When did the state become a subject that makes decisions? The state is an abstraction of countless institutions and apparatuses. There is nothing wrong with abstraction per se, but we should try to avoid the reification.
A side note, I've become more sympathetic with some of the analysis offered by Wallerstein on some of these questions. Wallerstein has made an argument that the revolts of 1968 were by in large a response to the failure of the older forms of countersystemic movements to fulfill their promises despite taking over the state. I'd be curious as to thoughts on this idea (and the broader concepts provided by systems theory)
robert wood
> Miles Jackson wrote:
>
>> SA wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking how the state enforces its
>>> capitalist writ. Yeah, obviously - police, army, etc. I was asking
>>> what ensures that the state must always be seeking to enforce a
>>> capitalist writ?
>>>
>>> SA
>>
>> Enforcement of property laws.
>
> The state must always enforce capitalist property laws? What if "the
> state" decides it likes non-capitalist laws better?
>
> SA
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>