>>>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.
>>
>>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?
Yes, but your point? The struggle for a monopoly of violence is a struggle for state power, which need not itrself be armed conflict.
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?
Many large scale transitions have come about with an unarmed people dedeating a heavily armed state: The Indians against the Brits, The Iranian revolution, the "velvet revolution: in the ex-Bloc.
But I don't say this question can be answered in advance.
>
>>>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?
Well, I agree that we will need less of them.
>
>>>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?
This illustrates my point that most of operations of the state even in a c lass society do not involve recourse to violence. In our society this is dealt with by collective bargaining regulated by the state. Why should it be different under socialism, except that the balance of power would (one hopes) be tipped more to the workers.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx