@article{waring_why_2025,
	title = {Why not multiplicities? {Dismantling} the nation–state–society},
	issn = {1354-0661},
	shorttitle = {Why not multiplicities?},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661251325536},
	doi = {10.1177/13540661251325536},
	abstract = {The concept of “multiplicity” has the potential to radically transform the conceptual architecture of International Relations (IR) and social theory—however, that potential is being stymied by the “nation–state–society” paradigm. In this paradigm, which is dominant across the social sciences, the basic units are defined by (geo)political borders that contain or encage, to varying degrees of success, sociological and ideological content. Thus, while the leading proponents of “multiplicity” theorize the fact that interaction is a constitutive dimension of existence, thereby surmounting the obstacle of “methodological nationalism,” they still accept the neat internalist ontology of the “nation–state–society,” starting from the gaze of the state and defining “society” in (geo)political terms. Such a commitment is misguided because, among other reasons, it fails to capture the general consequences of non-state social entities interacting with each other and with states. Therefore, to fully realize the critical value of “multiplicity” for IR and social theory, we must reject the nation–state–society and posit, instead, different kinds of coexisting social entities nested within and overlapping each other. The horizon of our shared theoretical endeavor ought to be a non-reductive unified ontology that admits of multiple multiplicities, robustly conceptualized, grounded, and placed in relation to each other ontologically, causally, and historically. Developing an expanded approach to multiplicity can also help facilitate more substantive debates between theorists coming from different traditions and disciplines about, for example, the nature of these entities, their causal powers, and how they interact.},
	language = {EN},
	urldate = {2025-03-31},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Waring, Dabney},
	month = mar,
	year = {2025},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd},
	pages = {13540661251325536},
}

The concept of “multiplicity” has the potential to radically transform the conceptual architecture of International Relations (IR) and social theory—however, that potential is being stymied by the “nation–state–society” paradigm. In this paradigm, which is dominant across the social sciences, the basic units are defined by (geo)political borders that contain or encage, to varying degrees of success, sociological and ideological content. Thus, while the leading proponents of “multiplicity” theorize the fact that interaction is a constitutive dimension of existence, thereby surmounting the obstacle of “methodological nationalism,” they still accept the neat internalist ontology of the “nation–state–society,” starting from the gaze of the state and defining “society” in (geo)political terms. Such a commitment is misguided because, among other reasons, it fails to capture the general consequences of non-state social entities interacting with each other and with states. Therefore, to fully realize the critical value of “multiplicity” for IR and social theory, we must reject the nation–state–society and posit, instead, different kinds of coexisting social entities nested within and overlapping each other. The horizon of our shared theoretical endeavor ought to be a non-reductive unified ontology that admits of multiple multiplicities, robustly conceptualized, grounded, and placed in relation to each other ontologically, causally, and historically. Developing an expanded approach to multiplicity can also help facilitate more substantive debates between theorists coming from different traditions and disciplines about, for example, the nature of these entities, their causal powers, and how they interact.

@article{anievas_difference_2024,
	title = {The difference multiplicity makes: {The} {American} {Civil} {War} as passive revolution},
	volume = {50},
	issn = {0260-2105, 1469-9044},
	shorttitle = {The difference multiplicity makes},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/difference-multiplicity-makes-the-american-civil-war-as-passive-revolution/935318B2B217E18D11AE340B56725F3B},
	doi = {10.1017/S0260210523000633},
	abstract = {This article examines and further develops the relationship between the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD), recently taken up by International Relations (IR) scholars to furnish a social theory of ‘the international’, and the Gramscian concept of ‘passive revolution’, which refers to a molecular process of top-down revolution and state formation that preserves ruling-class power by transforming its social base. To this end, the paper: (1) advances a productive distinction between ‘societal’ and ‘(geo)political’ multiplicity, increasing the transdisciplinary potential of UCD and challenging dominant state-centric approaches to IR; (2) demonstrates that UCD is central to creating the conditions for passive revolution; and, (3) argues that UCD illuminates the distinct spatial dimensions of passive revolution, for which the succession of ‘classes’ in time requires the expansion of capitalist social relations in space. To illustrate these claims, the article demonstrates how the American Civil War is best understood as an inter-societal conflict, exacerbated by the coexistence of two social formations within a single state, leading to war. It then shows how, upon victory, the North’s abolition of enslaved labour and the subsequent attempt to re-subsume the South within a single sovereign polity constituted a radical instance of passive revolution.},
	language = {en},
	number = {5},
	urldate = {2025-03-07},
	journal = {Review of International Studies},
	author = {Anievas, Alexander and Waring, Dabney},
	month = sep,
	year = {2024},
	keywords = {American Civil War, historical sociology, multiplicity, passive revolution, uneven and combined development},
	pages = {836--855},
}

This article examines and further develops the relationship between the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD), recently taken up by International Relations (IR) scholars to furnish a social theory of ‘the international’, and the Gramscian concept of ‘passive revolution’, which refers to a molecular process of top-down revolution and state formation that preserves ruling-class power by transforming its social base. To this end, the paper: (1) advances a productive distinction between ‘societal’ and ‘(geo)political’ multiplicity, increasing the transdisciplinary potential of UCD and challenging dominant state-centric approaches to IR; (2) demonstrates that UCD is central to creating the conditions for passive revolution; and, (3) argues that UCD illuminates the distinct spatial dimensions of passive revolution, for which the succession of ‘classes’ in time requires the expansion of capitalist social relations in space. To illustrate these claims, the article demonstrates how the American Civil War is best understood as an inter-societal conflict, exacerbated by the coexistence of two social formations within a single state, leading to war. It then shows how, upon victory, the North’s abolition of enslaved labour and the subsequent attempt to re-subsume the South within a single sovereign polity constituted a radical instance of passive revolution.

@article{oksanen_freeing_2023,
	title = {Freeing uneven and combined development from the whip of external necessity: toward a synthesis with {Dussel}’s liberation philosophy},
	volume = {36},
	issn = {0955-7571},
	shorttitle = {Freeing uneven and combined development from the whip of external necessity},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.1856785},
	doi = {10.1080/09557571.2020.1856785},
	abstract = {This article argues that while uneven and combined development (U\&CD) scholars have made great contributions to theorising the causal implications of societal multiplicity, the overtly normative contributions of U\&CD scholarship remain thin. To address this gap, I propose a synthesis between U\&CD and Enrique Dussel’s normatively oriented liberation philosophy. To enable this, U\&CD must be stripped of its more causally oriented concepts, like the ‘whip of external necessity', which constrains the scope of normative analysis by confining it to sovereign states. Incorporating Dussel’s liberation philosophy and its concept of exteriority into U\&CD’s social ontology enables seeing beyond the states-system and allows for the inclusion of stateless peoples as entities and agents of global politics. This is demonstrated by applying the combined conceptual framework to the Chiapas Zapatista movement’s relation to the Mexican state.},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2025-03-07},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Oksanen, Aslak-Antti},
	month = mar,
	year = {2023},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge
\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.1856785},
	pages = {164--183},
}

This article argues that while uneven and combined development (U&CD) scholars have made great contributions to theorising the causal implications of societal multiplicity, the overtly normative contributions of U&CD scholarship remain thin. To address this gap, I propose a synthesis between U&CD and Enrique Dussel’s normatively oriented liberation philosophy. To enable this, U&CD must be stripped of its more causally oriented concepts, like the ‘whip of external necessity', which constrains the scope of normative analysis by confining it to sovereign states. Incorporating Dussel’s liberation philosophy and its concept of exteriority into U&CD’s social ontology enables seeing beyond the states-system and allows for the inclusion of stateless peoples as entities and agents of global politics. This is demonstrated by applying the combined conceptual framework to the Chiapas Zapatista movement’s relation to the Mexican state.

@article{waring_multiplicity_2023,
	title = {Multiplicity, group identity and the spectre of the social},
	volume = {36},
	issn = {0955-7571},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.1825335},
	doi = {10.1080/09557571.2020.1825335},
	abstract = {The recent renaissance of uneven and combined development (UCD) has generally followed Justin Rosenberg’s formulation of the ‘international’, conceived as the inter-societal dimension of sociohistorical development. But Rosenberg’s ‘international’ rests on the conflation of distinct concepts, thus occluding other consequential registers of multiplicity. This paper (1) disentangles the concepts ‘social’, ‘societal’ and ‘political’; (2) demonstrates, using recent archaeological research, that complex social definedness preceded the sedentarisation of human groups; and (3) argues that social multiplicity constitutes a distinct dimension of causality that is interrelated with but irreducible to the territorial logics of societal and political multiplicity. In order to do this, it examines the role of the social (as non-territorial group identification) in the rise of Hellenic nationalism in colonial Cyprus. The paper concludes by suggesting a new path for UCD research in order to explore the full significance of multiplicity for IR theory, thus moving further out of the ‘prison of Political Science’.},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2024-08-14},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Waring, Dabney},
	month = mar,
	year = {2023},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge
\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.1825335},
	pages = {145--163},
}

The recent renaissance of uneven and combined development (UCD) has generally followed Justin Rosenberg’s formulation of the ‘international’, conceived as the inter-societal dimension of sociohistorical development. But Rosenberg’s ‘international’ rests on the conflation of distinct concepts, thus occluding other consequential registers of multiplicity. This paper (1) disentangles the concepts ‘social’, ‘societal’ and ‘political’; (2) demonstrates, using recent archaeological research, that complex social definedness preceded the sedentarisation of human groups; and (3) argues that social multiplicity constitutes a distinct dimension of causality that is interrelated with but irreducible to the territorial logics of societal and political multiplicity. In order to do this, it examines the role of the social (as non-territorial group identification) in the rise of Hellenic nationalism in colonial Cyprus. The paper concludes by suggesting a new path for UCD research in order to explore the full significance of multiplicity for IR theory, thus moving further out of the ‘prison of Political Science’.

@article{rosenberg_multiplicity_2023,
	title = {Multiplicity and ‘{The} {International}’ as {Critique} – {A} {Forum}},
	issn = {0305-8298},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298231205236},
	doi = {10.1177/03058298231205236},
	abstract = {This forum reconsiders the standing of ‘the international’ in relation to ‘critique’. Is this relation best understood in ways reminiscent of the ‘Fourth Great Debate’, where the international, associated with political realism, was targeted for deconstruction by critical approaches drawn from outside International Relations? Or is the international, on the contrary, itself a source of potential critique needing to be excavated and utilized, as recent debates on ‘societal multiplicity’ and Uneven and Combined Development have suggested? In this forum, seven international theorists debate the latter question from a range of intellectual perspectives.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2024-08-09},
	journal = {Millennium},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin and Wæver, Ole and Morozov, Viacheslav and Epstein, Charlotte and Walker, R.B.J. and Tickner, Arlene B and Kurki, Milja},
	month = nov,
	year = {2023},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd},
}

This forum reconsiders the standing of ‘the international’ in relation to ‘critique’. Is this relation best understood in ways reminiscent of the ‘Fourth Great Debate’, where the international, associated with political realism, was targeted for deconstruction by critical approaches drawn from outside International Relations? Or is the international, on the contrary, itself a source of potential critique needing to be excavated and utilized, as recent debates on ‘societal multiplicity’ and Uneven and Combined Development have suggested? In this forum, seven international theorists debate the latter question from a range of intellectual perspectives.

@incollection{rosenberg_irs_2023,
	title = {{IR}’s {Unavoidable} {Vocation} of {Critique}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298231205236},
	abstract = {This forum reconsiders the standing of ‘the international’ in relation to ‘critique’. Is this relation best understood in ways reminiscent of the ‘Fourth Great Debate’, where the international, associated with political realism, was targeted for deconstruction by critical approaches drawn from outside International Relations? Or is the international, on the contrary, itself a source of potential critique needing to be excavated and utilized, as recent debates on ‘societal multiplicity’ and Uneven and Combined Development have suggested? In this forum, seven international theorists debate the latter question from a range of intellectual perspectives.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2024-08-09},
	booktitle = {Multiplicity and ‘{The} {International}’ as {Critique} – {A} {Forum}},
	publisher = {SAGE Publications Ltd},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	collaborator = {Rosenberg, Justin and Wæver, Ole and Morozov, Viacheslav and Epstein, Charlotte and Walker, R.B.J. and Tickner, Arlene B and Kurki, Milja},
	month = nov,
	year = {2023},
	pages = {7--10},
}

This forum reconsiders the standing of ‘the international’ in relation to ‘critique’. Is this relation best understood in ways reminiscent of the ‘Fourth Great Debate’, where the international, associated with political realism, was targeted for deconstruction by critical approaches drawn from outside International Relations? Or is the international, on the contrary, itself a source of potential critique needing to be excavated and utilized, as recent debates on ‘societal multiplicity’ and Uneven and Combined Development have suggested? In this forum, seven international theorists debate the latter question from a range of intellectual perspectives.

@article{duzgun_debating_2022,
	title = {Debating ‘uneven and combined development’: beyond {Ottoman} patrimonialism},
	volume = {25},
	copyright = {2021 Springer Nature Limited},
	issn = {1581-1980},
	shorttitle = {Debating ‘uneven and combined development’},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41268-021-00232-0},
	doi = {10.1057/s41268-021-00232-0},
	abstract = {Within the field of International Historical Sociology, much has been done to theorise the ‘international’ in historical–sociological terms. In particular, the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD) has taken significant steps in moving beyond the flattened space of ‘anarchy’, carving out an historical–sociological home for International Relations (IR). Yet, in this article I argue that UCD’s claim to establish a ‘social ontology of the international’ has been weakened by a tendency to underspecify the role of social agency in the constitution of social and international orders. This, in turn, undermines our ability to fully capture the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the international, i.e. how and why social and international dynamics transform over time and space. To get out of this conundrum, I suggest, the theory of UCD needs to focus more systematically on historically specific socio-spatial struggles and the concomitant processes of inter-societal learning and ‘substitution’. I operationalise these insights in the context of pre-modern Ottoman state-formation (1300‒1600). Such a historical reconstruction demonstrates that UCD, if reinforced by a stronger conception of social agency, not only leads to a more fertile ground for the development of international historical–sociological imagination, but also helps to problematise and move beyond the conventional theorisation of the ‘classical’ Ottoman Empire as a ‘patrimonial’ state.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2025-03-07},
	journal = {Journal of International Relations and Development},
	author = {Duzgun, Eren},
	month = jun,
	year = {2022},
	note = {Company: Palgrave
Distributor: Palgrave
Institution: Palgrave
Label: Palgrave
Number: 2
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan UK},
	pages = {297--323},
}

Within the field of International Historical Sociology, much has been done to theorise the ‘international’ in historical–sociological terms. In particular, the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD) has taken significant steps in moving beyond the flattened space of ‘anarchy’, carving out an historical–sociological home for International Relations (IR). Yet, in this article I argue that UCD’s claim to establish a ‘social ontology of the international’ has been weakened by a tendency to underspecify the role of social agency in the constitution of social and international orders. This, in turn, undermines our ability to fully capture the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the international, i.e. how and why social and international dynamics transform over time and space. To get out of this conundrum, I suggest, the theory of UCD needs to focus more systematically on historically specific socio-spatial struggles and the concomitant processes of inter-societal learning and ‘substitution’. I operationalise these insights in the context of pre-modern Ottoman state-formation (1300‒1600). Such a historical reconstruction demonstrates that UCD, if reinforced by a stronger conception of social agency, not only leads to a more fertile ground for the development of international historical–sociological imagination, but also helps to problematise and move beyond the conventional theorisation of the ‘classical’ Ottoman Empire as a ‘patrimonial’ state.

