On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote:
> 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
If you check the bottom of this post you will see that you did use the
term "stateless", so you can see wherein my presumption arose (p.s.
thanks for appending my reply, as I had forgotten the exact argument. I
have a terrible habit of a "leave and forget" when it comes to my posts.)
> 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.
I concur, their are alternatives, my only assertion was that there needed
to be some sort of state-like institution of which I provided a version I
thought was desirable. My argument was what I saw as the denial of the
need for an institution, which IMO is something that is necessary for any
society. I agree with you later assertion that what humanity hath made
humanity can destroy and create anew. :)
> 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.
Again if you read my reply, you will see that is exactly what I said.
You used the term class and state together in a compartive manner. I was
simply pointing out how the two were different in their theoritical
construction. I simply wanted to point out that whereas I thought
"class" could be eliminated, at least objectively (the Soviet Union being
an example), the state or similiar institution was necessary.
Also if you reread my reply you will see that I never said made any
assertion that class was the only means of stratification; on the
contrary my remarks were that it's objective conditions could be
eliminated I never commented upon the subject, nor did I make any
reference to stratification per se. Again I was responding to your
assertions, which did not say anything about stratification.
> 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.
Granted society is a social construction, however, whereas we may be
able to eliminate class as an objective condition or even other forms of
stratification, we will always need some sort of state-like institution.
To argue otherwise is to adopt an existentialist postion, IMO, it negates
that we are social beings, born and raised in a social environment. We
are created ourselves by the simply fact of being raised.
> 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.
I would agree, however, there needs to be discussion on how those
institutions would work on a global scale. The Spanish model would
probably be something of a confederation, whether or not this institution
is or could be called a "world state" is debatable (and IMO taxonomic or
semantic debates are of secondary importance.) The question in my mind
is how, given the situation that we find ourselves is how does one get
from here to there? How can humanity move away from capitalism,
regardless of where we end up? That seems to me to be the central
question that the left has wrestled with for the past 100 to 200 years
(or longer, depending on who on includes in the term "left".)
Anyways, I don't actually seeing us as on opposite sides of the fence on
this matter. I simply responded to a part of you arguement that
interested me.
kerry
> > 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
> >
>