[lbo-talk] The State

[Carrol Cox]

This mostly responsive to Robert Woods's posts. Why must there be a
specifically "capitalist state," and why must the state be specifically
concerned with "maintaining capitalism"?  The difficulties encountered
in defining the "capitalist state" and  detailing its functions may well
stem simply from its non-existence. As Robert points out, capitalism has
flourished under any number of quite radically different stte functions.
If the state maintains order (e.g., establishes on which side of the
road traffic moves), that is all capitalism as capitalism needs. 

This says nothing one way or another concerning the services a given
government will provide for this or that capitalist enterprise or sector
of the economy; but that is no different in principle from the different
families of  nobles the King of a palace economy might favor. 

Very few capitalists or their friends in government are really concerned
about Capitalism in the abstract or preserving it. They react viciously
to threats, but essentially they believe the same ideology that
everyone, including Reds, believe: capitalism is nature. That's how
things are. Reds have to keep reminding ourselves that we don't believe
in it; we have to keep examining our positons to see that they are not
merely reflections of spontaneous ideology of capitalism.

The State, the Family, Education are not capitalist institutins, though
capitalism needs all three. It needs many other instittuions that are
not capitalist institutions. One has to  examine empirically each
capitalist state at any given time to see the way in which capitalism
and capitalist relatre to and utilize these institutions under  specific
historical condtions, but there are no general theoretical answers to
the questions raised in this thread.

Carrol