Capitalism and the Existence of the State

[Althusser]

Would someone be kind enough to explain why the existence of a "state" is necessary under capitalism? I understand that in every capitalist nation the state is manipulated in favor of the bourgeoisie, but why is the state necessary? Is it just an inevitable outcome in a system where one class fights for supremacy over another? Is the state necessary to secure things like private property and the use of intellectual property?

Is stateless capitalism possible? (Not that I would support it in any way, shape, or form)

[Questionable]

Classes have irreconcilable interests. State exists to keep them from tearing each other apart. It necessarily belongs to the most powerful class because they're the only ones with the resources for creating and upholding a state.

Everything you need to know is here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

EDIT: I forgot to mention that stateless capitalism is indeed impossible. Bourgeois states are not an aberration as some groups (*cough*Anarcho-capitalists*cough*), they occurred naturally with the advent of capitalism and grew in strength alongside the economic system itself.

[jookyle]

The state exists under the capitalist system to serve the bourgeoisie. It is the arm from which the capitalist class may maintain control of the proletariat through political means.

"The state is the executive branch of the bourgeoisie"-Karl Marx

[RedMaterialist]

Would someone be kind enough to explain why the existence of a "state" is necessary under capitalism? I understand that in every capitalist nation the state is manipulated in favor of the bourgeoisie, but why is the state necessary? Is it just an inevitable outcome in a system where one class fights for supremacy over another? Is the state necessary to secure things like private property and the use of intellectual property?

Is stateless capitalism possible? (Not that I would support it in any way, shape, or form)

Not only inevitable, but necessary. The state existed to maintain slavery, feudalism and now capitalism. It is impossible to have a slavery, for example, without a state, someone has to enforce the slave laws, otherwise the slaves will simply run away. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat a state will also exist to suppress the capitalist and small capitalist classes and other defenders of capitalism. After this last suppression the state will no longer be necessary.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Would someone be kind enough to explain why the existence of a "state" is necessary under capitalism? I understand that in every capitalist nation the state is manipulated in favor of the bourgeoisie, but why is the state necessary? Is it just an inevitable outcome in a system where one class fights for supremacy over another? Is the state necessary to secure things like private property and the use of intellectual property?

Is stateless capitalism possible? (Not that I would support it in any way, shape, or form)

The state is necessary to some degree in all class societies in order for one class to organize society around their needs. Peasants just want to work their land and be left alone whereas the noble wants to collect taxes and labor from the peasants - these two interests can't really be dominant in society at the same time, so a state is a structure for enforcing the right of the noble to control the common lands and the labor on it.

States can be more or less centralized or relatively loose like often in feudalism where lords ruled their local areas and if there was a larger state structure it was often pretty loose and weak compared to capitalist states. Capitalism has a tendency to become more centralized and Marx noted that successive capitalist revolutions increased the power and centralization of the emerging bourgeois state. Think of France for example where provinces all spoke different languages and had different cultures and as the capitalist state increased power and organization it built roads, standardized the language and trade etc.

This can be seen in US history as well as the ruling class quickly realized a more decentralized confederation of states was not efficient for their needs. State power was needed by the plantation elite in order to secure more land for cash crops and maintain the slave system and merchants had similar interests because they needed a Navy and a government that could help protect or maintain trade from competing states. As capitalism developed and matured, the state increased its power and centralization in order to build a military for imperial expansion, put down rising strikes, and help industrial development through infrastructure and grants.

Ultimately states work because the minority-ruling class hegemony is backed by armed force and a monopoly on "legitimate" violence. While established capitalist states prefer to rely on softer measures most of the time, ultimately their power is backed by repression. This is why capitalism just couldn't exist without a state, the economy wouldn't function properly from a capitalist standpoint and if there was a widespread uprising, even private security forces would be too disorganized to stop anything that got beyond a uprising at one location just like the local State militias of the Articles of Confederation-era US couldn't handle or coordinate to stop uprisings of farmers... which led to the US building a nationally coordinated military led by George Washington.

[helot]

I'd consider the state as the organised form of the ruling class. Its basic aims are two-fold, firstly to maintain the dominance of the ruling class over an exploited class and secondly (which hasnt been mentioned so far in this thread) to act as an arbiter for conflicts between members of the ruling class. Without these two basic functions either the ruling class would be overthrown quite quickly or members of the ruling class would engage in ceaseless warfare against each other.

Even within feudalism various barons competed against each other for favour, lands etc. A similar thing occurs within capitalism. Capitalists not only exploit a dispossed class but also compete against each other quite ruthlessly. There needs to be terms set for this competition which the class as a whole needs to support for their greater good. Thus, you may get situations in which the state acts against individual capitalists or all capitalists within a particular industry.

While you may get some capitalist ideologues who claim that the state is unnecessary, harmful etc such ideology is either from individual ignorance or rhetoric. Capitalists as a whole recognise the necessity of the state.

While it may be possible to do away with the state as it appears at present it is impossible for capitalism to exist without the functions of the state. Hence the rejection of such 'anti-state' capitalist rhetoric as being little more than playing with words.