A question for PEN-L subscribers:
In my Public Finance class we have been discussing capitalism and the state
from neoclassical, public choice, institutionalist, and marxist perspectives.
One of the issues considered involves the different explanations of the origins of the
state.
My question revolves around Marxist explanations of the origins of the
capitalist state. Christos Pitelis in his book, _Market and Non-Market
Hierachies_, p. 121, argues that in Marxist theory "there is no mechanism
through which states can _emerge ex ante_ (italics). The state's existence is
simply assumed. Only the autonomous form under capitalism is explained."
Further (Pitelis, p. 122) "With the [neoclassical] mainstream, the Marxist
theory shares the lack of a historical, evolutionary framework in which
emergence, objectives, and evolution are derived rather than simply examined
_ex post_." Pitelis then does note the attempt by Stephen Hymer to explain the
origins of the capitalist state as an alliance between merchants and the
feudal nobility for mutual advantage.
Question: can PEN-Lers tell us if Pitelis has it straight on Marxist
explanations of the origins of the capitalist state? We are poised to resume
our discussions on Tuesday with the valuable input of PEN-Lers!
(I have not forgotten my promise to send a short list of readings on theories
of the state to those who e-mailed me earlier. Soon...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Brent McClintock | |
Economics | |
Carthage College | THERE IS NO WEALTH |
Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140 | BUT LIFE |
USA | |
Phone: (414) 551-5852 | John Ruskin |
Fax: (414) 551-6208 | |
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
