Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 09:06:31 GMT
Subject: Re: the state (fwd)



Pablo Gilabert writes:
> 
>  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.
> 

I meant the essence of a state is its ability to use armed force.
Every other feature of a state is secondary.

eg Law only works because the police and/or army will enforce it
if individuals disobey it.
eg State bureaucracies only exist because the state can extract
taxes from its citizens, ie they are forced to obey the law, ie
armed bodies of men can put them in the slammer if they don't 
pay. The ability of State bureaucracies to mobilise massive
economic resources  depends, in the final analysis, on their
monopoly of armed force.

So yes, the primary, most important feature of the British state
in Manchester is the Manchester police force.

>  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?.
> 

Well, like what ?

What sorts of arguments do you think may arise that will require the use of 
armed force to enforce the will of one lot of people on another lot ?

As I said before, there will doubtless be very important issues in a
socialist society where the will of the majority has to be imposed on 
the minority, if necessary by force.

But as this socialist society develops, the underlying causes of these
real, serious divisions will be overcome, and therefore there will be
increasingly less need for a workers state ie a mechanism to impose
the will of the majority onto the minority.

I think to argue that the state will not whither away, you have to put
forward material reasons why these underlying causes cannot be overcome.
Justin has done this - he believes that scarcity is inevitable if the
earth's resources are to be consumed in a renewable way. He also 
believes that hierarchy is necessary to manage complexity. The basis
of the marxist argument against him [ I think we ARE entitled to use
marxist in the strict sense of the word here - literally, an argument 
of Karl Marx] is that scarcity is not inevitable, and that hierarchy
is not, as matter of fact, necessary to manage complexity.

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------












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