Subject: Re: the state
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 10:01:00 EST



>Kevin Cabral writes:
>
>    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.

Hey, "discussion and debate" I don't have a problem with. But Justin argued 
that this means "authoritative bodies" and "a coercive apparatus of some 
sort". This, I maintain, is a leap of logic. You can only assume that if 
humans always have to resolve differences by coercion then there must be an 
innate tendency towards conflict in humans, i.e. an unchangeable human 
nature. This is idealism

Coercive apparatus' in all previous class societies have existed to maintain 
economic inequality and political power in the hands of the ruling class. 
Under communism there is no economic inequality and no ruling class, 
therefore there is no function for a coercive appartus.

Having said that though, there is no instantaneous change from capitalism to 
communism. History shows that for a period a workers state must exist - and 
a coercive appartus to prevent the dispossed bourgeoisie colluding to grab 
back society's wealth. But after a period both classes melt away and the 
need for the state "withers". This has not been witnessed before because no 
workers state has yet made it to communism. And the reasons for this are 
again material.


>    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?

You are describing things that would happen under the transitory stage to 
communism. One of the first things that will happen is expropriation of the 
banks. Naturally all debts will be cancelled. The only group likely to stand 
in the way of redistributing wealth are the ex-bourgeoisie. If there is 
coercion to be used here I for one would happily not just argue for it but 
particpate in it with delight.

"choices often involve factionalism" and therefore coercion? You give 
yourself away again. You can only see the future communist society with the 
blinkers of capitalist society.

I'm sorry I don't know what a "Madisonian" is.

Tony Hartin


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