Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 01:00:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: the state


On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Adam Rose wrote:

I suspect we are running in circles, so I think I will leave this
discussion after this round. First, can't we get past name-calling? Adam
calls me a "reformist with tendencies to Marxust phraseology." IN my good
a reformist is one of two things: (a) the old fashioned sort thinks it's
possible to get to socialism by normal electoral politics as usual because
of the natural tendency of the economy to socializr itself. I don't
believe that: I don't think the economy has any such tendency and I think
that whether or violence will be necessary in a transition to socialism--I
rather fear it will--in any case that extraordinary out-of-channels
politics, mass popular organizing and such is necessary, The bosses will
not let us just elect a socialist Congress or Parlaiment and take away
their wealth. 

(b) The other thing a reformist is, is the modern sort: someone who thinks
that capitalism is the best we can do and the job of the (social
democratic) left is to make it as bearable as possible. I don't believe
taht either. Adam and I cana rgue, as we have, about the merits of market
socialism, but we agree absolutely on the proposiation that capitalists
are not necesasry or desirable, that class divisions are to be abolished,
and taht the workers can run the economy and the government by themselves
without requiring anyone to exploit them. If that's not a revolutionary
goal, I don't know what is. 

By the way, Adam makes a nasty ad hominem in saying that my beliefs derive
>from some subconscious desire to preserve a special place of authority for
persons like me to boss the workers about, suggesting that I don't really
think the workers can run society by themselves. Speaking for myself, I
don't want to boss anyone about. I want to be, although it appears that
because of my political beliefs I cannot, a professor, and would be happy
devoting my days to teaching, writing, and raising my family. Nor do I
have any particular trust in the class of people who fired me (and won'[t
hire me) nor in my law school classmates, who are generally interested in
lucrative careers defending large corporationd against the people they've
victimized. Adam, you better learn who's on your side. 

 > 
> Well, Neil is right again.
> 
> Give me a genuine revolutionary with tendencies to ultra leftism,
> and a reformist with tendencies to Marxist phraseology, and I choose
> the revolutionary every time.
> 
[SNIP, quote from me]
> 
> This is a whole separate argument about the relationship between industry
> in itself, capitalist social relations, and the environment. I will simply
> state that I disagree; concerns over the environment do not imply that 
> there will be scarcity in a socialist society. My main argument here is
> that there is no absolute scarcity in capitalist society - it is capitalist
> social relations which creates the scarcity, and which ruin the environment.
> 
If abundace means that anyone can have anything she wants without making
to make hard choices about allocation of resources, then the only way to
avoid the conclusion that the immanent end of nonrenewable resources means
that is now unattainable is to cut back people's desires to a very low
level, so taht they will want very little. This is certainly inconsistent
with the strand in Marxism that socialism means not universal ascetism and
voluntary poverty but a proloferation of new desires and a high level of
wealth. Clearly, we need a different conception of wealth and diversity of
desires than a suburban life for everyone. It's not clear the earth can
sustain a suburban life for those who now have it. But if people want
more, and certainly those in poor countriesa re entiotled to more, and if
something like not merely enouugh to physically survive but a good life but
criteria we would recognize is a socialist goal, then abundance in the
sense defined is a pioe dream and we shoukd not even gesture vaguely at
its possibility. We should instead think about how to attain it under
inevtable conditions of scarcity.

> As socialism develops, both of these conflicts will be become less and less
> prevalent : the superiority of a socialist society will become more and more
> self evident to the small producers, the available resources over and above
> the bare minimum to satisfy human needs will become greater and greater,
> and there would be an ever decreasing gap between "third" and "first" worlds. 
> [ Besides, capitalism is already doing quite well with this last one : poverty
> in the US is fast catching up with third world poverty ].

Adam seems toi think the only reason for having a state is to smash the
potential power of small producer and to force the workers in rich
countries to accept sacrifices for the workers in the third world. (How
the latter is consistent with socialist democracy he does not explain.) He
does not reply to my arguments that even if we havea bundance and do not
have to allocate scarce resources, we will still have sharp divisions over
ends and means, as well as over conflicts of interest not based in class. 

Examples: Conflicts over ends will arise because people will differ over
whether, for instance, to arrange society so as to maximize free time or
to increase material wealth or to reflect some spiritual goals or to
enhance the realization of human potential or.... any of of the lots of
things people have thought was the human good. There is no a priori reason
whatsoever to believe that all of the important conceptions of the human
good that will survive in or develop under socialism or communism are
compatible. Nor is there any reason tro think that a single conceprion
will become dominant nor that it would be a good thing if it did.

Means: Even if we decided by an overwhelming majority to adopt a single
shared goal or a set of compatible goals, we would differ very sharply
about how to attain this goal or goals. No such goal has a single, obvious
way to reach it; nor are the variety of different ways likely to be either
all comptaible or equally successful. So if we choose to maximize free
time, do we do this by reducing the amount of material goods the
production of which takes time or by working very hard over a short period
to keep the level high; do we pursue the strategy of promoting automation
or retreat from an industrial sort of society or.....

Non-class based conflicts. In addition to the non-class based conflicts
about means and ends there will remain other based on, for instance,
geography: I mentioned that Northern California resents supplying water to
Souther California; wheat-growing areas may resent having to forgo free
time to supply more bread to urbanized areas; industrial araes ditto to
supply machinery for farms, and so forth. These problems do not depend on
the existence of capitalists but on regional specialization based on the
avalaibility of natural resources and appropriate conditions. Nor will
"abdundance" solve them: even if it is possible for the farms to produce
enough wheat and the factories enough machines for everyone to have
whatever he wants, people may prefer not to realize these possibilities if
they are costly in terms of time, or self-development, or spiritual
enhancement, or whatever they have agreed is the common good, if they
could agree on such a thing.

In view of the persistance of sharp conflicts of this sort, some mecahnism
must be in place to arrive at decisions that are reasonablt satisfactory
to most people in a society of equals, and some mechanism must be in place
to enforce the decisions agreed on.

In addition the need for specialization deriving from the need for
expertise on the one hand and from the facts about limited time and
interest in the problems of administering pland agreed upon on the other
require authoritatative bodies and enforcement mechanisms. I have expanded
on these points in other posts.

> 
> This is stupidity.

This is gratuitously insulting. It's not stupid. It may be wrong, but you
have not even started to shwo what is wrong with it. The appeal to the
idea below that workersa re capable of running society by themselves does
not begin to answer these concerns. I agree, workers can run society by
themselves. That does not mean that they can do everything that they might
like, or that the utopian fantasy sketched out too briefly by Marx and
Engels is within the reach of worker's self-rule. My point is just this:
any society that has a reasonable degree of complexity and wealth will
generate sharp conflicts just in virtue of that, and these conflixtrs will
require authoritative democratic means for their resolution. What's stupid
is hanging on to half-baked fantasies, even if concocted by great minds,
in the face of detailed and reasoned arguments about the groundlessness of
these fantasies.

 > 
> It betrays a deliberate misunderstanding of what a workers state is. 
> I think when it comes down to it, Justin does not believe workers are
> capable of running society for themselves. So he believes there will
> always be hierarchy - ie a role for people like himself. He cannot
> really believe that the working class as a whole will constitute the 
> state, insofar as there is one - so he thinks cops will be needed to
> police them. 

Sign me off this one.

With irritation,

Justin




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