Arms, Alliances and Stability: The Development of the Structure of International Politics PDF
Preview Arms, Alliances and Stability: The Development of the Structure of International Politics
ARMS, ALLIANCES AND STABILITY ARMS, ALLIANCES AND STABILITY The Development of the Structure of International Politics PARTHA CHATTERJEE M ISBN 978-1-349-02502-2 ISBN 978-1-349-02500-8 ((eeBBooookk)) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-02500-8 @ Partha Chatterjee 1975 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1975 978-0-333-17878-2 All rights reserved. No part of this pUblication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. First published in India 1975 First published in Great Britain 1975 Published by THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD London and Basingstoke Associated companies in New York Dublin Melbourne Johannesburg and Madrsa SBN 333 17878 5 Published by S. G. Was ani for The Macmillan Company oflndia Ltd. To GOU RI for her Friendship CONTENTS Preface ix PART I: THEoRETICAL PRELIMINARIES I. The Study of Change in the International System I 2. A Theory of Systemic Change in International Politics 40 PART 11: THE CLASSICAL SYSTEM 3· The Theory ofthe Classical Bal:mce of Power System 67 4· The Working of the Classical Balance of Power System 107 PART III: THE TRANSITIONAL SYSTEMS 5· The Imperialist System 135 6. The Inter-War System 153 PART IV: THE CoNTEMPORARY SYSTEM 1· The Theory of the Bipolar System 173 8. The Theory of the Arms Race 216 9· Towards a Theory of the Contemporary System 253 Bibliograpy 2 70 Index 283 PREFACE T H 1 s B o o K attempts to tackle the problem of the relationships between the base and the international level of the legal-political superstructures in the context of the transition from capitalism to socialism. In terms of this theoretical objective~ this is an incon clusive book. I have attempted to pose the problem of our present in its historical context; I have not found any clear answers. One set of questions, deriving from the relationship of relative subordination or dominance of international politics with respect to the domestic political structures of various countries and, going further, to the basic social formations, can be answered with reasonable clarity in terms of the specifics of each historical period, including our present one. The other set of questions, more impor tant in praxiological terms, relate to the processes of transition from one system to another-in our age, from capitalism to socialism. In the history of international politics, the only valid parallel to our present problem of transition is the one from feudalism to capi talism. Judged from this angle, the most interesting feature of the classical balance of power system was the coexistence for a long time of capitalist and feudal countries as essential factors in the same and basically stable international system. As a matter of fact, it was not mere coexistence. For such was the importance of stability to the traditional powers of Europe that when Napoleon attempted to carry the torch of the anti-feudal revolution in France to the rest of the Continent, he was opposed not only by Austria, Russia and Prussia, but also by a capitalist Britain already in the throes of the industrial revolution. Indeed, while capitalism is in its very origin, and by nature, a world-system, it is also an intensely competitive system. The uneven development of capitalism necessarily creates contradictory, and in most cases antagonistic, relationships between capitalist coun tries, a process which ultimately led to the complete collapse of the balance of power system in the First World War. The stage of feudalism, however, was transcended in Europe not as a result of the dominance of the international political structure-the dominance did not exist then-but as a consequence of internal developments in the European countries which followed what Marx described as the second path of capitalist development. The process was, of course, helped in the final stages as a result of the contradictions between the Arms, Alliances and Stability :X: established capitalist powers, viz., Britain and France, and finally completed during the imperialist war of 1914-19. If we wish to draw parallels with the contemporary problem of transition, it would not be enough to take into account only the ques tion of internal contradictions within the capitalist world, which undoubtedly exist. We will also have to deduce the entire range of consequences deriving from the uneven development of socialism in the modern world, and the contradictions resulting from such uneven development, whether nonantagonistic or otherwise. The uneven development of socialism is largely the result of purely territorial differences and differences in the location of different societies within the structure of historical time. The uneven development of socialism is, therefore, qualitatively of a completely different nature from the phenomenon of the uneven development of capitalism. It is a primary requirement for the formulation of the correct theoretical problematic that these implications be spelled out; yet we still do not know the full dimensions of the problem. All this is circumscribed by the one most dominant constraint of the contemporary international system-the constraint imposed by the technology of modern warfare. The consequent exigencies which all contemporary foreign policies must meet not only preclude any simple praxiological solution ofthe problems of transition, but, as I have tried to argue, also obstructs the construction of a theoretical solution. This constitutes what I have felt to be the chief problem before socjalist theory in the present age. I have attempted to spell this out in terms of theoretical categories derived from the analysis of the past history of international politics: it will perhaps not be regarded as an inexcusable intellectual failure if I have been unable to formulate a problematic capable of immediate solution. This work was begun in connection with my doctoral thesis under a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship at the University of Rochester in 197o- 71. I am grateful to John E. Mueller, George E. Quester, William H. Riker, A. William Salomone and Kenneth A. Shepsle who read and conunented upon various parts of the manuscript at that stage. The work was continued during my spells of teaching at Calcutta and Amritsar, and finally completed at the Centre for Studies in XI PREFACE Social Sciences, Calcutta. In the latter stages of its writing, this book has benefited most from the many discussions I have bad with my colleagues, S. K. Chaube, Baron De and Asok Sen. It has, of course, become a literary ritual to state at the beginning of a book that the author is solely responsible for all errors of fact or judgement; in this particular case, however, my assumption of all responsibility bas more than ritual significance, since I know that perhaps none of those with whom I have discussed this work would agree completely with all my conclusions, and in some cases even my premises. I am thankful to Gouri Bandyopadbyay, Archana Das, R. Girija, Arun Sanyal and Ashok Sengupta for very able secretarial assistance. Finally, I can only record here my gratitude to my wife, Gouri who has helped and supported me in more ways than she knows. Calcutta Partha Chatterjee December 1974 PART I Theoretical Preliminaries
The list of books you might like
