Globalising common sense: a Marxian-Gramscian (re-)vision of the politics of governance/resistance

The impoverishment of mainstream International Relations (IR) scholarship, especially as it is practised in the bastions of academic power and respectability in the United States, can be registered in terms of its wilful and continuing conceptual blindness to mutually constitutive relations of governance/resistance at work in the production of global politics. This has been underscored in recent years by the rise of powerful transnational social movements seeking to reform or transform global capitalism, a coalition of coalitions recently reincarnated in the form of a global peace movement opposing the blatantly neo-imperial turn in US foreign policy. As the essays in this Special Issue attest, critical scholars of world politics have developed conceptual vocabularies with which to (re-)construct, from various analytical-political perspectives, aspects of these governance/resistance relations. My task in this article is to argue that – under historical circumstances of capitalist modernity – a dialectical understanding of class-based powers is necessary, if by no means sufficient, for understanding social powers more generally, and issues of global governance and resistance which implicate those powers. Although it is not without its tensions and limitations, I have found re-envisionings of Marxian political theory inspired by Western Marxism – and in particular by interpretations of Antonio Gramsci – to be enabling for such a project. Marxian theory provides critical leverage for understanding the structures and dynamics of capitalism, its integral if complex relationship to the modern form of state, the class-based powers it enables and the resistances these engender; and Gramsci's rich if eternally inchoate legacy suggests a conceptual vocabulary for a transformative politics in which a variety of anti-capitalist movements might coalesce in order to produce any number of future possible worlds whose very possibility is occluded by capitalism. In the present context of globalising capitalism and neo-imperialism, such resistance has taken the form of a transnational confluence of movements for global justice and peace.

Download Full-text

The Fight for Peace

10.1093/oso/9780190644611.003.0002 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Melissa Feinberg

Keyword(s):

War Crimes ◽

The United States ◽

Peace Movement ◽

Rural Populations ◽

Soviet Bloc ◽

American Perspective ◽

Peace Activists ◽

The World ◽

Peace Activism ◽

Global Peace

This chapter examines the Communist-led peace movement and analyzes its propaganda. Like show trials, the peace movement spread a similar set of messages around the Soviet bloc and throughout the world. Unlike the show trials, peace discourse was primarily concerned with revealing the truth of the warmongering West. For example, peace activists detailed American war crimes in Korea and exposed American racist policies at home. Within Eastern Europe, peace activism became a part of daily life as both urban and rural populations were pressured to take part in various peace campaigns. In the United States, in contrast, supporting the peace movement was vilified as support for Communism. From the American perspective, the global peace movement of the 1950s only told lies.

Download Full-text

After Victory

10.23943/princeton/9780691169217.001.0001 ◽

2019 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

G. John Ikenberry

Keyword(s):

Comparative Politics ◽

World Order ◽

Balance Of Power ◽

The United States ◽

Big Bang ◽

World Politics ◽

Napoleonic Wars ◽

Power Politics ◽

The Cold War

The end of the Cold War was a “big bang” reminiscent of earlier moments after major wars, such as the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and the end of the world wars in 1919 and 1945. But what do states that win wars do with their newfound power, and how do they use it to build order? This book examines postwar settlements in modern history, arguing that powerful countries do seek to build stable and cooperative relations, but the type of order that emerges hinges on their ability to make commitments and restrain power. The book explains that only with the spread of democracy in the twentieth century and the innovative use of international institutions—both linked to the emergence of the United States as a world power—has order been created that goes beyond balance of power politics to exhibit “constitutional” characteristics. Blending comparative politics with international relations, and history with theory, the book will be of interest to anyone concerned with the organization of world order, the role of institutions in world politics, and the lessons of past postwar settlements for today.

