Date: 17 Sep 96 02:19:31 -0300
Subject: Re: the state (fwd)



 Adam says:

 AR> "The state" == "armed bodies of men".

If '=='means an introductor of a definition, then your definition implies
that the departament of police of Manchester is the State of Manchester. But
that's counterintuitive for us. Then: we should say that organised violence
is a necessary condition for State, but not sufficient.


 AR> A state is only necessary when only armed force can resolve
 AR> conflicts.

 AR> The argument is not that differences cease to exist in a fully
 AR> communist society. It is that these differences are not of a
 AR> fundamental nature, and that therefore there will be no need for
 AR> armed force to resolve them.

It is clear that A fundamental cause of violence will cease under communist
society (namely: class division and class struggle). But, on the basis of
what we can say that won't be OTHER causes apparently not fundamental now,
but may be 'fundamental' later?.

 AR> The conflicts will not be over important issues like "do we
 AR> execute the leaders of the counter revolution we have just
 AR> captured ?" , "shall we allocate resources to the first
 AR> world or the first world" or "how do we deal with rapists ?".
 AR> These questions can only arise in the immediately post revolutionary
 AR> period, variously described as "socialism", the "lower stage of
 AR> socialism", the "dictatorship of the proletariat", etc etc.
 AR> In this stage of society, the majority will dictate to the minority,
 AR> ( for the first time ever in history ) if neccessary by using armed
 AR> force.

 AR> The conflicts in a fully communist society will be over issues as
 AR> important as "shall we paint our new community brain surgery blue
 AR> with white spots or pink with grey stripes ?". And how future generations
 AR> resolve such questions is up to them - and there is not much point us
 AR> speculating about it.

I think that we have to speculate a little, because transitions are very
dramatic historical momments where much people use to dye. We have to discuss
about how to organise our future autonomous power, in order to avoid
burocrats to arrogate our right to it on the basis of some "practical"
problem we have never discussed a little before in advance. This would not be a
return to
authoritarian plans like uthopian socialists'. It is simply an exercise of
political imagination, which is one of the conditions of revolutionary
politics and a condition of its victory.



Pablo Gilabert, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
--
|Fidonet:  Pablo Gilabert 4:900/109.26
|Internet: pablo-AT-carrenet.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.






     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---