@book{duzgun_capitalism_2022,
	title = {Capitalism, {Jacobinism} and {International} {Relations}},
	isbn = {978-1-009-15834-3},
	abstract = {This book offers a radical reinterpretation of the development of the modern world through the concept of Jacobinism. It argues that the French Revolution was not just another step in the construction of capitalist modernity, but produced an alternative (geo)political economy - that is, 'Jacobinism.' Furthermore, Jacobinism provided a blueprint for other modernization projects, thereby profoundly impacting the content and tempo of global modernity in and beyond Europe. The book traces the journey of Jacobinism in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. It contends that until the 1950s, the Ottoman/Turkish experiment with modernity was not marked by capitalism, but by a historically specific Jacobinism. Asserting this Jacobin legacy then leads to a novel interpretation of the subsequent transition to and authoritarian consolidation of capitalism in contemporary Turkey. As such, by tracing the world historical trajectory of Jacobinism, the book establishes a new way of understanding the origins and development of global modernity.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Duzgun, Eren},
	month = jun,
	year = {2022},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: ubhtEAAAQBAJ},
	keywords = {History / Europe / Eastern, History / General, History / Middle East / General, Law / International, Political Science / Constitutions, Political Science / General, Political Science / International Relations / General},
}

This book offers a radical reinterpretation of the development of the modern world through the concept of Jacobinism. It argues that the French Revolution was not just another step in the construction of capitalist modernity, but produced an alternative (geo)political economy - that is, 'Jacobinism.' Furthermore, Jacobinism provided a blueprint for other modernization projects, thereby profoundly impacting the content and tempo of global modernity in and beyond Europe. The book traces the journey of Jacobinism in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. It contends that until the 1950s, the Ottoman/Turkish experiment with modernity was not marked by capitalism, but by a historically specific Jacobinism. Asserting this Jacobin legacy then leads to a novel interpretation of the subsequent transition to and authoritarian consolidation of capitalism in contemporary Turkey. As such, by tracing the world historical trajectory of Jacobinism, the book establishes a new way of understanding the origins and development of global modernity.

@article{rosenberg_uneven_2022,
	title = {Uneven and combined development: a defense of the general abstraction},
	volume = {35},
	issn = {0955-7571},
	shorttitle = {Uneven and combined development},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.1835824},
	doi = {10.1080/09557571.2020.1835824},
	abstract = {This article responds to criticisms of the current revival of Uneven and Combined Development (UCD), particularly those aimed at the idea of a ‘general abstraction’ of UCD. Three main charges have been pressed: that UCD is not a real theory; that its transhistorical extension has reduced it to an unhistorical reification; and that its language of ‘advanced’ and ‘backward’ betrays its enduring Eurocentric foundations. The article argues not only that UCD can be defended, but also that it is the general abstraction which enables UCD to make its strongest contributions to solving problems of theoretical insufficiency, ahistoricism and Eurocentrism in social thought more generally. Finally the article ends by speculating on the reason why the much-maligned general abstraction of UCD should turn out to be of such significance.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2024-08-15},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	month = jul,
	year = {2022},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge
\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.1835824},
	pages = {267--290},
}

This article responds to criticisms of the current revival of Uneven and Combined Development (UCD), particularly those aimed at the idea of a ‘general abstraction’ of UCD. Three main charges have been pressed: that UCD is not a real theory; that its transhistorical extension has reduced it to an unhistorical reification; and that its language of ‘advanced’ and ‘backward’ betrays its enduring Eurocentric foundations. The article argues not only that UCD can be defended, but also that it is the general abstraction which enables UCD to make its strongest contributions to solving problems of theoretical insufficiency, ahistoricism and Eurocentrism in social thought more generally. Finally the article ends by speculating on the reason why the much-maligned general abstraction of UCD should turn out to be of such significance.

@article{rosenberg_debating_2022,
	title = {Debating {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}/{Debating} {International} {Relations}: {A} {Forum}},
	volume = {50},
	issn = {0305-8298},
	shorttitle = {Debating {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}/{Debating} {International} {Relations}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298211064346},
	doi = {10.1177/03058298211064346},
	abstract = {This forum arises from an online event on the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD). Following an introduction which proposes a ‘special affinity’ between UCD and International Relations (IR), four presenters at that event discuss their ‘view from outside’ UCD, including perspectives from Global Historical Sociology, Realism, Decolonial theory and Gramscian Marxism. Meanwhile four members of the audience add their views on UCD and disciplinarity, the need for pluralism in UCD methodology, UCD and ‘whiteness’, and its potential contribution to ecological theory and practice.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2023-05-25},
	journal = {Millennium},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin and Zarakol, Ayşe and Blagden, David and Rutazibwa, Olivia and Gray, Kevin and Corry, Olaf and Matin, Kamran and Antunes de Oliveira, Felipe and Cooper, Luke},
	month = jan,
	year = {2022},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd},
	pages = {291--327},
}

This forum arises from an online event on the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD). Following an introduction which proposes a ‘special affinity’ between UCD and International Relations (IR), four presenters at that event discuss their ‘view from outside’ UCD, including perspectives from Global Historical Sociology, Realism, Decolonial theory and Gramscian Marxism. Meanwhile four members of the audience add their views on UCD and disciplinarity, the need for pluralism in UCD methodology, UCD and ‘whiteness’, and its potential contribution to ecological theory and practice.

@article{morozov_uneven_2022,
	title = {Uneven worlds of hegemony: {Towards} a discursive ontology of societal multiplicity},
	volume = {36},
	issn = {0047-1178},
	shorttitle = {Uneven worlds of hegemony},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211010321},
	doi = {10.1177/00471178211010321},
	abstract = {The neo-Marxist literature on uneven and combined development has made significant progress towards a comprehensive theory of the international. Its point of departure is societal multiplicity as a fundamental condition of the international. This article identifies an important lacuna in the ontology of multiplicity: there is no discussion of what constitutes a ‘society’, or the basic entity capable of entering a relationship with other entities. Existing solutions, including those relying on relational sociology, gravitate towards ontological individualism. Building on poststructuralist neo-Gramscian theories, I propose to ground the conceptualisation of ‘society’ in the notion of hegemony. This implies a discursive ontology, which attributes the inside/outside dynamic to hegemonic formations rather than states or societies. Coupled with the understanding of hegemony as a scalar phenomenon, this ontology can account for the primacy of the state in modern times, while also enabling a research focus on other types of collectivities.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2023-05-05},
	journal = {International Relations},
	author = {Morozov, Viacheslav},
	month = mar,
	year = {2022},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd},
	pages = {83--103},
}

The neo-Marxist literature on uneven and combined development has made significant progress towards a comprehensive theory of the international. Its point of departure is societal multiplicity as a fundamental condition of the international. This article identifies an important lacuna in the ontology of multiplicity: there is no discussion of what constitutes a ‘society’, or the basic entity capable of entering a relationship with other entities. Existing solutions, including those relying on relational sociology, gravitate towards ontological individualism. Building on poststructuralist neo-Gramscian theories, I propose to ground the conceptualisation of ‘society’ in the notion of hegemony. This implies a discursive ontology, which attributes the inside/outside dynamic to hegemonic formations rather than states or societies. Coupled with the understanding of hegemony as a scalar phenomenon, this ontology can account for the primacy of the state in modern times, while also enabling a research focus on other types of collectivities.

@article{rosenberg_introduction_2022,
	title = {Introduction: {The} international of everything},
	volume = {57},
	issn = {0010-8367},
	shorttitle = {Introduction},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221098490},
	doi = {10.1177/00108367221098490},
	abstract = {This text introduces the Special Issue on Multiplicity. It sets out the broad research programme of Multiplicity, considers some criticisms that have been made of this programme and then summarises the contributions to the Special Issue.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2025-01-26},
	journal = {Cooperation and Conflict},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin and Tallis, Benjamin},
	month = sep,
	year = {2022},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd},
	pages = {250--267},
}

This text introduces the Special Issue on Multiplicity. It sets out the broad research programme of Multiplicity, considers some criticisms that have been made of this programme and then summarises the contributions to the Special Issue.

@article{rosenberg_uneven_2022,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development} and {International} {Relations}: a {Special} {Affinity}?’, in ’{Debating} {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}/{Debating} {International} {Relations}: a {Forum}’},
	volume = {50},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Millennium},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	year = {2022},
}

@article{rosenberg_editors_2022,
	title = {Editor’s {Introduction}’ to {Roberto} {Schwarz}},
	volume = {34},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	year = {2022},
}

@article{oksanen_indigenous_2021,
	title = {The {Indigenous} {Dimension} of the {Intersocietal}: {Dussel}, {Exteriority} and the {Sámi} {People}},
	volume = {50},
	issn = {0305-8298},
	shorttitle = {The {Indigenous} {Dimension} of the {Intersocietal}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298211050671},
	doi = {10.1177/03058298211050671},
	abstract = {Proponents of uneven and combined development (U\&CD) as a theoretical approach to International Relations (IR) have presented it as providing the conceptual means for overcoming Eurocentrism. While the U\&CD scholars have made valuable contributions to anti-Eurocentric IR scholarship, this article argues that U\&CD has analytical limitations that impede its anti-Eurocentric potential. These limitations derive from U\&CD’s reliance on the concepts of ‘development’ and the ‘whip of external necessity’, which require developmental ranking of societies and lock U\&CD into a state-centric social ontology. To provide complementary conceptual resources to overcome U\&CD’s analytical limitations, this article introduces Enrique Dussel’s liberation philosophy (LP), which can incorporate peoples other than states as agents and entities of global politics through its concept of ‘exteriority’. U\&CD and LP are then jointly applied to analyse the relations between the Nordic states and the indigenous Sámi people to assess the approaches’ relative strengths and weaknesses and identify synergies between them. Based on this assessment, the article outlines the potential for synthesising a ‘thin’ version of U\&CD with LP, by using the concept of ‘exteriority’ to reorient U\&CD’s analytical focus towards people excluded by the states-system.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2024-08-15},
	journal = {Millennium},
	author = {Oksanen, Aslak-Antti},
	month = sep,
	year = {2021},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd},
	pages = {83--109},
}

Proponents of uneven and combined development (U&CD) as a theoretical approach to International Relations (IR) have presented it as providing the conceptual means for overcoming Eurocentrism. While the U&CD scholars have made valuable contributions to anti-Eurocentric IR scholarship, this article argues that U&CD has analytical limitations that impede its anti-Eurocentric potential. These limitations derive from U&CD’s reliance on the concepts of ‘development’ and the ‘whip of external necessity’, which require developmental ranking of societies and lock U&CD into a state-centric social ontology. To provide complementary conceptual resources to overcome U&CD’s analytical limitations, this article introduces Enrique Dussel’s liberation philosophy (LP), which can incorporate peoples other than states as agents and entities of global politics through its concept of ‘exteriority’. U&CD and LP are then jointly applied to analyse the relations between the Nordic states and the indigenous Sámi people to assess the approaches’ relative strengths and weaknesses and identify synergies between them. Based on this assessment, the article outlines the potential for synthesising a ‘thin’ version of U&CD with LP, by using the concept of ‘exteriority’ to reorient U&CD’s analytical focus towards people excluded by the states-system.

@article{rosenberg_results_2021,
	title = {Results and prospects: an introduction to the {CRIA} special issue on {UCD}},
	copyright = {© 2021 Department of Politics and International Studies},
	issn = {0955-7571},
	shorttitle = {Results and prospects},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09557571.2021.1890694},
	abstract = {This paper introduces the Special Issue on Uneven and Combined Development (UCD). It begins by briefly outlining the idea of UCD and reviewing its history – from its origins in the writings of Leon...},
	language = {EN},
	urldate = {2025-01-26},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	month = apr,
	year = {2021},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge},
}

This paper introduces the Special Issue on Uneven and Combined Development (UCD). It begins by briefly outlining the idea of UCD and reviewing its history – from its origins in the writings of Leon...

@article{dunford_geography_2021,
	title = {Geography and the theory of uneven and combined development: {Theorizing} uniqueness and the return of {China}’},
	doi = {10.1177/0308518X20987229},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Economy and Space},
	author = {Dunford, M. and Gao, Boyang and Liu, Weidong},
	year = {2021},
}

@article{rosenberg_trotskys_2020,
	title = {Trotsky’s error: multiplicity and the secret origins of revolutionary {Marxism}},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {1474-7731},
	shorttitle = {Trotsky’s error},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1665389},
	doi = {10.1080/14747731.2019.1665389},
	abstract = {Uneven and Combined Development uniquely incorporated societal multiplicity into Marxist theory. So why did its first application end in Stalinist dictatorship? This paper seeks an answer by turning the idea back on itself, applying it first to Trotsky’s doctrine of ‘permanent revolution’ and then to Marx’s original idea of revolution. Trotsky hoped that Russia’s ‘revolution of backwardness’ would be rescued by ‘advanced’ revolutions in the West, modelled on the French revolution. But what if – as this paper argues – that event too was ultimately a ‘revolution of backwardness’? Two implications follow. First, Trotsky’s ‘permanentist’ strategy was logically flawed: if all modern revolutions have been internationally-generated catch-up revolutions, then the idea of Bolshevism being rescued by ‘advanced revolutions’ elsewhere fails. But second, the consequences of multiplicity reach even deeper than Trotsky realized: they underlie and explain the original political formation, and troubled history, of revolutionary Marxism itself.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2022-07-08},
	journal = {Globalizations},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	month = apr,
	year = {2020},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge
\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1665389},
	keywords = {Marxism, Multiplicity, revolution, uneven and combined development},
	pages = {477--497},
}

Uneven and Combined Development uniquely incorporated societal multiplicity into Marxist theory. So why did its first application end in Stalinist dictatorship? This paper seeks an answer by turning the idea back on itself, applying it first to Trotsky’s doctrine of ‘permanent revolution’ and then to Marx’s original idea of revolution. Trotsky hoped that Russia’s ‘revolution of backwardness’ would be rescued by ‘advanced’ revolutions in the West, modelled on the French revolution. But what if – as this paper argues – that event too was ultimately a ‘revolution of backwardness’? Two implications follow. First, Trotsky’s ‘permanentist’ strategy was logically flawed: if all modern revolutions have been internationally-generated catch-up revolutions, then the idea of Bolshevism being rescued by ‘advanced revolutions’ elsewhere fails. But second, the consequences of multiplicity reach even deeper than Trotsky realized: they underlie and explain the original political formation, and troubled history, of revolutionary Marxism itself.

@article{matin_deciphering_2020,
	title = {Deciphering the modern {Janus}: societal multiplicity and nation-formation},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {1474-7731},
	shorttitle = {Deciphering the modern {Janus}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1673615},
	doi = {10.1080/14747731.2019.1673615},
	abstract = {How to theorize the nation’s Janus-like form, its simultaneous modernity and antiquity? This paper provides an original answer to this longstanding question. It argues that nations arise from the interaction of ‘societal multiplicity’ and the expansionist tendency of historical capitalism. The emergence of capitalism super-adds a modern inflection to the inherently relational process of collective identity formation by generating modern sovereignty as an abstract form of rule. Crucially however, just like its emergence, capitalism’s expansion also refracts through societal multiplicity. Non-capitalist societies are therefore pressured into ‘nationalist’ projects of emulative self-preservation in which the nation’s political form (i.e. the sovereign state) is forged before its sociological content (i.e. primitive accumulation). Thus, the original site of this process, France, produced the modular nation-form that unlike Britain’s imperial nationhood could be globalized. The paper therefore shows that IR’s premise of multiplicity may be the key to one of social sciences’ most enduring puzzles.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2024-08-15},
	journal = {Globalizations},
	author = {Matin, Kamran},
	month = apr,
	year = {2020},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge
\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1673615},
	keywords = {Benedict Anderson, international relations, nation, nationalism, societal multiplicity, uneven and combined development},
	pages = {436--451},
}

How to theorize the nation’s Janus-like form, its simultaneous modernity and antiquity? This paper provides an original answer to this longstanding question. It argues that nations arise from the interaction of ‘societal multiplicity’ and the expansionist tendency of historical capitalism. The emergence of capitalism super-adds a modern inflection to the inherently relational process of collective identity formation by generating modern sovereignty as an abstract form of rule. Crucially however, just like its emergence, capitalism’s expansion also refracts through societal multiplicity. Non-capitalist societies are therefore pressured into ‘nationalist’ projects of emulative self-preservation in which the nation’s political form (i.e. the sovereign state) is forged before its sociological content (i.e. primitive accumulation). Thus, the original site of this process, France, produced the modular nation-form that unlike Britain’s imperial nationhood could be globalized. The paper therefore shows that IR’s premise of multiplicity may be the key to one of social sciences’ most enduring puzzles.