Download Full-text

The Research of the Global Peace Movement by FFWPU : Centering on the Period after Moon Sun-Myung’s Passing away

Peace and Religions ◽

10.25168/kaprs.2018.6.163 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 6 ◽

pp. 163-182

Author(s):

Hyunjin Lim ◽

Keyword(s):

Peace Movement ◽

Global Peace

Download Full-text

Domestic Politics, China's Rise, and the Future of the Liberal International Order

International Organization ◽

10.1017/s002081832000048x ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-30

Author(s):

Jessica Chen Weiss ◽

Jeremy L. Wallace

Keyword(s):

Chinese Communist Party ◽

Domestic Politics ◽

The United States ◽

International Order ◽

World Politics ◽

Internet Governance ◽

Liberal Internationalism ◽

The Future ◽

Trade And Exchange ◽

International Behavior

Abstract With the future of liberal internationalism in question, how will China's growing power and influence reshape world politics? We argue that views of the Liberal International Order (LIO) as integrative and resilient have been too optimistic for two reasons. First, China's ability to profit from within the system has shaken the domestic consensus in the United States on preserving the existing LIO. Second, features of Chinese Communist Party rule chafe against many of the fundamental principles of the LIO, but could coexist with a return to Westphalian principles and markets that are embedded in domestic systems of control. How, then, do authoritarian states like China pick and choose how to engage with key institutions and norms within the LIO? We propose a framework that highlights two domestic variables—centrality and heterogeneity—and their implications for China's international behavior. We illustrate the framework with examples from China's approach to climate change, trade and exchange rates, Internet governance, territorial sovereignty, arms control, and humanitarian intervention. Finally, we conclude by considering what alternative versions of international order might emerge as China's influence grows.

Download Full-text

Still the American Century

Review of International Studies ◽

10.1017/s0260210599002715 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 25 (5) ◽

pp. 271-299 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

BRUCE CUMINGS

Keyword(s):

Foreign Policy ◽

Foreign Relations ◽

Possible Worlds ◽

Federal Budget ◽

The United States ◽

Surprising Result ◽

Policy Issues ◽

American Century ◽

The Us ◽

Year 2000

At the inception of the twenty-first century—not to mention the next millennium—books on ‘the American Century’ proliferate monthly, if not daily. We now have The American Century Dictionary, The American Century Thesaurus, and even The American Century Cookbook; perhaps the American Century baseball cap or cologne is not far behind. With one or two exceptions, the authors celebrate the unipolar pre-eminence and comprehensive economic advantage that the United States now enjoys. Surveys of public opinion show that most people agree: the American wave appears to be surging just as the year 2000 beckons. Unemployment and inflation are both at twenty-year lows, sending economists (who say you can't get lows for both at the same time) back to the drawing board. The stock market roars past the magic 10,000 mark, and the monster federal budget deficit of a decade ago miraculously metamorphoses into a surplus that may soon reach upwards of $1 trillion. Meanwhile President William Jefferson Clinton, not long after a humiliating impeachment, is rated in 1999 as the best of all postwar presidents in conducting foreign policy (a dizzying ascent from eighth place in 1994), according to a nationwide poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. This surprising result might also, of course, bespeak inattention: when asked to name the two or three most important foreign policy issues facing the US, fully 21 per cent of the public couldn't think of one (they answered ‘don't know’), and a mere seven per cent thought foreign policy issues were important to the nation. But who cares, when all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds?

Download Full-text

European Strategic Autonomy: The Test Case of Iran

ERIS – European Review of International Studies ◽

10.1163/21967415-08030009 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (3) ◽

pp. 443-477

Author(s):

Sascha Lohmann

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

The United States ◽

Test Case ◽

The European Union ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Special Purpose Vehicle ◽

The Face ◽

Global Peace ◽

Security Actor ◽

Strategic Autonomy

Abstract The ideal of the European Union (EU) as a global peace and security actor is increasingly clashing with the reality of a multipolar world defined by militarised conflict, and a loosening of the formerly close trans-Atlantic relationship with the United States. European policy-makers have identified strategic autonomy as a possible remedy in the face of a growing number of internal and external security threats. This paper adds to the conceptualisation of strategic autonomy by contextualising its current usage and political genealogy. Empirically, European strategic autonomy is examined concerning the efforts to preserve the Iranian nuclear deal after the Trump administration had ceased US participation in May 2018. In particular, the paper assesses the European response to counter the re-imposed unilateral United States (US) sanctions against European individuals and entities by updating the so-called blocking regulation, and setting up a special purpose vehicle (spv) for facilitating trade with Iran. The results show that the European struggle toward achieving strategic autonomy has largely failed, but that it holds valuable lessons to approximate this ideal in the future.

