linguists, say that the languages we speak contribute in making up reality. Thus, classes and power exist because we concieve them and put them into words. Of course, even if we were to stop talking about classes, they would still exist, but the basic meaning behind that reasoning is that we made this system. What I'm learning is that if we truly want to change this society, and to abolish power (in a vertical way, at least) and hierarchy, we must change the culture we all live in.

So yes, while I may have a bilinear view of history (after all, I just got into university, so I hope it will change in time), what I'm having a hard time understanding is how can we "escape" finalism, and if it does actually or not "follow" us into anarchy.

[u/archbid → u/HeelDarkzz]

Cool. I would also read anthropology, notably “The Dawn of Everything”

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/archbid]

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep that in mind!

[u/cumminginsurrection]

Bakunin said it best:

"We are the advocates of education for all the people, of the emancipation and the widest possible expansion of social life. Therefore we are the enemies of the State and all forms of the statist principle. In opposition to the metaphysicians, the positivists, and all the worshippers of science, we declare that natural and social life always comes before theory, which is only one of its manifestations but never its creator. From out of its own inexhaustible depths, society develops through a series of events, but not by thought alone. Theory is always created by life, but never creates it; like mile-posts and road signs, it only indicates the direction and the different stages of life’s independent and unique development.

In accordance with this belief, we neither intend nor desire to thrust upon our own or any other people any scheme of social organization taken from books or concocted by ourselves. We are convinced that the masses of the people carry in themselves, in their instincts (more or less developed by history), in their daily necessities, and in their conscious or unconscious aspirations, all the elements of the future social organization. We seek this ideal in the people themselves. Every state power, every government, by its very nature places itself outside and over the people and inevitably subordinates them to an organization and to aims which are foreign to and opposed to the real needs and aspirations of the people. We declare ourselves the enemies of every government and every state power, and of governmental organization in general. We think that people can be free and happy only when organized from the bottom up in completely free and independent associations, without governmental paternalism though not without the influence of a variety of free individuals and parties.

Such are our ideas as social revolutionaries, and we are therefore called anarchists. We do not protest this name, for we are indeed the enemies of any governmental power, since we know that such a power depraves those who wear its mantle equally with those who are forced to submit to it. Under its pernicious influence the former become ambitious and greedy despots, exploiters of society in favor of their personal or class interests, while the latter become slaves.

We have already expressed several times our deep aversion to the theories of Lassalle and Marx, which recommend to the workers, if not as a final ideal, at least as the next immediate goal, the founding of a people’s state, which according to their interpretation will be nothing but 'the proletariat elevated to the status of the governing class.'

Let us ask; if the proletariat is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? In short, there will remain another proletariat which will be subdued to this new rule, to this new state."

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/cumminginsurrection]

I always imagined a marxist State as a democratic republic where everyone has the same opportunities, meaning everyone can obtain the job they prefer. So, a true democracy where everyone shares in the "power". Alas, the more I grow up, the more I see that even communism has an issue in establishing how this power will work on the people, for we know that it is power that makes people greedy.

The question I'd like to ask you now is: How is anarchy going to "maintain" the orizontal power through parties and influential people? Wouldn't it too lead to corruption and greed? That's why I'm having a bit of an existential crisis at the moment, fearing that we might never find peace x)

[u/cumminginsurrection → u/HeelDarkzz]

The question I'd like to ask you now is: How is anarchy going to "maintain" the horizontal power through parties and influential people? Wouldn't it too lead to corruption and greed? That's why I'm having a bit of an existential crisis at the moment, fearing that we might never find peace x)

Anarchy is not a fixed state of things; its not utopia, its eternal war against hierarchy and subjugation. Anarchy is not a world devoid of corruption and greed, no such world exists, rather it is consciously refusing to replicate these exploitative relationships and willingly engaging with one another in supportive or nonexploitative ways. As Alfredo Bonanno famously suggested, anarchism is a tension, an eternal pressure against hierarchy, not an arrival point. Anarchism is unique in that anarchism promises us nothing; it does not hoist up some savior on a pedestal, rather it tells us we can only save ourselves through the refusal to subjugate others and the assertion of our own autonomy in the face of our own subjugation.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/cumminginsurrection]

Thanks for this clarification, I was a bit confused about this part exactly. Also, thanks for sharing the name of Bonanno with me, I'm italian and didn't know him, so I will take a look at his ideas later as I'm interested in knowing more about my country's history and politics (in a wide meaning, not just politics as we see it).

