State vs. Market

Maju:

Did my long post above on the topic clarify anything?  I hope it addressed how it seems to me (and also Maharbbal who started the thread) that the market interacted with interest groups to affect state formation.

Maju, allow me to believe more professor Kennedy than you

I advocate market with state intervention

look at this link

http://www.yale.edu/aya/bios/kennedy.html

or this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kennedy

or this one

http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/kennedy.html

Maju,

please read the book or believe me that I really quote Kennedy.

I do it . When I don't agree with Kennedy's inference I write (and explain) my opinion.

Pikeshot, I think that here is some kind of misunderstanding. You write what was important for the income to the Treasure (control of trade or rather taxes from control of trade). I write about GNP, which (until 1850) was created largely by agriculture. These are not the same things.

And last notice - even if most of GNP was created by agriculture, it doesn't mean that the industry in early 19th c. (or earlier) wasn't important. It was important, but at least until 1850 bigger part of GNP was created by agriculture. And therefore Russia in 19th c. had GNP even bigger than GB.

Russia was weaker in the end of 19th c. than in the begining of 19th c. But it doesn't mean that it was 'extremely weak' country. BTW, after 1864 Russia wasn't feudel country any more.

Let me explain something. I stated that Russia was the strongest European country in that time. It doesn't mean that Russia was stronger than the rest of Europe. But if we compare any other European country to Russia, I would vote for Russia as the strongest country.

That's only your opinion unsupported by historical facts.

Maju, I recommend you to check the map of Russia (or rather western Russian borders) in 1700 and in 1900.

And I'll repeat again - I stated that Russia was the strongest European country in that time. It doesn't mean that Russia was stronger than the rest of Europe.

Economical weakness of Russia is also exaggeration. Look at the GNP of European countries in 19th c. During most of 19th c. Russia had GNP even biggger than GB.

Russia was only iferior to GB (but it wasn't inferior to for example France) when we compare industrialization of these countries. Below are next datas from Kennedy's book.

Industrialization of countries as a part of industrialization of the world:

in 1750: GB 1.9%, Russia 5%, France 4% (note - in that time, Russian industry made over 2.5 times more products than British one)

in 1800: GB 4.3%, Russia 5.6%, France 4.2%

in 1830: GB 9.5%, Russia 5.6%, France 5.2%

in 1860: GB 19.9%, Russia 7%, France 7.9%

in 1880: GB 22.9%, Russia 7.6%, France 7.8%

in 1900: GB 18.5%, Russia 8.8%, France 6.8%

So, at least until 1800 it was Russia which was the most industrialised European country. In 1900 Russia was still more industrialised than France (and only about 2 times less industrialised than GB).

That's your choice .

I told you. It is from the book ''The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers'' by Paul Kennedy.

Maju, I would like to open your eyes . It is the only one my interest. As I wrote, as the Pole I might be the last person which will love 18th and 19th c. Russia - the country which conquered and occupied my country. During those centuries Russia was the biggest enemy of Poland. It was Russia which partitioned Poland. It was Russia which defeated Napoleon and his Polish allies. And it was Russia which occupied my country until 1918. But my feelings to Russia won't change historical facts. These facts which I show here.