Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 21:39:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: The state redux



Adam says that my conviction that a postcapitalist society will always
require a state and law is "the other wide of the coin" from my belief
that markets are probablyt necessary in an advanced industrial society. In
a sense this is right: both political democracy and markets are ways that
a self-governing workers' society might have, and I think will always
need, to arrive at mutually acceptably decisions about the allocation of
time and resources. Morever, I have not heard, here or elsewhere, agumenys
that we can do better without them. 

But in another sense they are logically independent. The belief about
political democracy is a lot more basic. Even if a nonmarket, planned
economy is possible, in fact, perhaps especially if it is possible, it
will still need institutional structures to arrive at decisions, to
chjoose among means and ends, and there's no substiture for fair and
democratic institutions--except unfair and undemocratic ones. No
institutions are not on the medu of choice.

Adam thinks I deny that workers can run society by themselves. Rubbish. I
am talking here about how they can run it themselves. I make only the
obvious points that to run it themselves they mustdecide on mays to make
decvisions and resolve disputes. The institutions they select to do these
things are the state. The rules that governm these institutions are the
law. That's all. If Adam thinks they can do without institutions and
rules, he has not explained how.

Why, he asks, do the imstutions require the police and why do the rules
requiure a law, an accepted monoplogy on the use of coercion by an
authorized body? First, to take force out of most dispute resolution, so
that people turn first to negotiation, arbitrarion, and law to resolve
disputres peacefully. Second, to back decisions stick when a minority of
people don't go along. As I remarked, it is podssible to have a society
that operates purely by social pressure, but such a society could not be
large, diverse, pluralistic, rich, or free. 

--Justin 

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Adam Rose wrote:

> 
> > 
> > I want to emphasize that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in my argument for the need
> > for a state presupposes or implies anything aboyt whether there will or
> > will not be markets in a postcapitalist world. In fact, if you loo9k at my
> > examples of nonclass conflicts, I carefully avoided any ones that turned
> > on the sort of disputes that arise in in a socialist or any other market
> > economy. I talked about the problems that planners would face.
> > 
> 
> It's two sides of the same coin, though, isn't it ?
> 
> You just don't believe that workers can run society.
> 
> So you resort to both the market AND hierarchical planners,
> both of which are set above society. Then you have to invent
> all sorts of mechanisms for keeping these two mechanisms in
> control.
> 
> > In addition, I do not deny that a fair distribution is possible. 
> 
> Yes you do. If you distribute resources according to the market,
> you are not distributing on the basis of need ie fairly, but
> on the basis of how much disposable income you have.
> 
> Of course you need "accepted procedures". Of course there will be
> a wide variey of more or less formal institutions to run things.
> Of course these institutions will have to be coordinated in some
> way or other.
> 
> But why do you need armed bodies of men ? What is their purpose ?
> 
> Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Rose
> SWP
> Manchester
> UK
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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