What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations
The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 is widely interpreted as the foundation of modern international relations. Benno Teschke exposes this as a myth. In the process he provides a fresh re-interpretation of the making of modern international relations from the eighth to the eighteenth century.
Inspired by the groundbreaking historical work of Robert Brenner, Teschke argues that social property relations provide the key to unlocking the changing meaning of ‘international’ across the medieval, early modern, and modern periods. He traces how the long-term interaction of class conflict, economic development, and international rivalry effected the formation of the modern system of states. Yet instead of identifying a breakthrough to interstate modernity in the so-called ‘long sixteenth century’ or in the period of intensified geopolitical competition during the seventeenth century, Teschke shows that geopolitics remained governed by dynastic and absolutist political communities, rooted in feudal property regimes.
The Myth of 1648 argues that the onset of specifically modern international relations only began with the conjunction of the rise of capitalism and modern state-formation in England. Thereafter, the English model caused the restructuring of the old regimes of the Continent. This was a long-term process of socially uneven development, not completed until World War I.
Inspired by the groundbreaking historical work of Robert Brenner, Teschke argues that social property relations provide the key to unlocking the changing meaning of ‘international’ across the medieval, early modern, and modern periods. He traces how the long-term interaction of class conflict, economic development, and international rivalry effected the formation of the modern system of states. Yet instead of identifying a breakthrough to interstate modernity in the so-called ‘long sixteenth century’ or in the period of intensified geopolitical competition during the seventeenth century, Teschke shows that geopolitics remained governed by dynastic and absolutist political communities, rooted in feudal property regimes.
The Myth of 1648 argues that the onset of specifically modern international relations only began with the conjunction of the rise of capitalism and modern state-formation in England. Thereafter, the English model caused the restructuring of the old regimes of the Continent. This was a long-term process of socially uneven development, not completed until World War I.
312 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2003
7 people are currently reading
286 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 8, 2011
This book is one of the greatest contributors to the re-evaluation of international relations theory. Before I get into the review a few technical warnings should be issued. This is not a book for those who have no background in international relations (IR) theory. The author uses a lot of jargon and is trying to refute many of the top theorists in IR today so it is not a good starting point for world order. On that note though this is a truly important development in the way IR theorists view the world. Many IR theorists today are reexamining the role of the state in international politics and whether or not the state is the correct way to analyze actors on a world stage.
The Myth of 1648 goes a step beyond this and shows that the state is not even a valid organism for assessing actors on a world stage. He shows that people had a way of defining sovereignty and identity as early as the middle ages by the way they were aligned to a king or lord and that these are ways to organize as well. It relies along the newer accepted technique of defining organization along cultural lines and in this case taking it a step further to class lines. It goes to class lines without having the usual Marxist tone of revolution which provides a more useful way to organize since the revolutions frequently do not occur. The book relies on the organization of people through geopolitics and regional organizations that do not necessarily have to be states. It shows that whether absolutist or even capitalist Britain people organize around familial ties and not limited by traditional state geography.
This book is brilliantly done and a well thought out argument for those who are used to typical IR theory. Like most IR theory it is filled with jargon so if you are starting out this is not the best book to begin with. Try John Mearshiemer or Kenneth Waltz to begin with and then expand to something like this.
The Myth of 1648 goes a step beyond this and shows that the state is not even a valid organism for assessing actors on a world stage. He shows that people had a way of defining sovereignty and identity as early as the middle ages by the way they were aligned to a king or lord and that these are ways to organize as well. It relies along the newer accepted technique of defining organization along cultural lines and in this case taking it a step further to class lines. It goes to class lines without having the usual Marxist tone of revolution which provides a more useful way to organize since the revolutions frequently do not occur. The book relies on the organization of people through geopolitics and regional organizations that do not necessarily have to be states. It shows that whether absolutist or even capitalist Britain people organize around familial ties and not limited by traditional state geography.
This book is brilliantly done and a well thought out argument for those who are used to typical IR theory. Like most IR theory it is filled with jargon so if you are starting out this is not the best book to begin with. Try John Mearshiemer or Kenneth Waltz to begin with and then expand to something like this.
