Is the state international?

[AK]

My understanding of communism is that it is an international system with no state nor classes nor monetary system. Under the current system of capitalism, a state exists in every territory (excluding Antarctica and what have you). Is there a difference between the international institution or concept of the state and the many sovereign states that exist? Or do they all form a giant entity collectively known as the state? If this is true, is the state a necessity under the socialist transitionary period?

Just asking. Don't hurt me.

[whore]

there is no world state. there are various states around the world. some (such as the usa) have more power than others. but, just because the usa has lots of influence on micronesia (for example), doesnt mean that micronesia isnt a seperate state.

similarly, even though switzerland is largly responsible for defence and other things for Liechtenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein), Liechtenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein) is still an independent state.

it is plausible that as time progresses a full world state might come into existence. but there isnt one now.



as for communism being world wide, this is not actually required. it is just that it is more likely that a true communist system will be world wide. however, it would be plausible for there to exist pockets of areas where people reject communism, and instead want a market type system.

also, revolution in one area might not immediently spread to another area. thus europe (for example) might have had a revolution, but japan may not have.


finally, socialist state. depends on what you mean by state. using a marxist definition (rule by a class) , yes. using an anarchist definition, a state is a minority thingy. and states dont just whither away.

[AK]

there is no world state. there are various states around the world. some (such as the usa) have more power than others. but, just because the usa has lots of influence on micronesia (for example), doesnt mean that micronesia isnt a seperate state.

similarly, even though switzerland is largly responsible for defence and other things for Liechtenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein), Liechtenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein) is still an independent state.

it is plausible that as time progresses a full world state might come into existence. but there isnt one now.



as for communism being world wide, this is not actually required. it is just that it is more likely that a true communist system will be world wide. however, it would be plausible for there to exist pockets of areas where people reject communism, and instead want a market type system.

also, revolution in one area might not immediently spread to another area. thus europe (for example) might have had a revolution, but japan may not have.


finally, socialist state. depends on what you mean by state. using a marxist definition (rule by a class) , yes. using an anarchist definition, a state is a minority thingy. and states dont just whither away.
I'm talking about all the sovereign states being collectively termed 'the state'. By that logic, is the concept and institution international as the basics of a state (a police force, military, laws, etc.) exist worldwide and all oppress the lower classes?

[chegitz guevara]

It really depends on the state, doesn't it? It also depends on what you mean by international. Certainly some states contain more than one nation within their borders, but I don't think that's what you mean. The EU is an international state, in that it is a state composed of states. The United States is an international state, in that it is an empire, with indirect and direct control over many other states.

[A.R.Amistad]

The United States is an international state, in that it is an empire, with indirect and direct control over many other states.

I agree, but I hope this means that you're saying US control over other nations and not that states like Indiana or New York are "states controlled by a larger state" as if they are nations of their own. They may have been at one time, but now they're just localities. It's just that this kind of thinking (again not accusing you, but just saying the idea of "state sovereignty" is way to Confederate-esque for me to accept.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't mean "state" in the American federalism sense of the term, no.

[AK]

I don't mean some sort of hegemony. I mean the very institute and concept of "the state". All the sovereign states are nearly identical in their roles and various sub-entities (such as the military, police, judicial system, etc.) That concept of the state is worldwide and aside from flags, uniforms and languages, it would be hard to differentiate between them.