Anti-Eurocentric Historicism: Political Marxism in a Broader Context

Salgado, Pedro

doi:10.1163/1569206x-12342056

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Radically historicist Marxism would flip this on its head. By focusing on the ‘ontological significance’ of history, the processes of making of historically specific phenomena and actors, historicisation works as a practice of theorisation (Salgado, 2021).…”

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

Class structure without politics or history?

Pfaler

2023

International Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review essay considers Vivek Chibber’s social theory of capitalism critically and develops some of the themes that a historicist social theory of capitalist stability should integrate theoretically. I start by outlining Chibber’s notable book and present its key claim about the materiality and primacy of class structure in terms of economic decision-making. I then point out the limits and antinomies of structural theory as a historical explanation, sketch the contours of a historicist methodology and provide examples of three political phenomena that are irreducible to the class structure but that have been central for the reproduction of capitalism. The final section considers the political consequences of my historicist criticism of Chibber.

show abstract

Section: IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

Class structure without politics or history?

Pfaler

2023

International Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Embedded Authoritarianism

Salgado¹

2022

Edition Politik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter engages with two interpretations of authoritarianism that present it in opposition to liberal democracies. One is found in contemporary institutionalist political science, and the other draws from the Poulantzian Marxist tradition of state theory in order to provide an interpretation of the current crisis. As a second step, the argument moves further back in Latin American history to establish colonial domination as the basis for the creation of geopolitically-differentiated categories of political subjects, and the shift towards modern sovereignty as one infused with authoritarianism in its core.

show abstract

Quo Vadis, Historical International Relations? Geopolitical Marxism and the Promise of Radical Historicism

Von Pfaler,

Teschke

2024

uidergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

John Maclean’s 1988 call “Marxism and IR: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect” has generated a rich bounty of Marxist studies and paradigms in International Relations (IR). This cross-pollination merged in the 1990s with the “historical turn” and shaped the sub-fields of International Historical Sociology and International Political Economy. But has it left its mark on how IR is practised today? We argue that while Marxism has spoken significantly to the discipline, mainstream IR, even Historical IR, has been largely impervious to Marxist arguments, drawing the standard charge of economism and structuralism. Rectifying these critiques, we suggest that conventional historical studies of “the international” remain methodologically and substantively impoverished. We exemplify this by showing how leading Historical IR studies of “systems change” fail to explain the inside/outside and public/private differentiations constitutive of the modern international order and to integrate the “levels of analysis” they presuppose. We further argue that this rejection has been facilitated by influential Marxist IR paradigms, which ultimately privilege structuralism over historicism: While Neo-Gramscians initially mobilised “historicism” to dissolve claims about the “sameness” of international relations across time and space, the approach became identified with the reified master-category of “hegemony”. Uneven and Combined Development, in turn, has gravitated towards matching Neo-realism’s claim to theoretical universality by insisting on transhistorical model-building and nomological “grand theory”. Both approaches remain over-sociologised and fail to address international politics. Drawing on radically historicist Political Marxism, this article shows how its substantive socio-political premises explain the historical formation of the contemporary international order and re-unite the “levels of analysis” theoretically to provide a framework for non-reductionist and non-economistic accounts of historical international relations. This requires an answer to the agentic challenge of Neo-Classical Realism by reincorporating grand strategy, diplomacy, and international politics into a reformulated perspective of Geopolitical Marxism to track the full historicity of the making of international orders.

show abstract

Anti-Eurocentric Historicism: Political Marxism in a Broader Context

Cited by 4 publications

References 21 publications

Class structure without politics or history?

Class structure without politics or history?

Embedded Authoritarianism

Quo Vadis, Historical International Relations? Geopolitical Marxism and the Promise of Radical Historicism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About