November 24, 2017
Excellent revisionist history of the emergence of the modern states-system drawing on the 'Political Marxist' school of historical analysis.
The author argues that the Westphalian treaties of c.1648 did not mark the transition to modernity in international relations but rather witnessed the continuation of pre-capitalist geopolitical relationships founded on precapitalist social-property relations in the absolutist regimes of the Continent.
The only genuine transition to modern sovereignty occurred instead in England, through the late medieval transition to capitalist agriculture and eventual social revolutions of the 17th century (the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution) that consolidated the power of a de-privatised state ruled by an 'economically' rather than politically-constituted oligarchy of commercial landlords reliant on the profits of their capitalist tenant farmers. This was reflected internationally in a specifically capitalist mode of foreign policy that aimed at genuine power balancing and non-territorial/military but rather primarily commercial hegemony.
This modern state-society relationship, predicated on a 'separation' between the political and economic (or the state and civil society), was generalised to the Continent through the 'socially combined but geographically uneven' process by which British hegemony was entrenched internationally. Pre-capitalist ruling classes and absolutist states were forced to innovate and modernise in the face of overwhelming commercial and military superiority emanating from capitalist Britain over the period from the 1640s-to WW1.
Somewhat dry and technical language (it is an academic intervention in IR Theory after all) loses it a star.
The author argues that the Westphalian treaties of c.1648 did not mark the transition to modernity in international relations but rather witnessed the continuation of pre-capitalist geopolitical relationships founded on precapitalist social-property relations in the absolutist regimes of the Continent.
The only genuine transition to modern sovereignty occurred instead in England, through the late medieval transition to capitalist agriculture and eventual social revolutions of the 17th century (the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution) that consolidated the power of a de-privatised state ruled by an 'economically' rather than politically-constituted oligarchy of commercial landlords reliant on the profits of their capitalist tenant farmers. This was reflected internationally in a specifically capitalist mode of foreign policy that aimed at genuine power balancing and non-territorial/military but rather primarily commercial hegemony.
This modern state-society relationship, predicated on a 'separation' between the political and economic (or the state and civil society), was generalised to the Continent through the 'socially combined but geographically uneven' process by which British hegemony was entrenched internationally. Pre-capitalist ruling classes and absolutist states were forced to innovate and modernise in the face of overwhelming commercial and military superiority emanating from capitalist Britain over the period from the 1640s-to WW1.
Somewhat dry and technical language (it is an academic intervention in IR Theory after all) loses it a star.
February 6, 2026
Had to review constructivism ngl
The edition of this book was published in 2003, right after the beginning of the War of Terror. The Teschke ends the book with a hopefulish note, noting how "The functioning of the world market is predicated on the existence of states that maintain the rule of law, guaranteeing contract-based private property and the legal security of transnational transactions so as to maintain the principle of open national economies" (267).
In 2026 we see the declining hegemon (the USA) attacking these very same institutions. I'm not here to say this is good or bad, but to note that the international system based on the above is being reshape by the very same power that used to uphold it. This is a crisis of capitalism at the international level. These guaranteed contract-based private property relations are under attack at a moment when Europe decides what to do with the billion dollars' worth of assets seized from Russia. It crumbles as the USA weaponizes the dollar and further imposes sanctions on any country outside this global market it has imposed on the world.
And then you have China, which represents a power within this global market that the USA views more and more as an existential threat.
A couple of other lines I found interesting near the end of this book:
"However, while the horizontal separation between the world market and the states-system creates a field of compatibility, the vertical separation of the world into territorially confined centres of political power creates a field of tension. International relations among capitalist states consist in the effort of living with and negotiating this fundamental contradiction at the heart of 21st century international order" (267).
"Multilateralism and collective security, rather than power politics and the balance of power, correspond to this matrix" -> China is leading the path on this as the USA imposes its will on so called allies and enemies alike.
"Contracts are concluded, in principle, between private actors in the pre-political sphere of global civil society. Capitalism, then is the condition of possibility for the universalization of the principle of national self-determination. Within the wider framework of the long transformation, international relations in the capitalist heartland assumed a pacified form, replacing military with economic competition" (267).
Page 267 got decent quotes even if I disagree with one:
"Capitalism's differentia specifica as a system of surplus appropriation consists in the historically unprecedented fact that the capital circuits of the world market can in principle function without infringing on political sovereignty. As a rule, capitalism can leave political territories intact"
Main reason i'm not sure how to think about this is that capitalism DOES lead to the dismemberment of territories. It was monopoly capital's expansionist need as managed by the state that lead to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the claiming of territories between the British and French. It is monopoly capital today that demands the break up and "decolonization" of Russia and China! Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what Teschke means but you cannot separate capital's profit seeking drive from the various interests of the ruling class as they sort themselves out via the state.
The edition of this book was published in 2003, right after the beginning of the War of Terror. The Teschke ends the book with a hopefulish note, noting how "The functioning of the world market is predicated on the existence of states that maintain the rule of law, guaranteeing contract-based private property and the legal security of transnational transactions so as to maintain the principle of open national economies" (267).
In 2026 we see the declining hegemon (the USA) attacking these very same institutions. I'm not here to say this is good or bad, but to note that the international system based on the above is being reshape by the very same power that used to uphold it. This is a crisis of capitalism at the international level. These guaranteed contract-based private property relations are under attack at a moment when Europe decides what to do with the billion dollars' worth of assets seized from Russia. It crumbles as the USA weaponizes the dollar and further imposes sanctions on any country outside this global market it has imposed on the world.
And then you have China, which represents a power within this global market that the USA views more and more as an existential threat.
A couple of other lines I found interesting near the end of this book:
"However, while the horizontal separation between the world market and the states-system creates a field of compatibility, the vertical separation of the world into territorially confined centres of political power creates a field of tension. International relations among capitalist states consist in the effort of living with and negotiating this fundamental contradiction at the heart of 21st century international order" (267).
"Multilateralism and collective security, rather than power politics and the balance of power, correspond to this matrix" -> China is leading the path on this as the USA imposes its will on so called allies and enemies alike.
"Contracts are concluded, in principle, between private actors in the pre-political sphere of global civil society. Capitalism, then is the condition of possibility for the universalization of the principle of national self-determination. Within the wider framework of the long transformation, international relations in the capitalist heartland assumed a pacified form, replacing military with economic competition" (267).
Page 267 got decent quotes even if I disagree with one:
"Capitalism's differentia specifica as a system of surplus appropriation consists in the historically unprecedented fact that the capital circuits of the world market can in principle function without infringing on political sovereignty. As a rule, capitalism can leave political territories intact"
Main reason i'm not sure how to think about this is that capitalism DOES lead to the dismemberment of territories. It was monopoly capital's expansionist need as managed by the state that lead to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the claiming of territories between the British and French. It is monopoly capital today that demands the break up and "decolonization" of Russia and China! Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what Teschke means but you cannot separate capital's profit seeking drive from the various interests of the ruling class as they sort themselves out via the state.
March 1, 2008
You can say 'neomarxist' without several hundred pages.
November 7, 2018
it's important to know that this is Teschke's doctoral thesis and reads like a thesis rather than a book. Most of it is interminable unless you are a scholar and has no importance to daily life unless you're going to remember the amount of inter-village trade in medieval England. What geopolitical points there are get buried under the avalanche of statistics.
The title says it all. Next time you're having a dinner party conversation and someone brings up the treaty of Westphalia, let them know it's a myth, and if they challenge you, point to the book. If they want more info, you can tell them you hired me to read it for you, and that Benno's points were very persuasive and that the treaty is a myth.
Anything more is well beyond the realm of dinner conversation. Stop talking to the person. If they're an academic, they'll do their own research. If you want to know more, read this interview with Benno.
https://www.viewpointmag.com/2016/08/...
The title says it all. Next time you're having a dinner party conversation and someone brings up the treaty of Westphalia, let them know it's a myth, and if they challenge you, point to the book. If they want more info, you can tell them you hired me to read it for you, and that Benno's points were very persuasive and that the treaty is a myth.
Anything more is well beyond the realm of dinner conversation. Stop talking to the person. If they're an academic, they'll do their own research. If you want to know more, read this interview with Benno.
https://www.viewpointmag.com/2016/08/...
February 21, 2010
An important and interesting challenge to mainstream IR theory
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews