Re: [OPE] The state under capitalism

Money taxes preceed capitalism. Lack of money is not a problem, the mint can readily provide it once coins have been invented.

--- original message ---
From: "howard engelskirchen" <he31@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [OPE] The state under capitalism
Date: 14th August 2010
Time: 5:28:32 am

Dave wrote:

<On your first point I obviously agree too, but see somewhat less
relevance since in historical terms coercive apparatuses were often in
place as states pre-date capitalism. What is interesting is how their
mode of operation, and capacities to levy taxes, changed with the rise
of a capitalist economy.>

Right, but the fact that coercive apparatuses were in place does not mean
the structures in place stayed the same or that we can give the same account
of them. Think of the distinction between homology and analogy in
evolutionary explanation -- the difference between tracking the flippers of
a whale and the wings of a bat to a common root, but not the wings of
insects and the wings of birds. The same would hold for structures of
coercion, bureaucracy, taxation, etc. Just because different social systems
both have a kind of bureaucracy doesn't mean they can be tracked to the same
structural root. And the same would be true, as you emphasize, for taxes.
Marx's point about collecting taxes in money is relevant. Where there
isn't enough money in circulation, you can try, but it won't work. When it
becomes possible its not because of an evolution of tax or coercive
structures in place.

howard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Zachariah" <davez@kth.se>
To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE] The state under capitalism

> On 2010-08-13 08:38, howard engelskirchen wrote:
>> Without doubt, Dave, forms of taxation are necessary to support the
>> separation of the state from civil society. But surely we first need to
>> give an account of the structures of coercion that make taxation
>> possible.
>> Anyway, I agree with you that we need to distinguish structural accounts
>> from explanations limited to class or personal interest. Interests have
>> to
>> be explained in terms of the structures that generate them and which they
>> tend to reproduce. If I produce independently a use value useless to me,
>> then it is in my interest to find a market and I take consciousness of
>> this.
>
> I agree with your latter point and I think for instance Robert Brenner's
> work on the origins of capitalist relations of production is a very good
> example of how to find such structural constraints that give rise to a
> certain dynamic.
>
> On your first point I obviously agree too, but see somewhat less
> relevance since in historical terms coercive apparatuses were often in
> place as states pre-date capitalism. What is interesting is how their
> mode of operation, and capacities to levy taxes, changed with the rise
> of a capitalist economy.
>
> //Dave Z
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Aug 14 05:17:38 2010