well, gene, i do refer to everyone from james madison to benito mussolini as a 'statist,' and to myself as an 'anti-statist.' this does not of course entail that madison and mussolini agree on everything, but it does pick out the fact that they agree on one big thing. (of course for another purpose or at another moment, i use words like 'republican' or 'fascist' and distinguish the positions carefully.) one reason i think the usage is worthwhile is because the political state seems inevitable to most people at this point in human history, and the entire political spectrum is conceived as ranging from left to right as varieties of ideas about how to fund and arrange the government. one might be concerned for certain purposes with what these positions have in common, as well as about what they don't. it's important to keep suggesting that there are problems with the state in general, to try to make people see that there could be things outside or after it. 

i wonder what he thinks about lumping jews, christians, muslims, and hindus together as 'theists,' while sketching out a position that doesn't believe there is a god or any gods as 'atheism.' if that was your only taxonomy of religion, or if you just flatly denied that there were any differences between jews and hindus, that would be unfortunate. for other purposes it might be important to distinguish your own position from all of these together, or point to what they have in common.

thanks, adam!

Comments

[stillnotking]

A statist is anyone who advocates the state as a mode of political organization. It is a simple taxonomic description, with a wide range of possible positions within it. Yes, Madison and Mussolini were both statists. Goldman and Bakunin were not.

Mises & the Austrians corrupted the term to fit their own narrow arguments; it became a fashionable way to insult someone, semantically accusing them of excessive love for the state, or of advocating state interference in some particular area, such as trade. Modern libertarians have inherited that usage. (Almost all libertarians are statists, in the correct sense of the word.) So, while he's right that the term is often used incorrectly, he's wrong about who is making the error.

"Statist" is also sometimes used in an analytical sense, to refer to a view of history that emphasizes the importance of states in political and social change, but I assume that isn't what he meant.