Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Benno Teschke

Global Capitalism



First Spectrum Journal of Global Studies Conference: ‘Historical Sociology, Historical Materialism and International Relations’

This is a reminder that the deadline to propose a paper or panel for the November 2012 Spectrum Journal of Global Studies Conference is 1 July, 2012.

The Spectrum Conference will be held in Ankara, Turkeyat the Middle East Technical University from 2-3 November 2012.

Proposals are invited on the conference theme Historical Sociology, Historical Materialism and International Relations.

Featured speakers at the conference will include in alphabetical order:

Adam Morton, University of Nottingham, U.K.

Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, VU University of Amsterdam, Netherland

Benno Teschke, University of Sussex, U.K.

Gonzalo Pozo, University College, London, U.K.

Hannes Lacher, York University, Canada

Jonathan Joseph, Rutherford College, University of Kent, U.K.

Kamran Matin, University of Sussex, U.K.

Neil Davidson, University of Strathclyde, U.K.

Stephen Hobden, Universityof East London, U.K.

Please see the conference website for application and information:

Guidelines for Participants:

The discipline of International Relations (IR) known as an ‘American’ social science has in the last decade or so been discovering the importance of alternative forms of explaining international relations. More so than any other field of social science, IR has been dominated by positivist conceptions of scientific inquiry. However recent approaches in the philosophy of sciences as well as the sociological turn in IR has changed the boundaries, assumptions and methodologies of our discipline.  Critical realism as an alternative to positivist as well as post-positivist understandings of social science is increasingly becoming the dominant form of philosophyzing about IR. Historical sociological approaches are taking over the static, ahistorical forms of theorizing. Marxist social theory has become more and more relevant to explain the current of changes in the international system. Internationalisation of capitalism has made the concerns of Marxism increasingly relevant to understand and explain the ‘international’. Recent controversies on the relation between the state system and capitalist mode of production have made important contributions to understand the link between what is traditionally understood from international relations and capitalist relations of production. These efforts have to go on as there are yet many other untouched aspects of international relations that require desconstruction and dereification. This conference attempts to further our understanding of the links between historical sociology, critical realism and Marxism. Empirical works combining the insights of Marxist historical sociology and historical materialism with that of international relations is particularly wellcome. We are extending an invitation to all researchers to present research that adress the following issues and similar topics.

How does a historical materialist geopolitics adress the traditional issues of IR?

1.    Geopolitics of state formations

2.    What is the relation between the state system and capitalism?

3.    In what ways does critical realism help Marxism to analyse the international?

4.    What are the limits and the potentials of the theory of combined and uneven development to explain the international?

5.    Historical matarialist analysis of international law

6.    Contemporary forms of imperialism

7.    International state apparatuses and their role in the reproduction of capital

8.    Marx’s method and the world market

9.    Global protest movements and the Arab Spring

10.  Gramscian analysis of global transformations

11.  Historical Sociology of the Middle East and the Balkans

We hope to see both individual papers and panels discussing these themes from different disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives.

We encourage scholars from all around the world to participate in this exciting attempt to link our conceptions of praxis and change with that of what constitutes the ‘international’.

Most papers presented in the conference will later be published in a special issue of the Spectrum or in a separate book.

We look forward to welcoming you all at METU in Ankara.

Check back often for updates through out the coming months!

Inquiries to the program chairs should be directed to:


‘Human Herbs’ – a new remix and new video by Cold Hands & Quarter Moon:

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas:

MySpace Profile:

Cold Hands & Quarter Moon:

Rikowski Point:


Glenn Rikowski on Facebook at:

Glenn Rikowski’s MySpace Blog:

Karl Marx



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:

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.


‘Human Herbs’ – a new remix and new video by Cold Hands & Quarter Moon:

‘Cheerful Sin’ – a song by Victor Rikowski:

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas:

Rikowski Point:


Glenn Rikowski on Facebook at: