The Myth of 1648
- PDF / 79,417 Bytes
- 4 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 97 Downloads / 202 Views
This excellent book presents an original thesis that relates not only to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, but also to the relationship between capitalist development and state formation in early modern Europe. Teschke’s work provides a critique of standard realist accounts of international relations and develops Brenner’s focus on property relations in order to provide a better understanding of the international. Indeed, what is most impressive in this book is the explicit linking of the social relations of production to the formulation of a theory of the international, a challenge necessary in the face of the criticism sometimes made that such a focus necessarily leads to an explanation of capitalism restricted to one country, and by implication a Eurocentric explanation. Following the important work of Rosenberg (1994), Teschke rightly rejects this argument and clearly links class formation, state formation, the ‘problematic of the international’, and uneven development. The book is therefore an important contribution to the development of a ‘political Marxism’ specifically applied to international relations. Standard realist accounts of international relations argue that the world order is anarchical as it is composed of nation-states, all exercising their own self-interest. The world order may change in that some states climb the hierarchy of the international order, while others may fall. But, essentially, the international order itself is characterized by a permanent state of anarchy. This system had its origins in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which ended the Thirty Years War in Europe. From this point on (if not before), the international order was based on modern, sovereign nation-states. In contrast, Teschke argues that the modern international system of nationstates actually developed at a date later than 1648. A specifically capitalist sovereignty only emerged in the nineteenth century, and this specific form of sovereignty was based on the development of impersonal public authorities — modern states — that recognized the sovereignty of other (European) states. Existing alongside these modern states were capitalist market economies in which commodity production was generalized, thus replacing the dominance of production for direct consumption. Following Brenner (1976) and Wood Journal of International Relations and Development, 2005, 8, (218–221) r 2005 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 1408-6980/05 $30.00
www.palgrave-journals.com/jird
Book Review
219
(2002), Teschke argues that capitalist social relations developed first in the English countryside through the initial development of a competitive market in leases for land (as opposed to freeholds in France), and the gradual displacement of poorer peasants from direct access to the means of production. These developments meant that the surplus could now be appropriated through the market, and not through directly political means. It also meant that competition generated by the generalization of commodity production laid the basis for the development of pro
Data Loading...
