> On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:31 PM, SA wrote:
>
>> The state must always enforce capitalist property laws? What if "the
>> state" decides it likes non-capitalist laws better?
>
> A revolutionary state could decide that. But given capitalist
> domination of the campaign finance and lobbying systems, control of
> the media, and the pervasive "common sense" of the bourgeois order,
> it's not likely to depart from capitalist laws any time soon.
I agree. I'm just trying to puzzle out what information is contained in a formulation like "the function of the capitalist state is to reproduce the capitalism system." Almost anything the capitalist state could conceivably do, short of decreeing the end of capitalism, could be explained as a way to stabilize or reproduce the system. And if the state actually did make an end-of-capitalism decree, the formula could still be said to hold because, ipso facto, now it's not a capitalist state anymore; there's been a revolution.
I'm not disputing the obvious empirical regularity that the state under capitalism practically never promotes the dismantling of capitalism, nor will it ever be very likely to do so. I'm just saying that attributing that fact to the state's "function" conveys no information. It seems like a formulation designed to promote a political conclusion. (I'm not saying that's Marvin's motive, or anyone else's here.) In his lifetime, Marx was sometimes asked if in the democratic countries (Britain, USA, France) socialism could come about through constitutional means. I think to be politic he gave both answers at various times because the question was controversial and he wanted to hold together the International. But if you posit that "the function of the capitalist state is to reproduce capitalism" then your answer is already given.
SA