@misc{antunes_de_oliveira_rise_2019,
	title = {The rise of the {Latin} {American} far-right explained: dependency theory meets uneven and combined development’},
	language = {en},
	author = {Antunes de Oliveira, Felipe},
	year = {2019},
	doi = {10.1080/14747731.2019.1567977https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/9pfz2u5DpvujZGx7i2dw/full},
	doi = {10.1080/14747731.2019.1567977https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/9pfz2u5DpvujZGx7i2dw/full},
	note = {Place: Globalizations},
}

@article{antunes_de_oliveira_development_2019,
	title = {Development for whom? {Beyond} the developed/underdeveloped dichotomy’},
	doi = {10.1057/s41268-019-00173-9},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Journal of International Relations and Development},
	author = {Antunes de Oliveira, Felipe},
	year = {2019},
}

@book{schwarz_victor_2019,
	address = {Leiden},
	title = {To the {Victor}, the {Potatoes}!({Historical} {Materialism} {Book} {Series}},
	volume = {206},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Brill},
	author = {Schwarz, Roberto},
	year = {2019},
}

@article{rosenberg_understanding_2019,
	title = {Understanding 2016: {China}, {Brexit} and {Trump} in the {History} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}’},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Journal of Historical Sociology},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin and Boyle, Chris},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {1--27},
}

@book{peck_combination_2019,
	address = {Hoboken},
	title = {Combination’ in {Keywords} in {Radical} {Geography}: {Antipode} at 50},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {John Wiley and Sons},
	author = {Peck, Jamie},
	year = {2019},
}

@book{fabry_political_2019,
	address = {London},
	title = {The {Political} {Economy} of {Hungary}: {From} {State} {Capitalism} to {Authoritarian} {Neoliberalism}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Palgrave},
	author = {Fabry, A.},
	year = {2019},
}

@incollection{davidson_uneven_2019,
	address = {Brill},
	title = {Uneven and combined development: between capitalist modernity and modernism},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Cultures of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}},
	publisher = {Leiden},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	editor = {Christie, J. and Degirmencioglu, N.},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {167--198},
}

@incollection{davidson_uneven_2019,
	address = {Brill},
	title = {Uneven and combined development as a universal aspect of capitalist modernity},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Cultures of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}},
	publisher = {Leiden},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	editor = {Christie, J. and Degirmencioglu, N.},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {17--79},
}

@book{christie_cultures_2019,
	address = {Leiden},
	title = {Cultures of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Brill},
	editor = {Christie, J. and Değirmencioğlu, N.},
	year = {2019},
}

@unpublished{barker_value_2019,
	title = {Value, {Force}, {Many} {States} and {Other} {Problems}: {Part} 3’},
	url = {https://www.rs21.org.uk/2019/06/07/revolutionary-reflections-value-force-many-states-and-other-problems-part-3/(accessed},
	language = {en},
	author = {Barker, C.},
	year = {2019},
}

@article{anievas_reassessing_2019,
	title = {Reassessing the {Cold} {War} and the {Far}-{Right}: {Fascist} {Legacies} and the {Making} of the {Liberal} {International} {Order} after 1945’},
	doi = {10.1093/isr/viz006},
	language = {en},
	journal = {International Studies Review},
	author = {Anievas, A. and Saull, R.},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {1--26},
}

@incollection{anievas_troubling_2019,
	address = {Leiden, NL},
	title = {Troubling {Time} and {Space} in {World} {Politics}: {Reimagining} {Western} {Modernity} in the {Atlantic} {Mirror}’},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Cultures of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}},
	publisher = {Brill},
	author = {Anievas, A. and Nişancıoğlu, K.},
	editor = {Christie, James and Degirmencioglu, Nesrin},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {83--113},
}

@article{duzgun_capitalism_2018,
	title = {Capitalism, {Jacobinism} and {International} {Relations}: {Re}-interpreting the {Ottoman} path to modernity},
	volume = {44},
	issn = {0260-2105, 1469-9044},
	shorttitle = {Capitalism, {Jacobinism} and {International} {Relations}},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-international-studies/article/capitalism-jacobinism-and-international-relations-reinterpreting-the-ottoman-path-to-modernity/1FB05EE6C777822665982043224154A4},
	doi = {10.1017/S0260210517000468},
	abstract = {Debates over ‘modernity’ have been central to the development of historical-sociological approaches to International Relations (IR). Within the bourgeoning subfield of International Historical Sociology (IHS), much work has been done to formulate a historically dynamic conception of international relations, which is then used to undermine unilinear conceptions of global modernity. Nevertheless, this article argues that IHS has not proceeded far enough in successfully remedying the problem of unilinearism. The problem remains that historical narratives, informed by IHS, tend to transhistoricise capitalism, which, in turn, obscures the generative nature of international relations, as well as the fundamental heterogeneity of diverging paths to modernity both within and beyond western Europe. Based on the theory of Uneven and Combined Development, Political Marxism, and Robbie Shilliam’s discussion of ‘Jacobinism’, this article first reinterprets the radical multilinearity of modernity within western Europe, and then utilises this reinterpretation to provide a new reading of the Ottoman path to modernity (1839–1918). Such a historical critique and reconstruction will highlight the significance of Jacobinism for a more accurate theorisation of the origin and development of the modern international order, hence contributing to a deeper understanding of the international relations of modernity.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2025-03-07},
	journal = {Review of International Studies},
	author = {Duzgun, Eren},
	month = apr,
	year = {2018},
	keywords = {Capitalism, Historical Sociology, International Relations Theory, International System, Jacobinism, Marxism, Modernity, The Ottoman Empire, Uneven and Combined Development},
	pages = {252--278},
}

Debates over ‘modernity’ have been central to the development of historical-sociological approaches to International Relations (IR). Within the bourgeoning subfield of International Historical Sociology (IHS), much work has been done to formulate a historically dynamic conception of international relations, which is then used to undermine unilinear conceptions of global modernity. Nevertheless, this article argues that IHS has not proceeded far enough in successfully remedying the problem of unilinearism. The problem remains that historical narratives, informed by IHS, tend to transhistoricise capitalism, which, in turn, obscures the generative nature of international relations, as well as the fundamental heterogeneity of diverging paths to modernity both within and beyond western Europe. Based on the theory of Uneven and Combined Development, Political Marxism, and Robbie Shilliam’s discussion of ‘Jacobinism’, this article first reinterprets the radical multilinearity of modernity within western Europe, and then utilises this reinterpretation to provide a new reading of the Ottoman path to modernity (1839–1918). Such a historical critique and reconstruction will highlight the significance of Jacobinism for a more accurate theorisation of the origin and development of the modern international order, hence contributing to a deeper understanding of the international relations of modernity.

@article{duzgun_international_2018,
	title = {The international relations of ‘bourgeois revolutions’: {Disputing} the {Turkish} {Revolution}},
	volume = {24},
	issn = {1354-0661},
	shorttitle = {The international relations of ‘bourgeois revolutions’},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117714527},
	doi = {10.1177/1354066117714527},
	abstract = {The study of revolutions is at the forefront of the growing field of International Historical Sociology. As International Historical Sociology scholars have sought to uncover the spatio-temporally changing character of international relations, they have come a long way in overcoming ‘unilinear’ and ‘internalist’ conceptions of revolutionary modern transformation. In this article, I re-evaluate the extent to which the International Historical Sociology of ‘bourgeois revolutions’ has succeeded in remedying unilinear conceptions of the transition to modernity. I argue that ‘consequentialist’ approaches to the study of bourgeois revolutions tend to obscure the radically heterogeneous character of revolutionary transformations, both within and outside Western Europe. Drawing on Political Marxism and Robbie Shilliam’s discussion of Jacobinism, I first provide a non-consequentialist reading of the revolutions of modernity within Western Europe, and then utilize this reinterpretation to provide a new interpretation of the Turkish Revolution (1923–1945). My aim is to demonstrate that a non-consequentialist conception of ‘bourgeois revolutions’ will enable us to historicize and theorize more accurately the co-constitution of international relations and revolutionary processes, hence providing a stronger foundation for the International Historical Sociology of modern revolutions.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2025-03-07},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Duzgun, Eren},
	month = jun,
	year = {2018},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd},
	pages = {414--439},
}

The study of revolutions is at the forefront of the growing field of International Historical Sociology. As International Historical Sociology scholars have sought to uncover the spatio-temporally changing character of international relations, they have come a long way in overcoming ‘unilinear’ and ‘internalist’ conceptions of revolutionary modern transformation. In this article, I re-evaluate the extent to which the International Historical Sociology of ‘bourgeois revolutions’ has succeeded in remedying unilinear conceptions of the transition to modernity. I argue that ‘consequentialist’ approaches to the study of bourgeois revolutions tend to obscure the radically heterogeneous character of revolutionary transformations, both within and outside Western Europe. Drawing on Political Marxism and Robbie Shilliam’s discussion of Jacobinism, I first provide a non-consequentialist reading of the revolutions of modernity within Western Europe, and then utilize this reinterpretation to provide a new interpretation of the Turkish Revolution (1923–1945). My aim is to demonstrate that a non-consequentialist conception of ‘bourgeois revolutions’ will enable us to historicize and theorize more accurately the co-constitution of international relations and revolutionary processes, hence providing a stronger foundation for the International Historical Sociology of modern revolutions.

@article{davidson_frontiers_2018,
	title = {The {Frontiers} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}},
	volume = {26},
	issn = {1465-4466, 1569-206X},
	url = {https://brill.com/view/journals/hima/26/3/article-p52_3.xml},
	doi = {10.1163/1569206X-00001656},
	abstract = {Abstract Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nişancıoğlu’s How the West Came to Rule is an important intervention within Marxist historical debates which seeks to use the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD) to explain the origin and rise to dominance of capitalism. The argument is shaped by a critique of Political Marxist ‘internalist’ explanations of the process, to which the authors counterpose an account which emphasises its inescapably ‘inter-societal’ nature. While recognising the many contributions that the book makes to our historical understanding, this article argues that these insights do not depend on UCD, and could have been arrived at without reference to it. In particular, it will try to show that UCD is inapplicable in periods before the consolidation of capitalism, but might be more usefully extended spatially rather than chronologically.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2023-08-01},
	journal = {Historical Materialism},
	author = {Davidson, Neil},
	month = sep,
	year = {2018},
	note = {Publisher: Brill},
	keywords = {Eurocentrism, International Relations, Political Marxism, historical sociology, permanent revolution, uneven and combined development},
	pages = {52--78},
}

Abstract Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nişancıoğlu’s How the West Came to Rule is an important intervention within Marxist historical debates which seeks to use the theory of uneven and combined development (UCD) to explain the origin and rise to dominance of capitalism. The argument is shaped by a critique of Political Marxist ‘internalist’ explanations of the process, to which the authors counterpose an account which emphasises its inescapably ‘inter-societal’ nature. While recognising the many contributions that the book makes to our historical understanding, this article argues that these insights do not depend on UCD, and could have been arrived at without reference to it. In particular, it will try to show that UCD is inapplicable in periods before the consolidation of capitalism, but might be more usefully extended spatially rather than chronologically.

@article{shapiro_translatability_2018,
	title = {Translatability, {Combined} {Unevenness}, and {World} {Literature} in {Antonio} {Gramsci}’},
	volume = {32},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Mediations},
	author = {Shapiro, Stephen and Lazarus, Neil},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {1--36},
}

@article{moldovan_uneven_2018,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development} and {Sub}-imperialism: {The} {Internationalization} of {Brazilian} {Capital}},
	volume = {15},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Globalizations},
	author = {Moldovan, A.},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {314--328},
}

@article{matin_lineages_2018,
	title = {Lineages of the {Islamic} {State}: {An} {International} {Historical} {Sociology} of {State} ({De}-){Formation} in {Iraq}‘},
	volume = {31},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Journal of Historical Sociology},
	author = {Matin, K.},
	year = {2018},
}

@article{medved_trotsky_2018,
	title = {Trotsky or {Wallerstein}? {Approaching} the {Habsburg} {Monarchy} in the {Nineteenth} {Century}‘},
	volume = {45},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {East Central Europe},
	author = {Medved, M.},
	year = {2018},
}

@article{medved_introduction_2018,
	title = {Introduction: {East} {Central} {Europe} and the {Problematic} of the {International}’},
	volume = {45},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {East Central Europe},
	author = {Medved, M.},
	year = {2018},
}

@article{kasmir_no_2018,
	title = {No {Smooth} {Surfaces}: {The} {Anthropology} of {Unevenness} and {Combination}},
	volume = {59},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	journal = {Current Anthropology},
	author = {Kasmir, Sharryn and Gill, Lesley},
	editor = {Chomsky, Aviva and Kalb, Don and Lem, Winnie and Stiffler, Steve and Werner, Marion and {Kasmir} and reply, Gill},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {355--377},
}

@article{goksel_uneven_2018,
	title = {Uneven {Development} and {Non}-{Western} {Modernities}: {A} {Historical} {Sociology} {Guide} to the {New} {Turkey}’},
	volume = {8},
	doi = {https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/nmes/article/view/2906},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {New Middle Eastern Studies},
	author = {Goksel, Oguzhan},
	year = {2018},
}

@article{davidson_law_2018,
	title = {The “{Law}” of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}: {Part} 1‘},
	volume = {45},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {East Central Europe},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	year = {2018},
}

@article{davidson_frontiers_2018,
	title = {The frontiers of uneven and combined development: a review essay},
	volume = {26},
	doi = {10.1163/1569206X-00001656)},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Historical Materialism},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {52--78},
}

@article{davidson_law_2018,
	title = {The “law” of uneven and combined development: {Part} 2. {Scope} and developments},
	volume = {45},
	doi = {10.1163/18763308-04502011)},
	language = {en},
	number = {2-3},
	journal = {East Central Europe},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {301--335},
}

@article{davidson_realism_2018,
	title = {Realism, modernism, and the spectre of {Trotsky}, part 2: {Greenberg}},
	volume = {4},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Red Wedge},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	year = {2018},
}

@article{bieler_interlocutions_2018,
	title = {Interlocutions with {Passive} {Revolution}’},
	volume = {147},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Thesis Eleven},
	author = {Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam David},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {9--28},
}

@book{blanc_us_2018,
	address = {Part III},
	title = {U.{S}. {Trotskyism} 1928-1965},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Resurgence},
	editor = {Blanc, Le and {Paul} and Palmer, Bryan},
	year = {2018},
}

@article{bieler_global_2018,
	title = {Global {Capitalism}, {Global} {War}, {Global} {Crisis}},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Uneven and Combined Development and Passive Revolution’},
	author = {Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam David},
	year = {2018},
	note = {Place: Cambridge
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Type: esp. Ch. 4 ‘Capitalist Expansion,},
	pages = {79--106},
}

@article{anievas_lineages_2018,
	title = {Lineages of {Capital}’},
	volume = {26},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Historical Materialism},
	author = {Anievas, A. and Nişancıoğlu, K.},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {167--196},
}

@article{anievas_how_2017,
	title = {How {Did} the {West} {Usurp} the {Rest}? {Origins} of the {Great} {Divergence} over the {Longue} {Durée}’},
	volume = {59},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Comparative Studies in Society and History},
	author = {Anievas, Alex and Nişancıoğlu, Kerem},
	year = {2017},
}

@article{anievas_limits_2017,
	title = {Limits of the {Universal}: {The} {Promises} and {Pitfalls} of {Postcolonial} {Theory} and {Its} {Critique}},
	volume = {25},
	issn = {1465-4466, 1569-206X},
	shorttitle = {Limits of the {Universal}},
	url = {https://brill.com/view/journals/hima/25/3/article-p36_36.xml},
	doi = {10.1163/1569206X-12341539},
	abstract = {Abstract This article seeks to reassess the potential merits and weaknesses of the Subaltern Studies project through the prism of Vivek Chibber’s much-publicised and controversial book Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. By critically examining Chibber’s work, the article aims to better pinpoint exactly what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ with the Subaltern Studies project, while drawing out some productive points of engagement between Marxism and postcolonial theory more generally. In particular, we argue that an understanding of the origins of capitalist modernity remains a relatively unexplored omission within postcolonial thought that problematises their broader project of ‘provincialising Europe’. Against this backdrop, the article explores the affinities between Leon Trotsky’s notion of uneven and combined development and postcolonialism, demonstrating how the former can provide a theoretical solution to the problem of Eurocentrism that the Subaltern Studies project correctly identifies but inadequately conceptualises.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2021-11-17},
	journal = {Historical Materialism},
	author = {Anievas, Alexander and Nişancıoğlu, Kerem},
	month = dec,
	year = {2017},
	note = {Publisher: Brill},
	keywords = {Eurocentrism, Marxism, Subaltern Studies, origins of capitalism, postcolonialism, uneven and combined development},
	pages = {36--75},
}

Abstract This article seeks to reassess the potential merits and weaknesses of the Subaltern Studies project through the prism of Vivek Chibber’s much-publicised and controversial book Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. By critically examining Chibber’s work, the article aims to better pinpoint exactly what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ with the Subaltern Studies project, while drawing out some productive points of engagement between Marxism and postcolonial theory more generally. In particular, we argue that an understanding of the origins of capitalist modernity remains a relatively unexplored omission within postcolonial thought that problematises their broader project of ‘provincialising Europe’. Against this backdrop, the article explores the affinities between Leon Trotsky’s notion of uneven and combined development and postcolonialism, demonstrating how the former can provide a theoretical solution to the problem of Eurocentrism that the Subaltern Studies project correctly identifies but inadequately conceptualises.

