Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: the state


On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Hartin, Tony wrote:

> >    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

	Justin simply argues that a communist society may have eliminated
class conflicts, such as the contradiction between the interests of the
capitalist and worker, but it will NOT eliminate the need for the
discussion, and debate. And it will certainly not eliminate factionalism
of all types. He argues that, for example, a democratically planned society 
will have to come up with a way to decide how to allocate scarce
resources. This will have to be accomplished by some form of factionalism,
as competing groups may come up with economic plans that are all valid,
but allocate resources fundamentally in different directions: ex. towards
payment and education of teachers, over payment and education of
engineers. Or for the building of a new roadway over the building of a new
football stadium. 

	In his example, workers in the first-world would have to decide
how to rebuild the Third World, or assist it in developing itself. Some
workers may want to set aside 10% of the yearly GDP as surplus value to be
sent to various countries for use in development plans. While others may
favor a figure higher, or lower than that; or perhaps a simple
cancellation of debt. These are all choices, and choices often involve
factionalism. Does it make one a Madisonian to see that? 

Kevin
Cols, Oh





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