On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Andrew W. Austin wrote:
> My argument is in line with theories of the state. State-level societies
> are a very recent development in world history, arising as they did in
> complex agricultural society as a weapon of the ruling elite against the
> toiling masses. Gradually the state became part of empire. Then the
> development of the nation-state out of feudal anarchy. The state is always
> a weapon of a particular class or group to put down another class or
> group; if there were no social classes or groups there would be no need
> for a state, for the inequality of wealth and power that necessitates the
> state is absent. 90% of human existence has been in stateless societies
> (acephalous or anarchist-communist societies). These latter forms of
> social organization are clearly governments. They are just as obviously
> not states. Sort of like when we were in grammar school we learned that
Granted, states have been institutions which have supported inequatiable
social arrangements, however, that does not mean that it, the state, has
to be an institution of inequality. The state, as you noted, arose out
of need to coordinate the activities of a large agricultural society. It
also allowed for the development of specialization to become stratified
viz-a-viz different occupations within the society. My argument, is that
there is a need for some sort of coordinating institution which fulfills
the roles that the state currently occupies and at the same time does not
support inequality amongst it's citizenry. As I believe that humans are
capable of creating institutions of our own choosing this is a
possibility (and given what you have said in previous posts, I believe
you would concur with this sentiment).
Partly, why I am so insistent upon the need for a "state-like"
institution is for the fact that the state, in all it's varieties, has
conquered (eradicated) those small, isolated band level societies (the
anarchro's). It is my contention that in our present situation, one
cannot nostalgically view those previous anarcho-societies and argue for
our return. They were predicated upon a particular social and material
relationship to their enviroment. Today our enviroment includes more the
mark of humanity (e.g., medicine, dams, cars, etc.) and that has to be
taken into account of how we wish our society needs to develop (at this
point, discussion about whether or not certain or all of those "marks"
should continue isn't something that is germaine to this issue, the state
- good, bad or simply ugly; important though that debate may be).
There is a need to create some sort of state-like institution which
maintains the quality of life currently attained (though probably not in
it's commodified orientation) and that also is eqalitarian, but more
importantly is a defense, by it's very existence, the emergence
(re-emergence) of a heirarchial coercive state.
> Moreover, using "state" as a term including all possible governmental
> structures creates a self-sealing argument (ironic that when you accused
> me of setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy it was your argument that did
Point taken. I will try to use "social organization" or reasonable
facsimile for the more overarching term and the "state" in a more narrow
definitive manner.
kerry