Re: [OPE] Marx on international relations

Date: Thu May 22 2008 - 05:01:01 EDT

 Hi Jerry,

sorry my delay. I have never claimed that Marx and Engels did have? *"a theory of international relations"* in the modern bourgeois sense". Therefore my reply to Jurriaan was referring to the second part of his sentence. M&E's theory/concept of internationalism? has a lot to do with Kant and Smith? AND Ferguson and Hegel and so on.The theory of internationalism for example  grows out of cosmopolitanism. The question whether M&E have a theory of international relations seems to me to be not fruitful because the critique of free trade, protectionism, colonialism and so on requires an alternative theory of the relationship of nations. And this is I think very well there in M&E's works. There are two letters of Engels to Laura and Paul Lafargue from June 20 and June 27 1893 respectively, which seems to be not available at, where he explicitly speaks of a new quality of internationality. 

The question has another aspect we have to bear in mind. The question is not whether there is a new academic discipline is established on international relations or not. If in an area there is to much material that requires special analysis - why should not be there a special discipline. The problem with bourgeois academics is that they take their single discipline for absolute. This must of course be criticised. 

Curious enough this debate reminds me of the debate of 50s and 60s of the last century whether sociology is a science. But this is another matter. Thanks for your patients.




-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Levy <>
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <>
Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 22:25
Subject: Re: [OPE] Marx on international relations

[Jurriaan wrote:] ?Marx and Engels did not have anything like a "theory of international 

in the modern bourgeois sense, and their views 
about the subject had nothing in particular to do 

with bourgeois philosophers like Kant, Smith and 
Ferguson. Nor were their views completely 

consistent at all times. But there are a 
lot?of Marxist forgeries around of what Marx and Engels 

really thought.

[Dogan responded:]?? This shows how 
little you know about Marx' and Engels' work and their 

sources if this claim is meant to be serious. 



Comment: I think the first sentence that Jurriaan wrote is correct 
- if we interpret it _literally_

(which is how I think he intended it to be read).??? 
I.e. M&E did not have a _theory_ of 

international relations "in the modern bourgeois 
sense" (by which I understood him to mean, 

as a separate discipline).? Certainly, M&E 
had a lot to write about _concrete_ international 

among specific nation states but that does not mean that they had a _theory_ of international 

relations _in general_.? 



In solidarity, Jerry


ope mailing list


AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at now.

ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2008 - 00:00:04 EDT