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. ============================================ Depends on your understanding of the nature and purpose of state intervention in the economy and the "Marxist notion" of such, Chris.
Certainly, there have been many, many instances where social democratic and other reform-minded governments - as well as conservative governments -have taken measures which certain sectors of the capitalist class did not consider to be in their interests, but which were conceived of as necessary repairs to ensure the long-term health and expansion of the system as a whole, and which enjoyed support from other sectors within the class. The Great Depression comes first to mind as a period which demanded deeper than normal change and which deeply divided the capitalist class internationally.
Many of us were convinced earlier this year that this latest crisis was shaping up as a repeat of that cataclysm, but whether it will again proceed that far is still unclear. Nevertheless, there have already emerged clear differences among politicians, bankers, investors, and analysts about how to respond to the crisis, corresponding to the traditional political divide between "liberals" and "conservatives" which has historically been a feature of the system. In the very unlikely event the Obama administration were to nationalize the banking system, you can be certain of two things: a) the capitalists will be even more profoundly divided, and b) such nationalization would be undertaken with a view to saving the system, not ending it.
So when we say the function of the capitalist state is to reproduce the capitalist system, this is not the same as saying it acts in the interests of all capitalists, because that would not be possible. This seems to be the source of your misunderstanding and of others in this discussion. There are inevitable differences within and between classes which the state is called upon to mediate, just as any executive committee is called upon to mediate differences at all levels within any organization to ensure it's proper functioning, and some interests will always lose out. This is the state's function in a capitalist society, as it was in feudal society in a more decentralized way, which is inherent in the theory that the state is the instrument of the ruling class in any epoch, but that it order to perform that service, it must operate with a greater or lesser degree of autonomy from the dominant class, depending on circumstances. But the function of the state is never to act against the dominant class and the property relations which it defends.
If it does, those in charge of the state will be removed - violently, if necessary. As I earlier noted, there have been exceptional instances where avowedly anticapitalist governments have sought to use the electoral system to "consciously" weaken rather than strengthen the existing system of capitalist power and property - Chile and Venezuela being two of the most prominent.
These are cases where socialists acted not in accordance with the assigned function of the capitalist state but in direct contradiction to it, experiments which provoked fierce resistance among capitalists at home and abroad. Allende, as you know, was violently expelled from the state he ostensibly controlled, and there have been repeated coup attempts in Venezuela. I noted also that if Venezuela succeeds in ending capitalism through gradual and largely peaceful means, as the chavistas evidently intend, it will be an historical first as it required bloody civil wars and the destruction of the bourgeois armies for the Russians, Chinese, and Cubans to end private ownership in those countries. Was it Marx who said the state (as distinct from mere government) is ultimately reducible to "bodies of armed men"?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Doss" <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The State (Was: Ralph loves the nice plutocrats)
--- On Mon, 9/28/09, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> From: Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The State (Was: Ralph loves the nice plutocrats)
> To: "LBO-Talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Date: Monday, September 28, 2009, 7:58 AM
> "Somebody" wrote:
> >
> > Obeidi describes in length how the Libyan regime
> worked to socialize and
> > education the population in the state ideology, which
> was a melange of
> > Marxism, Pan-Arabism, and Islamism. How inculcating
> the Green Book into
> > the minds of the workers is supposed to buttress
> emerging capitalism is
> > difficult to fathom. The fallacy is that any
> non-Marxist state pursuing
> > national development is necessarily bourgeois.
> =====================================
> Then perhaps you view the social forces and social
> relations in Libya as
> "feudal". If not, how would you describe them?
>
> Related question: what about Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, which
> don't even
> incorporate a modern ideology like "Marxism" in their
> Islamic curricula? Are
> these essentially "feudal" or "capitalist" states?
>
> Capitalist development in a long process, presided over by
> states which
> assume many forms, mostly autocratic - a diversified,
> industrial,
> predominantly urban economy and a liberal democratic
> political system
> appearing only a very advanced stage. Moreover, these
> states, even the least
> developed, can't be viewed in isolation from the global
> capitalist economy
> in which they are today all implicated and whose laws they
> are obliged to
> follow.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk