I love fundamentalist Marxists. First we get hair splitting about Marx's conception of the state--and yes, I know the expression about withering is Engels. But Marx said in the Manifesto that the first stages of the revolution would involve concentrastion of the means of production in the hands of the state, etc., and I don't think he;d changed his mind by the Gotha Program. Likewise, he was interested inthe coercive aspects of the state: see, e,g, his treatment of the Commune. He had a deeper view than Engels, seeing the state as an expression of alienation, etc. But the point is, he didn't understand the other things the state does, or didn't care about them. Lenin did--and anyone who knows me wuld laugh out loud at the idea that a liberal democrat like myself is of a "Leninist disposition." Right, Charles?
Then we get the article of faith that somehow communsim will bring the anarchist millenium,a s if anyone could take that on faith, or even with a lot of argument, after all we have been through. Bless you. That's why I don;t say I'm a Marxist. I'll leave the Old Time Religion to you.
jks
> >
> > There are a lot of assumptions packed into your brief reply. First, lets
> > talk about what "socialism" requires, not what "Marxism"
> > requires. Marxism
> > is a critical theory. Its tour of duty as an official ideology is,
> > thankfully, over, and it did none too successfully in that
> > capacity. We can
> > ask what Marx himself, or some Marxist or another, would have wanted,
>but
> > there is no definite answer to what "Marxism" demands. In fact, if you
>we
> > orthodox about it, Marxism is under a self-denying ordinance when
> > it comes
> > to talking about future social arrangements. So Marxism will tell
> > us, if we
> > ask whether the postcapitalist society will have taxes, We'll
> > see. Can't say
> > just now. Right, Lou?
>
>In order to answer that we need to be clear what Marx said. Your earlier
>statement that "Marx envisaged that in the higher phase of communism, the
>state would 'wither away,'" is false, though it is popular with people of a
>Leninist disposition. For Marx, communism was communism. He never said that
>its lower phase involved a state.
>
>A subtler distinction: Marx tended to have a bureaucratic conception of the
>state, whereas Engels argued for the class nature of the state. Thus it is
>incorrect to say that Marx was interested merely in the "coercive aspect of
>the state". Engels was interested in that aspect of the state, but Marx had
>a more thoroughgoing rejection of the state as "inhuman". But the end
>result
>is the same: for Marx and Engels the state is transcended in
>post-capitalist
>society.
>
>So, no: there will be no taxes, value or state in post-capitalist society.
>But there will be common ownership of the means of production, their
>democratic control, with production solely for use.
>
>--
>Lew
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com