In Message Fri, 25 Feb 94 00:28:41 CST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>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!
>
Pitelis is way off-base. Could be he was confused by the relative
absence of extensive discussion and debate over origins (in contrast to
that over the nature and functions of the capitalist state). For the
latter, some good sources are Holloway and Picciotto, State and Capital:
A Marxist Debate; Bob Jessop, The Capitalist State; and Simon Clarke,
The State Debate. For the former, Perry Anderson's Lineages of the Absolute
State (especially the first chapter on the emergence of the Absolutist
State in the West) is pretty solid.
cheers,
mike
Mike Lebowitz, Economics Dept.,Simon Fraser University
Burnaby,B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-3508 or 291-4669
Home: (604) 255-0382
Lasqueti Island refuge: Lasqueti Island, B.C. Canada V0R 2J0
(604) 333-8810
e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
