Kerry: 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).
Karl: The political state, by its very nature, "is a product and
manifestation of the irreconcilability of class contradictions." It
is an expression and form of alienation. It is an expression of th e
fact that the social relations between the producers of wealth have
assumed a fetishised form. Social relations of production are
thereby mediated through "things". Consequently people cannot regul
ate their own affairs in a directly collective fashion .
Administration and regulation of social relations is thereby
mediated through a thing-like institution, the state.
You say that you believe that "humans are capable of creating
institutions of our own choosing". But the point is that under
capitalist civilisation people cannot make such choices since they
are not in control of their the social relations. You suggest that
the state is a "coordinating institution". But you miss what is
specific to the character of the state: Its existence as a
manifestation o f the reification of human relations. Clearly the
state has a co-ordinating character and shares this in common with
certain other social phenomena. But this is not the point. The point
is its specif icity: how it specifically differs from certain other
socio-historical phenomena. Capitalism is a system through which
human wealth is reproduced. It shares this feature in common with
other forms of production of wealth. However this would be to miss
the point. It is how the capitalist mode of production specifically
differs from a particular form of production that is of historic
significance. Marx and Hitler were human beings. However what is
significant is their specificity, not their commonality.
Yours etc.,
Karl Carlile