RE: Origins of the State
In Message Fri, 25 Feb 94 00:28:41 CST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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! Oops, here I go touting again. How about _The Brenner Debate_, which includes several essays on the class origins of the capitalist state, I can't remember who edited it. Plenty of Marxist stuff in there and there's bound to be some commentary on what the Old Guy himself thought. Smash ignorance with a ball-point pen, Tavis
RE: Origins of the State
In Message Fri, 25 Feb 94 00:28:41 CST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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! Oops, here I go touting again. How about _The Brenner Debate_, which includes several essays on the class origins of the capitalist state, I can't remember who edited it. Plenty of Marxist stuff in there and there's bound to be some commentary on what the Old Guy himself thought. Smash ignorance with a ball-point pen, Tavis
Re: Origins of the State
On Fri, 25 Feb 94 00:28:41 CST Brent McClintock said: 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. The Marxist theory of the origin of the state (as far as I can see it) is basically historical and quasi-functionalist. It's historical, because the state arose before capitalism (with class society in general) and has been shaped by struggles between the main classes and among fractions of the ruling class, with state bureaucrats sometimes taking advantage of their relative autonomy to push for their own goals, which may go as far as joining the capitalist class. It's functionalist, because for Marxists the state has a very definite role to play in capitalist society: protecting the capitalist class monopoly on the ownership of the means of production against insurgent classes and also keeping the normal competition among capitalists from turning into a collectively-destructive feeding frenzy. It's only quasi-functionalist (rather than fully functionalist) because what the state actually does depends on the historical process of struggle mentioned above. The state might fail to do a good job of stabilizing class relations and harmonizing conflicts within the capitalist class. does this make sense? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacadINTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
RE: Origins of the State
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]
Re: Origins of the State
Maybe I didn't make it clear but the very simple story I gave at least had the basis for explaining "the growth and stability of the state." (BTW, it's a mistake to give Es Elster credit for these generally accepted criticisms of functionalism. I learned them years ago as an undergraduate, based on Stinchecombes's (that is, Stinchcombe's ) CONSTRUCTING SOCIAL THEORIES.) There are important fractions of the capitalist class which a favor the growth and stability of the state and will fight to get this. This especially applies to the most basic capitalist roles of the state -- the protection of private property, the enforcement of msot contracts, national "defense." Beyond that, there's a lot of disagreement among capitalists, but that hardly denies the basics. x Gv Given the divided state of other classes many of the dominated classes would go along. do go along. As for the state bureaucrats, Marx was very cos conscious of the problem. (See Draper's KARL MARX'S THO THEORY OF REVOLUTION, Monthly Review Press.) Most of the most fav famous writings dealt with 19th century liberal (minimal0 ) state, but he grew up in a quasi- absolutist country (parts of Germany). He was all in favor of the simple state, controlled democratically by the grass roots. See his comments on the Paris Commune. Also, for Marx, the stability of the state is not assured. With economic and social disruption comes political crisis. The state can fall apart, as it did in the French and Russian revolutions. (to mention two cases.) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacadINTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
Re: Origins of the State
On Fri, 25 Feb 94 00:28:41 CST Brent McClintock said: 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. The Marxist theory of the origin of the state (as far as I can see it) is basically historical and quasi-functionalist. It's historical, because the state arose before capitalism (with class society in general) and has been shaped by struggles between the main classes and among fractions of the ruling class, with state bureaucrats sometimes taking advantage of their relative autonomy to push for their own goals, which may go as far as joining the capitalist class. It's functionalist, because for Marxists the state has a very definite role to play in capitalist society: protecting the capitalist class monopoly on the ownership of the means of production against insurgent classes and also keeping the normal competition among capitalists from turning into a collectively-destructive feeding frenzy. It's only quasi-functionalist (rather than fully functionalist) because what the state actually does depends on the historical process of struggle mentioned above. The state might fail to do a good job of stabilizing class relations and harmonizing conflicts within the capitalist class. does this make sense? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacadINTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
RE: Origins of the State
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]
