This essay is first concerned with the Charles Tilly’s principle around by histhe famous saying: War makes the state, and the state makes war. Meanwhile, I will explain the relationship between the state and its four activities: War Mmaking, State Mmaking, Protection, Extraction. The filiation of state and war will be illustrated later. I will use Palestine region will be used as the main case study to demonstrate this essay and I will try to use this example to explain more clearly with the relationship between war and the state. What kind of Oorganizational structure the Palestine Liberation Organization ( PLO) was and its functions will be discussed in the case study. Moreover, armed struggle will be introduced and its consequences resultedact on the state will be listdescribed. HowThe effect of armed struggle onaffect the functions of PLO will be discussed as wellthe same time. Finally, a term called intifada and its forms will be explained.
Charles Tilly wrote an argument in War-Making and State-Making as Organized Crime, ‘Power holders’ pursuit of war involved them willy-nilly in the extraction of resources for war making from the populations over which they had control and in the promotion of capital accumulation by those who could help them borrow and buy. War making, Extraction, and capital accumulation interacted to shape European state making. Power holders did not undertake those three momentous activities with the intention of creating national states-centralized, differentiated, autonomous, extensive political organizations. Nor did they ordinary foresee that national states would emerge from war making, extraction, and capital accumulation’ (Tilly, 1985). Alternatively, these power holders enjoy the advantages of power within a guaranteed or expanding territory. In order to make war more effectively, they try to locate more capital either in short term by conquest or in long term by impose taxation regularly. As the process continued, state makes found difficulties in collecting taxes to make their long run interest. Thus, violence appeared. In the early state-making process, many parties use violence to accomplish their goalsends. At later eighteenth century, monarchs inthrough the most of European countries controlled permanent, professional military forces that competed those of their neighbors and any other organized armed force within their own territories. ‘The state’s monopoly of large-scale violence was turning from theory to reality’ (Tilly, 1985). Charles Tilly also mentioned that the agents of states characteristically carry on for different activities:, ‘1. War making: Eliminating or neutralizing their own rivals outside the territories in which they have clear and continuous priority as wielders of force; 2. State making: Eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside those territories; 3. Protection: Eliminating or neutralizing the enemies of their clients; 4. Extraction: Acquiring the means of carrying out the first three activities – war making, state making, and protection’ (Tilly, 1985). These four activities were interdependent. A war lord made war to become dominant in a territory, but that war making let to rose extraction of the means of war – men, arms, food, lodging, transportation, supplies, and the money to buy them – from the population within that territory. The extrication capacity increased with the developing of the war-making capacity. If successful, extraction would entail the elimination, neutralization, or cooptation of the great lord’s local rival; thus, it led to state making. In another way, extraction created organization in tax collection agencies, police forces, courts, exchequers, account keepers; thus it again led to state making. War making also led to state making through the increased capacity of military organization, as a standing army, the armswar industries, supporting bureaucracies and institutesschools grew up within the state...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document