Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 13:18:40 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: Re: the state (fwd)


> 

Bo Daley writes:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Adam Rose wrote:
> 
> > > 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 ?
> 
> In asking this question you have effectively confirmed Pablo's point. We 
> can't possibly provide a single answer to _all_ the problems that could 
> arise in a socialist future, nor are we in a position to ask what kinds 
> of debates will be the 'fundamental' ones in a society without class 
> divisions along economic lines. We can only work to overcome the material 
> divisions between individuals as we understand them in the current 
> context - indeed we have a duty to do so. But to argue that an end to 
> oppression along economic lines will bring an end to serious 
> 'fundamental' conflicts is to demand the erasure of all forms of difference 
> between individuals (which is not impossible, just extremely dangerous). We 
> can't know in advance what the 'fundamental' questions will be for a 
> society we can only grasp in a necessarily vague way.
> 

Any future socialist society may well have huge internal runctions 
which will be in its terms "fundamental". But armed force will not
be necessary to solve them.

The reason I argue this is that I see the state in historical terms.
The state has a history. It did not exist before class society. It
grew up out of class society, and will disaappear with it. It is
an expression of the irreconcialability of class interests.

This is not only a statement of belief but also a statement about
history which you are free to disprove by historical argument if
you can.

When there is no surplus, there is no need for a state, because
there is nothing to fight for. When there is abundance, a society
genuinely based on "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs" , there is no point in fighting for something
you can get anyway without fighting.

The reason I asked : "like what ?" is that people usually argue that
a state will be necessary to stop crime, stop the oppression of 
women, etc etc. In other words, the argument that the state will remain
necessary comes from what is in my opinion an non marxist view of the
origins of womens oppression, crime, or whatever. More often than not this
view is linked to the view that some country like the USSR, Cuba, China,
etc etc is or was socialist.

To argue that a state will be necessary for some as yet completely unknown
reason seems to me to be arguing directly against the marxist understanding
of the state : that it is the expression of irreconcilable class antagonisms.
If you disagree with this marxist definition of the state, fine - give your
historical and political argument.

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


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

 


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