Download Full-text

The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters

International Security ◽

10.1162/isec_a_00328 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 43 (2) ◽

pp. 7-44 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Michael Beckley

Keyword(s):

Goodness Of Fit ◽

Balance Of Power ◽

The United States ◽

Important Variable ◽

World Politics ◽

Great Powers ◽

Military Power ◽

The Past ◽

Policy Analysts ◽

Leading Journals

Power is the most important variable in world politics, but scholars and policy analysts systematically mismeasure it. Most studies evaluate countries’ power using broad indicators of economic and military resources, such as gross domestic product and military spending, that tally their wealth and military assets without deducting the costs they pay to police, protect, and serve their people. As a result, standard indicators exaggerate the wealth and military power of poor, populous countries, such as China and India. A sounder approach accounts for these costs by measuring power in net rather than gross terms. This approach predicts war and dispute outcomes involving great powers over the past 200 years more accurately than those that use gross indicators of power. In addition, it improves the in-sample goodness-of-fit in the majority of studies published in leading journals over the past five years. Applying this improved framework to the current balance of power suggests that the United States’ economic and military lead over other countries is much larger than typically assumed, and that the trends are mostly in America's favor.

Download Full-text

FUTURE OF US HEGEMONY

ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ◽

10.17721/apmv.2019.139.0.4-12 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 4-12

Author(s):

A Subotin

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Soft Power ◽

International Politics ◽

Social Power ◽

International System ◽

The United States ◽

World Politics ◽

The Us ◽

The Future ◽

Us Hegemony

Abstract. The demise of the bipolar system of international politics has revived interest in such closely related and contested terms as "superpower", "hegemon", "empire" and "imperialism". This article represents an attempt to define the most probable trend in the future evolution of the international system with regard to the role of the United States of America as the most prominent state power of today's world. This article seeks to analyse the US power posture in today's world politics by comparing its core capabilities to those of the classical empire of the previous century - the British Empire - with analytical emphasis on both the "hard power" and the "soft power" dimensions. The author maintains that the notion of US hegemony or even American Empire is still relevant despite a clear historic tendency of hegemonic decline seen throughout the second part of the 20th century. The United States still ranks high on the scale of most traditional power factors and, what is by far more important, they continue to be able to shape and control the scale and the volume of international exposure of all other major players within the framework of contemporary global international system. The relative decline of US influence upon world politics at the beginning of the new millennia has been effectively off-set by the profound change in the nature of American power which is now assuming the form of a structural dominance. The author's personal view is that US hegemony is not doomed to wane, given the enormous impact the United States have already made economically, politically and intellectually upon the post World War II international relations. The continuance of the US playing the pivotal role in the international politics of the 21st century will be dependent on the ability of the US political class to adapt to and to harness the social power of numerous non-state international actors that are due take over the leading role in the future world's politics.

Download Full-text

SMART POWER AS THE FACTOR IN THE SINO-U.S. RELATIONS

EurasianUnionScientists ◽

10.31618/esu.2413-9335.2020.5.71.601 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (2(71)) ◽

pp. 4-7

Author(s):

Cheng Guo ◽

Yin Qun

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

Public Diplomacy ◽

Theoretical Perspective ◽

Research Work ◽

The United States ◽

World Politics ◽

Smart Power ◽

Power Construction ◽

Key Factor ◽

Definition Of

This research work analyzes the characteristics of American public diplomacy from the perspectives of smart power theory, comparing China and the United States’ smart power strategy. The article revealed that globalization and the process of technological evolution have led profound changes in the contempopary world politics and international relations, the smart power factors such as culture, science, technology, and information have become increasingly prominent in political science. These factors have not only created the fundamental theory of smart power, but also affected the form and definition of diplomacy. The research methodology is based on a complex combination of scientific methods, mainly comparative, analytical, systematic. The obtained conclusions can be referred that smart power as a key factor, has become a new theoretical perspective for understanding changes in contempopary international relations and foreign policy. It has naturally become the theoretical support for public diplomacy, meanwhile public diplomacy itself is also an important content and strategic path for smart power construction.

Download Full-text