With this research, we seek to offer our readers a systematic and concise way of effectively understanding international relations, on the occasion of the evolving crisis in Ukraine, but also the evolving crisis in the international political economy
We will offer both information and (and mainly) a way of analytical and synthetic processing of information.
When we want to make glass, we need sand, but sand is not enough. We also need the art of glassmaking, that is, a proper method of processing sand, in order to produce glass from it. By analogy, in order to properly understand the international environment and to act properly in it, we need correct and sufficient information, but also a correct method of processing them.
This research will be divided and published in five sequels, as follows:
First part: Nationalism and International System,
Part Two: National Sovereignty, National Self-Determination and Economic Nationalism,
Part Three: Separatist Movements and Redemptionism,
Part Four: The Revival of Nationalism after the Cold War,
Part Five: Globalization, International Political Economy and Global Political Economy.
First part: Nationalism and the International System
The roots of the history of modern nationalism go back to the American Revolution (1775–1784) and the French Revolution (1789–1799). By the end of the 18th century, a transnational system had been established in Europe that had emerged from the religious wars fought in Europe during the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries. The European transnational system that prevailed in 18th century Europe consisted of a system of sovereign princes whose rivalries were kept under control, on the one hand at the legal level under the principle of "cuius regio eius religio" (whichever is the kingdom, this is the religion), on the other hand at the political level based on the balance of power, also known as Realpolitik.
In other words, the European interstate system of the 18th century marks the transition from a political system based on the myth of divine sovereignty, with the religious elite as the leading institution, to a political system based on the myth of national or, more precisely, state sovereignty, with the leading institution. the monarchy (assisted by its bureaucracies). Undoubtedly, this development is inextricably linked to secularization, which, however, exacerbated the contradiction between the traditional aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, as the latter sought not only the transition from the myth of divine sovereignty to the myth of national / state sovereignty, but and the establishment of a bourgeois state, that is, a state that will be secularized and dominated by the respective national bourgeois elite. Hence, during the 18th and 19th centuries, important sections of the bourgeoisie became radicalized and revolutionary.
The aforementioned transnational system weakened but was not eliminated by the revolutions of the 18th century and of course it was restored strengthened after the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1815. Napoleon Bonaparte's attempt to create a pan-European new order of things, a peculiar European system was defeated by the alliance of Great Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia. In 1815, in order to counter Napoleon's neo-imperial vision, to save the established transnational system and at the same time to suppress revolutionary and radical liberal movements, the monarchical great powers of Russia, Austria and Prussia formed the so-called which ensured a system of balance of power combined with political authoritarianism in Europe until the early 20th century. The Sacred Alliance also cultivated and promoted conservatism against liberalism (a systematic study of the history and essential content of liberalism and conservatism can be found in my book entitled Catching the Bull by the Horns: Causes, Consequences and Prospects in Political Science and Political Economy, Athens: KPSM Publications, 2022).
In 1918, after the First World War, the nationalists restored the transnational system and even succeeded in internationalizing it. Nationalism is becoming an international ideal. Thus, a dialectical relationship emerges between nationalism and the international system of the 20th century, as nationalist dogma and nationalist politics shape transnational relations but are also shaped by them. First of all, after the First World War, an idealistic thinking developed according to which national self-determination would lead to a genuine internationalism. At the time, liberals emphasized national self-determination in the context of an ecumenical ideal of liberation, without particularly considering the dangers of nationalism leading to chauvinism or xenophobia. The eminent Russian-British social and political theorist Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997) has systematically analyzed and criticized the aforementioned optimism of liberal politicians and intellectuals of the interwar period.
In addition to the liberals, even some of the most influential representatives of the international political "school" of realism, such as the British historian, diplomat and internationalist Edward H. Carr (1892–1982), considered the nation to be a milestone on the road to some new, as yet unexplained in the early 20th century, form of political organization that would better fit the scope and dynamism of the international industrial economy (as, in fact, the capitalist elite sought to exploit nationalism and the nation-state model to promote an idea of modernization and a model of social organization that would serve the needs and purposes of capital). Moreover, during the interwar period, most of the representatives of the international political "school" of realism were mainly concerned with the study of power structures rather than with the power of the collective identities and aspirations of the claimants to power, and, therefore, either ignored the dynamics of nationalism or they took it for granted.
However, the rise of nationalism eroded the sociability of the consciousness of international political actors and undermined the sense of community on which the culture of the transnational system that existed before the First World War was based. Nationalism functioned in two ways, as it was one of the creators and destroyers of the transnational system that existed at the beginning of the 20th century. As the internationalist James Mayall has aptly pointed out in his book NationalismandInternationalSociety (Cambridge University Press, 1990), nationalism was practically the strongest ideology of the 20th century and was exploited by both the liberal and the Marxist political space (to serve its own particular purposes), but both the liberal and the Marxist political space paid a high price for this choice, as they were forced to make significant compromises with the logic of the established transnational system.
In the second part of this research, we will address the following issues: national sovereignty, national self-determination and economic nationalism.
…. To be continued …..
photo starline, Image license by freepik.com
