> I think the problem here is that Marvin seems to be defining the state as
> "a tool of repression in the hands of the wealthy."
======================================
This evidently requires elaboration. The state is conventionally defined as
comprising the executive, legislative, judiciary, bureaucracy, armed forces,
and intelligence services. It has historically been controlled by and acted
as the agent of the dominant propertied classes. It maintains social order
and class rule through a mix of force and concessions, ie. naked repression
and "repressive tolerance". In authoritarian states - sometimes called
"strong states" -the power exercised over the population is unchecked and
repression is often brutal. State power is circumscribed in parliamentary
and republican systems where the people have been able to win the right to
assemble, speak out, organize, and vote against the ruling class. These
democratic rights are limited, however, in that their exercise cannot strip
the ruling class of it's power and property. If it threatens to do so - as,
say, when economic and physical security breaks down in war and economic
crisis - these rights are removed, the coercive power of the state is
strengthened, and popular dissent can now only be expressed illegally,
leading to violent repression and resistance.
What is the "problem" you, Woj, and perhaps others have with this understanding of the state's role?