¹ (Oxford, 1967), p. 177.

² See Rosenberg, Justin, The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations (London, 1994)Google Scholar; Bromley, Simon, Rethinking Middle East Politics (Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar.

³ See Held, David, Introduction'to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1980), p. 162Google Scholar.

⁴ Hutchings, Kimberly, ‘The Possibility of Judgement: Moralizing and Theorizing in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 18, 1 (Jan. 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of Kant in relationship to International Relations, from a different perspective, see Brown, Chris, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (New York, 1992)Google Scholar.

⁵ Murphy, Craig N. and Tooze, Roger, ‘Getting Beyond the “Common Sense” of the IPE Orthodoxy’, in Murphy, Craig N. and Tooze, Roger (eds.), The New International Political Economy, (Boulder, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tooze, Roger, ‘International Political Economy and the National Policy-maker’, in Hill, Christopher and Beshoff, Pamela (eds.), Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas (London and New York, 1994)Google Scholar; George, Jim, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ The best survey is Brown, Chris, ‘Critical Theory and Postmodernism in International Relations’, in Groom, A. J. R. and Light, Margot (eds.), Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory (London, 1994)Google Scholar.

⁷ Cox's two most influential essays are Cox, Robert W., ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, in Keohane, Robert O. (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York, 1986)Google Scholar; and Cox, Robert W., ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium, 12, 2 (Summer 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ For a representative discussion see Derian, James Der and Shapiro, Michael (eds.), International!Intertextual Relations (Lexington, 1989)Google Scholar. For comment see Smith, Steve, ‘The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory’, in Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve (eds.) International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge, 1995)Google Scholar; and John A. Vasquez, ‘The Post-Positivist Debate: Reconstructing Scientific Enquiry and International Relations Theory after Enlightenment's Fall’, Ibid

⁹ For instance, one of the most senior figures in IR theory today, from a perspective not unsympathetic to the post-positivist critique, argues that ‘In my view … the main meta-theoretical issue facing international theory today … [is the] emerging fundamental division in the discipline between those theories that seek to offer explanatory accounts … and those that see theory as constitutive of that reality'. Steve Smith ‘Self-Images of a Discipline’, pp. 26–7.

¹⁰ Cox, Robert W., Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York, 1987), p. 393Google Scholar.

¹¹ See Steve Smith, ‘Self-Images of a Discipline’; and Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve, Understanding and Explaining International Relations (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar.

¹² See Brown, Chris, ‘The Modern Requirement? Reflections on Normative International Theory in a Post-Western World’, Millennium, 17, 2 (Summer 1988), pp. 339–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Steve, ‘The Forty Years Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations’, Millennium, 21, 3 (Winter 1992), pp. 489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoffman, Mark, ‘Normative International Theory: Approaches and Issues’, in Groom, A. J. R. and Light, Margot (eds.), Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory (London, 1994), pp. 27–44Google Scholar.

¹³ Chris Brown is appropriately cautious about the difficulties of categorizing ‘normative’ theory. In terms of my point, Brown's standard work on the subject sets up a ‘primary distinction’ between ‘empirical’ and ‘normative’ theory. See Brown, Chris, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (New York, 1992), p. 1Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Weber, Max, ‘“Objectivity” in Social Science and Social Policy’, in The Methodology of the Social Sciences (New York, 1949), p. 81Google Scholar, author's emphasis.

¹⁵ I am indebted to Kevin Magill and to Kimberly Hutchings, ‘Weber on Facts an d Values’, mimeo (no date), for clarification of these points.

¹⁶ Jurgen Habermas is the most significant of contemporary emancipatory theorists. See Habermas, , Knowledge and Human Interests (Boston, 1972)Google Scholar. I choose the term ‘emancipatory’, rather than the more common designation of Habermas as a ‘critical theorist’, to distinguish his work from the variant of social theory we identify as ‘critical’ in IR. For the latter see Cox, Production, and Linklater, Andrew, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, 2nd edn (London, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (London, 1990)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Those interested in these enormously important epistemological issues should read the lucid Bernstein, Richard J., Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis (Philadelphia, 1983)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ For an overview of the field see Hazel Smith, ‘Marxism and International Relations Theory’, in Groom and Light (eds.), Contemporary International Relations. For some of the most important work see Cox's, Robert W. and Linklater's, Andrew work; Maclean, John, ‘Political Theory, International Theory and Problems of Ideology’, Millennium, 10, 2 (Summer 1981)Google Scholar; Rupert, Mark, ‘Producing Hegemony: State/Society Relations and the Politics of Productivity in the United States’, International Studies Quarterly, 34, 4 (Dec. 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rupert, Mark, Producing Hegemony: The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Power (Cambridge, 1995)Google Scholar; Rosenberg, Empire of Civil Society.

¹⁹ David McLellan initially made this point to me. There is also a thorough discussion by Roger Tooze, ‘International Political Economy'. Robert Cox makes the same point about what he calls ‘problem-solving theory'; see Cox, ‘ Social Forces’, p. 209.

²⁰ Cox, ‘Social Forces’, pp. 204–54.

²¹ Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, The German Ideology, student edn (London, 1989), p. 48Google Scholar.

²² Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, introduction by Ernest Mandel (Harmondsworth, 1986); Marx and Engels, German Ideology. The ‘Introduction to a critique of political economy’ can be found in Marx and Engels, German Ideology, pp. 124–51.

²³ Karl Marx, ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, in Marx and Engels, German Ideology, p. 123, emphasis in original.

²⁴ Marx, ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, p. 121, emphasis in original.

²⁵ Gribbin, John, In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality (London, 1991)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Marx and Engels, German Ideology, p. 46.

²⁷ Marx, preface to the French edition, Capital, vol. 1, p. 104.

²⁸ Marx, ‘Introduction to a critique of political economy’, p. 140.

²⁹ Ibid, p. 141.

³⁰ Marx and Engels, German Ideology, p. 42.

³¹ Ibid, p. 42; the first emphasis is mine, the second is that of the authors.

³² Ibid, p. 44.

³³ Ibid, p. 52.

³⁴ Ibid, p. 52.

³⁵ Ibid, p. 53.

³⁶ Ibid, p. 52.

³⁷ Ibid, p. 53.

³⁸ Ibid, p. 82.

³⁹ Marx, Karl, ‘The Holy Family’, in McLellan, David (ed.), Karl Marx Selected Writings (Oxford, 1990), p. 134Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ I am aware that this is a large claim with which many will disagree, but I hope I demonstrate tha t it is no t tendentious. I am also not claimin g that th e process of exploitation withi n capitalist social relations is at all times synonymous with a deterioration in workers’ living conditions. Mark Rupert cites Michel Aglietta's work on ‘Fordism’ which, he reminds us, has show n it is perfectly possible for these to improve at the same time as the rate of exploitation increases: ‘growing productivity and the cheapening of wage goods meant that the real standar d of living of the industrial working class could improve markedly even as exploitation intensified'. Rupert, Producing Hegemony, pp. 171–2, referring to Aglietta, , A Theory of Capitalist Regulation (London, 1987)Google Scholar. Chris Brown also made this point in a comparison of Galtung and Marxist theories of imperialism. See Brown, Chris, ‘Galtung and the Marxist s on Imperialism: Answers vs. Questions’, Millennium, 10, 3 (Autumn 1981), p. 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Marx, Capital, vol. 1, pp. 375–6.

⁴² Ibid, p. 364.

⁴³ Ibid, p. 517.

⁴⁴ A cogently argued survey of the various interpretations of the normative aspects of Marx's work that includes useful bibliographical detail (with whose conclusions I nevertheless disagree) is in Norman Geras, ‘The Controversy about Marx and Justice’, in Callinicos, Alex (ed.), Marxist Theory (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar; see also McLellan, David and Sayers, Sean (eds.), Socialism and Morality (London, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lukes, Steven, Marxism and Morality (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar. Chris Brown is one of the few international theorists to consider how Marxism (broadly construed) relates itself to ethical issues. See Brown, Chris, ‘Marxism and International Ethics’, in Nardin, Terry and Mapel, David R. (eds.), Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Roy Edgley's brilliant essay on the relationship of Marxism and morality also makes the point that morality ‘is an integral and indispensable part’ of Marx's scientific enterprise. See Roy Edgley, ‘Marxism. Morality and Mr. Lukes’, in McLellan and Sayers (eds.), Socialism and Morality, p. 22.

