Relationship between the state and the capitalist class

[GoddamVegetarianCommie]

Capitalism has some power over the state; but not nearly as much as you think. If the capitalist decides not to pay taxes the state wI'll arrest him.

You might want to think of a better example

[(A)]

OK the state owns all of the land. Property rights; like all rights are granted by the state and can be taken away. The power of the liberalist state is the illusion of freedom. A philosophy built upon the foundation that people need to be ruled over and can not be left to their own devices. That is not to say that those in power are not capitalists; but the state is what holds their power and the power of all capitalists.

If you Abolish the state; the laws and rules and systems that protect the economy and oppress the working class go with it. If you kill the capitalists then the new people in charge will just be a new ruling class.
Only the abolishment of all states can lead to the dissolving of classes and the end of capitalism.

[GLF]

OK the state owns all of the land. Property rights; like all rights are granted by the state and can be taken away. The power of the liberalist state is the illusion of freedom. A philosophy built upon the foundation that people need to be ruled over and can not be left to their own devices. That is not to say that those in power are not capitalists; but the state is what holds their power and the power of all capitalists.

If you Abolish the state; the laws and rules and systems that protect the economy and oppress the working class go with it. If you kill the capitalists then the new people in charge will just be a new ruling class.
Only the abolishment of all states can lead to the dissolving of classes and the end of capitalism.

I agree with you. You cannot be anti-capitalist without also being anti-state.

But I highlighted in bold the part where I disagree. I believe you have it backwards. It's the capitalists that control the State, not the other way around. Remember, the State is the apparatus. You continue to distinguish between capitalists and the State and there really isn't a distinction to be made. It's a symbiotic relationship. But inasmuch as they are two separate forces, the State is most definitely subservient to those who control the capital, and not the other way around.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I agree with you. You cannot be anti-capitalist without also being anti-state.

But I highlighted in bold the part where I disagree. I believe you have it backwards. It's the capitalists that control the State, not the other way around. Remember, the State is the apparatus. You continue to distinguish between capitalists and the State and there really isn't a distinction to be made. It's a symbiotic relationship. But inasmuch as they are two separate forces, the State is most definitely subservient to those who control the capital, and not the other way around.

I am generally in agreement, but! that said! I think we need to avoid being mechanical in understanding this relationship. After all, we have the concrete examples of fascism and state capitalism to grapple with. In the former, the state is seized by déclassé elements and the threatened petite bourgeoisie mobilized by "revolutionary" (in the sense of describing means) ideologues, who turn it toward their particularly batshit interests (which counter Bordigist purism, is almost certainly distinct from liberal capitalism in important material respects). In the second instance, we have the state itself serving as a means of capitalist class constitution, carrying out the function of "primitive accumulation" by which a new capitalist class is birthed absent a "free market" (which, in this case counter capitalist and Stalinist ideology, is hardly the definitive characteristic of capitalism). In any case, both present examples of cases in which the state did not act as "puppet" of a constituted capitalist class.

[(A)]

What about what happened today? The U.S. fucked over dozens of capitalists by announcing that they would stop using privatized prisons causing these company's stocks to fall.

If the capitalist class as a whole controlled the state then this would not have happened.

Any influence the capitalists have over the state seems to be built upon a symbiotic relationship not a hierarchy. "Corruption" seems far more likely then direct control.

And without direct control then the real power (Military, Police, Judicial) is still in the hands of the state.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What about what happened today? The U.S. fucked over dozens of capitalists by announcing that they would stop using privatized prisons causing these company's stocks to fall.

If the capitalist class as a whole controlled the state then this would not have happened.

I think what's up here is that we need to parse out "class as a whole" in this context. When we say "as a whole" we are differentiating between "each individual interest" and "collective interest". So, let's say that my body is capital, and my ego is the state (this is a lousy analogy on the whole, but will do for this particular purpose); now suppose I'm caught in a bear trap. When I decide to gnaw my leg off, I'm acting in the interest of "the whole", even though it's not in the individual interest of my leg. Dig?


Any influence the capitalists have over the state seems to be built upon a symbiotic relationship not a hierarchy. "Corruption" seems far more likely then direct control.

And without direct control then the real power (Military, Police, Judicial) is still in the hands of the state.

The metaphor of a symbiotic relationship is apt - but "corruption" is almost certainly the wrong word, since the purpose of the capitalist state is protecting the interest of capital. We should really think about what a symbiotic relationship is. The state has evolved in conjunction with capital to play a particular role within the "capitalist ecosystem" as it were.

[(A)]

That's why i used quotations. The system was built to support capitalism; so corruption is not what it is; just what it would seem to be by any Liberal.
The idea of crony capitalism is basically what we are discussing; chicken and egg.

What came first the capitalist or the state.

My stance is that the state came first. The birth of the Liberal nation state is what allowed for the evolution of mercantilism to become modern day capitalism. The power of the monarch and its divine right to rule (statehood) remains in the hands of the government in the form of is monopoly of "legitimate" violence but the economic rights that the monarchy had once held has been given to the individual in the form of capitalism (Mercantilism > Capitalism).
Capitalism is a system of class conflict but not the conflict itself. Marx's critique of capitalism explains why capitalism is one of these systems but from what I understand does not (or if I am wrong; should not) state that capitalism is the cause of class conflict itself. Class conflict stems from a uneven distribution of power. The false assumption here is that Capitalism is the cause of that uneven power distribution (Liberal socialism). The more accurate understanding would be that any form of hierarchy such as the state, the land owner, the church, the patriarchy... that all of these power structures are the cause of class conflict.

Anarchism recognizes this and seeks to end all forms of class conflict; not just one system/branch of the conflict.