> > 2. Pre-capitalist empires' expansion was, it seems to me, primarily
>> motivated by the desire to extract tributes _politically_ & to dump
>> excess population on newly conquered land (which was an essential
>> concern in a predominantly agricultural system of production).
>
>It was also motivated by the desire to gain slaves and seize others people's
>rescources. There were religious motivations, too.
The Crusades are a good example of religious & economic motives at work together (Christianity + control of trade routes). As for the desire to gain slaves, however, it's not as simple as it may seem. For instance, Sparta's system of production was nearly completely based upon _slave production_, with resident aliens serving as traders, whereas in Athens it was _free peasant-citizens_ who were the main direct producers, with slaves filling interstitial roles (see Ellen Wood, _Peasant-Citizen and Slave: The Foundations of Athenian Democracy_, London: Verso, 1988). Thucydides, in _The Peloponnesian War_, suggests that Athens, if anything, was more imperialist than Sparta: "I believe...the truest explanation for the war is that Sparta was forced into it because of her apprehensions over the growing power of Athens" (Thucydides, _The Peloponnesian War_, trans. Walter Blanco, NY: W.W. Norton, 1998, pp. 11-12). He further claims that between the Persian War and the Peloponnesian War, "The Spartans led their allies without making them pay tribute. Instead, they set up puppet oligarchies so that states would be governed in Sparta's interests. Over time, the Athenians had taken over the navies of their allies...and required all of them to pay tribute" (p. 10). One must, of course, discount Thucydides' explanation because of his aristocratic antipathies toward Athenian democracy. Nevertheless, I think it is safe to say that _uncontrollable_ imperial expansion for the sole purpose of capturing slaves _for profits_ is a modern capitalist invention.
> > If the ruling class and its non-ruling class supporters peacefully
>> accept the transition to socialism, & if everyone, uncompelled by
>> state power, immediately begins to observe rules of peaceful social
>> intercourse according to communist principles, the state is
>> practically unnecessary. That, however, has not & will not happen.
>
>It is not necessary for the ruling class to accept the transition to
>socialism for it to be done peacefully. It is only necessary for it's
>violent agents, police, soldiers, etc., to accept it. One percent of the
>population cannot enslave 99 percent of the population without getting part
>of that 99 percent to come on it's side.
Cops, soldiers, etc. are part of "non-ruling class supporters" of the ruling class I mentioned above. In addition, the ruling class exercise control by buying the means of ideological production. Furthermore, the ruling class, governing elite, & their intellectuals excel in the game of "divide & rule." It is likely too optimistic to expect all segments of the masses to stand on the side of revolutionaries. The ruling class may successfully enlist this or that race, nation, ethnicity, etc. on their side. More Albanians joined Fascists than Communist Partisans. A good number of Miskito Indians felt oppressed by the Sandinistas, and some of them joined the Contras instead. Examples are endless. Not all peasants & proletarians will be in favor of the abolition of capitalism _even_ in the midst of revolutionary ferment. And I haven't even begun to discuss the likely disagreements _among_ revolutionaries -- which _can_, alas, also turn into violent disagreements, as history shows -- as to when & how to abolish capitalism, defend revolution, etc.
>The workers can seize control of
>the means of production and reorganize society along libertarian communist
>lines without coercing anyone or resorting to a state.
If cops, soldiers, citizen-militias organized by the ruling class & governing elite (aka death squads -- familiar figures in the Third World), etc. -- foreigners as well as your countrymen -- _immediately en masse_ lay down their guns upon hearing appeals of fellow workers, yes. It, however, hasn't & won't happen. Only some of them will at the beginning (if we are lucky, that is).
>The state's coercive
>agents may attempt to prevent this by force and, if they cannot be convinced
>to stop, the workers are justified in using violence to defend themselves.
>Not all violence, however, is state violence. One can arm the population
>and defeat the capitalist's armies without resorting to a state.
Read Lenin's _The State and Revolution_, and you'll see that a collective of armed workers is basically what he means by the term "state" in the process of transition to socialism. For instance, Lenin says: "We, the workers, shall organize large-scale production on the basis of what capitalism has already created, relying on our own experience as workers, establishing strict, iron discipline backed up by the state power of the armed workers" (at <http://csf.colorado.edu/mirrors/marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/staterev/ch03.htm>).
Yoshie