On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Chris Doss wrote:
> I think the point was to address the question, "do states in
> capitalist societies sometimes act consciously against the interests
> of both domestic and foreign capitalists?" The answer appears to be
> "yes," with the conclusion to be drawn that the Marxist notion that
> the state in a capitalist society is merely the tool of the
> capitalist class is false.
No ruling class is homogeneous, so any state's action is quite likely to be against the interests of *some* members of the ruling class. In that case its class character is unaffected. In the opposite case, where the state action is against the interests of the whole "ruling class," the state has clearly ceased to be an agent of what was the ruling class and has now become the agent of a different class: in other words it has been overthrown and no longer is the same state, no longer has the same social nature. But when the state "nationalizes" property in a capitalist society it merely substitutes state for private capital. One set of capitalists (state capitalists) has substituted itself for a different set--or, to put it more bluntly, as in the case of Libya et. al., a gang of military thugs has stolen from a gang of capitalist swindlers and thereby become capitalists themselves.
There is of course nothing remotely resembling what Chris imagines to be "the Marxist notion that the state in a capitalist society is merely the tool of the capitalist class." The slave is not "merely" the tool of the owner, nor is the employee "merely" the tool of the employer. But their *social function* is that of tool. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos