Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:47:51.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A double omission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

V. Kubálková  and
A. A. Cruickshank
V. Kubálková
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Political Theory, University of Queensland
A. A. Cruickshank
Affiliation:
Professor of Politics, University of Otago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The title of the article is intended to focus the attention of Western writers on international relations theory upon two aspects of this rapidly growing research area. Rather than meeting with an incomprehensible neglect it is our argument that the aspects referred to might well be accorded one of the key places. Failure to do so, it our contention, when transferred from considerations of theoretical efficiency into the no less precarious realm of practical policy, might well have proportionately hazardous implications. We would beg forbearance, however, if within the necessarily limited scope of this article only a very perfunctory and sketchy outline of the meaning and implications of the omissions can be given. The sole purpose of this article is to provoke interest in these particular areas rather than to supply the deficiencies – a task which clearly could only be undertaken in the expanded context of a major work.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , October 1977 , pp. 286 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 286 note 1. Frankel, Cf. Joseph, International Politics: Conflict and Harmony (London, 1969), p. 26.Google Scholar

page 286 note 2. Obviously we do not refer here to the type of research that can be found in the works of a small but active (and also disparate) group sometimes referred to as neo-Marxists or neo-Leninists (according to their acknowledged source of inspiration). They produce what has been termed theories of imperialism (or theories of dependence or structural dependence) and in their analysis of the contemporary world, they employ elements of the works of Marx or Lenin: a different kind of exercise which in our opinion deserves more attention from the institutionalized Western theory of international relations.

page 286 note 3. See Kernig, G. G. (ed.), Marxism, Communism and Western Society: A Comparative Ency-clopaedia (New York, 1972), vol. 4, p. 370Google Scholar; “…. the original Marxian doctrine viewed international affairs from an exclusively national and economic angle. Marx's theory of international relations was derivative and not original”.

page 287 note 1. Some such embarrassing conclusions were suggested in the pioneer article on this subject by Berki, R. N., ‘On Marxian Thought and the Problem of International Relations’, World Politics, xxiv (1971), p. 101Google Scholar: N.B., for example, his view that in the light of some of Marx's initial assumptions the relations among socialist states are by definition of a capitalist nature.

page 287 note 2. The few recent notable exceptions include the above mentioned article by Berki, R. N.. Zimmerman's book (William Zimmerman, Soviet Perspectives on International Relations 1956-ig6y (Princeton, 1969)Google Scholar), despite its promising title does not amount to more than an account of Soviet foreign policy in terms of a questionable theory of international relations that he uses. Tanter, R. and Ullman, R. H. (eds.), in Theory and Policy in International Relations, Supplement to World Politics, xxiv (1972)Google Scholar, mention “explicitly ideological (such as Marxist or Maoist) paradigms” but only as theoretical approaches which they do not further investigate (p. 4). Kernig's Encyclopaedia (op. cit.) devotes a full article to international relations (Vol. 4, pp. 370–8) but falls some way short of a full appreciation of Marx's thinking on international relations.

page 288 note 1. See Konstantinov, F. V. (ed.), Sociologicheskieproblemi mezhdunarodnikh otnoshenii (Moskva, 1970), p. 5ffGoogle Scholar.

page 290 note 1. Israelyan, Cf. V., ‘The Leninist Science of International Relations and Foreign Policy Reality’, International Affairs, 8 (1967), pp. 47–8Google Scholar. Ustinov, N., ‘Mathematical Methods in the Analysis of International Relations’, International Affairs, 12 (1968), pp. 74ffGoogle Scholar.; Modrzhinskaya, E., ‘Lenin's Theory and Modern International Relations’, International Affairs, 1 (1907), pp. 56ffGoogle Scholar, among many other articles.

page 290 note 2. Lenin, V. I., Materialism and Empirio-criticism, Collected Works (London, 1963), vol. 14 p. 317Google Scholar.

page 291 note 1. Cf. Stanley Hoffman quoted in Frankel, Joseph, Contemporary International Theory Behaviour of States (London, 1973)Google Scholar: “… One should not expect an apple tree to produce cherries – one should judge it by the quality of its apples. A man without practical experience as a policy-maker or as an adviser to policy-makers is unlikely to contribute much by usurping a role for which he is unqualified; his best chance of being useful lies precisely in the realms of academic analysis”.