@article{rosenberg_elusive_2017,
	title = {The {Elusive} {International}’},
	volume = {31},
	language = {ky},
	number = {ue 1},
	journal = {International Relations},
	author = {Rosenberg, J.},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {90--103},
}

@article{germann_beyond_2017,
	title = {Beyond ‘geo-economics’: {Advanced} unevenness and the anatomy of {German} austerity’},
	volume = {24},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Germann, Julian},
	year = {2017},
	note = {ISBN: 1354-0661},
	pages = {590--613},
}

@article{hesketh_passive_2017,
	title = {Passive {Revolution}: {A} {Universal} {Concept} with {Geographical} {Seats}’},
	volume = {43},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Review of International Studies},
	author = {Hesketh, C.},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {389--408},
}

@misc{davidson_uneven_2017,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development}: {Modernity}, {Modernism}, {Revolution} (1): {The} {Classic} {Forms} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}‘},
	language = {en},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	year = {2017},
	note = {Pages: 21},
}

@article{davidson_realism_2017,
	title = {Realism, modernism, and the spectre of {Trotsky}, part 1: {Lukács}},
	volume = {3},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Red Wedge},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {37--52},
}

@article{craig_when_2017,
	title = {When the {Whip} {Comes} {Down}: {Marxism}, the {Soviet} {Experience}, and the {Nuclear} {Revolution}’},
	volume = {II},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {European Journal of International Security},
	author = {Craig, Campbell},
	year = {2017},
}

@article{brophy_uneven_2017,
	title = {An {Uneven} and {Combined} {Theory} of {Law}: {Initiation}‘},
	volume = {28},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Law Critique},
	author = {Brophy, Susan},
	year = {2017},
}

@article{noauthor_book_2016,
	title = {Book {Symposium} on '{How} the {West} {Came} to {Rule}’},
	volume = {8},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies},
	year = {2016},
}

@incollection{anievas_conditions_2016,
	title = {The {Conditions} for the {Emergence} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}},
	isbn = {978-1-78348-683-0},
	abstract = {The concept of 'uneven and combined development' was originally coined by Leon Trotsky to theorise Tsarist Russia's distinctive experience of modernity and revolution. But it has re-emerged over the last decade or so as a burgeoning research programme within International Relations (IR) and historical sociology. It has been critically and creatively deployed in two main areas: the provision of a sociological foundation to international theory overcoming the chronic schism between ‘sociological’ and ‘geopolitical’ modes of enquiry; and, relatedly, in superseding prevailing Eurocentric approaches in the social sciences.This volume is the first to provide a sustained reflection on the idea of uneven and combined development as the intellectual basis for a non-Eurocentric social theory of ‘the international’. It does so through a series of empirically rich and theoretically informed analyses of socio-historical change, political transformation, and intersocietal conflict over the longue durée. The volume thereby aims to demonstrate the unique potentials of uneven and combined development in overcoming IR and historical sociology’s shared inability to theorize the interactive and multilinear character of development.},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Historical {Sociology} and {World} {History}: {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} over the {Longue} {Durée}},
	publisher = {Rowman \& Littlefield},
	author = {Davidson, Neil},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander and Matin, Kamran},
	month = sep,
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Political Science / Colonialism \& Post-Colonialism, Political Science / History \& Theory, Social Science / Sociology / General},
	pages = {31--52},
}

The concept of 'uneven and combined development' was originally coined by Leon Trotsky to theorise Tsarist Russia's distinctive experience of modernity and revolution. But it has re-emerged over the last decade or so as a burgeoning research programme within International Relations (IR) and historical sociology. It has been critically and creatively deployed in two main areas: the provision of a sociological foundation to international theory overcoming the chronic schism between ‘sociological’ and ‘geopolitical’ modes of enquiry; and, relatedly, in superseding prevailing Eurocentric approaches in the social sciences.This volume is the first to provide a sustained reflection on the idea of uneven and combined development as the intellectual basis for a non-Eurocentric social theory of ‘the international’. It does so through a series of empirically rich and theoretically informed analyses of socio-historical change, political transformation, and intersocietal conflict over the longue durée. The volume thereby aims to demonstrate the unique potentials of uneven and combined development in overcoming IR and historical sociology’s shared inability to theorize the interactive and multilinear character of development.

@book{anievas_historical_2016,
	title = {Historical {Sociology} and {World} {History}: {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} over the {Longue} {Durée}},
	isbn = {978-1-78348-683-0},
	shorttitle = {Historical {Sociology} and {World} {History}},
	abstract = {The concept of 'uneven and combined development' was originally coined by Leon Trotsky to theorise Tsarist Russia's distinctive experience of modernity and revolution. But it has re-emerged over the last decade or so as a burgeoning research programme within International Relations (IR) and historical sociology. It has been critically and creatively deployed in two main areas: the provision of a sociological foundation to international theory overcoming the chronic schism between ‘sociological’ and ‘geopolitical’ modes of enquiry; and, relatedly, in superseding prevailing Eurocentric approaches in the social sciences.This volume is the first to provide a sustained reflection on the idea of uneven and combined development as the intellectual basis for a non-Eurocentric social theory of ‘the international’. It does so through a series of empirically rich and theoretically informed analyses of socio-historical change, political transformation, and intersocietal conflict over the longue durée. The volume thereby aims to demonstrate the unique potentials of uneven and combined development in overcoming IR and historical sociology’s shared inability to theorize the interactive and multilinear character of development.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Rowman \& Littlefield},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander and Matin, Kamran},
	month = sep,
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Political Science / Colonialism \& Post-Colonialism, Political Science / History \& Theory, Social Science / Sociology / General},
}

The concept of 'uneven and combined development' was originally coined by Leon Trotsky to theorise Tsarist Russia's distinctive experience of modernity and revolution. But it has re-emerged over the last decade or so as a burgeoning research programme within International Relations (IR) and historical sociology. It has been critically and creatively deployed in two main areas: the provision of a sociological foundation to international theory overcoming the chronic schism between ‘sociological’ and ‘geopolitical’ modes of enquiry; and, relatedly, in superseding prevailing Eurocentric approaches in the social sciences.This volume is the first to provide a sustained reflection on the idea of uneven and combined development as the intellectual basis for a non-Eurocentric social theory of ‘the international’. It does so through a series of empirically rich and theoretically informed analyses of socio-historical change, political transformation, and intersocietal conflict over the longue durée. The volume thereby aims to demonstrate the unique potentials of uneven and combined development in overcoming IR and historical sociology’s shared inability to theorize the interactive and multilinear character of development.

@incollection{anievas_uneven_2016,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development}: ‘{The} {International}’ in {Theory} and {History}},
	isbn = {978-1-78348-683-0},
	abstract = {The concept of 'uneven and combined development' was originally coined by Leon Trotsky to theorise Tsarist Russia's distinctive experience of modernity and revolution. But it has re-emerged over the last decade or so as a burgeoning research programme within International Relations (IR) and historical sociology. It has been critically and creatively deployed in two main areas: the provision of a sociological foundation to international theory overcoming the chronic schism between ‘sociological’ and ‘geopolitical’ modes of enquiry; and, relatedly, in superseding prevailing Eurocentric approaches in the social sciences.This volume is the first to provide a sustained reflection on the idea of uneven and combined development as the intellectual basis for a non-Eurocentric social theory of ‘the international’. It does so through a series of empirically rich and theoretically informed analyses of socio-historical change, political transformation, and intersocietal conflict over the longue durée. The volume thereby aims to demonstrate the unique potentials of uneven and combined development in overcoming IR and historical sociology’s shared inability to theorize the interactive and multilinear character of development.},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Historical {Sociology} and {World} {History}: {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} over the {Longue} {Durée}},
	publisher = {Rowman \& Littlefield},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander and Matin, Kamran},
	month = sep,
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Political Science / Colonialism \& Post-Colonialism, Political Science / History \& Theory, Social Science / Sociology / General},
	pages = {17--30},
}

The concept of 'uneven and combined development' was originally coined by Leon Trotsky to theorise Tsarist Russia's distinctive experience of modernity and revolution. But it has re-emerged over the last decade or so as a burgeoning research programme within International Relations (IR) and historical sociology. It has been critically and creatively deployed in two main areas: the provision of a sociological foundation to international theory overcoming the chronic schism between ‘sociological’ and ‘geopolitical’ modes of enquiry; and, relatedly, in superseding prevailing Eurocentric approaches in the social sciences.This volume is the first to provide a sustained reflection on the idea of uneven and combined development as the intellectual basis for a non-Eurocentric social theory of ‘the international’. It does so through a series of empirically rich and theoretically informed analyses of socio-historical change, political transformation, and intersocietal conflict over the longue durée. The volume thereby aims to demonstrate the unique potentials of uneven and combined development in overcoming IR and historical sociology’s shared inability to theorize the interactive and multilinear character of development.

@article{rosenberg_international_2016,
	title = {International {Relations} in the prison of {Political} {Science}},
	volume = {30},
	issn = {0047-1178},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816644662},
	doi = {10.1177/0047117816644662},
	abstract = {In recent decades, the discipline of International Relations (IR) has experienced both dramatic institutional growth and unprecedented intellectual enrichment. And yet, unlike neighbouring disciplines such as Geography, Sociology, History and Comparative Literature, it has still not generated any ‘big ideas’ that have impacted across the human sciences. Why is this? And what can be done about it? This article provides an answer in three steps. First, it traces the problem to IR’s enduring definition as a subfield of Political Science. Second, it argues that IR should be re-grounded in its own disciplinary problematique: the consequences of (societal) multiplicity. And finally, it shows how this re-grounding unlocks the transdisciplinary potential of IR. Specifically, ‘uneven and combined development’ provides an example of an IR ‘big idea’ that could travel to other disciplines: for by operationalizing the consequences of multiplicity, it reveals the causal and constitutive significance of ‘the international’ for the social world as a whole.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2022-01-23},
	journal = {International Relations},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	month = jun,
	year = {2016},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd},
	keywords = {International Relations, Political Science, historical sociology, international theory, uneven and combined development},
	pages = {127--153},
}

In recent decades, the discipline of International Relations (IR) has experienced both dramatic institutional growth and unprecedented intellectual enrichment. And yet, unlike neighbouring disciplines such as Geography, Sociology, History and Comparative Literature, it has still not generated any ‘big ideas’ that have impacted across the human sciences. Why is this? And what can be done about it? This article provides an answer in three steps. First, it traces the problem to IR’s enduring definition as a subfield of Political Science. Second, it argues that IR should be re-grounded in its own disciplinary problematique: the consequences of (societal) multiplicity. And finally, it shows how this re-grounding unlocks the transdisciplinary potential of IR. Specifically, ‘uneven and combined development’ provides an example of an IR ‘big idea’ that could travel to other disciplines: for by operationalizing the consequences of multiplicity, it reveals the causal and constitutive significance of ‘the international’ for the social world as a whole.

@incollection{yalvac_ibn_2016,
	address = {London},
	title = {Ibn {Khaldûn}’s {Historical} {Sociology} and the {Concept} of {Change} in {International} {Relations} {Theory}},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {{inDeina} {Abdelkader} et},
	publisher = {Palgrave},
	author = {Yalvaç, F.},
	editor = {{al}},
	year = {2016},
}

@article{rosenberg_confessions_2016,
	title = {Confessions of a {Sociolator}’},
	volume = {44},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Millennium – Journal of International Studies},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	year = {2016},
}

@incollection{rosenberg_uneven_2016,
	address = {Lanham, MD},
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development} in {Theory} and {History}’},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Historical {Sociology} and {World} {History}: {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} over the {Longue} {Durée}},
	publisher = {Rowman \& Littlefield},
	author = {Rosenberg, J.},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander and Matin, Kamran},
	year = {2016},
}

@article{liu_anarchy_2016,
	title = {Anarchy in the {East}: {Eurocentrism}, {China}-centred geopolitics and uneven and combined development’},
	doi = {10.1057/s41311-016-0007-7},
	language = {en},
	journal = {International Politics, First Online},
	author = {Liu, Xin},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {1--22},
}

@article{lazarus_vivek_2016,
	title = {Vivek {Chibber} and the {Specter} of {Postcolonial} {Theory}’},
	volume = {57},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Race \& Class},
	author = {Lazarus, Neil},
	year = {2016},
}

@book{glenn_chinas_2016,
	address = {London},
	title = {China’s {Challenge} to {US} {Supremacy}: {Economic} {Superpower} versus {Rising} {Star}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Palgrave MacMillan},
	author = {Glenn, J.},
	year = {2016},
}

@article{evans_uneven_2016,
	title = {The uneven and combined development of class forces: migration as combined development’},
	volume = {29},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Evans, Jessica},
	year = {2016},
}

@misc{dunford_uneven_2016,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development}’, {Regional} {Studies}},
	language = {nl},
	author = {Dunford, M. and Liu, W.},
	year = {2016},
}

@article{anievas_why_2016,
	title = {Why {Europe}? {Anti}-{Eurocentric} {Theory}, {History}, and the {Rise} of {Capitalism}’},
	volume = {8},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies},
	author = {Anievas, A. and Nişancıoğlu, K.},
	year = {2016},
}

@article{anievas_history_2016,
	title = {History, theory, and contingency in the study of modern international relations: the global transformation revisited‘},
	volume = {8},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {International Theory},
	author = {Anievas, A.},
	year = {2016},
}

@article{anievas_confronting_2016,
	title = {Confronting {Eurocentrism}, {Reductionism} and {Reification} in {International} {Historical} {Sociology}: {A} {Reply}’},
	volume = {53},
	language = {en},
	number = {5},
	journal = {International Politics},
	author = {Anievas, A.},
	year = {2016},
}

@article{makki_reframing_2015,
	title = {Reframing development theory: the significance of the idea of uneven and combined development},
	volume = {44},
	issn = {1573-7853},
	shorttitle = {Reframing development theory},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-015-9252-9},
	doi = {10.1007/s11186-015-9252-9},
	abstract = {This article spells out the significance for Development Theory of the idea of “uneven and combined development.” It argues that the impasse that afflicted materialist theories of international capitalist development in the 1980s was rooted in two fundamental problems: a misreading of Marx’s categories as directly historical; and the lack of an orienting method for deploying those categories to interpret a world of multiple and interacting societies. After reviewing the impact of these problems on the evolution of the main postwar approaches to development, the article undertakes the task of reconstruction in three steps. First, it sets out Marx’s understanding of capitalist modernity, showing how this calls for but does not explicitly provide a historical conceptualization of capitalist development. Second, it shows how Trotsky’s idea of “uneven and combined development” offers such a conceptualization, and how it thereby historicizes the phenomenon of development itself. Finally, it considers the limits of Trotsky’s own formulation of the idea, and suggests how a version released from these limits could better explain the complex spatio-temporality of capitalist development and constructively engage the most consequential challenges posed by ascendant cultural approaches in the field.},
	language = {en},
	number = {5},
	urldate = {2023-03-16},
	journal = {Theory and Society},
	author = {Makki, Fouad},
	month = oct,
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Capitalism, Development theory, Social theory, Spatio-temporality, World history},
	pages = {471--497},
}

This article spells out the significance for Development Theory of the idea of “uneven and combined development.” It argues that the impasse that afflicted materialist theories of international capitalist development in the 1980s was rooted in two fundamental problems: a misreading of Marx’s categories as directly historical; and the lack of an orienting method for deploying those categories to interpret a world of multiple and interacting societies. After reviewing the impact of these problems on the evolution of the main postwar approaches to development, the article undertakes the task of reconstruction in three steps. First, it sets out Marx’s understanding of capitalist modernity, showing how this calls for but does not explicitly provide a historical conceptualization of capitalist development. Second, it shows how Trotsky’s idea of “uneven and combined development” offers such a conceptualization, and how it thereby historicizes the phenomenon of development itself. Finally, it considers the limits of Trotsky’s own formulation of the idea, and suggests how a version released from these limits could better explain the complex spatio-temporality of capitalist development and constructively engage the most consequential challenges posed by ascendant cultural approaches in the field.

