Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 01:36:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: The state redux



Far from it being a corollary of the theory that the state in all
previously existing class societies is based on class conflict that
communist societies, lacking class conflict, will not require a state, it's
a nonsequiter. (Actually you state the first premise in terms of a mere
correlation, which is much weaker.) To take this argument minimally
plausible, you need the much stronger claim that the state is based solely
on class conflict and has no other function than to regulate that
conflict. That's manifestly false however. I have given many detailed
examples of how coordination in a complex societies will generate grave
nonclass conflicts and how enforceable, ultimately coercive decionmaking
and dispute resilution procedures are necessary or at lkeast far
preferable to any alternatives. No one has really answered these arguments
except to dispute a few of the examples, not central ones, or to assert
that magical abundance will mean that communism is the land of Cockcaigne,
where roast meat drops from trees into our mouths. --Justin

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Hartin, Tony wrote:

> 
> 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 ---





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