File spoon-archives/marxism2.archive/marxism2_1996/96-09-20.183, message 64


Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 00:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: the state



Well, perhaps I failed to learn British English at Cambridge. But I don'y
see how anything Mullen says contravenes my claims exceoy by assertion. I
have argued, first, that authoritative bodies will tend to have interest
opposed to the general population because it is easy for those in such
bodies to use their authority to exploit others: that's something anyone
intersted in institutional design that reflects popular control will have
to think about. Mullen says withoyt a shred of argument to support his
claim that the only basis for exploitation is in the system of production;
he thinks that once economic class is out of the way everyone will think
of nothing but the common interest. That's unrealistic. It's silly, in fact.

But there is more. Even supposing that we all choose to pursue the common
interest, whatever that may be and however it is is determined--and Mullen
offers no explanation of this idea--he does not dispute that we will all
have different ideas about what it is. He supposes that discussion of
these matters is just "fun." I suggest that it is likely to be divisive,
bitter, and antagonistic when sharply opposed notions of what the common
interest is and what means best fulfull it clash. Mullen and his lot, say,
think top priority is cleaning up the ecology. Schwartz and his lot think
that's unjust if many people are still living far below the level of
others. Tom and _his_ lot agree with Mullen about the goal but think that
Mullen's identifiaction of particular problems to target is based on bad
studies and his proposals about long term waste storage are idiotic. You
see what I mean, I hope.

As support for his proposition Mullen says that some "primitive" societies
have hierarchies without tending towards promoting the private interests of
these hierarchies at the public expense. Supposing taht to be true--he
gives no examples--it only goes to make the point I have insisted on, that
the kinds of problems I say require law, coercion, specialization,
hierarchy, and bureaucracy can be avoided only in a premodern simple and
highly organic society and cannot be avoided in a modern, developed, and
pluralistic one. 

--Justin 

On 13 Sep 1996, jc mullen wrote:

> All people with political opinions, almost without exception, claim to be
> 'realistic'. 
> Someone didn't understand my bizarre British English. States defend interests
> separate from those of the general population because of the system of
> production. I don't see why Justine et al consider it natural and absolute that
> people in positions where they have been delegated power will defend separate
> interests of their own. There are examples of primitive societies where this was
> not the case. Take away the reason for exploitation, the reason for separate
> material interests, and you take away this tendency to domination. The
> factionalism which is left is quite different : it is debate about how best to
> serve common interests, and that is fun.
> I ought to say that I find Justin's tone "sorry to rain onthe parade etc."
> pretty pathetic.
> 
> John Mullen. 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005