> What is a "non-capitalist" or "capitalist" law, anyway? How would you
> characterize a piece of legislation or regulatory action expropriating
> private property? What if that expropriated property were impeding
> access to an new shopping centre, and the state's action were the
> product of lobbying by the developers? Was the withdrawal of US troops
> from Vietnam a capitalist or non-capitalist act? What about
> legislation which would financial institutions to maintain higher
> capital ratios? Etc.
Well, this is sort of my point. You're right - all of those things could be depicted by some as either attacking or promoting the capitalist system. But the functional argument about the state would hold that *by definition* the state is there to reproduce capitalism, so presumably all those decisions must have been taken with that goal in mind.
SA