On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:32 AM, SA wrote:
> 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.
That is to mistake "function" for motivation. The two have nothing to do with each other. "Function" defines the unexamined, taken-for-granted, acceptance of the social and intellectual structures *underlying* the decisions of the individual functionaries who at any given time comprise the elements of the historic institutional complex we call "the state." The "goal in mind" of those functionaries at all normal (ie., non- revolutionary) times is always proximate; the achievement of specific measures, from the minuscule to the greatest, meant to ensure or restore the normal functioning of the social order. This is necessary for the functioning of the state. If any functionary justified some act by saying "I did it to reproduce capitalism" he would be fired and (given the sort of acts likely to elicit such a justification) might very well end up in jail.
That is how the state "reproduces capitalism."
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos