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
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
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
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
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
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
This replies to the recent inquiry by Brent McClintock concerning the
"non"-origins of the state in Marxist theory. Jim Devine has already
presented a similar response, so there is some redundancy here.
I cannot recall precisely the work of Pitelis, but the idea that the
initial deve
This replies to the recent inquiry by Brent McClintock concerning the
"non"-origins of the state in Marxist theory. Jim Devine has already
presented a similar response, so there is some redundancy here.
I cannot recall precisely the work of Pitelis, but the idea that the
initial deve
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 c
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 c
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
