State and capital: relatives?

One thing that bugged me for so long was this: are the state the capital relatives? Are they embryonically linked? If yes, then how come the state is expected to remain "neutral" in a capitalist world? Does it make sense? Unless we disagree, there is no way any state could be neutral then. Whatever it does to "portray" neutrality is to get more capital. More money. How can a state be "humanitarian"? States never had empathy right from birth. If they acted based on the natal reflex of "power", how come they just became empathetic to other nations? How come "fear and flight" turns into a hug? Does it make sense? Let us look at the world around us: how come some nations are richer and others are not even poor, but rather struggling to survive? How did we reach here?

I talked to a friend that day who spoke to me about post-colonialism. I asked: is it really post yet? Aren't we worse off as humans? Being so fond of history, I read about about humans and how they originated. No, I read about how "beings" even came to being. No, in fact, I sometimes read a lot about how even existence came to being. Too much, right? Yes. It is. Soooo much out there. How come a significant group of mammal came to dominate everything, and then a smaller group of these folks that thought they "figured it out all" came to define the world for all humanity. Their borders, nations, and even inside their own nations. Cultures. Meaning of life. How come? Sorry, I asked more questions that answers. Now, back to the main question: who benefits from all this? And how come capital and state are somehow linked? Was it really a coincidence?