Skip navigation

Karl Marx

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND IR SEMINAR SERIES – OXFORD

CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES SEMINAR SERIES: HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The Historical Materialism and International Relations seminar series seeks to explore and develop the multiple points of contact between Marxist theory and international relations, most broadly defined. It does so with the double aim of investigating the critical and explanatory potentials of Marxism in the domain of international relations, as well as to probe what an engagement with ‘the international’ might contribute to Marxist theory. The seminar series is associated with the journal of Historical Materialism: Research in Critical Marxist Theory and its forthcoming ‘Historical Materialism and International Relations’ book series.

The following seminars will be given at 5 pm on Thursdays at Manor Road Building, Seminar Room C, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford. 

For further information please see: http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/series/69-historical-materialism-and-international-relations.html


Convener: Alexander Anievas

23 February 2012:

‘Uneven Developments, Combined: Gramsci and Trotsky on Permanent Revolution’

Peter Thomas 

Abstract: This paper will explore the different formulations of the notion of Permanent Revolution in the work of Antonio Gramsci and Leon Trotsky. Although Gramsci himself explicitly rejected Trotsky’s notion of permanent revolution as a reversion to a strategy of ‘war of movement’, he also claimed that his development of the theory of hegemony could be regarded as a contemporary form of Marx and Engels’s notion of the ‘Revolution in Permanence’. The paper will analyse the similarities and differences of the two seemingly divergent claims to inherit a central perspective of the classical Marxist tradition, and will argue that thinking the concepts of permanent and passive revolution together enables us to clarify and to make explicit dimensions that remain underdeveloped in each theorist’s respective work.

Peter Thomas is Lecturer in the History of Political Thought at Brunel University,London. He is the author of The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism (Brill, 2009), and (with Juha Koivisto) Mapping Communication and Media Research: Conjunctures, Institutions, Challenges (Tampere University Press, 2010) and co-editor (with Riccardo Bellofiore and Guido Starosta) of In Marx’s Laboratory: Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse(Brill, 2010). He has published widely on Marxist political theory and philosophy, the history of political thought and the history of philosophy.

 

1 March 2012:

‘Fatal Attraction: a critique of Carl Schmitt’s international political and legal theory’

 Benno Teschke

Abstract: The ongoing Schmitt revival has extended Carl Schmitt’s reach over the fields of international legal and political theory. Neo-Schmittians suggest that his international thought provides a new reading of the history of international law and order, which validates the explanatory power of his theoretical premises – the concept of the political, political decisionism, and concrete-order-thinking. Against this background, this article mounts a systematic reappraisal of Schmitt’s international thought in a historical perspective. The argument is that his work requires re-contextualization as the intellectual product of an ultra-intense moment in Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction. It inscribed Hitler’s ‘spatial revolution’ into a full-scale reinterpretation ofEurope’s geopolitical history, grounded in land appropriations, which legitimized Nazi Germany’s wars of conquest. Consequently, Schmitt’s elevation of the early modern nomos as the model for civilized warfare – the ‘golden age’ of international law – against which American legal universalism can be portrayed as degenerated, is conceptually and empirically flawed. Schmitt devised a politically motivated set of theoretical premises to provide a historical counter-narrative against liberal normativism, which generated defective history. The reconstruction of this history reveals the explanatory limits of his theoretical vocabulary – friend/enemy binary, sovereignty-as-exception, nomos/universalism – for past and present analytical purposes. Schmitt’s defective analytics and problematic history compromise the standing of his work for purposes of international theory.

Benno Teschke completed his doctorate in the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science and is currently a Senior Lecturer in the Department of International Relations at theUniversityofSussexand a Visiting Research Fellow at the European Research Council funded ‘Research Project Europe 1815–1914’ at theUniversityofHelsinki. He is the author of The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations (2003), which was awarded the Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize. More recently, he has published in the New Left Review and in International Theory on the international thought of Carl Schmitt and is preparing a monograph on thesubject.

 

8 March 2012: 

‘The Bourgeois Revolution as an International Process’

Neil Davidson 

The concept of bourgeois revolution is one of the most controversial in Marxist historiography and in recent years it has been dismissed as irrelevant by several important schools of thought, including World Systems theory (Wallerstein, Gunder Frank) and Political Marxism (Brenner, Wood). In this talk, Neil Davidson will attempt to defend the explanatory power of the concept, but will also argue that it can only be understood as referring, not only to a succession of individual revolutions (England, America, France…) but also to an extended international process, the whole of which was greater than the sum of these parts. Beginning with the Reformation and only concluding with decolonisation after the Second World War, the capitalist world which emerged from it did not inherit the pre-existing absolutist states system, but created an entirely new one in which the component states had been reconfigured as independent centres of capital accumulation.

Neil Davidson is Senior Research Fellow with theSchool ofApplied Social Science at theUniversity ofStrathclyde. He is Author of The Origins of Scottish Nationhood (2000), Discovering the Scottish Revolution (2003), for which he was awarded the Deutscher Memorial Prize and co-editor and contributor to Alasdair MacIntyre’s Engagement with Marxism: Selected Writings, 1953-1974 (2008) and Neoliberal Scotland (2010). He has two books coming out next year: How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions? and Violating all the Laws of History: Combined Development, Nation-states, and Neoliberal Capitalism.

**END**

‘Human Herbs’ – a new remix and new video by Cold Hands & Quarter Moon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au-vyMtfDAs

‘Cheerful Sin’ – a song by Victor Rikowski: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIbX5aKUjO8

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

Rikowski Point: http://rikowskipoint.blogspot.com

Volumizer: http://glennrikowski.blogspot.com

Glenn Rikowski on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/glenn.rikowski

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: