is the state an entity independent from capitalism?

[danyboy27]

it is obvious capitalism florish greatly with the state, enjoying legitimacy and protection from it, but i wonder, can we consider the state a completely separate entity from capitalism with its own goal and objectives?

I noticed where i live that, even if the governement have great control over it, the state still have its own ''personality''.

what i mean by that is, even if the politician vote a reform, there is an internal clash within the chain of command of the state, and the whole project might just stall beccause it dosnt benefit to the state.

Above everything a state seem fight for its own survival and legitimity within the society it is implented.


It might be insane, but sometimes i feel like the state, has an entity is litteraly alive, and if necessary for its own survival might just wipe out our economic system and replace it with something else that would still justify its legitimacy.

[Revolution starts with U]

THat is true of the state, in all circumstance. What makes a state a capitalist state is who controls it, and who does it benefit. With most of the exutive being lobbyists and former ceo's, it's clear that this is a capitalist state. That cannot be denied.

[ComradeMan]

De jure yes, de facto- not usually.

[Havet]

The state is independent from capitalism (ex: state-socialism)

Capitalism is dependent from the State (ex: private property enforcement)

[ComradeMan]

The state is independent from capitalism (ex: state-socialism)

Capitalism is dependent from the State (ex: private property enforcement)

That is evermore obsolete these days with multinationals, globalisation and free trade.

Many states, especially poorer ones, are powerless in the face of the economic might of multinationals and quite the opposite is true.

Wallmart is richer than Austria according to a source I read- and Austria would be considered quite a rich and modern nation too.

[Havet]

That is evermore obsolete these days with multinationals, globalisation and free trade.

Many states, especially poorer ones, are powerless in the face of the economic might of multinationals and quite the opposite is true.

But those multinational's power are directly dependent of State power. For example,


Wallmart is richer than Austria according to a source I read- and Austria would be considered quite a rich and modern nation too.

Here's an example of how Wallmart has used money of the State (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/) (ie: of the public) and has therefore crushed local competition and maintained a monopoly position nationwide

[ComradeMan]

But those multinational's power are directly dependent of State power. For example,

Here's an example of how Wallmart has used money of the State (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/) (ie: of the public) and has therefore crushed local competition and maintained a monopoly position nationwide

I don't see what you mean here.

A multinational can move from state-to-state as soon as labour conditions are no longer profitable in one given zone.

Modern capitalism erodes the nation state that's why extremely nationalistic ideologies are also anti-capital at heart.

The state needs Wallmart- no Wallmart, no jobs, no jobs no votes.... This is how the lobbies and the big caps also hold the state to ransom in some senses.

[Havet]

I don't see what you mean here.

A multinational can move from state-to-state as soon as labour conditions are no longer profitable in one given zone.

But it can only move from state to state by using the power its amassed from a first state


The state needs Wallmart- no Wallmart, no jobs, no jobs no votes.... This is how the lobbies and the big caps also hold the state to ransom in some senses.

There was a State before Wallmart existed

[ComradeMan]

But it can only move from state to state by using the power its amassed from a first state

Not really- these are multinationals they can move their liquid assets at the push of a button with a bank transfer.


There was a State before Wallmart existed

and.....? Times change.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, imagine two people who rely on commodity exchange for their livelihood; in other words, equal, independent commodity sellers. Now, let's say that they sign a contract in order to establish equality of exchange. Who is to enforce this contract? Not one of them, or one essentially has simply direct coercion; the one must exchange whatever the other says, as the other is, so to speak, the law. Rather, one must have an external arbiter. So, for example, I agree to beat up either of them if they don't live up to their side of the deal. However, in that case, when all individuals in a society are essentially commodity sellers (wage-labourers are sellers of labour-power, capitalists are sellers of just about everything else), this external arbiter takes the form of an independent body on a social scale, namely the state.

On the other hand, the free and equal relations of the commodity market undergo, so to speak, a 'dialectical inversion' due to the existence of labour-power as a commodity; essentially, the buying of labour-power, just another commodity on the market, is the establishment of a social relation, and a social relation of domination, to be precise of past labour over living labour. Nonetheless, the state remains arbiter here, and as such becomes an enforcer of class rule, undergoing itself a 'dialectical inversion'. With the establishment of the world market, one has the complete subjugation of the state, supposedly arbiter of society, standing above it, to capital; that is, the states now relate to each other as the independent commodity sellers which were previously individuals, and as such become reliant on pumping out the greatest amount of surplus-labour possible. Whereas in reality this represents the evolution of production of humankind for humankind as a whole, not only social production but, as it were, world-social production, here it takes the form of each state trying to extract surplus-value for exchange, and so on. The relative wealth of the state is dependent on the capital within it, and hence each state attempts to attract capital investment, or even to nick the surplus-labour of other countries (Marx recounted an amusing case in 'Capital' where the British government expropriated products from India in exchange for 'good governance'). This means that one has things such as capital flight, etc. Now, this means that the state, for all of its pretensions, becomes subordinate to capital and civil society, the society of independent commodity sellers, itself, to the point of becoming itself an independent commodity seller in competition with others. On the other hand, the centralisation of capital means that some states themselves are less wealthy than some companies.

