[WS:} We certainly do. Anti-statism is as American as apple pie but for most Europeans it is only one of many possible opinions. So it is much easier for someone who is a de facto outsider to the Amrican culture to entertain the idea of state as a positive thing, and a guarantor of democracy (albeit Holmes & Sunstein made quite a convincing argument along these line http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/holmes-rights.html).
The examples that you quote and which btw are the closes to the America are those of what the political thought that I subscribe to would be considerd "weak states." A weakness of the state is measured not by its power over an ordinary individual - for even the weakes state has overwhelming power in that respect - but by its power to resist subordination to organized special interest groups, especially the wealthy (landowners and capitalists.)
There are many examples in European history demonstrating that strong states were also the most democratic ones. I really recommend Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer & Theda Skocpol, eds., 1985, *Bringing the State Back In*, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press - it provides an excelent collection of case studies showing that point. Another recommendation: Arendt Lijphart, 1999, *Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms & Performance in Thirty Six Countries*, New Haven: Yale University Press that that parliamentary democracies prevailing in Europe and majoritarian system prevaikling in English speaking countries.
Of course it does not mean that a strong state is automatically democratic - but that it can guarantee a democracy under certain conditions, wheras a weak state will almost certainly become a tool of repression in the hands of the wealthy.
Wojtek
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>