Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 11:38:00 EST



>Date: 15 Sep 96 19:39:40 -0300
>From: Pablo Gilabert <pablo-AT-carrenet.com>
>To: marxism2-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
>Subject: Re: the state
>
>
>"Henry, Tony" says:
 >"T> Under communism there is no economic inequality and no ruling class,
 >"T> therefore there is no function for a coercive appartus.
>
>1. This argument pressuposes the thesis that "if there is a State, then 
there
>is class conflict".
>   This is something we would have to proove.
>   Perhaps Marx thought that this thesis was true. But: is this belief of
>Marx enough for determine its truth? Of course is not.
>
>2.   We may say that, because in communism will remain several types of
>conflicts that won't be class conflict, the political organisation of the
>course of this conflicts won't be a "state" (because of the thesis
>definition above). OK, but the debate goes on anyway, because the problem 
is
>not
>how do we call politics under communism, but how do we understand whatever
>it will be called.
>   The point of Justin and Kevin is important because it shows problems 
that
>weren't treated by Marx. Then, going to Marx in order to dissolve the
>problems is not to think autonomously, as Marx did himself.

Wait a minute... Marx's theory of the state is based on, firstly, the 
empirical evidence, namely, that all previous class societies had a 
state/coercive apparatus, and that pre-class societies did not, and 
secondly, on a scientific consistent theory which explained the empirical 
evidence.

The corollary to the theory is that communist socities will not require a 
state/coercive appartus. This will not be proven beyond doubt until we see 
it in reality. But this is no more or no less than any scientific theory. A 
theory holds only until empirical evidence arises that contradicts it and 
then the theory has to be rewritten.

However you present nothing.. no evidence and no theory. If you want to buy 
into the argument that debate->politics->conflict->coercion or if you want 
to present a different argument, then give us something that explains the 
exisiting empirical evidence. Then maybe we can have a fruitful debate (And 
that goes for Justin and his other supporters).

Tony Hartin


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