Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 09:58:55 GMT
Subject: Re: The state redux



The state ie armed bodies of men, is necessary to extract
a surplus from a working class and keep it in the hands 
of a ruling class.

Any other features of any particular state in any particular
society ( law, religion, weights + measures, a role in production,
waging war, etc etc ) stem from this fundamental feature. 

Before there was a surplus, there was no need for a state.
When there is fairly distributed abundance, there is again
no need for a state. There is nothing for a state ie armed
bodies of men, to do.

Justin is at least consistent. He argues that there can never
be fairly distributed abundance, and therefore we will always
need a state. He argues this from two points of view : i) there
can never be ecologically sustainable abundance; ii) we cannot
distribute if fairly, therefore we need a market. Naturally,
I disagree with both of these arguments.

But what concerns me is that other people, who do seem to believe
that there can be fairly distributed abundance, also believe that
armed bodies of men will still be necessary.

And I again I ask these other people :
Why ? For what purpose ? And how do you propose we rewrite the marxist
theory of the state to take these other causes of the existence of armed
bodies of men into account ?

Adam.










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