> --- Marvin Gandall wrote:
>>>As I understand it, that you need a state to referee conflicts
> between competing capitalist interests and to provide the class as a
> whole with the profit-maximizing resources it can't or won't provide
> for itself, needs typically expressed through its trade and political
> organizations. <<
>
> On 1/21/06, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>>So there is no state without bourgeoisie? And where exactly can one
> find such a place? Perhaps Somalia? No functioning government, plenty
> of guns, warlords and gangs running things - in a word - gummint'
> haters' heaven. <
>
> I can't speak for Marv, but I believe you're taking what he said out
> of context. He was talking about US-type societies (rich,
> fully-capitalist, countries), as far as I can tell. In Marxian theory,
> the state is needed to maintain class dominance and exploitation.
> Without it, you get Hobbesian chaos, as perhaps in Somalia.
>
> Marxian theory does not advocate abolishing the state (unlike the
> anarchist view) as much as subordinating it to the democratic control
> of the vast majority.
>
>>Actually, after reading what seemingly intelligent people on this
> list have to say about the state - am glad that the US left does not
> even come close to the halls of power. If you guys had your way with
> the state, this country would be like Somalia or Liberia - run by
> warlords and swapmed with savage violence beyond imagination.<
>
> I am glad that you can make yourself happy by throwing out gratuitous
> insults. Too bad it has to be in public.
>
>>Anyone who thinks that the sole role of the state is to manage things
> for the "bouurgeoisie" (who is that exactly, anyway?) is either
> kidding or cluless. I suggest taking Poli Sci 101 at a local
> community college for a starter. <
>
> If you don't know what the "bourgeoisie" is, you should read a few books.
> --
> Jim Devine
>