> Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> 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.
=====================================
It's not likely that leading politicians and bureaucrats make decisions with
the goal of "reproducing the system" in mind, except in periods of acute
crisis when everyone becomes conscious it could fail - such as last October
in the immediate aftermath of Lehman and the seizing up of the interbank and
commercial paper markets - and in the midst of heightened class struggles
which usually accompany it, such as in the 30's but notably lacking today.
Otherwise, when the system is ticking over smoothly, one can assume the
elites, again along with most everyone else, takes the existence of the
system for granted, see it as perpetual.
In all periods, stable and unstable, it's my view that the balance of forces between the contending parties is what determines the outcome, both within the ruling class and in the relations between the classes, and that ideology, morality, etc. are important but secondary effects.
In relations between the classes, the bourgeoisie as the ruling class is by definition the stronger party and will typically prevail in industrial and political conflicts with the trade unions and other working class and popular organizations. It is easier and more effective to prevail by making concessions rather than engaging in conflict, and the stronger a country's bourgeoisie, the more concessions it can offer economically and politically. The state, in effect, reproduces the system through a mix of concessions and repression, the mix varying in accordance with circumstances.
When the bourgeoisie is neither willing or able to offer concessions, or a working class organization, believing itself to be the stronger party or unable to accept the concessions in turn being demanded of it, declines to settle on ruling class terms, conflict results. This is how strikes occur in the workplace and political conflicts erupt, as in Venezuela today.
Social revolutions are the ultimate form of class conflict - the process whereby the existing state is no longer able to exercise power on behalf of the ruling class, which is itself no longer capable of delivering growth and protecting living standards through its system of production. The state is overthrown and replaced by a new state representing a new ruling class and mode of production. History to date has shown that no ruling class surrenders it's power and privileged social and economic position peacefully.
Since the demise of the USSR and turn to capitalism by China, and major technological advances in transportation and communications, the capitalist economy has become truly global, and it has correspondingly become more difficult for the working class to overthrow even the weakest capitalist state. It now has to contend with an unchallenged and increasingly integrated international bourgeoisie which has always been concerned about the contagious demonstration effect of a social revolution in even the smallest country, eg. Grenada. The constraints on the Venezuelan leadership come less directly from it's own weakened bourgeoisie than the latter's ties to the the US and it's allies in Latin America and elsewhere.
The balance of forces also determines intra-class relations. The big bourgeoisie typically dominates small propertyholders, as in the example of the shopping centre developers above. At the top, the needs of the system are paramount, where the necessity to ensure it's reproduction asserts itself. These systemic needs are always changing and shape the balance of forces and subsequent outcomes. Rising industrial sectors challenge and overtake declining ones in the formation of state trade and investment policy. The need to wind down failing imperialist wars without the appearance of an American defeat strengthens the faction of the bourgeoisie not held responsible for the fiasco and most able to preside over a carefully staged "voluntary" withdrawal. The finance industry, riding high yesterday, faces some measure of regulation today, driven by angry institutional investors burnt by what is now seen as "excessive" risk-taking by the big banks, and by the class as a whole which now regards the financial "innovations" it previously hailed as having been responsible for very nearly bringing down the system.
So while it is true to say that the function of the capitalist state is to reproduce capitalism, it does not follow that all or even the great majority of measures are consciously taken with the preservation of the system in mind - only those where it's integrity is actually perceived to be under threat. Obviously, I reject this view of the state being caricatured as "vulgar Marxism" (not by yourself) although in fairness that criticism likely has more to do with misunderstanding than malice.