Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: the state (fwd)



Adam, 

There are other kinds of fundamental and divisive questions taht will
arise in any advanced industrial society with a diverse population: you
cannot segregate the issues into "class" and "trivial." You have refused
my invitation to inquire into several sorts of these basic issues, which
include questions about fundamental values and how to allocate goods among
people on their basis, as well as about the different means ti achieve
any ends on which we agree. 

I think it disserves our movement to posit as an end point a glorius
utopia, a radiant future, in which all conflict is dissolved in happt
harmony. Such an ideal may serve a religious function in keeoing the
faithful going, but it is not a scientific approach. It also diminishes
our credibility among working people who in my experience _always_ ask,
when they listen at all to socialist propaganda, what have yyou got that's
better. Your own answer to this question is: the radiant future, and don;t
ask me to explain how it's possible. All will be well after the abolition
of class. I myself agree that in some forms of abolition of class, all
will be better. But at this time of all times we will not get even taht
far unless working people have some rationally grounded confidence that
this is so. Ours is not to dictate to them from a superior position, which
we cannot do in any event. The only tools we have are the powers of
persuasion. By all means, then, let's use them and stop pointing to Der
Heilige Schfrift.

--Justin

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Adam Rose wrote:

> 
> In reply to Pablo Gilabert
> ( forwarded from Spoons at 15 Sep 96 19:39:40 -0300 ) :
> 
> "The state" == "armed bodies of men".
> 
> A state is only necessary when only armed force can resolve
> conflicts.
> 
> The argument is not that differences cease to exist in a fully
> communist society. It is that these differences are not of a
> fundamental nature, and that therefore there will be no need for
> armed force to resolve them.
> 
> The conflicts will not be over important issues like "do we 
> execute the leaders of the counter revolution we have just 
> captured ?" , "shall we allocate resources to the first
> world or the first world" or "how do we deal with rapists ?".
> These questions can only arise in the immediately post revolutionary
> period, variously described as "socialism", the "lower stage of
> socialism", the "dictatorship of the proletariat", etc etc.
> In this stage of society, the majority will dictate to the minority,
> ( for the first time ever in history ) if neccessary by using armed
> force.
> 
> The conflicts in a fully communist society will be over issues as
> important as "shall we paint our new community brain surgery blue
> with white spots or pink with grey stripes ?". And how future generations
> resolve such questions is up to them - and there is not much point us
> speculating about it.
> 
> Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Rose
> SWP
> Manchester
> UK
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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