However, in order to arbitrate between the various independent commodity sellers, it must treat them all as essentially abstract individuals; perhaps I should elaborate. The state is essentially the expression of the general interest; however, what form does this take in the exchange between the two commodity sellers? Well, it in the interests of each to sell for as much as possible, and buy for as little; on a social scale, however, these competitive increases and decreases cancel out so as to give rise to the general interest of equal exchange. That is, selling at an excessive price would be against the interests of one seller, and in the interests of another, and therefore would not be a general interest, and the same applies if the seller who undersold instead oversold; as such, all of these mutual collisions mean that the general interest may only take the form of an average, and hence of equal exchange. However, in that case this general interest exists only in the form of many individual, atomized interests; as a result, we do not have a real general interest, as it were, but merely many individual interests, and the general interest here takes the form of the amalgamation of all of these individual interests. As such, the state, as expression of the illusory general interest, expresses this in the form of treating each individual as an abstract individual, just as the enforcement of the contracts requires treating all commodity sellers simply as commodity sellers in the abstract. Hence, the general interest here may only take the form of the addition of various abstract individual interests, abstracted from the particular social relations, etc, of each individual; they are to be taken simply as, for example, independent commodity sellers. However, the fact is that, in the exchange of labour-power as a commodity, definite social relations are created which mean that these abstract individuals are rather particular individuals in particular classes, so that, due to their common character (capitalists, due to prices of production, make their profit in accordance with the total profit rather than simply their individual profit, and similarly labourers all take the form of wage-labourers, with capitalists competing to lower their wages as much as possible), individual interests become common among mass sections of society, and hence one has class interests.

As a result, however, the mass of the abstract individuals are in fact proletarians, whereas the state is the enforcer of class rule. This means that the state, as well as being simply the enforcement of class rule, becomes in addition a site of class struggle on the political field, at least potentially. On the other hand, this aspect is fairly muted presently, as the working class are not independent upon the political field, but largely subsumed by Parties enforcing ruling class interests. However, the state itself is also composed of different individuals, as indeed it must be; this leads on the one hand to corruption and so on, and on the other to situations such as that which you deal with. Essentially, the state does indeed take the form of a body independent from and above society, and this is reflected in the fact that it is not simply a one-dimensional enforcer of class interests, and indeed may be a site of class struggle. However, as has also been established, it must, on the aggregate, respect ruling class interests, especially with the evolution of the world market.

[RGacky3]

The State is entirely seperate from Capitalism, its an entity that responds to who ever controls it, the modern democratic state has 2 pressure sources, 1 the general public, and 2 the capitalist. The general public becuase of the voting process and the capitalist becuase of the economy.

This is why, although I'm an anarchist, I would support power being in the states hands rather than the capitalist hands, because the state is responsive to public pressure, and hte less is in the capitalists hands the less power they have to influence the state, thus ultimately the more power the public has.

You look at a country like the United States and compare it with a country like Norway, in Norway capitalists have very little influence over the state, because they don't control the major industries and the economy, these are public, in the UNited States the economy is almost entirely owned and controlled by the Capitalists which is why the the united states the government is basically a wholy owned subsidiary of the capitalists.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^A good run down of your views Gack.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing the US go to more of a Swedish or Norwegian model myself. Really all you have to do is change the tax laws. Higher income tax, maybe a 50% Capital Gains tax and especially an inheritance tax (Right now there's NONE!)

[RGacky3]

The Sweedish and Norwegian models are pretty different, the Norwegian model is more publicly owned major industries (comunications, oil, banking, healthcare and others) rather than just a progressive tax, thats much more important.

I think the tax change are definately nessesary, single payer, nationalizing energy, banking and some other major industries are also nessesary, also above all, public financing and getting rid of corporate person hood.

None of these things are radical at all.

[Bud Struggle]

The Sweedish and Norwegian models are pretty different, the Norwegian model is more publicly owned major industries (comunications, oil, banking, healthcare and others) rather than just a progressive tax, thats much more important. Thanks for the info on that. (Actually most of the Nordics types on RevLeft are too busy touting Communism around here and not explaining the good things about the systems they have now!) But color me Swedish on this one. I'm no fan of too much DIRECT government control.


I think the tax change are definately nessesary, single payer, nationalizing energy, banking and some other major industries are also nessesary, also above all, public financing and getting rid of corporate person hood. Gentely--I can agree with that. Case by case, though.


None of these things are radical at all. For America they are. ;)

[Skooma Addict]

You could conceivably have capitalism without the state. Property rights would just need to be enforced by another means.

[RGacky3]

But color me Swedish on this one. I'm no fan of too much DIRECT government control.


Well right now Sweedes are comming over to Norway because their economy is suffering while Norways is strong. Taxing is'nt going to do it, if the major industries are privately held those private powers are going to have massiave sway over the state. It also takes the profit motive out of the main industries, industries which are tightly tied to the public welfare, thats extremely important. You want these industries working for the people, not for profits.

The difference between me and the other Nordics, is I've lived most of my life in the US and some years in Mexico, they don't know how good they have it :P.

[Bud Struggle]

You could conceivably have capitalism without the state. Property rights would just need to be enforced by another means.

http://pizzabytheslice.com/photos/images/chinatown/emily-gansters-gat-chinatown-img_4255.jpg

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm always glad to see a capitalist who can agree that an-cap fantasies are a nightmare.:laugh:

[Property Is Robbery]

I don't believe it can be separated because even the soviet union were considered state capitalist. While there are some socialist states there really never have been any communist states.

[Revolution starts with U]

As long as ownership is a concept, the state, as arbiter, will see it's people as something to be owned.

[Ele'ill]

http://pizzabytheslice.com/photos/images/chinatown/emily-gansters-gat-chinatown-img_4255.jpg

Is that you in the middle?

[Bud Struggle]

Naw, I'm the fat guy with the cigar. If he doesn't look like a Capitalist--I don't know who does! :D