> Date sent: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:02:38 -0800
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: what's in a name?
> What discussions of the relative autonomy of the
> state indicate is that sometimes the state does much more than that.
Yes, the relative autonomy of the state is a well established idea
within marxist theory, starting with Marx himself (as Draper has amply
documented). The contending issue between marxists and weberians
today is that the state may do "much more than" the relative autonomy
concept allows for. It is in this context that Skocpol should be seen
- that is, her argument takes account of the more sophisticated
marxian version, at least as found in Poulantzas and (if I recall)
Miliband.
> I think the research by Skocpol and Moore is great, but its originality on
> the level of theory is mostly vis-a-vis RMPT (which does tend toward
> Hegelian abstractions sometimes) as opposed to Marx. Their originality on
> the level of empirical research is striking and excellent.
Skocpol goes beyond the sophisticated marxist version in
seeing the state as an administrative/military organization
with its own unique interests. Although the state relies on the
support of the dominant class, it may do things against this
class to cultivate or protect its own geo-political interests.
For weberians warfare is a fundamental factor in the evolution of the
state, of even greater importance than class conflict. And, I think,
no matter how much marxists may bend, stretch, or alter their core
concepts (relative autonomy), they cannot explain the dynamics of
warfare, and of history itself. None of this, of course, disqualifies
the key role of capitalism in the modern world.
ricardo
> in pen-l solidarity,
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
> "The only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damned greedy."
> -- Herbert Hoover
>
