>>It's been a serious question in nations such as Afghanistan, where
>>all men seem to be well armed and modern states have failed to
>>develop. It may become a serious question for all of us, in the
>>age of asymmetrical conflict (recall how far determined men could
>>go with box cutters). Setting aside such extreme cases, given the
>>fragile politico-economic conditions, many nations have been
>>plunged into or come to the brink of civil war. It seems monopoly
>>of violence is not easy to achieve.
>
>Yeah, well in those conditions socialism isn't on the agenda either.
True, but in the process of transition between different modes of production (or even just different regimes of power), isn't there always a period of social upheaval, a contest between different social forces as to who can monopolize legitimate use of violence, even if the contest doesn't quite resemble Afghanistan? The winning side then disarm the losing side, as they always have. What of arms possessed by the winning side, though, all or the majority of whom may be armed?
>>What causes such interpersonal violence, then, if not exploitation
>>and oppressions? Disorders in brain chemicals?
>
>Dunno. But you can't count on it disappearing, just being reduced.
>As I say, violence isn't the main concern of a civilized state.
Even if it doesn't disappear totally, just greatly reduced, maybe people will be able to invent different ways of dealing with it than we have now. Human beings had gotten along without the police, the prison, etc. for a long time even under class society; under classless society, shouldn't they be able to do better?
>>As for the enforcement of court orders, don't weight of customs,
>>fear of social ostracism, etc. -- i.e., coercion without police
>>forces -- work just as well, in rare cases where coercion is indeed
>>necessary?
>
>Not in a large complex liberal society where citizens have a variety
>of ends. We're not talking about socialism in one village.
Endlessly different ends don't have to result in grave conflicts requiring police intervention, though. Let's take the post office for example, as we both agree that it will be a good thing to have after capitalism as well. There may be a conflict between persons who want to mail letters as efficiently as possible and postal workers who would rather enjoy relaxed working conditions. Will we always need the police to resolve this sort of conflict? -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>