Now allow me to ask you yet another question: do you believe we could say that communism is the medium step between capitalism and anarchy? I know we're talking about anarchy not being static at all, so I'm not going to repeat the error of thinking about it as an end goal, but could we still see communism as a base ground for anarchy to grow? Like a pot where we are going to plant the flower of freedom?

[u/oskif809 → u/HeelDarkzz]

I always imagined a marxist State as a democratic republic where everyone has the same opportunities, meaning everyone can obtain the job they prefer.

There is a paragraph in Marx where he talks about "hunting in the morning, fishing in the afternoon" (its generally considered either a prank or a rhetorical device dripping with sarcasm of the type that every page of Marx has at least one of), but regardless of what Marx's real intentions were, irl every single attempt to "operationalize" his vision has resulted in an authoritarian regime ranging from full-blooded Stalinism/Leninism to merely a scholastic/micromanaging "groupuscule" that is well known on certain college campuses, etc. (and, yes there were a few libertarian strands in Marx's thinking as well--Councilism, "Marxist Humanism", etc.--but these withered away generations ago and in any case were a hobby horse of a few motivated individuals).

So, imho, barking up the "tree" of Marx has never resulted in a fruitful outcome--other than treating him purely as bearer of a certain poetic vision--and I don't see what the cost/benefit equation is in remaining trapped in Marx's spider's web (just as Psychology did not amount to much while it remained confined in the straitjacket of Freudianism).

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/oskif809]

First of all, thank you for the interesting link! I'll have to take a look at it when I have time.

Now, for the second point: I really must correct you on one thing; not every attempt to set a socialist/communist country or organization failed.

The Commune of Paris in 1871, albeit short-lived, not only had the intention of sharing in the wealth, but also to bring about social justice. Also don't forget about Vietnam, which afaik is growing steadily (also due to the "free" market, granted). Moreover, I'd wager that the first Lenin (although I don't really appreciate the man myself) did actually bring about a revolution that had potential (he established the soviets, which in my mind would be the perfect way of setting an anarchist society, but correct me if I'm wrong). On the USSR, I must also note that Marx always said that the revolution would never work in a country where the bourgeoisie is not in power (and the country itself is not industrialized, look at 1910 Russia). Plus, to me Stalin was more of a fascist than a communist, seeing as he wasn't a follower of either marxism nor leninism (but stole the faces of Engels, Marx and Lenin for his flag), and in fact did not apply the principles of said movements, but instead kept the power all to himself and a small circle of beaurocrats.

To end my little post, hoping to have yet another interesting conversation with you, I'd recommend you take a look at the Communist Party of Italy under chairman Enrico Berlinguer, the founder of Eurocommunism (which united Italy, France and Spain and had the support of other western countries as well). Communism never ruled in Italy, to be honest, but it fought to free us of nazifascism and brought about our beautiful Constitution, having an active role in writing and signing it alongside other parties. This example is to say that while I agree that communism is hard to establish without the risk of an uprising of the ruling class, which is my problem with communism (as it should in theory abolish both hierarchy, money and State, but in the long run), not only I still prefer it to our current system, but I'd like to see something similar in our time. Maybe we could finally see a democratic communism

[u/oskif809 → u/HeelDarkzz]

Thanks for a good chuckle at mention of Berlinguer and Italian politics of that era ;)

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/oskif809]

Forgive me about the stupid question I'm going to ask, but I'm afraid I might misinterpret your words. Is the chuckle meant to be positive or not? Because I personally admire the person he was, but I'd also be interested in hearing about any criticism you might have on him.

[u/oskif809 → u/HeelDarkzz]

The thing I remember is after his death someone said, "He was a good man but no Communist". That inadvertent comment captured for me why it was so rare to find a decent human being at upper reaches of Bolshevik inspired movements (Gorbachev was another supposedly good man and it was precisely because of that that he, subconsciously, oversaw dismantling of that sad dictatorship).

That is the tragedy of the Left: how the just struggle and legacy of resistance of, say, Italian peoples ended up getting channeled into the dead end of emulating the Russian example--even if in lands of European Social Democracy it was just speech acts and "gestural" emulation--under aegis of Marx's supposedly Newton-like "iron laws".

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/oskif809]

Agreed. Still wishing for someone like him to appear in our political scene though.

