[Marxism] The State and Capitalism

[Angelus Novus]

I think Michael Heinrich puts things far more
eloquently than I can in an interview available at
MRZine:

If one views the eight heads of state as a
"switchboard" for global capitalism, one  assumes two
relationships between politics and economy: on the one
hand, that eight governments decide over global
politics, which would presuppose that these eight
governments are both unified, as well as in possession
of the means to enforce their goals; on the other
hand, that there exists a particular correlation
between politics and capitalist economy: that
governments implement what capital desires.  Both
assumptions are insufficient and in this respect share
commonalities with classical theories of imperialism,
as well as with some theories which apparently stand
in a critical relation to such theories.  Whether it's
Lenin's "lords of monopoly" who impose their will upon
society, or as is rather likely to be maintained
today, multinational corporations, in each instance
the impersonal domination of the law of value analyzed
by Marx -- a form of socialization which consummates
itself "behind the backs" of participants and which
sets the framework for their conscious activity -- is
substituted by a new form of personal or consciously
managed institutional domination.  On the basis of
these assumptions, state policies then appear to be
the conscious implementation of the clearly defined
interests of capital.

Now, for structural reasons, the State is compelled to
promote the accumulation of its national capital,
because only in the case of a successful production of
profit are jobs created (which minimizes the need for
social expenditures) and taxes paid (which makes the
agency of state apparatuses possible).  But the
question of the best way to execute the promotion of
this accumulation over the short or long term, how the
interests of various fractions of capital can be
balanced out, and the best way to legitimize these
policies vis-à-vis the population (the "voters") is in
no way clear.  Different options are possible, which
can be brought into connection with various
ideological options to constitute the specific logic
of the political sphere.  State policies are
structurally dependent upon a successful accumulation
of capital, but cannot simply be "derived" from
individual interests of capital.

If we consider things at the international level,
things become more complicated.  On the one hand,
different national capitals are entangled with one
another in various ways, there are relationships of
cooperation and competition across national borders.  
On the other hand, state actors compete with one
another over power and influence, without there being
a comprehensive global state.  Instead, an array of
international institutions has emerged, such as the
WTO, IMF, and World Bank, the UN and its
sub-organizations, the OECD, and the G8.  In all of
these organizations competition is carried out on the
one hand, while on the other hand possibilities for
cooperation in the case of common interests are
pursued.  At the same time, it should be kept in mind
that, in the case of the G8, no formal treaties are
concluded -- the point is rather the coordination and
alignment of interests and the introduction of
initiatives which become operative at another level. 
And in the G8, with the USA, Russia, Germany, and
Japan, some of the economically and militarily
strongest states are represented, but precisely the
aspiring capitalist threshold countries are missing,
such as China (whose "communist" party has led the
development of a state-driven capitalism), India,
Brazil, and South Africa, which not only constitute
more than a third of the global population, but which
exhibit a considerable capitalist dynamic of
development.  The G8 therefore has only a limited
scope, and will probably have to expand itself in the
course of the next decade in order to assert its
influence, or maybe dissolve itself into another
institution.  It's therefore not a question of a
unified "switchboard" of global capitalism, but rather
a mere nodal point within a developing network of
international political institutions, which in their
totality constitute the terrain in which both
cooperation to secure domination and differentially
embedded conflicts are carried out, so that the same
state actors cooperate with each other on one level,
whereas they simultaneously carry out a hard conflict
at another level.

full:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/heinrich220607.html





      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs