Abstract
In a typically pithy aside, Karl Marx commented that ‘[i]t is far too easy to be “liberal" at the expense of the Middle Ages’. His point was that most histories of feudalism are coloured by ‘bourgeois prejudices’, and ignore the fact that ‘although the soil of England, after the Norman conquest, was divided up into gigantic baronies … it was strewn with small peasant properties, only interspersed here and there with great seigniorial domains’. By not recognizing that such smallholdings existed, the conventional historiography painted an exaggerated picture of the miserable and servile condition of the feudal peasant, so as to extol by comparison the virtues of the system of ‘equal’ rights and ‘free’ labour associated with democratic politics and market economics. According to Marx, these historians and the political economists who deliberately or accidentally repeated their mistake, had thus failed to take account of one of the main processes by which capitalist relations of production were introduced in England: ‘the great feudal lords … created an incomparably larger proletariat by forcibly driving the peasantry from the land, to which the latter had the same feudal title as the lords themselves, and by usurpation of the common lands’. We are presenting this book on the ‘globalization of liberalism’ because we believe that a similar, albeit differently framed, problem exists within international relations theory today.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
1. Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, trans. B. Fowkes (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967), p. 878n.
Joseph Nye, Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), p. 5.
5. Martin Wight, ‘Why Is There No International Theory?’, in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays on the Theory of International Politics (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966), pp. 17–34.
C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962); Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974); and Hillel Steiner, An Essay on Rights (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994). On the latter, Kantian variant of liberal thought,see John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), and Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2002 Eivind Hovden and Edward Keene
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hovden, E., Keene, E. (2002). Introduction. In: Hovden, E., Keene, E. (eds) The Globalization of Liberalism. Millennium. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230519381_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230519381_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-40552-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-51938-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)