@book{anievas_how_2015,
	title = {How the {West} {Came} to {Rule}: {The} {Geopolitical} {Origins} of {Capitalism}},
	isbn = {978-0-7453-3615-2},
	shorttitle = {How the {West} {Came} to {Rule}},
	abstract = {Mainstream historical accounts of the development of capitalism describe a process which is fundamentally European - a system that was born in the mills and factories of England or under the guillotines of the French Revolution. Against this orthodoxy, alternative non-Eurocentric theorisations of capitalism's origins remain as timely and important as ever. "How the West Came to Rule" offers a unique interdisciplinary and international historical account of the origins of capitalism. It argues that contrary to the dominant wisdom, capitalism's origins should not be understood as a development confined to the geographically and culturally sealed borders of Europe, but the outcome of a wider array of global processes in which non-European societies played a decisive role. Through an outline of the uneven histories of Mongolian expansion, New World discoveries, Ottoman-Habsburg rivalry, the development of the Asian colonies and bourgeois revolutions, Alex Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu provide an account of how these diverse events and processes came together to produce capitalism. Critically engaging with the concept of Eurocentrism across a variety of disciplines," How The West Came to Rule" addresses some of the major debates in historical sociology, world history, political economy, postcolonial theory, and international relations and will be of interest to scholars in all these areas.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Pluto Press},
	author = {Anievas, Alexander and Nişancıoğlu, Kerem},
	year = {2015},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: 0uKyrQEACAAJ},
}

Mainstream historical accounts of the development of capitalism describe a process which is fundamentally European - a system that was born in the mills and factories of England or under the guillotines of the French Revolution. Against this orthodoxy, alternative non-Eurocentric theorisations of capitalism's origins remain as timely and important as ever. "How the West Came to Rule" offers a unique interdisciplinary and international historical account of the origins of capitalism. It argues that contrary to the dominant wisdom, capitalism's origins should not be understood as a development confined to the geographically and culturally sealed borders of Europe, but the outcome of a wider array of global processes in which non-European societies played a decisive role. Through an outline of the uneven histories of Mongolian expansion, New World discoveries, Ottoman-Habsburg rivalry, the development of the Asian colonies and bourgeois revolutions, Alex Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu provide an account of how these diverse events and processes came together to produce capitalism. Critically engaging with the concept of Eurocentrism across a variety of disciplines," How The West Came to Rule" addresses some of the major debates in historical sociology, world history, political economy, postcolonial theory, and international relations and will be of interest to scholars in all these areas.

@article{cooper_international_2015,
	title = {The international relations of the ‘imagined community’: {Explaining} the late nineteenth-century genesis of the {Chinese} nation},
	volume = {41},
	issn = {1469-9044},
	shorttitle = {The international relations of the ‘imagined community’},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0260210514000254},
	doi = {10.1017/S0260210514000254},
	abstract = {Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities has long been established as one of the major contributions to theories of nations and nationalism. Anderson located the rise of national identities within a long-evolving crisis of dynastic conceptions of identity, time, and space, and argued print-capitalism was the key cultural and economic force in the genesis of nations. This article offers a critical appropriation and application of Anderson's theory through two steps. Firstly, it evaluates the conceptual underpinning of his approach through an engagement with recent scholarship on the ‘theory of uneven and combined development’. The fruits of this interchange provide a deeper analytical framework to account for what Anderson calls the ‘modularity’ of national identity, that is, its universal spread across the globe. Modularity is now reconceptualised as a product of combined development with its causal efficacy derived from the latent dynamics of a geopolitically fragmented world. The latter gave shape and form to the new national communities. Secondly, this revised framework is applied to the emergence of Chinese national identity in the late nineteenth century. This allows Chinese nationalism to be recast as an ideological amalgam of indigenous and imported elements that emerged out of the crisis-ridden encounter between Imperial China and Western imperialism in the nineteenth century.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-01-22},
	journal = {Review of International Studies},
	author = {Cooper, Luke},
	month = jul,
	year = {2015},
	pages = {477--501},
}

Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities has long been established as one of the major contributions to theories of nations and nationalism. Anderson located the rise of national identities within a long-evolving crisis of dynastic conceptions of identity, time, and space, and argued print-capitalism was the key cultural and economic force in the genesis of nations. This article offers a critical appropriation and application of Anderson's theory through two steps. Firstly, it evaluates the conceptual underpinning of his approach through an engagement with recent scholarship on the ‘theory of uneven and combined development’. The fruits of this interchange provide a deeper analytical framework to account for what Anderson calls the ‘modularity’ of national identity, that is, its universal spread across the globe. Modularity is now reconceptualised as a product of combined development with its causal efficacy derived from the latent dynamics of a geopolitically fragmented world. The latter gave shape and form to the new national communities. Secondly, this revised framework is applied to the emergence of Chinese national identity in the late nineteenth century. This allows Chinese nationalism to be recast as an ideological amalgam of indigenous and imported elements that emerged out of the crisis-ridden encounter between Imperial China and Western imperialism in the nineteenth century.

@book{tooze_capitalist_2015,
	address = {Leiden},
	title = {Capitalist {Peace} or {Capitalist} {War}? {The} {July} {Crisis} {Revisited}’},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Brill},
	author = {Tooze, A.},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander},
	year = {2015},
}

@incollection{thomas_uneven_2015,
	address = {Leiden},
	title = {Uneven {Developments}, {Combined}: {The} {First} {World} {War} and {Marxist} {Theories} of {Revolution}’},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Cataclysm 1914: {The} {First} {World} {War} and the {Making} of {Modern} {World} {Politics}},
	publisher = {Brill},
	author = {Thomas, P.},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander},
	year = {2015},
}

@incollection{rolf_locating_2015,
	address = {Bingley, UK},
	series = {Research in {Political} {Economy}},
	title = {Locating the {State}: {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}, the {States} {System} and the {Political}},
	volume = {30A},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Theoretical {Engagements} in {Geopolitical} {Economy}},
	publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
	author = {Rolf, S.},
	editor = {Desai, Radhika},
	year = {2015},
}

@incollection{rioux_collapse_2015,
	address = {Bingley, UK},
	title = {The {Collapse} of “{The} {International} {Imagination}”: {A} {Critique} of the {Transhistorical} {Approach} to {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}},
	volume = {30A},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Theoretical {Engagements} in {Geopolitical} {Economy}},
	publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
	author = {Rioux, S.},
	editor = {Desai, Radhika},
	year = {2015},
}

@article{rioux_mind_2015,
	title = {Mind the ({Theoretical}) {Gap}: {On} the {Poverty} of {International} {Relations} {Theorising} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}‘},
	volume = {29},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	journal = {Global Society},
	author = {Rioux, S.},
	year = {2015},
}

@incollection{pijl_uneven_2015,
	address = {Bingley, UK},
	title = {The {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} of {International} {Historical} {Sociology}},
	volume = {30A},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Theoretical {Engagements} in {Geopolitical} {Economy}},
	publisher = {Emerald Group},
	author = {Pijl, K.},
	editor = {Desai, Radhika},
	year = {2015},
}

@article{nilsen_passages_2015,
	title = {Passages from {Marxism} to {Postcolonialism}: {A} {Comment} on {Vivek} {Chibber}’s {Postcolonial} {Theory} and the {Specter} of {Capital}’},
	volume = {OnlineFirst},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Critical Sociology},
	author = {Nilsen, A.G.},
	year = {2015},
	pages = {1--15},
}

@article{mckenna_suicide_2015,
	title = {The {Suicide} {Forest}: {A} {Marxist} {Analysis} of the {High} {Suicide} {Rate} in {Japan}‘},
	volume = {27},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Rethinking Marxism},
	author = {Mckenna, T.},
	year = {2015},
}

@book{mccarthy_power_2015,
	address = {Basingstoke},
	title = {Power, {Information} {Technology}, and {International} {Relations} {Theory}: {The} {Power} and {Politics} of {US} {Foreign} {Policy} and the {Internet}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
	author = {McCarthy, D.},
	year = {2015},
}

@article{makki_post-colonial_2015,
	title = {Post-{Colonial} {Africa} and the {World} {Economy}: {The} {Long} {Waves} of {Uneven} {Development}‘},
	volume = {21},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Journal of World-Systems Research},
	author = {Makki, F.},
	year = {2015},
}

@article{lundborg_limits_2015,
	title = {The {Limits} of {Historical} {Sociology}: {Temporal} {Borders} and the {Reproduction} of the “{Modern}” {Political} {Present}’},
	language = {en},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Lundborg, T.},
	year = {2015},
	note = {Publisher: Online First},
}

@article{cooper_international_2015,
	title = {The {International} {Relations} of the ‘{Imagined} {Community}’: {Explaining} the {Late} {Nineteenth} {Century} {Genesis} of the {Chinese} {Nation}‘},
	volume = {41},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Review of International Studies},
	author = {Cooper, L.},
	year = {2015},
}

@book{buzan_global_2015,
	address = {Cambridge, UK},
	title = {The {Global} {Transformation}: {History}, {Modernity} and the {Making} of {International} {Relations}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Buzan, B. and Lawson, G.},
	year = {2015},
}

@article{anievas_revolutions_2015,
	title = {Revolutions and {International} {Relations}: {Rediscovering} the {Classical} {Bourgeois} {Revolutions}’},
	volume = {21},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Anievas, A.},
	year = {2015},
}

@incollection{anievas_marxist_2015,
	address = {Leiden},
	title = {Marxist {Theory} and the {Origins} of the {First} {World} {War}’},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Cataclysm 1914: {The} {First} {World} {War} and the {Making} of {Modern} {World} {Politics}},
	publisher = {Brill},
	author = {Anievas, A.},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander},
	year = {2015},
}

@book{allinson_struggle_2015,
	address = {London},
	title = {The {Struggle} for the {State} in {Jordan}: {The} {Social} {Origins} of {Alliances} in the {Middle} {East}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {I.B. Tauris},
	author = {Allinson, J.},
	year = {2015},
}

@article{nisancioglu_ottoman_2014,
	title = {The {Ottoman} origins of capitalism: uneven and combined development and {Eurocentrism}},
	volume = {40},
	issn = {1469-9044},
	shorttitle = {The {Ottoman} origins of capitalism},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0260210513000181},
	doi = {10.1017/S0260210513000181},
	abstract = {The history of capitalism's origins is unmistakably Eurocentric, placing sixteenth-century developments in politics, economy, culture, and ideology squarely within the unique context of Europe. And while the disciplinary remit of International Relations (IR) should offer a way out of such European provincialism, it too has been built on largely Eurocentric assumptions. In Eurocentric approaches, the Ottoman Empire has been absent, passive, or merely a comparative foil against which the specificity and superiority of Europe has been defined. And yet, the Ottoman Empire was arguably the most powerful actor in the Early Modern period. In this article, I argue that any history of capitalism's origins must therefore account for the historical importance of the Ottomans. In doing so, this article seeks to address the non-European blind-spot, both in theorisations of capitalism's origins and in IR theory, by reincorporating the material significance of the Ottoman Empire in historical processes, which led to the transition to capitalism. I do so by utilising the theory of Uneven and Combined Development, and in the process seek to defend its credentials as a non-Eurocentric social theory on the one hand and as a sociologically and historically sensitive theory of international relations on the other.},
	number = {02},
	urldate = {2016-01-22},
	journal = {Review of International Studies},
	author = {Nisancioglu, Kerem},
	month = apr,
	year = {2014},
	pages = {325--347},
}

The history of capitalism's origins is unmistakably Eurocentric, placing sixteenth-century developments in politics, economy, culture, and ideology squarely within the unique context of Europe. And while the disciplinary remit of International Relations (IR) should offer a way out of such European provincialism, it too has been built on largely Eurocentric assumptions. In Eurocentric approaches, the Ottoman Empire has been absent, passive, or merely a comparative foil against which the specificity and superiority of Europe has been defined. And yet, the Ottoman Empire was arguably the most powerful actor in the Early Modern period. In this article, I argue that any history of capitalism's origins must therefore account for the historical importance of the Ottomans. In doing so, this article seeks to address the non-European blind-spot, both in theorisations of capitalism's origins and in IR theory, by reincorporating the material significance of the Ottoman Empire in historical processes, which led to the transition to capitalism. I do so by utilising the theory of Uneven and Combined Development, and in the process seek to defend its credentials as a non-Eurocentric social theory on the one hand and as a sociologically and historically sensitive theory of international relations on the other.

@phdthesis{liu_origins_2014,
	type = {doctoral},
	title = {Origins of peasant socialism in {China}: the international relations of {China}’s modern revolution},
	shorttitle = {Origins of peasant socialism in {China}},
	url = {http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/48787/},
	abstract = {More than six decades after its occurrence, China’s ‘peasant revolution’ of 1949 remains an enigma. According to classical Marxism, peasants are passive ‘objects of history’ who must be transformed into industrial workers before they can become agents of revolutionary change. This line of argument is reinforced by much extant Sinology and historical sociology, both of which have treated Maoism either as a disguised continuation of peasant exploitation, or as a failed emulation of Stalinism. Contra these interpretations, this thesis argues that China’s peasant revolution was a real historical phenomenon which involved a previously unthinkable form of peasant political agency. To substantiate this argument, the thesis deploys Leon Trotsky's theory of Uneven and Combined Development (U\&CD) which posits social development as a non-linear process constituted via multi-societal interaction. This reveals that the origins and specificities of the Chinese Revolution can best be understood with reference to a 'combined development' emerging from China's long-run and short-run interactions with variegated social forms.

