[lbo-talk] ciao, 60

[Carrol Cox]

In so far as capitalist relations seem to opeate successfully within
such a wide variety of states, and that no state itself operates as a
capitalist enterprise, is it not erroneeous even to speak of a
"Capitalist State." Capitalism can't operate without a state, but it is
utterly idifferent to what kind of a state.  I don't have the citation
to hand now, bvut I think I have previously             cited an
articlee (in abook edited by Albritton & Postone) which  treats family,
education and state as non-capitalist institutions which capitalism
needs. The article argues that currently capitalism is damaging those
institutions, but I don't remember the details of the argument.

U.S. political parties are odd creatures anyhow, having no membership,
its formal apparatus having only a half-life between elections. And
_parties_ don't have winning elections as their goal, _candidates_ do.
And there obviously exist a variety of relationshps linking different
candidates to each other. Even in mycasual  attentin to daily news
(reduced close to zero lately), I have continually come across
references to this or that candidate not being supported by other
candidates or "The Party" or both, and so forth. It is hard to ascribe
_any_ intention to the party itself!

It is candidates more than The Party that serve the interests of capital
-- or rather, the interests of the sectors of capital to which they are
most closely attached. That is not necessarily the interest of
capitalism as a systemm the very meaning of that last phrase being
vague.

Oh well.

Carrol

Eubulides wrote:
> 
> On 10-01-20 05:46 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> >> The thought that liberals cannot stand is that the actions of the DP &
> >> its leadership really represent what the party fundmentally stands for.
> >
> > I prefer my formulation: the Dems are a party of capital that has to
> > pretend for electoral reasons that it's not. So it makes "progressive"
> > noises sometimes to excite the base, but when in power acts to please
> > its funders.
> >
> 
> ==============
> 
> [Which echoes a blast from the functionalist past]
> 
> "the State can only *function* as a capitalist state by appealing to
> symbols and sources of support that *conceal* its nature as a capitalist
> state; the existence of a capitalist state presupposes the systematic
> *denial* of its nature as a *capitalist* state [Claus Offe]
>