Charles Tilly’s made an argument in analogizing between war making and state making, on one hand, and organized crime, on the other. Tilly articulated the basic duties of government. One of which was protecting its citizens from external hardship. This “protecting of the citizens” by the government will eventually lead to dominance or monopoly over a particular area. Charles Tilly, in his argument, mainly discussed how Europeans states were generally formed through state making and war making processes. He also discussed the relationship between the ruler of a state and its own people (bandits, magnates, lords). In addition, he explained how taxes were collected and that continent-based traveling was much more expensive than sea traveling. Henceforth, any nations that were able to navigate the seas had great advantages. Finally Charles Tilly elaborated on “what do states do” (war making, state making, protection, and extraction) and its international relationships with other states (mainly, he discussed Europe and how European states affected other forming states).
I agreed with Charles Tilly’s argument. The reason why I agreed with his argument is because of his explanation of the different foundation of states and how they formed – through war making and state making. The European states, for example, were organized internally first as the ruler gain monopoly over the areas they ruled. Then, they expanded externally to monopolize their gained on the outside. When the European powers began to exert their influences externally, it affected other nations and other nations organized around – for or against – the European powers. Henceforth, the art of war making and state making can be analogized as “organized crime” by the European powers’ failed attempt at establishing civil states abroad their border. Those states that formed because of the European powers were because of a “defensive reaction” towards the European powers itself. They organized themselves...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document