Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 21:25:56 +1000
Subject: Re: the state and violence


Steve/All,

1) I don't know.  If nations of the world stopped all arms sales and reduced
inventories of all weapons not just nukes, that would be a constructive
step.

2) The wealthy people who own the transnationals need the nation-states to
do
their dirty work just as those who own each nation-state need presidents,
ministers, legislators, to facilitate transfer of the wealth of their
nation's
workers to its owners.

3) Nation-states, with or without the window-dressing of the U.N., are a
sort of Fight Club who sponsor sacrificial death as a sacred duty, and are
privileged to wreak violence on others (including collateral killing of
non-combattants) by declaring, or informally waging, war.  War legitimizes
murder.

Today, on TV, Secy. Powell described, how he asked Arafat to STOP the
violence, but left Israel's decision up to Sharon, its duly elected leader.

A fair reckoning of comparative violence of the two parties should be based
on cumulative deaths and injuries, cumulative value of properties destroyed
by Palestinians and by Israelis since the attempt at peaceful settlement was
abandoned.

Is bulldozing houses an act of terroristic violence?  Do the perpetrators
wear soldier's uniforms?

4) Other ironies:  Well-meaning nations can inadvertently harbor terrorists,
as USA, Germany, Spain.  The cold-war superpowers produced more bio-chemical
weapons than other countries, and continued production despite a treaty to
stop.  And now, studies of such weapons must be expanded and intensified to
get better knowledge of  the best means of defense against probable
terrorist attacks.

regards,
Hugh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`


----- Original Message -----
From: steve.devos <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 1:47 AM
Subject: the state and violence


> All
>
> When I was very young we essentially believed that its was time for the
> state to be held accountable for the violence it committed and
> contained. At some point we accepted that the issue was not simply the
> state, but the socio-economic system as a whole, but not withstanding
> this it was not possible or sensible to retreat from the former position.
>
> Even allowing for the idea that the state was being superceded, in some
> circumstances by transnational and multinational corporations, an idea
> which attempts to ignore the reality of the socio-economic system, in
> which the state is but one extremely important and inevitable pole. For
> example in our capital/techno-scientific society the state in either its
> nation-state or the empire form is essential.
>
> Given our states behaviours over the past 50 years how should we respond?
>
> regards
>
> sdv
>
>
>