> I start with the assumption that the capitalists' general class interest is to secure and advance their power and property against those who would curtail it at home and abroad, and that they effectively control the state which is the instrument for doing so. I evaluate state policies within this context.
Then in a certain sense our previous exchange was a bit superfluous, since the position you were taking was one you had adopted by assumption.
But actually, I would suggest - tell me if I'm wrong - that this is only your assumption when it comes to foreign policy, not domestic policy. I'm guessing you see domestic policy as being less determinate and more the outcome of complex struggles between many groups, not only those within the capitalist class. To the extent that domestic policy is shaped by a legislature (as opposed to foreign policy, which is mostly formulated by the executive), it would be pretty orthodox for a Marxist to say this, I think. The legislature is a terrain of class struggle, after all.
One interesting historical point - I'm not saying it necessarily proves anything - is that every account of AIPAC's history notes the group's famous turn towards "executive branch lobbying" in the mid-1980's. (As opposed to Congressional lobbying, which it had always done.) Setting up WINEP was part of this turn. Soon afterward, WINEP managed to get some of its senior personnel in leading executive branch policymaking positions - Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller, etc. Another point to note is the fact that the US legislature famously has more power in the foreign policymaking sphere than almost any other legislature.
SA