The first chapter of the thesis shows how China’s ‘peasant revolution’ remains an insurmountable paradox for the relevant literature, expressed in a shared problem of
anachronism. Chapter 2 introduces Uneven and Combined Development as a theory of inter-societal causation that might overcome the problem by virtue of its non-linear
conception of social development. Chapter 3 demonstrates how this inter-societal perspective is central to understanding the longue dureé ‘peculiarities’ of China’s development: the interaction of nomadic and sedentary societies made the Chinese peasants directly subject to a centralizing empire, configuring their political agency quite differently (and with quite different potentials) from that of their European feudal counterparts. Chapter 4 analyzes the specific intersection of the Chinese social formation with the universalizing dynamics of Western capitalism, an intersection which generated the context of China’s modern combined development. Chapter 5 then provides a conjunctural analysis of how the revolutionary agency of the peasant came to the fore in China’s revolution in terms of a pattern of combined development that substituted the peasantry for the weak bourgeoisie and nascent proletariat as the leading agency of a socialist modernization that fused anti-imperialist struggle and campaigns for rural restoration and national liberation into a single process aimed at overcoming China’s backwardness. Finally, Chapter 6 shows how this argument resolves the Sinological debate on whether modern Chinese history is ‘China-made’ or ‘West-made’; for it reveals how the interaction of China’s premodern social forms with Western modernity co-determined the peculiarites of China’s modern transformation. It also provides a critique of extant Marxist historical sociology, arguing that it is built upon a mode-of-production analysis that tends towards falsely unilinear, ‘internalist’ explanations.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2016-01-22},
	school = {University of Sussex},
	author = {Liu, Xin},
	month = apr,
	year = {2014},
}

More than six decades after its occurrence, China’s ‘peasant revolution’ of 1949 remains an enigma. According to classical Marxism, peasants are passive ‘objects of history’ who must be transformed into industrial workers before they can become agents of revolutionary change. This line of argument is reinforced by much extant Sinology and historical sociology, both of which have treated Maoism either as a disguised continuation of peasant exploitation, or as a failed emulation of Stalinism. Contra these interpretations, this thesis argues that China’s peasant revolution was a real historical phenomenon which involved a previously unthinkable form of peasant political agency. To substantiate this argument, the thesis deploys Leon Trotsky's theory of Uneven and Combined Development (U&CD) which posits social development as a non-linear process constituted via multi-societal interaction. This reveals that the origins and specificities of the Chinese Revolution can best be understood with reference to a 'combined development' emerging from China's long-run and short-run interactions with variegated social forms. The first chapter of the thesis shows how China’s ‘peasant revolution’ remains an insurmountable paradox for the relevant literature, expressed in a shared problem of anachronism. Chapter 2 introduces Uneven and Combined Development as a theory of inter-societal causation that might overcome the problem by virtue of its non-linear conception of social development. Chapter 3 demonstrates how this inter-societal perspective is central to understanding the longue dureé ‘peculiarities’ of China’s development: the interaction of nomadic and sedentary societies made the Chinese peasants directly subject to a centralizing empire, configuring their political agency quite differently (and with quite different potentials) from that of their European feudal counterparts. Chapter 4 analyzes the specific intersection of the Chinese social formation with the universalizing dynamics of Western capitalism, an intersection which generated the context of China’s modern combined development. Chapter 5 then provides a conjunctural analysis of how the revolutionary agency of the peasant came to the fore in China’s revolution in terms of a pattern of combined development that substituted the peasantry for the weak bourgeoisie and nascent proletariat as the leading agency of a socialist modernization that fused anti-imperialist struggle and campaigns for rural restoration and national liberation into a single process aimed at overcoming China’s backwardness. Finally, Chapter 6 shows how this argument resolves the Sinological debate on whether modern Chinese history is ‘China-made’ or ‘West-made’; for it reveals how the interaction of China’s premodern social forms with Western modernity co-determined the peculiarites of China’s modern transformation. It also provides a critique of extant Marxist historical sociology, arguing that it is built upon a mode-of-production analysis that tends towards falsely unilinear, ‘internalist’ explanations.

@article{kiely_imperialism_2014,
	title = {Imperialism or globalisation? … {Or} imperialism and globalisation: {Theorising} the international after {Rosenberg}'s ‘post-mortem’},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {1581-1980},
	shorttitle = {Imperialism or globalisation?},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2013.2},
	doi = {10.1057/jird.2013.2},
	abstract = {This article examines the concepts of globalisation and imperialism, both in terms of their explanatory status, and in the light of changes in the international order since the end of the Cold War. It does so both through detailed theoretical and empirical analysis, and in part through focusing on a key contributor to this debate, Justin Rosenberg. It is argued that Rosenberg's theoretical post-mortem for globalisation is correct. However, it is also argued that Rosenberg's historical post-mortem is far less convincing, not least when related to his subsequent attempts to draw on the concept of uneven and combined development in order to explain the reality of geopolitical conflict in the international order. It is here that the concept of imperialism enters the picture, and the article suggests that attempts to update theories of geopolitical competition based on Lenin and Bukharin's work on imperialism are unconvincing, as they fail to take full account of the changes in the international order since 1945. These changes — the internationalisation of capital and rise of global production networks, the rise of manufacturing in the developing world, the internationalisation of the state, cooperation between developed capitalist powers, and US hegemony — are well described, if not necessarily explained by the concept of globalisation. However, this does not mean that the concept of imperialism is no longer of use, and the idea is defended through a discussion of the hierarchies associated with the globalisation of production. It is further illustrated by relating liberal military intervention to this continued reality of global hierarchy and inequality in the international order. The article concludes by defending the ideas of imperialism and uneven and combined development, but argues that these cannot be used to explain the nature of the international state system (or geo-politics), but rather the hierarchies associated with the international capitalist order (or political economy).},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2022-02-02},
	journal = {Journal of International Relations and Development},
	author = {Kiely, Ray},
	month = apr,
	year = {2014},
	pages = {274--300},
}

This article examines the concepts of globalisation and imperialism, both in terms of their explanatory status, and in the light of changes in the international order since the end of the Cold War. It does so both through detailed theoretical and empirical analysis, and in part through focusing on a key contributor to this debate, Justin Rosenberg. It is argued that Rosenberg's theoretical post-mortem for globalisation is correct. However, it is also argued that Rosenberg's historical post-mortem is far less convincing, not least when related to his subsequent attempts to draw on the concept of uneven and combined development in order to explain the reality of geopolitical conflict in the international order. It is here that the concept of imperialism enters the picture, and the article suggests that attempts to update theories of geopolitical competition based on Lenin and Bukharin's work on imperialism are unconvincing, as they fail to take full account of the changes in the international order since 1945. These changes — the internationalisation of capital and rise of global production networks, the rise of manufacturing in the developing world, the internationalisation of the state, cooperation between developed capitalist powers, and US hegemony — are well described, if not necessarily explained by the concept of globalisation. However, this does not mean that the concept of imperialism is no longer of use, and the idea is defended through a discussion of the hierarchies associated with the globalisation of production. It is further illustrated by relating liberal military intervention to this continued reality of global hierarchy and inequality in the international order. The article concludes by defending the ideas of imperialism and uneven and combined development, but argues that these cannot be used to explain the nature of the international state system (or geo-politics), but rather the hierarchies associated with the international capitalist order (or political economy).

@article{teschke_ir_2014,
	title = {{IR} theory, historical materialism, and the false promise of international historical sociology},
	volume = {6},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies},
	author = {Teschke, Benno},
	year = {2014},
	note = {ISBN: 1308-8432},
	pages = {1--66},
}

@article{taylor_theorising_2014,
	title = {Theorising {Capitalist} {Diversity}: {The} {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} of {Labour} {Forms}},
	volume = {38},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Capital \& Class},
	author = {Taylor, N.},
	year = {2014},
}

@article{green_beyond_2014,
	title = {Beyond {Coxian} {Historicism}: 19th {Century} {World} {Order} and the {Promise} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}‘},
	volume = {42},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Millennium},
	author = {Green, J.},
	year = {2014},
}

@incollection{corry_marxism_2014,
	address = {Milton Keynes},
	title = {Marxism: {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}’},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {International {Relations}: {Continuity} and {Change} in {Global} {Politics}},
	publisher = {Open University},
	author = {Corry, O. and Brown, W.},
	editor = {Brown, William and Corry, Olaf and Czajka, Agnes},
	year = {2014},
}

@book{brennan_borrowed_2014,
	address = {Stanford, CA},
	title = {Borrowed {Light}: {Vico}, {Hegel}, and the {Colonies}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Stanford University Press},
	author = {Brennan, T.},
	year = {2014},
}

@article{bieler_uneven_2014,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development} and {Unequal} {Exchange}: the second wind of neoliberal “free trade”?’},
	volume = {11},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Globalizations},
	author = {Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam David},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {35--45},
}

@book{anievas_capital_2014,
	address = {Ann Arbor, MI},
	title = {Capital, the {State}, and {War}: {Class} {Conflict} and {Geopolitics} in the {Thirty} {Years}’ {Crisis}, 1914-1945},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {University of Michigan Press},
	author = {Anievas, A.},
	year = {2014},
}

@article{anievas_international_2014,
	title = {International {Relations} between {War} and {Revolution}: {Wilsonian} {Diplomacy} and the {Making} of the {Treaty} of {Versailles}’},
	volume = {51},
	language = {en},
	number = {5},
	journal = {International Politics},
	author = {Anievas, A.},
	year = {2014},
}

@incollection{anievas_world_2014,
	address = {Milton Keynes},
	title = {A {World} {After} its {Own} {Image}? {The} {States}-system, {Capitalism} and {Unevenness}’},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {International {Relations}: {Continuity} and {Change} in {Global} {Politics}},
	publisher = {Open University},
	author = {Anievas, A.},
	editor = {Brown, William and Corry, Olaf and Czajka, Agnes},
	year = {2014},
}

@book{matin_recasting_2013,
	title = {Recasting {Iranian} {Modernity}: {International} {Relations} and {Social} {Change}},
	isbn = {978-1-134-44669-8},
	shorttitle = {Recasting {Iranian} {Modernity}},
	abstract = {Critically deploying the idea of uneven and combined development this book provides a novel non-Eurocentric account of Iran’s experience of modernity and revolution. Recasting Iranian Modernity presents the argument that Eurocentrism can be decisively overcome through a social theory that has international relations at its ontological core. This will enable a conception of history in which there is an intrinsic international dimension to social change that prevents historical repetition. This hitherto under-theorized international dimension is, the book argues, manifest in combined patterns of development, which incorporate both foreign and native forms. It is the tension-prone and unstable nature of these hybrid developmental patterns that mark Iranian modernity, and fuelled the socio-political dynamics of the 1979 revolution and the rise of political Islam. Challenging solely comparative approaches to the Iranian Revolution that explain it away as either a deviation from, or a reaction to, modernity on the grounds of its religious form, this book will be valuable to those interested in an alternative theoretical approach to the Iranian Revolution, modern Iran and political Islam, working in the fields of International Relations, Middle East and Islamic Studies, History, Political Science, Political Sociology, Postcolonialism, and Comparative Politics.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Matin, Kamran},
	month = nov,
	year = {2013},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: keEJAgAAQBAJ},
	keywords = {History / Middle East / General, Social Science / Regional Studies},
}

Critically deploying the idea of uneven and combined development this book provides a novel non-Eurocentric account of Iran’s experience of modernity and revolution. Recasting Iranian Modernity presents the argument that Eurocentrism can be decisively overcome through a social theory that has international relations at its ontological core. This will enable a conception of history in which there is an intrinsic international dimension to social change that prevents historical repetition. This hitherto under-theorized international dimension is, the book argues, manifest in combined patterns of development, which incorporate both foreign and native forms. It is the tension-prone and unstable nature of these hybrid developmental patterns that mark Iranian modernity, and fuelled the socio-political dynamics of the 1979 revolution and the rise of political Islam. Challenging solely comparative approaches to the Iranian Revolution that explain it away as either a deviation from, or a reaction to, modernity on the grounds of its religious form, this book will be valuable to those interested in an alternative theoretical approach to the Iranian Revolution, modern Iran and political Islam, working in the fields of International Relations, Middle East and Islamic Studies, History, Political Science, Political Sociology, Postcolonialism, and Comparative Politics.

@article{davenport_marxism_2013,
	title = {Marxism in {IR}: {Condemned} to a {Realist} fate?},
	volume = {19},
	issn = {1354-0661},
	shorttitle = {Marxism in {IR}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066111416021},
	doi = {10.1177/1354066111416021},
	abstract = {Behind the recent discussions within Marxist IR theory concerning political multiplicity and uneven and combined development lies the larger, still unresolved, question of Marxism’s relation to Realism. Marxism in IR has never sufficiently recognized the seriousness of the challenge that the Realist conceptions of the intrinsic nature of the political and, therefore, of the international present to any Marxist ambition of human freedom. A review of the major approaches within IR Marxism shows that the question of the political remains a theoretical blind spot. Hence, they cannot convincingly grasp geopolitics and the international without falling prey to Realist essentializing. This theoretical deficit within IR Marxism is traceable back to the ambivalence of Marx’s own thinking concerning revolutionary social change. If it is to escape the Realist fate, Marxism in IR must engage with the central categories of political thought to produce a critical theory of the political.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2023-07-29},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Davenport, Andrew},
	month = mar,
	year = {2013},
	note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd},
	pages = {27--48},
}

Behind the recent discussions within Marxist IR theory concerning political multiplicity and uneven and combined development lies the larger, still unresolved, question of Marxism’s relation to Realism. Marxism in IR has never sufficiently recognized the seriousness of the challenge that the Realist conceptions of the intrinsic nature of the political and, therefore, of the international present to any Marxist ambition of human freedom. A review of the major approaches within IR Marxism shows that the question of the political remains a theoretical blind spot. Hence, they cannot convincingly grasp geopolitics and the international without falling prey to Realist essentializing. This theoretical deficit within IR Marxism is traceable back to the ambivalence of Marx’s own thinking concerning revolutionary social change. If it is to escape the Realist fate, Marxism in IR must engage with the central categories of political thought to produce a critical theory of the political.

@article{rosenberg_kenneth_2013,
	title = {Kenneth {Waltz} and {Leon} {Trotsky}: {Anarchy} in the mirror of uneven and combined development},
	volume = {50},
	issn = {1384-5748},
	shorttitle = {Kenneth {Waltz} and {Leon} {Trotsky}},
	url = {http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ip/journal/v50/n2/abs/ip20136a.html},
	doi = {10.1057/ip.2013.6},
	abstract = {Waltz's neorealist theory has been charged with falsely separating geopolitical from social and economic processes. Yet Waltz's critics themselves have failed to show how sociological and geopolitical phenomena can be explained in a unified international theory. Such a theory, says Waltz, would have to pass three tests. It must delimit a field of specifically international phenomena. It must identify structured (and hence theorizable) effects within this field. And it must furnish ‘a brilliant intuition’, which reveals the causal relations that explain these effects. This article argues that the idea of ‘uneven and combined development’ (U\&CD) can pass these tests. The article delimits ‘the international’ as those phenomena arising from the interactive multiplicity of societies. Next, it uses Gerschenkron's theory of backwardness to identify internationally structured effects arising from societal multiplicity. And finally, by considering the debate on the First World War, it explores how the causal mechanisms identified by U\&CD can be used to construct a unified sociological and geopolitical explanation.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2016-01-22},
	journal = {International Politics},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	month = mar,
	year = {2013},
	keywords = {Kenneth Waltz, Leon Trotsky, World War I, international theory, neo-realism, uneven and combined development},
	pages = {183--230},
}

Waltz's neorealist theory has been charged with falsely separating geopolitical from social and economic processes. Yet Waltz's critics themselves have failed to show how sociological and geopolitical phenomena can be explained in a unified international theory. Such a theory, says Waltz, would have to pass three tests. It must delimit a field of specifically international phenomena. It must identify structured (and hence theorizable) effects within this field. And it must furnish ‘a brilliant intuition’, which reveals the causal relations that explain these effects. This article argues that the idea of ‘uneven and combined development’ (U&CD) can pass these tests. The article delimits ‘the international’ as those phenomena arising from the interactive multiplicity of societies. Next, it uses Gerschenkron's theory of backwardness to identify internationally structured effects arising from societal multiplicity. And finally, by considering the debate on the First World War, it explores how the causal mechanisms identified by U&CD can be used to construct a unified sociological and geopolitical explanation.

@article{rosenberg_philosophical_2013,
	title = {The ‘philosophical premises’ of uneven and combined development},
	volume = {39},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Review of International Studies},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	year = {2013},
	note = {Publisher: Cambridge University Press},
	pages = {569--597},
}

@article{cooper_can_2013,
	title = {Can contingency be ‘internalized’ into the bounds of theory? {Critical} realism, the philosophy of internal relations and the solution of ‘uneven and combined development’},
	volume = {26},
	issn = {0955-7571},
	shorttitle = {Can contingency be ‘internalized’ into the bounds of theory?},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2013.814045},
	doi = {10.1080/09557571.2013.814045},
	abstract = {Can general mechanisms governing social life (necessity) and the possibility of multiple outcomes in socio-historical processes (contingency) be incorporated into a single theoretical framework? In recent years, the critical realist philosophy of science has emerged as an intellectual strand within international relations (IR) that makes theoretical claims about necessary social processes while recognizing the irreducible role of contingency. However, critical realist scholars treat contingency as an ‘externality’, thereby declining to theorize social processes that result in contingent outcomes. Here, it is argued that contingency emerges out of the combination of events and processes as theorized by the law of uneven and combined development. This provides a general conceptualization that treats differentiated historical outcomes, and their contingencies, as inherent to human development. Out of these assumptions a workable approach to historical sociology in IR can be developed—one predicated upon uncovering the form of historical ‘combination’, the contingent fusion of elements, in international systems.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2021-11-17},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Cooper, Luke},
	month = sep,
	year = {2013},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge
\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2013.814045},
	pages = {573--597},
}

Can general mechanisms governing social life (necessity) and the possibility of multiple outcomes in socio-historical processes (contingency) be incorporated into a single theoretical framework? In recent years, the critical realist philosophy of science has emerged as an intellectual strand within international relations (IR) that makes theoretical claims about necessary social processes while recognizing the irreducible role of contingency. However, critical realist scholars treat contingency as an ‘externality’, thereby declining to theorize social processes that result in contingent outcomes. Here, it is argued that contingency emerges out of the combination of events and processes as theorized by the law of uneven and combined development. This provides a general conceptualization that treats differentiated historical outcomes, and their contingencies, as inherent to human development. Out of these assumptions a workable approach to historical sociology in IR can be developed—one predicated upon uncovering the form of historical ‘combination’, the contingent fusion of elements, in international systems.

@article{anievas_1914_2013,
	title = {1914 in world historical perspective: {The} ‘uneven’ and ‘combined’ origins of {World} {War} {I}},
	volume = {19},
	issn = {1354-0661, 1460-3713},
	shorttitle = {1914 in world historical perspective},
	url = {http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/19/4/721},
	doi = {10.1177/1354066111427613},
	abstract = {The causes of World War I remain a topic of enormous intellectual interest. Yet, despite the immensity of the literature, historiographical and IR debates remain mired within unhelpful methodological dichotomies revolving around whether a ‘primacy of foreign policy’ versus ‘primacy of domestic politics’ or systemic versus unit-level approach best account for the war’s origins. Given that this historiography is the most prolific body of literature for any war within the modern age, it reveals a much deeper problem with the social sciences: how to coherently integrate ‘external’ and ‘internal’ relations into a synthesized theory of inter-state conflict and war. Drawing on and contributing to the theory of uneven and combined development, this article challenges standard interpretations of the war by distinctively uniting geopolitical and sociological modes of explanation into a single framework. In doing so, the article highlights how the necessarily variegated character of interactive socio-historical development explains the inter-state rivalries leading to war. Contextualizing the sources of conflict within the broad developmental tendencies of the Long 19th Century (1789–1914) and their particular articulation during the immediate pre-war juncture, the article seeks to provide significant contributions to recent debates in IR and historical sociology, as well as those concerning the relationship between history and IR theory.},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2016-01-22},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Anievas, Alexander},
	month = dec,
	year = {2013},
	keywords = {International Relations, Marxism, World War I, historical sociology, international system, uneven and combined development},
	pages = {721--746},
}

The causes of World War I remain a topic of enormous intellectual interest. Yet, despite the immensity of the literature, historiographical and IR debates remain mired within unhelpful methodological dichotomies revolving around whether a ‘primacy of foreign policy’ versus ‘primacy of domestic politics’ or systemic versus unit-level approach best account for the war’s origins. Given that this historiography is the most prolific body of literature for any war within the modern age, it reveals a much deeper problem with the social sciences: how to coherently integrate ‘external’ and ‘internal’ relations into a synthesized theory of inter-state conflict and war. Drawing on and contributing to the theory of uneven and combined development, this article challenges standard interpretations of the war by distinctively uniting geopolitical and sociological modes of explanation into a single framework. In doing so, the article highlights how the necessarily variegated character of interactive socio-historical development explains the inter-state rivalries leading to war. Contextualizing the sources of conflict within the broad developmental tendencies of the Long 19th Century (1789–1914) and their particular articulation during the immediate pre-war juncture, the article seeks to provide significant contributions to recent debates in IR and historical sociology, as well as those concerning the relationship between history and IR theory.

@article{nisancioglu_ottoman_2013,
	title = {The {Ottoman} {Origins} of {Capitalism}: {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} and {Eurocentrism}‘},
	volume = {40},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Review of International Studies},
	author = {Nişancıoğlu, K.},
	year = {2013},
}

@article{mccarthy_technology_2013,
	title = {Technology and ‘the {International}’ or: {How} {I} {Stopped} {Worrying} and {Love} {Determinism}‘},
	volume = {41},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Millennium},
	author = {McCarthy, D.},
	year = {2013},
}

@article{matin_redeeming_2013,
	title = {Redeeming the {Universal}: {Postcolonialism} and the {Inner} {Life} of {Eurocentricm}‘},
	volume = {19},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Matin, K.},
	year = {2013},
}

@phdthesis{cooper_explaining_2013,
	type = {{PhD} {Thesis},},
	title = {Explaining the {Paradox} of {Market} {Reform} in {Communist} {China}: {The} {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} of the {Chinese} {Revolution} and the {Search} for ‘{National} {Salvation}’},
	language = {en},
	school = {University of Sussex},
	author = {Cooper, L.},
	year = {2013},
}

@article{cooper_can_2013,
	title = {Can {Contingency} {Be} “{Internalised}” into the {Bounds} of {Theory}? {Critical} {Realism}, the {Philosophy} of {Internal} {Relations}, and the {Solution} of “{Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}“‘},
	volume = {26},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Cooper, L.},
	year = {2013},
}

@article{bieler_eu_2013,
	title = {The {EU}, {Global} {Europe} and {Processes} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}: {The} {Problem} of {Transnational} {Labour} {Solidarity}’},
	volume = {39},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Review of International Studies},
	author = {Bieler, Andreas},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {161--83},
}

@article{anievas_whats_2013,
	title = {What’s at {Stake} in the {Transition} {Debate}? {Rethinking} the {Origins} of {Capitalism} and the “{Rise} of the {West}”’},
	volume = {42},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Millennium – Journal of International Studies},
	author = {Anievas, A. and Nişancıoğlu, K.},
	year = {2013},
}

@article{matin_democracy_2012,
	title = {Democracy without {Capitalism}: {Retheorizing} {Iran}’s {Constitutional} {Revolution}‘},
	volume = {21},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Middle East Critique},
	author = {Matin, K.},
	year = {2012},
}

@article{matin_international_2012,
	title = {International {Relations} in the {Making} of {Political} {Islam}: {Interrogating} {Khomeini}’s “{Islamic} {Government}”‘},
	volume = {16},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Journal of International Relations and Development},
	author = {Matin, K.},
	year = {2012},
}

@article{kiely_spatial_2012,
	title = {Spatial {Hierarchy} and/or {Contemporary} {Geopolitics}: {What} can and can’t {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} {Explain}?‘},
	volume = {25},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Kiely, R.},
	year = {2012},
}

@article{green_uneven_2012,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development} and the {Anglo}-{German} {Prelude} to {World} {War} {I}‘},
	volume = {18},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Green, J.},
	year = {2012},
}

@article{glenn_uneven_2012,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development}: {A} {Fusion} of {Marxism} and {Structural} {Realism}‘},
	volume = {25},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Glenn, J.},
	year = {2012},
}

@article{anievas_1914_2012,
	title = {1914 in {World} {Historical} {Perspective}: {The} ‘{Uneven}’ and ‘{Combined}’ {Origins} of the {First} {World} {War}‘},
	volume = {19},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Anievas, A.},
	year = {2012},
}

@book{morton_revolution_2011,
	address = {Lanham},
	title = {Revolution and {State} in {Modern} {Mexico}: {The} {Political} {Economy} of {Uneven} {Development}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Rowman \& Littlefield},
	author = {Morton, Adam David},
	year = {2011},
}

@article{selwyn_trotsky_2011,
	title = {Trotsky, {Gerschenkron} and the {Political} {Economy} of {Late} {Capitalist} {Development}“},
	volume = {40},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Economy and Society},
	author = {Selwyn, B.},
	year = {2011},
}

@article{makki_spatial_2011,
	title = {The {Spatial} {Ecology} of {Power}: {Long}-{Distance} {Trade} and {State} {Formation} in {Northeast} {Africa}‘},
	volume = {24},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Journal of Historical Sociology},
	author = {Makki, F.},
	year = {2011},
}

@article{makki_empire_2011,
	title = {Empire and {Modernity}: {Dynastic} {Centralization} and {Official} and {Official} {Nationalism} in {Late} {Imperial} {Ethiopia}‘},
	volume = {24},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Makki, F.},
	year = {2011},
}

@article{hobson_whats_2011,
	title = {What’s at {Stake} in the {Neo}-{Trotskyist} {Debate}? {Towards} a {Non}-{Eurocentric} {Historical} {Sociology} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}‘},
	volume = {40},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Millennium},
	author = {Hobson, J.H.},
	year = {2011},
}

@article{bhambra_talking_2011,
	title = {Talking among {Themselves}? {Weberian} and {Marxist} {Historical} {Sociologies} as {Dialogues} without ‘{Others}’},
	volume = {39},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Millennium – Journal of International Studies},
	author = {Bhambra, G.K.},
	year = {2011},
}

@phdthesis{allinson_social_2011,
	type = {{PhD} {Thesis},},
	title = {The {Social} {Origins} of {Alliances}: {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} and the {Case} of {Jordan}, 1955-57},
	language = {en},
	school = {University of Edinburgh},
	author = {Allinson, J.},
	year = {2011},
}

@incollection{anievas_changing_2010,
	title = {The changing ‘logics’ of capitalist competition},
	isbn = {978-0-415-47803-8},
	abstract = {This book brings together internationally-distinguished scholars from History, Philosophy, Development Studies, Geography, and International Relations (IR) to examine recent developments in Marxist approaches to world politics.  Offering original and stimulating analyses of subjects traditionally at the forefront of Marxist studies of world politics, the collection also considers issues which have yet to be fully explored within a number of disciplines. Examining a wide array of topics ranging from the imperialism-globalization debate, the connections between social structures and foreign relations, the role of identity and imperialist norms in world politics, to the relationship between Marxist and Realist IR Theory, the contributors seek to further theoretical discussions and their implications for emancipatory radical politics. These contributions are structured around two major themes:   - The relationship between capitalist modernity and the states-system in explaining the changing patterns of inter-state conflict and cooperation; - The debates within Marxist and IR discourses on the theoretical significance of 'the international', covering topics including uneven and combined development and passive revolution.  An impressive collection that seeks to advance dialogue and research, Marxism and World Politics will be of interest to students and scholars of IR, International Political Economy, Political Science, and Historical Sociology.},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Marxism and {World} {Politics}: {Contesting} {Global} {Capitalism}},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Teschke, Benno and Lacher, Hannes},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander},
	year = {2010},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: XJOpLl4uy7EC},
	keywords = {Political Science / International Relations / General, Political Science / Political Ideologies / Communism, Post-Communism \& Socialism},
	pages = {27--41},
}

This book brings together internationally-distinguished scholars from History, Philosophy, Development Studies, Geography, and International Relations (IR) to examine recent developments in Marxist approaches to world politics. Offering original and stimulating analyses of subjects traditionally at the forefront of Marxist studies of world politics, the collection also considers issues which have yet to be fully explored within a number of disciplines. Examining a wide array of topics ranging from the imperialism-globalization debate, the connections between social structures and foreign relations, the role of identity and imperialist norms in world politics, to the relationship between Marxist and Realist IR Theory, the contributors seek to further theoretical discussions and their implications for emancipatory radical politics. These contributions are structured around two major themes: - The relationship between capitalist modernity and the states-system in explaining the changing patterns of inter-state conflict and cooperation; - The debates within Marxist and IR discourses on the theoretical significance of 'the international', covering topics including uneven and combined development and passive revolution. An impressive collection that seeks to advance dialogue and research, Marxism and World Politics will be of interest to students and scholars of IR, International Political Economy, Political Science, and Historical Sociology.

@article{rosenberg_basic_2010,
	title = {Basic problems in the theory of uneven and combined development. {Part} {II}: unevenness and political multiplicity},
	volume = {23},
	issn = {0955-7571},
	shorttitle = {Basic problems in the theory of uneven and combined development. {Part} {II}},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570903524270},
	doi = {10.1080/09557570903524270},
	abstract = {Where does ‘the international’ come from? What accounts for its existence as a dimension of the human world? This article attempts an answer, in three steps, using the idea of ‘uneven and combined development’ (U\&CD). First, a depth model is constructed, comparing different ways of linking uneven development with international relations. Thus far, it turns out, these ways have all presupposed the fact of political multiplicity, rather than explaining it. In search of explanation, the article turns, secondly, to the compelling historical sociological argument of Barry Buzan and Richard Little. This locates the origins of geopolitics in the late prehistoric shift from hunter-gatherer to settled agricultural existence, together with associated processes of social differentiation and proto-state formation. Buzan and Little's explanation appears at first to pre-empt the need for the concept of U\&CD. Yet closer inspection reveals that unevenness and combination play a key role in their empirical account without, however, being theorized. The third step of the argument therefore seeks to show how these are necessary parts of the process of social change which Buzan and Little describe. And in this way it emerges that the origins of ‘the international’ do indeed lie in the uneven and combined character of historical development.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2022-10-29},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	month = mar,
	year = {2010},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge
\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570903524270},
	pages = {165--189},
}

Where does ‘the international’ come from? What accounts for its existence as a dimension of the human world? This article attempts an answer, in three steps, using the idea of ‘uneven and combined development’ (U&CD). First, a depth model is constructed, comparing different ways of linking uneven development with international relations. Thus far, it turns out, these ways have all presupposed the fact of political multiplicity, rather than explaining it. In search of explanation, the article turns, secondly, to the compelling historical sociological argument of Barry Buzan and Richard Little. This locates the origins of geopolitics in the late prehistoric shift from hunter-gatherer to settled agricultural existence, together with associated processes of social differentiation and proto-state formation. Buzan and Little's explanation appears at first to pre-empt the need for the concept of U&CD. Yet closer inspection reveals that unevenness and combination play a key role in their empirical account without, however, being theorized. The third step of the argument therefore seeks to show how these are necessary parts of the process of social change which Buzan and Little describe. And in this way it emerges that the origins of ‘the international’ do indeed lie in the uneven and combined character of historical development.

