File spoon-archives/marxism2.archive/marxism2_1996/96-09-20.183, message 18


From: "Hartin, Tony" <thartin-AT-vitgcdu1.telstra.com.au>
Subject: Re: the state
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 17:20:00 EST



>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
>    1. The end of exploitation does not mean the end of the need for
>administration, and Engel's slogan about the aministration of things and
>not of people is nonsense. Power over resources and their allocation,
>power to determine priorities, is power over people.
> [...]
>    b. Even assuming, per impossible, that resources are not scarce,
>the determination of priorities in their use and the need for their
>efficient (nonwasteful, rational) use means that these decisions must be
>arrived at by authoritative bodies and enforced effectively, by coercion
>if necessary.

This is a non-sequitur, unless you assume that power is wielded by a section 
of society in its own interests (and therefore opposed to the interests of 
the rest of society) which case you are not talking about communism. You 
obviously cannot envisage a situation in which humanity collectively 
controls the earth's resources. Your whole approach smacks of a timeless 
human tendency towards domination over other humans. Marxism by contrast is 
based on a scientific materialist basis.

>    3. The end of class conflicts is not the end of serious conflicts
>about social priorities. In the medium term, even a communist world would
>have to decide, for example, about how much of its resources to devote to
>the reconstruction of the formerly exploited South or ex-Third World at
>the expense (necessarily) of the advanced former capitalist countries--a
>politically difficult problem especially if there is democratic self-rule
>in the latter. In the long term, a communist world would have to decide
>about what proportion of its effort and resources should go into, e.g.,
>health versus education, and once that was decided, how to implement its
>decisions. Allk this would involve political conflict.

This is just crazy. You are obviously not a marxist, or profess the weirdest 
brand of it I have ever heard. The very basis of social conflict is the 
division of society into classes. Of course the end of class society means 
the end of social conflict. To think otherwise is to expect a building to 
remain standing if you remove the ground from beneath it.
Another basis of marxism is internationalism, i.e. communism is impossible 
without the removal of nationalism. Why would western workers withold 
resources to third world peasants and workers - looks like you are back to 
your human nature argument again

>    4. Political decisions and free association means political
>parties; effective administration and enforcement of these decisions means
>a coercive apparatus of some sort (cops, anyway); specialization
>(necessary for the development of expertise) requires hierarchy. Call
>these what you like, they are the functional equivalent of the state.

Err.. cannot an individual make a political decision?  Political parties are 
based on social classes. What do you think they are based on?

I've run out of time for this post (my work shift has just finished). And 
since I don't want to be overtime 1 second, and because I've run out of 
patience with this nonsense, I'll leave it at that...

Tony Hartin



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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005