Henry writes: >I agree that for the US, where the prospect of a socialist system replacing capitalism is practically nil in the forseeable future, labor unism by and large have a progressive role to play.< it's a good sign when someone is willing to change his mind about such important issues. So maybe what seemed like a fruitless debate did have some good effects. >I am not all together with you in your attitude of the state in a scoialist country. The Chinese government has been and is far from being perfect and have made and is continuing to make many errors even within its own terms. The state is an abstraction, just like the people is an abstraction of individuals. Conceptually, I do not see a distinction between the sate and the people in a socialist nation. < Ignoring the question of what -- or who -- defines a "socialist" state, let's examine the issue of the state. According to the Marxian definition of the "state," which follows from Marx, summarizes much of Lenin's STATE AND REVOLUTION, and was adopted by the liberal sociologist Max Weber, the state is a semi-autonomous organization of people that successfully monopolizes the use of force within a given geographical area.That does not say that _only_ the state has weapons. Rather it says that any control of weapons by the people is licensed and allowed by the state. Note that such monopolization of force is _needed_ (in the Marxian view, but not Weber's) in order protect the system of class inequality and exploitation. Complete monopolization is rare, but states in class societies tend in that direction in order to preserve the class system. If there is "conceptually" no distinction between the state and the people in China (to choose one "socialist" nation at random), so that "conceptually" the state has withered away, then that definition says either: (1) arms are available to all people in China, if they follow basic laws of safety and the like. People who want to go hunting or to do target practice can simply get a license and then go down to the store to buy a gun. They can form gun clubs and militias. This is a weak form of nonmonopolization, one that exists in a class society like the US, where the legitimacy of the state is generally accepted (because the US is a very rich country, partly because it benefited from conquest, looting, and international transfers of value). (2) _no-one_, including the government, has or uses weapons (or uses non-weapon-based forms of force). The state never uses armed force to suppress strikes and independent political parties. Monopolization can't exist if force isn't used. (3) there are competing armed organizations within the same geographical area, as with "warlordism" during the 1930s in China. Here, there is no monopolization in the geographical area. or (4) the people have complete and utter democratic control over the state, so that if the Prime Minister, the chair of the Communist Party, or any other top functionary can be quickly ousted from power if their government uses force in a way that goes against the will of the people. In this case, the state lacks autonomy and "withers away" as Marx would have it. There are no classes and no exploitation. Force is only used to defend the country against foreign enemies. the question is: which of these does China fit? or is there a fifth alternative? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