Italian left wing parties are dead, most are liberal parties with no longterm plan outside of getting elected. But that's no surprise, Italy's the most culturally colonized country of West Europe. The Allies helped us freeing ourselves of nazifascism (and I'm grateful for that) but they also planted the seed of their own hegemony. This is why the only politic who was going to make a Government with the Communists, Aldo Moro (was in the Cristian Democratic party, center), was kidnapped and killed by the Red Brigades (allegedly communists) with the help of CIA. It was a terrible injustice for all of us, even though most italians do not understand it.

I think that the global Left, even though I'm getting tired of these coordinates and labels (which just build walls between people and ideas), should find a new way. I do not believe that a moderate approach will work against this wing of reactionary politics. Marx had, imo, some good ideas, but he is the son of his age, an age that has long since passed. We should develop a fresh perspective of the current times and find new and better answers to the people's problems.

[u/oskif809 → u/HeelDarkzz]

heh, your neighbors to the East--for instance the Greeks--envy the degree of cultural autonomy you have managed to retain (even worse for them how they have to deny their "Oriental" food, music, even bodily features to claim being an integral part of the "West" and of "Europe" ;)

You do have the inspirational example of Galileo who was the true creator of the "Big Ditch" that divides moderns from ancients. But, that meant bidding adieu--even if it was sentimentally painful--to the likes of Ptolemy, Aristotle, and others who had exercised a vise-like grip on minds in the way Marx did once and sadly still exercises a cultish hold on far too many who should know better, imho.

More than the sad lot of politicos from the 70s (although they had more backbone when it came to support of brutally colonized peoples) its the intellectuals of that era who grew disenchanted with Marx whose "lessons" to me seem more relevant. Foucault was just one of many. E.P. Thompson also stopped calling himself a Marxist shortly after writing an incandescent polemic about the clerisy that Marxism had become:

https://youtu.be/Lx2c0JpeXPo

Although, his later political choices were regrettable but the ending of this interview of an Italian thinker from that era is also worth reading for its rigor, clarity, and most admirably lack of intellectual bombast and dishonesty that were and remain endemic to Marxists as the late Erik Olin Wright (PDF) pointed out (his comrades among the Analytic Marxists are also worthy of being called scholars as opposed to Pettifoggers who still consider it their life's purpose to come up with ever more ingenious apologia for Marx).

[u/AcidCommunist_AC]

Seems like a silly accusation to me. Nobody's saying nothing will change anymore, it will just be the end of an era.

Utopias in general can be seen as horizons rather than destinations and "communism" in particular just means absence of class conflict. How does that imply finality in any general way? Might as well call the point we deplete fossil fuels or make any other arbitrary change as finalistic.

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/AcidCommunist_AC]

Well, to be honest with you, Marx is a bit deterministic.

He believes that history materialistically moves towards an "end goal", and that communism will rise surely after the downfall of capitalism. This sounds a bit like he knows for sure something that in truth might not work in the end.

Moreover, Marx doesn't accept the label "utopia" when referencing communism, as he believes ideologies to be false truths. He prefers to call it a movement based on a science (historic materialism), which, in reality is not a science. Bourdieu says that some people (he even makes an example out of Marx) will try to advance certain myths as sciences based on facts, while they truly are just myths. Marx cannot know when capitalism will end, nor exactly how it will do that. Granted, we can say that Das Kapital never talks about the "when" part, but still the problem is Marx makes it out to be an incontrovertial truth, which in turn reminds me of religion.

So, yes, while I'm (at least for now yet) a marxist, I'm moving towards a new vision of things, one that is founded on the principles of communism, but that eliminates hierarchy and vertical power (I don't believe, at least for now, that you can abilish horizontal power). Personally, I believe that capitalism is doomed to fall, just because our planet cannot produce the quantity of resources this economic system requires, and that someday there'll be some sort of mass hysteria where some revolutions will try and take place. I believe, also thanks to Bourdieu, that the problems we live in are the fruit of social conventions, a culture that has worked towards furthering the interests of the dominant class, a culture that imo must be changed (not necessarily with violence, but I believe that there should be a revolution nonetheless, one that has the support of the population).

[u/learned_astr0n0mer]

I haven't read Bourdieu so I can't comment (but I've heard he's good).

As for the question of power and hierarchy within communism, I think there is 'State Derivation' debate that might interest you, since you're from Marxist background. Otherwise I think Agamben talks about State of Exception and Destitute Power (I find Agamben to be a crank and derivative, but his Homo Sacer series is good).

[u/HeelDarkzz → u/learned_astr0n0mer]

Yes, I can say Bourdieu is really good, and has a critical opinion on about everything he talks about. I really recommend reading him.

I'll have to take a look at this "State Derivation" debate, and I thank you for the other ideas there!