Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 16:10:15 GMT From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com> Subject: Re: The state redux > > I want to emphasize that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in my argument for the need > for a state presupposes or implies anything aboyt whether there will or > will not be markets in a postcapitalist world. In fact, if you loo9k at my > examples of nonclass conflicts, I carefully avoided any ones that turned > on the sort of disputes that arise in in a socialist or any other market > economy. I talked about the problems that planners would face. > It's two sides of the same coin, though, isn't it ? You just don't believe that workers can run society. So you resort to both the market AND hierarchical planners, both of which are set above society. Then you have to invent all sorts of mechanisms for keeping these two mechanisms in control. > In addition, I do not deny that a fair distribution is possible. Yes you do. If you distribute resources according to the market, you are not distributing on the basis of need ie fairly, but on the basis of how much disposable income you have. Of course you need "accepted procedures". Of course there will be a wide variey of more or less formal institutions to run things. Of course these institutions will have to be coordinated in some way or other. But why do you need armed bodies of men ? What is their purpose ? Adam. Adam Rose SWP Manchester UK --------------------------------------------------------------- --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005