Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 12:08:41 -0800
From: Juan Fajardo <fajardos-AT-ix.netcom.com>
Subject: M-G: Re: Marten's "COMMENT ON JUAN F.'S REPLY..." to "Communism vs. Socialism"


Date: 
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: 

Re: Communism vs. Socialism
[Posted: 10.01.98]

In his reply "Re: Communism vs. Socialism" of Sat, 10 Jan 1998 23:01:12
+0100 (MET), to Sheila Walters' post "Communism vs Socialism" in
Marxism-General-Digest of Friday, January 9 1998 (Volume 01 : Number
581), Rolf Martens makes reference to my reply to Walters' post which
appeared in Marxism-General-Digest Number 582 of Friday, January 9
1998.  In his post he includes a "COMMENT ON JUAN F.'S REPLY ON "YOUR"
SUBJECT" which includes the following passages:

>"Juan Fajardo[and] I already have another discussion, on
>Mari=E1tegui and the Inca Empire, and what he commented on my rep-
>ly to you under 'Re: Walters' "Communism vs. Socialism"' touches
>on one of our matters of dispute there too, the question of
>whether a *dictatorship* (over people) and an *administration*
>(of some things) are more or less the same thing or not. He
>says, if I understand him correctly, that they are! I absolutely
>disagree.
>
>"One thing I wrote to you on "Communism" etc, Juan disagrees with:
>    '(Rolf M.:)
>    Your mentioning a "communist government" shows that you don't
>    know what Marxists mean by "communism", for instance.'
>
>"He [...] holds instead that there *can* be a "communist government":
>    '(Juan F:.)
>    In this instance Mr. Martens seems to be equating "government"=20 
>    with "state."  Under communism the state will have disappeared
>    of course, but not so government.'

After thus restating my position thusly Mr. Martens conuters that,

>"[...] Government *is* the rule by some people over some
>others, as distinct from, say administration (of things - for
>instance, that effected today by the post office system concer-
>ning letters etc).
>
>"[...] "Government" precisely *has* to do with *state*. The post of-
>fice system, for instance, is not a "government" over the sen-
>ding of letters etc. In the ancient societies before the rise
>of the state, which had a collective system of ownership often
>referred to as "primitive communism", there was nothing which
>you in any way could call a "government". In the future, advan-
>ced stage of society which Marxists foresee and fight for and
>call "communism", there will not be any government either. There
>will be various forms of what may rightly be called "administra-
>tions", but that's *another* thing.
>
>"[...] Communist administration, yes - in the sense that everybody in
>one way or another will be engaged in "running" things, seeing
>to it that production, distribution etc is organized. Communist
>"government" - no, this there will not be."



To begin with let me state that Mr. Martens did not understand me
correctly, as I did not intend to imply that administration over things
is the same over dictatorship over people. (For more on *that*
discussion, please see Rolf Martens' and my exchange which followed my
post "Mariategui and the Inca Empire".) 

As for there being an "administration" or a "government" under
communism, I think that we meant the same thing by the two different
terms in our respective replies to Sheila Walters' post "Communism vs
Socialism."  

As for "government" and "administration" needing to be differentiated as
meaning two very different things, point taken.  I had not previously
encountered a discussion of government itself -as opposed to different
types of government- being a specifically state- and therefore
class-based form, and being a specifically dictatorial institution.  It
seems to my statement that we have no experience of government that is
not class-government, should be added that no one ever will have it! 
Perhaps Mr Martens, and anyone else, of course, could supply some
references on this issue. I would be most interested.

- Juan F.


     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---