page 291 note 2. There has been no universally accepted usage of the terms ‘horizontal’ and Vertical’ amongst those writers who use these expressions. For reasons of easier diagrammatical presentation in our work, presently in preparation, we prefer the use of ‘horizontal’ for state level and ‘vertical’ for class level, as in, for instance, Zimmerman, W., Soviet Perspectives International Relations 1956–1967 (Princeton, N.J., 1969), p. 3Google Scholar; Galtung, , J., , ‘A Structural Theory of Imperialism’, Journal of Peace Research 2 (1971), pp. 8ffGoogle Scholar, R, N. Berki in article quoted above (fn. 4) uses the terms in the reverse manner.

page 291 note 3. Marx, Karl and Engels, F., German Ideology (London, 1965), p. 48Google Scholar.

page 291 note 4. Marx, K., Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (London, 1959), p. 103Google Scholar.

page 292 note 1. Marx, , The Civil War in France, Selected Works in One Volume (London, 1968), p. 260Google Scholar.

page 292 note 2. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, in Selected Works in One Volume, op. cit. p. 32.

page 292 note 3. Marx, , Das Fest der Mationen in London, Gesamtausgabe, I, vol. 4, p. 460.Google Scholar

page 292 note 4. Letter to Kugelman, 28 Mar. 1870, NZ XX No. 2/478, p. 460.

page 294 note 1. Carr, E. H., History of Soviet Russia (London, 1950)Google Scholar, Introduction to vol. I, p. 5: “A history of Soviet Russia written by an Englishman who has neither a Marxist nor a Russian background may seem a particularly hazardous enterprise. No sensible person will be tempted to measure the Russia of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin by any yardstick borrowed from the Britain of MacDonald, Baldwin and Ghurchill or the America of Wilson, Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt”.

page 294 note 2. Tunkin, G., ‘GPSU Foreign Policy Programme and Present Day International Relations’, International Affairs, 4 (1973), p. 13Google Scholar.

page 295 note 1. The coherence of the ‘socialist bloc’ seems to be firmly assumed despite the Sino-Soviet ideological split which is supposed to be of a temporary nature only. It will be ovecome at the end of the second (i.e. the present) stage of construction of communism. See, for example, Modrzhinskaya, E. D. and Stepanian, G. A. (eds.), Budushchee chelovecheskogo obshchestva (The future of Human Community) (Moskva, 1971), p. 382Google Scholar.

page 295 note 2. Sanakoyev, Sh, ‘The World Today: Problems of the Correlation of Forces’, International Affairs, 11 (1974)Google Scholar.

page 295 note 3. Gantman, V., International Affairs, 9 (1969), p. 56Google Scholar.

page 296 note 1. Brezhnev's speech at the 25th Congress, Pravda, 25 Feb. 1976, p. 2.

page 296 note 2. For many of Lenin's pronouncements to this effect see ‘Economic interests and the economic position of the classes which rule our state lie at the root of both our home and foreign policy, ”Collected Works, 27/365 (Moscow, 1965)Google Scholar, or: “It is fundamentally wrong, non-Marxist and non-scientific, to single out foreign policy from policy in general, let alone counterpose foreign policy to home policy”. Ibid. 23/43.

page 297 note 1. Morkovnikov, Cf. S., International Affairs, 11 (1974/11)Google Scholar, Sovetova, Ibid. 9 (1972).

page 297 note 2. Zimmerman, W. quoting Pravda in Soviet Perspective on International Relations, 1956-6 (Princeton, 1969), p. 5Google Scholar.

page 297 note 3. Trukhanovsky, V., ‘Proletarian Internationalism and Peaceful Coexistence’, International Affairs, 8 (1968), p. 59Google Scholar.

page 298 note 1. With the possible exception of China (which still waits theoretical locationing). As a result of Chinese misbehaviour only ‘peaceful co-existence’ has been offered. See Brezhnev, op. cit. p. 2.

page 298 note 2. “Proletarian Internationalism has become a basis of interstate relations among socialist countries”, Tsapanov, International Affairs, 9 (1972/1979), p. 19Google Scholar.