⁴⁶ I deliberately use the pronoun ‘he’ rather than a gender-neutral term. This is because Marx often (though not always) explicitly separated male and female (and children's) labou r as analytical categories. This separation was consequential for his theory. For instance, Marx argue s that when machinery is introduced int o production, women and children can be employed as ‘supplementary labour’, and their employment has, among other things, the effect of reducing th e price of labour-power and increasing the degree of exploitation. Capital, vol. 1, p. 518. Marx sometimes seems to suggest that the value of labour-power relates to the adult male wage, in that the socially determined necessary means of subsistence (the value of labour-power) should cover man, wife and children. At other times he uses the term ‘man’ to refer to men and wome n workers; for instance, in his illustration of the statement that ‘all men are alike in the face of capital’ he uses the examples of female milliners and male blacksmiths. Capital, vol. 1, p. 364.

⁴⁷ Marx and Engels, German Ideology, p. 80.

⁴⁸ Ibid, p. 84.

⁴⁹ Karl Marx, ‘Holy Family’, pp. 134–5.

⁵⁰ Marx and Engels, German Ideology, p. 51.

⁵¹ On communism as ‘the real movement which abolishes the present state of things’, see Ibid, pp. 56–7, authors’ emphasis. The equality foreseen in ‘a higher phase of communist society’ was not that which Marx termed ‘bourgeois right’. Instead it was expressed by him as the principle of ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!’ See Marx, Karl, Critique of the Gotha Programme (Moscow, 1978), pp. 17–18Google Scholar. For a discussion see Geras, ‘Controversy’, pp. 258–61.

⁵² Hazel Smith, ‘Marxism and International Relations Theory’, pp. 142–55.

⁵³ See Cox, Production; Augelli, Enrico and Murphy, Craig, America's Quest for Supremacy and the Third World: A Gramscian Analysis (London, 1988)Google Scholar; Gill, S. and Law, D., The Global Political Economy (Hemel Hempstead, 1988)Google Scholar; Gill, Stephen, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar; Gill, Stephen, Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ For a review of Augelli and Murphy, and Gill that makes this point see Tooze, Roger, 'Understanding the Global Political Economy: Applying Gramsci’, Millennium, 19, 2 (Summer 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ The big exception here is Mark Rupert who has attempted to synthesize Marxian and Gramscian concepts to develop a theory of the international political economy. See Rupert, Mark, Producing Hegemony: The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Power (Cambridge, 1995)Google Scholar; and ‘Producing Hegemony: State/Society Relations and the Politics of Productivity in the United States’, International Studies Quarterly, 34, 4 (Dec. 1990)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Burnham, Peter, in ‘Neo-Gramscian Hegemony’, Capital and Class, 45 (Autumn 1991)Google Scholar, argues that the neo-Gramscian approach ‘is barely distinguishable from a sophisticated neo-realist account’ (p. 76). Burnham has been criticized by Panitch, Leo, ‘Globalisation and the State’, Socialist Register 1994 (London, 1994), pp. 68Google Scholar, 73. Panitch does not refute Burnham; instead he argues that Burnham's critique is either beside the point or trivial.

⁵⁷ Hazel Smith, ‘Marxism and International Relations Theory’, p. 147.

⁵⁸ Burnham, ‘Neo-Gramscian Hegemony’, p. 77.

⁵⁹ Maclean, John, ‘Political Theory, International Theory and Problems of Ideology’, Millennium, 10, 2 (Summer 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quote from p. 122. His other essays include ‘Marxis t Epistemology, Explanations of “Change” and the Study of International Relations’, in Buzan, Barry and Jones, R. J.Barry (eds.), Change and the Study of International Relations (London, 1981)Google Scholar; ‘Belief Systems and Ideology in International Relations : A Critical Approach’, in Little, Richard and Smith, Steve (eds.), Belief Systems and International Relations (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar; ‘Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect’, Millennium, 17, 2 (Summer 1988)Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Rosenberg's work is reviewed by Walker, R. B. J., Millennium, 23, 3 (Winter 1994)Google Scholar; Pettman, Ralph, New Zealand International Review, May/June 1995Google Scholar; Roberts, Adam, Times Literary Supplement, 17 March 1995Google Scholar; Nick Rengger, below, pp. 213–31; Harris, Ian, International Affairs, 76, 4 (Oct. 1994)Google Scholar; Longford, Charles, Living Marxism, September 1994Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Rosenberg's work in particular looks set to provide some parameters for theoretical debate in the discipline. See the five replies to his article on Mills, ‘The International Imagination: IR Theory and “Classic Social Analysis”’, Millennium, 23, 2 (Summer 1994)Google Scholar: Chris Boyle, ‘Imagining the World Market: IPE and the Task of Social Theory'; David Campbell, ‘Political Excess and the Limits of Imagination'; Fred Halliday, ‘Theory and Ethics in International Relations: the Contradictions of C. Wright Mills'; Mark Neufield, ‘Who's Afraid of Meta-Theory?’; Steve Smith, ‘Rearranging the Deckchairs on the Ship Called Modernity: Rosenberg, Epistemology and Emancipation’.

