This doesn't really contradict Marx's theory of the state (at least as I understand it).
In Western Europe, the distinction between the feudal lords and the serfs largely arose out of conquest -- or out of the bankruptcy of free farmers in the later Roman Empire period. This established state-like relations. But the state as a distinct institution (which effectively monopolizes the use of force in a geographical area) arose at the same time as the capitalist class system. Under feudalism, the lords combined "economic" power with "political" power, acting both as economic boss and state; this power was also dispersed and overlapping. With the rise of absolutism, the state sector arose as a separate part of society, specializing in among other things the use of force to protect of the overall property system. The new ruling class that emerged -- the capitalists -- largely abstained from the use of force against the workers.
Before all this, the Roman state arose as a relatively democratic organization of Romans controlling the slaves and then the conquered territories.
>Popper seems to agree, but says regardless of the State's original
purpose, there is no reason it cannot be used otherwise today. He says that
the State can be used to mediate between the conflicting interests within a
society, instead of merely being a one-sided tool.<
Absolutely: the state mediates between competing interests -- factions within the capitalist class, organizations representing the working class, all sorts of other factions -- but _only_ within the context set by the overall protection of the property system that defines capitalism. If any of the factions actually threatens the system, it's stomped on.
Jim Baird writes: >... wouldn't Marx say that the "conflicting interests", just like Madison's "factions", are really another word for classes?<
No. The idea of factions fits with the general notion of there being special interests that conflict with the "general good" or "public interest." Madison proposed his view of the public interest, and saw factions as going against it. (His public interest, if I remember correctly, was that of the property- and slave-owning elite.)
The idea of factions involves disagreements amongst people with relative equality of power. Marx argued that there was a profound inequality of power in a class society like capitalism. Thus, he would deny the existence of a single public interest. Instead, he would see what is usually called the "public interest" as being a statement of the perceived collective interest of the capitalist class. He saw this as being in fundamental contradiction with the class interests of the working class, which he argued involved the overthrowing of the whole class system.
Classes are first and foremost positions in the society-wide social structure (working class, capitalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), which spawn all sorts of organizations which to different degrees reflect the collective interests of the classes. (Labor unions and workers' political parties can either act in a narrow special-interest way or in a broader class-conscious way.)
> Not that everyone would automatically agree on everything in a classless
society, but society in that state would take on more of the aspect of a
voluntary association, with no need for a central authority, elected or
otherwise.<
That's a bit too anarchistic for me. I think the classless society would involve the actual existence of the type of society that liberals often implicitly exists in our society. That is, there would be relative equality amongst the individuals who are getting together to make collective decisions. There would be a central authority, but it would be subordinated to society. That subordination is called democracy.
> I think this is the difference between anarchists like Chomsky and most
Marxists: both see the same ultimate goal - a classless society - they just
see different ways of getting there. Chomsky distrusts all authority, even
that wielded in the name of the proletariet.<
As a Marxist with a strong belief in socialism from below, I distrust all authority too. But anarchists often want to get rid of it altogether. Usually, as in the anarchist movement in Spain in the 1930s, that means that authority goes underground (with the FAI secretly guiding the CNT). That means we have a hidden authority which is held responsible to no-one. Instead of hiding authority, it should be made responsible to democratic sovereignty.
The other anarchist alternative for having no authority is chaos, with either nothing happening (as in John Sayles' marvelous play, THE ANARCHIST CONVENTION) or individuals going off and doing their own things, engaging in different activities, often in conflict with what others are doing.
(In an anarchist society, what are we to do if the workers' cooperative across the river decides to build nuclear power plants or weapons?)
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html