Chris writes:
>
> I completely agree with Wojtek. A strong state is one in which the state
> is capable of carrying out its functions (i.e. the state in most Western
> and developed countries). A weak state is one that does not, but is easily
> swayed by this or that extrastate entity, or is entirely subservient to
> this or that extrastate entity, or is a cover for extrastate activity
> (i.e., Russia in the 1990s, Ukraine today, the "developing world" in
> general). The former is characterized by relative lack of corruption and
> lawlessness. The latter is not. Democratic rights actually correspond with
> strong states, not the opposite, because a weak state is incapable of
> enforcing those rights.
>
> The ruling class actually doesn't need a state. They own all the guns. The
> state just limits their power.
==================================
"The ruling class actually doesn't need a state"? As in US corporations and
the wealthy don't need Congress, the regulatory agencies, the courts, the
executive branch, the armed forces, the intelligence and internal security
agencies - all of that vast apparatus which comprises "the state" - in order
to defend their vital interests at home and abroad? These institutions "just
limit their power"? We seem to be talking past each other. In the political
tradition which I come from, "strong states" are defined, in effect, as
dictatorships or autocracies where democratic rights are suppressed. You and
perhaps Wojtek seem to believe they are linked to "efficiency". But strong
states can be efficient, like Nazi Germany, or hopelessly inefficient, like
Stroessner's Paraguay.