id <01I7QBQMRZSWA3CTFK@Meena.CC.URegina.CA>; Wed,
31 Jul 1996 17:34:56 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:34:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Kerry <macdonak@Meena.CC.URegina.CA>
Subject: Re: Wagar's World
In-reply-to: <Pine.HPP.3.91.960730012013.27655A-100000@frank.mtsu.edu>
To: "Andrew W. Austin" <aaustin@mtsu.edu>
On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote:
> When you use the term "state-like," I would use the term "government." I
> do not view stateless societies as governmentless societies. As you noted,
> and here we agree, I do believe there needs to be a governmental structure
> (obviously from my arguments, this structure would be decentralized,
> loosely federated, based on an amalgamation of socialist democracy and
> anarchosyndicalism).
Ah, our terminology has led us to this :)
I would use "state" as the form or style of the way that people organize
the way that they govern themselves, applying the necessary adjective
where there are fundamentally different strutures (e.g. the feudal state
or the nation state); and, use government as the variations upon that
style (e.g. democratic government).
Though when I use the term "state-like" I'm opening the possibilites on
how humans can organize themselves; in a way that would fulfill the roles
that the state currently occupies but or such a radical different
configuration that one could not call it a state (using my terminology).
> I just feel the state model (in all its variable
> forms) is a coercive social institution that we can do with out. The
> dilemma posited earlier--how does one square a centralized world state
> coercing a multitude of cultures under one authority with social
> democracy?--gets to the crux of the matter. I don't see how that is
> possible (not unless the concept of "democracy" is mangled).
I presume that in this case you are using "state" to refer to the nation
state that is characteristic of capitalism. Given that you have narrowly
defined "state", there is no way to disagree as you have set it up to be
a self-fullfilling prophecy ("state" has, for you, only a coercive
authoritarian definition).
I think you narrow use of "state" limits debate and may cause some
confusion (as it did for me). I think you may wish to consider aligning
your terminology more with existing theories on the state. It would
limit some confusion. It's up to you.
kerry
p.s.
Read that you were leaving us for a spell. I'll miss the debate. I was
getting us to the discussion.