Carrol writes:
Capitalism needs states, but it seems that any old form of state will
do.
So I think that we can say that the state as such is "un-capitalist" --
there is no such thing as a "capitalist state" but only a myriad of
states in which capitalism exists. Moreover, again this is empirical,
the boundaries of those states as well as the states themselves are
constantly shifting. So capitalism needs The State but capitalism as
capitalism does not create the state -- the state is not intrinsic to
capitalism as capitalism.
==================================
I'm comfortable with the straightforward Marxist definiton of the state as
an instrument of the ruling class. Insofar as there were ruling classes and
their states before capitalism, "the state is not intrinsic to capitalism."
Equally true that "any old form of state will do" provided it fulfills its
essential function of protecting the power and property of the ruling class.
However, I don't know what to make of the statement that "the state as such
is 'un-capitalist' -- there is no such thing as a 'capitalist state' but
only a myriad of states in which capitalism exists".
All states in which capitalism exists are by definition capitalist states
because they exist to protect private property, and we know that the
boundries of such states "are constantly shifting".
But it's been conflict and cooperation between the strongest capitalist
states - not an abstraction called "capitalism" or a "myriad of states"
abstracted from their class content - which has allocated the spaces within
which competing groups of capitalists hold political sway.
If Carrol agrees with this latter statement, then the reference to
"un-capitalist states" is wrong and the notion of "myriads of states in
which capitalism exists" is superfluous.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
