Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: the state


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

I (Justin) argued that even under communism, there would have to
authoriative specialized bodies with the power, backed by coercion, to
make, implemenr, and enforce colective decisions.

> 
> 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.

Well, you _define_ communism as a society in which there are no conflicts
of interest and in which no group acts in its private interest. Even Marx
doesn't usually go that far: in the 1859 Preface he is careful to say that
while he regards bourgeois society as the last antagonistic form of
society, that nonetheless there will individual antagonisms under
communism. I think that properly understood he means there won't be class
antagonisms based on exploitation, arising from the social conditions of
life, as he puts it. But in any case I think that any authoritative body,
even if its members are not drawn from a distinct class or strata, will
have private particular interests opposed to the rest of society.
Moreover, systematic, non-class group conflicts are ineliminable. Even
with the best will, people will disagree about the proper ends and
priorities for society and the best means to implemnent them, and they
will tend to favor choices of both that benefit themselves and their
groups, defined regionally, ethnically, what-have-you--this need involve
no racist or nationalist assumptions of superiority. It's just that even
under communism we in the midwest will think taht what's good for the
midwest is good for society.

 You 
> obviously cannot envisage a situation in which humanity collectively 
> controls the earth's resources.

Sure I can. That situation, however, involves control through
authoritative bodies with private interest mediating conflicts of
inter4est that must arise in decisions about how to use them.

 Your whole approach smacks of a timeless 
> human tendency towards domination over other humans. Marxism by contrast is 
> based on a scientific materialist basis.

I make no such assumption, certainly about a timeless tendency towards
domination. But an assumption of a fairly mild sense of group and
individual self-interest is all I need. I think it would be insane to
attempt to construct a society that did not account for this tendency, and
moreover I don't see anything wrong with reasonable self-interest. If I am
not fot myself, as Hillel said, who will be? 

Now, back to the definitional point. You acn derfine communism as a
society where all self-interest is submerged in a completely unversalistic
sense of solidarity. In that acse I would it both undesirable,w ere it
possible, and impossible: I don't think people have that capability,a
lthough they can bea  lot more solidaristic than they are now. (Which, up
toa point, would be a good thing.) If taht's what you mean by communism,
I'm not a communist. What I mean by communism, though, is a society with
class divisions and exploitation. I don't care what you call it as long as
we are clear on what we mean.

I had said:

> >    3. The end of class conflicts is not the end of serious conflicts
> >about social priorities. (Examples ommitted.)

> 
> This is just crazy. You are obviously not a marxist,

Worse things have been said about me.

> or profess the weirdest 
> brand of it I have ever heard.

 This is a commin accusation.

 > 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.

We disgaree very deeply here. Class divisions are one important basius of
conflict. But they are not the only one. Indeed, even setting aside the
issue of non-class oppression (gender, race, etc.), there will still be
conflict that is not based on oppression. Do yoiu seriously imagine that
if we get rid of classes everyone will automatically agree on everything?
That there will be no disputes about whether to spend more of our time and
resources on, e.g., cleaning up the mess capitalism has made of the
ecology or on building up thirds world living standards? That even if we
agree that ecology is top priority that people of the best will will not
differ on the best ways to protect 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

Nationalism, taken as the assumption that one's own country is best and
deserves to rule others we may suppose to be surmountable. But do tell me,
please, how you will sell to workers in Detroit or San Antononio the idea
that they should vote themselves a lower standard of living so that people
in Guatemala or Burma should live better. Why won't they say: hey: we have
nothing against those folks, good comrades all. Like to visit them
someday. But we didn'tw in the revolution to live worse than we did before
so people of whom we know nothing can do better. Maybe we can sell this
idae to Detroit. But don't tell me that it won't be source of conflict.

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

No, individuals per say cannot make political decisions, unless they the
dictator. Political decisions by definition are collective decisions about
matters of public concern. Of course in a democracy each person makes up
her own mind and has an equal say in determining the outcome. But
individual preferences and judgments havce to be aggregated and
implemented, and this requires specializtion, hierarchy,a nd authority.
Moreover, like-minded individuals, especially those coming out of an
experience of collective revolutionary mobilization, will realize that the
best way to get their will made effective (i.e., madse into law) is to act
collectively. They will foirm political partiesa nd pressure groups to
change policy. Would you forbid this? If you did,who would enforce it?

Sorry to rain on the parade.

--Justin




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