Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: the state (fwd)




---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 15 Sep 96 19:39:40 -0300
From: Pablo Gilabert <pablo-AT-carrenet.com>
To: marxism2-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: the state


"Henry, Tony" says:
 "T> Under communism there is no economic inequality and no ruling class,
 "T> therefore there is no function for a coercive appartus.

1. This argument pressuposes the thesis that "if there is a State, then there
is class conflict".
   This is something we would have to proove.
   Perhaps Marx thought that this thesis was true. But: is this belief of
Marx enough for determine its truth? Of course is not.

2.   We may say that, because in communism will remain several types of
conflicts that won't be class conflict, the political organisation of the
course of this conflicts won't be a "state" (because of the thesis
definition above). OK, but the debate goes on anyway, because the problem is
not
how do we call politics under communism, but how do we understand whatever
it will be called.
   The point of Justin and Kevin is important because it shows problems that
weren't treated by Marx. Then, going to Marx in order to dissolve the
problems is not to think autonomously, as Marx did himself.


3. Before anything else in this debate we have to answer the question: Is
class conflict the only conflict that causes the need of politics?.




                    Pablo Gilabert, Buenos Aires, Argentina.





 "T> Having said that though, there is no instantaneous change from capitalism
 "T> to
 "T> communism.



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


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

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

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

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

 "T> Tony Hartin


 "T>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

 "T> -!-
 "T>  - Origin:  (4:900/108.999)


       Salve!
                      Pablo
                      pablo-AT-carrenet.com
--
|Fidonet:  Pablo Gilabert 4:900/109.26
|Internet: pablo-AT-carrenet.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.





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