page 299 note 1. Curtis, Michael, Marxism (New York, 1970), p. 11Google Scholar.

page 299 note 2. Mills, C. Wright, The Marxists (London, 1969), p. 25Google Scholar.

page 299 note 3. Drachkovitch, M. (ed.), Marxism in the Modern World (Stanford, 1970), p. 9Google Scholar.

page 299 note 4. Golembiewski, Robert T., Welsh, William A., and Grotty, William J., A Methodological Primerfor Political Scientists (Chicago, 1969), p. 330Google Scholar.

page 300 note 1. Marx and Engels, Selected Works in One Volume, op. cit. p. 488.

page 300 note 2. Russell, Cf. Bruce M., Economic Theories of International Politics (Chicago, 1968)Google Scholar.

page 301 note 1. Here we should once again for the sake of completeness mention the modern theories of imperialism and theories of structural dependence from the pens ofself-styled neo-Marxists or neo-Leninists such as Baran and Sweezy, MagdofF, Samir Amin, Bodenheimer, Frank, Cardoso, Dos Santos, among others. To some extent central to the positions of all of these writers is Arghiri Emmanuel's theory of unequal exchange - itself based “on the Marxist labour theory of value.

page 301 note 2. One should not, however, omit in this context the group of theories sometimes referred to as Neo-Marxist (and not, alas, often associated with the theory of international relations) which carry further the Marxist and Leninist tradition as outlined above: see in this context the work of Baran and Sweezy, and, most recently, the theoretical work of an Egyptian, Amin, Samir, Accumulation on a World Scale, vol. 1–2 (Monthly Review Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

page 301 note 3. Curtis, op. cit. p. 97.

page 301 note 4. Marx, , Poverty of Philosophy (Chicago, 1910), pp. 65–6Google Scholar.

page 302 note 1. R. Aron in Drachkovitch, op. cit. p. 8. See also Letter to Engels (Marx), 2 June, 1853, Correspondence 1826–1865: A Selection with Commentary and Notes, (London, 1934), p. 64–65Google Scholar.

page 302 note 2. Engels, Feuerbach, Selected Works in One Volume, op. cit. p. 590.

page 302 note 3. Bertalanffy, Ludwig von, General System Theory: Foundations, Developments, Application (New York, 1968), p. 11Google Scholar.

page 302 note 4. In Rosenau, J. (ed.), Linkage Politics (New York, 1969), p. 22ffGoogle Scholar.

page 303 note 1. Engels, F., Anti-Dühring, (Herr Eugen Bullring's Revolution in Science) (London, 1943), p. 51Google Scholar.

page 303 note 2. See Nicholson, M. B. and Reynolds, P. A., ‘General Systems, the International System and the Eastonian Analysis’, Political Studies, xv (1967)Google Scholar.

page 303 note 3. Galtung, John, ‘A Structural Theory of Aggression’, Journal of Peace Research 2 (1964), pp. 95–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 304 note 1. Lenin, V. I., Collected Works (Moscow, 1963), vol. 29, p. 421Google Scholar.

page 304 note 2. Engels, Anti-Dühring, op. cit. p. 156.

page 305 note 1. Rosenau, J. N., Davis, V., and East, M., The Analysis of International Politics (New York, 1972), pp. 32–33Google Scholar.

page 305 note 2. Rosenau, op. cit. pp. 21ff.

page 305 note 3. Ibid. p. 21ff.

page 306 note 1. Hanrieder, W. F., ‘Compatibility and Consensus: a proposal for the Conceptual Linkage of External and Internal Dimensions of Foreign Policy’, American Political Science Review, 61 (1967), p. 975CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 306 note 2. Ibid. Also Rosenau, op. cit.

page 306 note 3. Galtung, Johan, ‘A Structural Theory of Imperialism’, Journal of Peace Research, 2 (1971), 81–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 306 note 4. Galtung's conceptualization is often regarded as the clearest statement of the structural dependence theory; a clear parallel of his centre and periphery is to be seen in Andre Gunder Frank's “metropolis and satellite” or even in Immanuel Wallerstein's “core and periphery”. Unlike Galtung, most ofthe other structural dependence theorists do acknowledge conceptual indebtedness to Marx and Lenin.