I've been kind of following a bit the debate on your lbo list re my article and the larger questions that come out of it. One thing keeps coming up that I wanted to ask you about: the anarchists -- and they all say this -- insist that capital and its various powers could not exist without the state. And I get, and agree, with the basic descriptive/analytical point. But there seems to an implication they draw from this that I don't get. And that is:
If the state did not exist, capital would not have any means of violence at its disposal to defend itself. Therefore capital wouldn't exist. Now if they mean all the sophisticated modern instruments of derivatives, central banking, and all the rest, fine. But if we think of this in a much more primitive sense of control over material resources, why do they think that? Why wouldn't the situation be one in which someone or some group has a set of resources -- minerals, food, whatever -- and a goon squad to defend it? Why do these people, in other words, assume that without a state, capital -- or the controller of resources -- wouldn't have other means at his/her/their disposal to protect those resources? It's almost as if the anarchist presumes that without the state, capital would be much more vulnerable to the organized cry and violence (or maybe non-violence0 of the masses, where I would assume just the opposite (and everything we know about societies where the state crumbles tells me I'm right): you'd have a situation of warlords in which people would be even more vulnerable.
Your thoughts?