Re: Wagar's World

Sat, 27 Jul 1996 10:16:25 -0500 (CDT)
Andrew W. Austin (aaustin@mtsu.edu)

Kerry,

In the statement to which you respond below, I have not called for the
eradication of the state (although I believe a democratic social order
could exit without one). My disagreement was with Terry's categorical
imperative which asserted a false dilemma. You, Terry, and Wagar may
desire a democratic state institution through which the masses of the
world coordinate their activities, but this desire does not make such an
outcome the only possible alternative to authoritarian state structures.

As for class structure, not all systems of stratification are class
systems. Class systems are systems of stratification that are specific to
the capitalist productive mode, with one's class position being determined
by one's relationship to the productive means. A classless society is not
one in which stratification has been eliminated, rather it is one in which
the producer in society is not subordinated to an ownership class. Such a
system as capitalism is not a naturally occurring entity. It is a human
construction. As such, it can be changed by humans.

The point of my remarks is that humans can construct a classless and
stateless society. These social forms are not eternal, operating by some
mystical "laws of nature." No human society must live under the social
forms it has created for itself. The institutionalization of democracy
into a monolithic entity through which all peoples must coordinate their
activities is not inevitable or even desirable.

There are also differing conceptions of, and varying levels in
"democracy," which are not being discussed here. Wagar's understanding of
democracy is objectionable generally, and his is a conception to which I
would object if my posts were addressing this specifically (I have thus
far only attacked the notion of a centralized world state-government). I
personally believe mixed forms of direct/participatory and representative/
administrative democracy are superior political economic organizations
(one paradigm being the Yugoslav model in the early-1950s, another being
the Spanish model 1936-1939). But a world organized along these lines
would not necessitate a world state.

Andy

On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Kerry wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote:
>
> >
> > Terry Boswell's choice between a democratic world state and an
> > authoritarian world state is a false dilemma. Societies do not have to
> > have a state any more than they have to have social classes.
>
> I would disagree both with the comparison as well as your assertion.
> Classes are predicated upon a particular economic relationship which is
> unequal (the elimination of that unequal relationship eliminaates the
> objective basis for classes), however, there is and would be a need for
> coordinaating institution (state-like for the semantically challenged :))
> where people can practice their democracy.
>
> I would argue that the state, in some form or other, the institution is
> necessary for any group of people above the personal relationship of a
> band. One can argue about how such an institution would be constituted
> but it's need would exist. Any complex societal arrangment needs such
> an institution. Granted, the vast majority of said institutions have
> been authoritarian and supportive of the existing societal inequalities,
> however, that does not necessarily mean that there would not be a need
> for such an institution.
>
> IMO, to call for the eradication of the state is idealistic, though the
> demand that we need an institution which fills many of the functions of
> the state which is more democratic is appropriate. There is a need for
> some sort of institution that reflects the needs of that complex social
> arrangement we call society.
>
> Well that's my two cents.
> kerry
>