⁶² See Rosenberg, Empire; Bromley, Rethinking.

⁶³ Rosenberg, Empire, p. 36.

⁶⁴ R. B. J. Walker's rather caustic review of The Empire of Civil Society in Millennium argues of Rosenberg's demolition of Realism that ‘Rosenberg says much with which it is easy to agree, not least because it has been said before by many others.’ Walker's argument with Rosenberg is that the latter's analysis of the ‘key mystification’ of Realism as the separation of politics and economics is ‘more than a little simplistic'. In a way Walker misses the point here. What Rosenberg is attempting to do is to demonstrate how, from within a Marxian perspective, the separation of politics and economics is consequential for IR theory and, to a certain extent practice. This has not been a significant feature of IR theorizing. John Maclean is the notable exception and (post-publication of The Empire of Civil Society) Mark Rupert is another. See Maclean, ‘Political Theory’; and Rupert, Producing Hegemony.

⁶⁵ Rosenberg, Empire, p. 37.

⁶⁶ Ibid

⁶⁷ Ibid, p. 38.

⁶⁸ Ibid, p. 172.

⁶⁹ Bromley, Rethinking, p. 9.

⁷⁰ Ibid, p. 187.

⁷¹ Ibid, p. 31, emphasis in original.

⁷² Rosenberg, Empire, p. S3.

⁷³ Marx, ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, pp. 121–3.

⁷⁴ Marx and Engels, German Ideology, pp. 119–20.

⁷⁵ Rosenberg, Justin, ‘The International Imagination’, Millennium, 23, 1 (Spring 1994), pp. 85–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁶ Ibid, p. 86.

⁷⁷ Ibid, p. 87,

⁷⁸ Mills, Sociological Imagination, p. 173.

⁷⁹ Ibid, p. 174.

⁸⁰ Frost, Mervyn, ‘The Role of Normative Theory in IR’, Millennium, 23, 1 (Spring 1994), pp. 109–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸¹ Marx, Karl, Capital, vol. III, (Moscow, 1959), p. 791Google Scholar, quoted in Rosenberg, Empire, p. 51, Rosenberg's italics. Also quoted on p. 84.

⁸² Ibid, p. 83.

⁸³ Rosenberg, Empire, p. 152, my emphasis. I am reminded here of Marx's criticism of Ricardo for referring to the ‘redundancy of people’ when he was actually discussing redundancy of ‘workers’. See Capital, vol. 1, p. 516, note*.

⁸⁴ Rosenberg, Empire, p. 172.

⁸⁵ Both quotes from Ibid, p. 125, my emphasis.

⁸⁶ Karl Marx, ‘Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality’, in McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx Selected Writings, pp. 216–18. In one particularly vitriolic phrase Marx commented that ‘[non-materialist] philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation and sexual love'. In ‘Philosophy and Reality’, in Marx and Engels, German Ideology, p. 103.

⁸⁷ Rosenberg, Empire, p. 190, n. 128.

⁸⁸ Ibid, p. 84.

⁸⁹ Ibid, p. 124.

⁹⁰ Ibid, p. 124.

⁹¹ This of course is a well-known distinction for those attempting to understand Marx's conception of justice. See Lukes, Marxism and Morality, pp. 48-59.

⁹² Craib, Ian, Modern Social Theory (Brighton, 1984)Google Scholar, Rosenberg's quote in Empire, p. 52.

⁹³ Bromley, Rethinking, p. 118.

⁹⁴ One of the best examples is Theda Skocpol, Slates and Social Revolutions (London, 1979)Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Rosenberg, Empire, p. 173.