@incollection{anievas_many_2010,
	title = {Many {Capitals}, {Many} {States}: {Logic}, {Contingency} or {Mediation}?},
	isbn = {978-0-415-47803-8},
	abstract = {This book brings together internationally-distinguished scholars from History, Philosophy, Development Studies, Geography, and International Relations (IR) to examine recent developments in Marxist approaches to world politics.  Offering original and stimulating analyses of subjects traditionally at the forefront of Marxist studies of world politics, the collection also considers issues which have yet to be fully explored within a number of disciplines. Examining a wide array of topics ranging from the imperialism-globalization debate, the connections between social structures and foreign relations, the role of identity and imperialist norms in world politics, to the relationship between Marxist and Realist IR Theory, the contributors seek to further theoretical discussions and their implications for emancipatory radical politics. These contributions are structured around two major themes:   - The relationship between capitalist modernity and the states-system in explaining the changing patterns of inter-state conflict and cooperation; - The debates within Marxist and IR discourses on the theoretical significance of 'the international', covering topics including uneven and combined development and passive revolution.  An impressive collection that seeks to advance dialogue and research, Marxism and World Politics will be of interest to students and scholars of IR, International Political Economy, Political Science, and Historical Sociology.},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Marxism and {World} {Politics}: {Contesting} {Global} {Capitalism}},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Davidson, Neil},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander},
	year = {2010},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: XJOpLl4uy7EC},
	keywords = {Political Science / International Relations / General, Political Science / Political Ideologies / Communism, Post-Communism \& Socialism},
	pages = {77--93},
}

This book brings together internationally-distinguished scholars from History, Philosophy, Development Studies, Geography, and International Relations (IR) to examine recent developments in Marxist approaches to world politics. Offering original and stimulating analyses of subjects traditionally at the forefront of Marxist studies of world politics, the collection also considers issues which have yet to be fully explored within a number of disciplines. Examining a wide array of topics ranging from the imperialism-globalization debate, the connections between social structures and foreign relations, the role of identity and imperialist norms in world politics, to the relationship between Marxist and Realist IR Theory, the contributors seek to further theoretical discussions and their implications for emancipatory radical politics. These contributions are structured around two major themes: - The relationship between capitalist modernity and the states-system in explaining the changing patterns of inter-state conflict and cooperation; - The debates within Marxist and IR discourses on the theoretical significance of 'the international', covering topics including uneven and combined development and passive revolution. An impressive collection that seeks to advance dialogue and research, Marxism and World Politics will be of interest to students and scholars of IR, International Political Economy, Political Science, and Historical Sociology.

@incollection{anievas_does_2010,
	title = {Does capitalism need the state system?},
	isbn = {978-0-415-47803-8},
	abstract = {This book brings together internationally-distinguished scholars from History, Philosophy, Development Studies, Geography, and International Relations (IR) to examine recent developments in Marxist approaches to world politics.  Offering original and stimulating analyses of subjects traditionally at the forefront of Marxist studies of world politics, the collection also considers issues which have yet to be fully explored within a number of disciplines. Examining a wide array of topics ranging from the imperialism-globalization debate, the connections between social structures and foreign relations, the role of identity and imperialist norms in world politics, to the relationship between Marxist and Realist IR Theory, the contributors seek to further theoretical discussions and their implications for emancipatory radical politics. These contributions are structured around two major themes:   - The relationship between capitalist modernity and the states-system in explaining the changing patterns of inter-state conflict and cooperation; - The debates within Marxist and IR discourses on the theoretical significance of 'the international', covering topics including uneven and combined development and passive revolution.  An impressive collection that seeks to advance dialogue and research, Marxism and World Politics will be of interest to students and scholars of IR, International Political Economy, Political Science, and Historical Sociology.},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Marxism and {World} {Politics}: {Contesting} {Global} {Capitalism}},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Callinicos, Alex},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander},
	year = {2010},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: XJOpLl4uy7EC},
	keywords = {Political Science / International Relations / General, Political Science / Political Ideologies / Communism, Post-Communism \& Socialism},
	pages = {13--26},
}

This book brings together internationally-distinguished scholars from History, Philosophy, Development Studies, Geography, and International Relations (IR) to examine recent developments in Marxist approaches to world politics. Offering original and stimulating analyses of subjects traditionally at the forefront of Marxist studies of world politics, the collection also considers issues which have yet to be fully explored within a number of disciplines. Examining a wide array of topics ranging from the imperialism-globalization debate, the connections between social structures and foreign relations, the role of identity and imperialist norms in world politics, to the relationship between Marxist and Realist IR Theory, the contributors seek to further theoretical discussions and their implications for emancipatory radical politics. These contributions are structured around two major themes: - The relationship between capitalist modernity and the states-system in explaining the changing patterns of inter-state conflict and cooperation; - The debates within Marxist and IR discourses on the theoretical significance of 'the international', covering topics including uneven and combined development and passive revolution. An impressive collection that seeks to advance dialogue and research, Marxism and World Politics will be of interest to students and scholars of IR, International Political Economy, Political Science, and Historical Sociology.

@book{anievas_marxism_2010,
	title = {Marxism and {World} {Politics}: {Contesting} {Global} {Capitalism}},
	isbn = {978-0-415-47803-8},
	shorttitle = {Marxism and {World} {Politics}},
	abstract = {This book brings together internationally-distinguished scholars from History, Philosophy, Development Studies, Geography, and International Relations (IR) to examine recent developments in Marxist approaches to world politics.  Offering original and stimulating analyses of subjects traditionally at the forefront of Marxist studies of world politics, the collection also considers issues which have yet to be fully explored within a number of disciplines. Examining a wide array of topics ranging from the imperialism-globalization debate, the connections between social structures and foreign relations, the role of identity and imperialist norms in world politics, to the relationship between Marxist and Realist IR Theory, the contributors seek to further theoretical discussions and their implications for emancipatory radical politics. These contributions are structured around two major themes:   - The relationship between capitalist modernity and the states-system in explaining the changing patterns of inter-state conflict and cooperation; - The debates within Marxist and IR discourses on the theoretical significance of 'the international', covering topics including uneven and combined development and passive revolution.  An impressive collection that seeks to advance dialogue and research, Marxism and World Politics will be of interest to students and scholars of IR, International Political Economy, Political Science, and Historical Sociology.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Anievas, Alexander},
	year = {2010},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: XJOpLl4uy7EC},
	keywords = {Political Science / International Relations / General, Political Science / Political Ideologies / Communism, Post-Communism \& Socialism},
}

This book brings together internationally-distinguished scholars from History, Philosophy, Development Studies, Geography, and International Relations (IR) to examine recent developments in Marxist approaches to world politics. Offering original and stimulating analyses of subjects traditionally at the forefront of Marxist studies of world politics, the collection also considers issues which have yet to be fully explored within a number of disciplines. Examining a wide array of topics ranging from the imperialism-globalization debate, the connections between social structures and foreign relations, the role of identity and imperialist norms in world politics, to the relationship between Marxist and Realist IR Theory, the contributors seek to further theoretical discussions and their implications for emancipatory radical politics. These contributions are structured around two major themes: - The relationship between capitalist modernity and the states-system in explaining the changing patterns of inter-state conflict and cooperation; - The debates within Marxist and IR discourses on the theoretical significance of 'the international', covering topics including uneven and combined development and passive revolution. An impressive collection that seeks to advance dialogue and research, Marxism and World Politics will be of interest to students and scholars of IR, International Political Economy, Political Science, and Historical Sociology.

@article{steel_combined_2010,
	title = {A {Combined} and {Uneven} {Development} {Approach} to the {European} {Neolithic}’},
	volume = {30},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Critique of Anthropology},
	author = {Steel, D.},
	year = {2010},
}

@article{morton_reflections_2010,
	title = {Reflections on {Uneven} {Development}: {Mexican} {Revolution}, {Primitive} {Accumulation}},
	volume = {37},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Passive Revolution.’ Latin American Perspectives},
	author = {Morton, A.D.},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {7--34},
}

@incollection{matin_decoding_2010,
	address = {London},
	title = {Decoding {Political} {Islam}: {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} and {Ali} {Shariati}’s {Political} {Thought}’},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {International {Relations} and {Non}-{Western} {Thought}: {Imperialism}, {Colonialism} and {Investigations} of {Global} {Modernity}},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Matin, K.},
	editor = {Shilliam, R.},
	year = {2010},
}

@article{joseph_limits_2010,
	title = {The {Limits} of {Governmentality}: {Social} {Theory} and the {International}’},
	volume = {16},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Joseph, J.},
	year = {2010},
}

@article{bruff_european_2010,
	title = {European {Varieties} of {Capitalism} and the {International}’},
	volume = {16},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Bruff, I.},
	year = {2010},
}

@article{allinson_uneven_2010,
	title = {The {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} of the {Meiji} {Restoration}: {A} {Passive} {Revolutionary} {Road} to {Capitalist} {Modernity}’},
	language = {en},
	number = {102},
	journal = {Capital \& Class},
	author = {Allinson, J. and Anievas, A.},
	year = {2010},
}

@incollection{allinson_approaching_2010,
	address = {London},
	title = {Approaching “the {International}”: {Beyond} {Political} {Marxism}},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Marxism and {World} {Politics}: {Contesting} {Global} {Capitalism}},
	publisher = {Routledge},
	author = {Allinson, J. and Anievas, A.},
	editor = {Anievas, Alexander},
	year = {2010},
}

@article{davidson_putting_2009,
	title = {Putting the nation back into ‘the international’},
	volume = {22},
	issn = {0955-7571},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570802683920},
	doi = {10.1080/09557570802683920},
	abstract = {Alex Callinicos and Justin Rosenberg have both drawn on the concept of uneven and combined development to resolve what they see as deficiencies in international relations theory: in the case of the former, the absence of a non-realist explanation for the persistence of the states system; in the case of the latter, the absence of a sociological dimension to geopolitics. However, Callinicos omits any consideration of the ‘combined’ aspect of uneven and combined development, while Rosenberg ascribes characteristics of transhistoricity and internationality to uneven and combined development which it does not possess. Against attempts to either restrict or over-extend use of the concept, I will argue that its theoretical usefulness depends on understanding the limits of its spatial and chronological reach. An alternative, if still partial, explanation for the continued existence of the states system will emphasize the continuing indispensability of nationalism as a means of both containing class conflict within capitalist states and mobilizing support for ‘national capitals’ engaged in geoeconomic and geopolitical competition.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2022-01-22},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Davidson, Neil},
	month = mar,
	year = {2009},
	note = {Publisher: Routledge
\_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570802683920},
	pages = {9--28},
}

Alex Callinicos and Justin Rosenberg have both drawn on the concept of uneven and combined development to resolve what they see as deficiencies in international relations theory: in the case of the former, the absence of a non-realist explanation for the persistence of the states system; in the case of the latter, the absence of a sociological dimension to geopolitics. However, Callinicos omits any consideration of the ‘combined’ aspect of uneven and combined development, while Rosenberg ascribes characteristics of transhistoricity and internationality to uneven and combined development which it does not possess. Against attempts to either restrict or over-extend use of the concept, I will argue that its theoretical usefulness depends on understanding the limits of its spatial and chronological reach. An alternative, if still partial, explanation for the continued existence of the states system will emphasize the continuing indispensability of nationalism as a means of both containing class conflict within capitalist states and mobilizing support for ‘national capitals’ engaged in geoeconomic and geopolitical competition.

@article{shilliam_atlantic_2009,
	title = {The {Atlantic} as a {Vector} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}’},
	volume = {22},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Shilliam, R.},
	year = {2009},
}

@book{shilliam_german_2009,
	address = {Basingstoke, UK},
	title = {German {Thought} and {International} {Relations}: {The} {Rise} and {Fall} of a {Liberal} {Project}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Palgrave},
	author = {Shilliam, R.},
	year = {2009},
}

@article{rosenberg_basic_2009,
	title = {Basic {Problems} in the {Theory} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}: a reply to the {CRIA} forum’},
	volume = {22},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Part I, Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Rosenberg, J.},
	year = {2009},
}

@article{rioux_international_2009,
	title = {International {Historical} {Sociology}: {Recovering} {Sociohistorical} {Causality}‘},
	volume = {21},
	language = {zu},
	number = {4},
	journal = {Rethinking Marxism},
	author = {Rioux, S.},
	year = {2009},
}

@article{davidson_putting_2009,
	title = {Putting the {Nation} back into “the {International}”’},
	volume = {22},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	year = {2009},
}

@article{brown_reconsidering_2009,
	title = {Reconsidering the {Aid} {Relationship}: {International} {Relations} and {Social} {Development}’},
	volume = {98},
	language = {en},
	number = {402},
	journal = {The Round Table},
	author = {Brown, W.},
	year = {2009},
}

@article{ashman_capitalism_2009,
	title = {Capitalism, {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} and the {Transhistoric}’},
	volume = {22},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Ashman, S.},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {29--46},
}

@article{allinson_uses_2009,
	title = {The {Uses} and {Misuses} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}: {An} {Anatomy} of a {Concept}’},
	volume = {22},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Allinson, J. and Anievas, A.},
	year = {2009},
}

@misc{rosenberg_anarchy_2008,
	title = {Anarchy in the {Mirror} of “{Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}”. {An} {Open} {Letter} to {Kenneth} {Waltz}’},
	language = {en},
	author = {Rosenberg, J.},
	year = {2008},
}

@article{callinicos_uneven_2008,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development}: {The} {Social}-{Relational} {Substratum} of “the {International}”?: {An} {Exchange} of {Letters}’},
	volume = {21},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Callinicos, A. and Rosenberg, J.},
	year = {2008},
}

@article{rosenberg_international_2007,
	title = {International {Relations} – the “{Higher} {Bullshit}”: {A} {Reply} to the {Globalisation} {Theory} {Debate}’},
	volume = {44},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	journal = {International Politics},
	author = {Rosenberg, J.},
	year = {2007},
}

@book{morton_unravelling_2007,
	address = {London},
	title = {Unravelling {Gramsci}: {Hegemony} and {Passive} {Revolution} in the {Global} {Economy}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Pluto},
	author = {Morton, Adam David},
	year = {2007},
}

@article{matin_uneven_2007,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development} in {World} {History}: {The} {International} {Relations} of {State}-formation in {Pre}-modern {Iran}’},
	volume = {13},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Matin, K.},
	year = {2007},
}

@article{linden_law_2007,
	title = {The “{Law}” of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}: {Some} {Underdeveloped} {Thoughts}’},
	volume = {15},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Historical Materialism},
	author = {Linden, M.},
	year = {2007},
}

@article{dufour_social-property_2007,
	title = {Social-property {Regimes} and the {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} of {Nationalist} {Practices}’},
	volume = {13},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Dufour, F.},
	year = {2007},
}

@article{callinicos_does_2007,
	title = {Does {Capitalism} {Need} the {State} {System}?’},
	volume = {20},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	journal = {Cambridge Review of International Affairs},
	author = {Callinicos, A.},
	year = {2007},
}

@article{rosenberg_why_2006,
	title = {Why is {There} {No} {International} {Historical} {Sociology}?},
	volume = {12},
	issn = {1354-0661, 1460-3713},
	url = {http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/12/3/307},
	abstract = {Historical sociological studies in IR face a challenge similar to that discussed by Martin Wight in ‘Why is There no International Theory?’ Classical social theorists conceptualized ‘society’ in the ontological singular, leaving their successors with a ‘domestic analogy’ problem which has dogged attempts to provide a social theory of International Relations. Overcoming this problem requires an expansion of the premises of social theory to incorporate those general features of social reality which generate the phenomenon of ‘the international’. This expansion can be achieved using Leon Trotsky's idea of ‘uneven and combined development’. Specifically, the existence of ‘the international’ arises ultimately from the ‘unevenness’ of human sociohistorical existence; its distinctive characteristics can be derived from analysis of the resultant condition of ‘combined development’; and its significance, thus sociologically redefined, entails a reconceptualization of ‘development’ itself — one which removes the source of the ‘domestic analogy’ problem for historical sociology.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2016-01-22},
	journal = {European Journal of International Relations},
	author = {Rosenberg, Justin},
	month = sep,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Trotsky, historical sociology, international theory, uneven and combined development},
	pages = {307--340},
}

Historical sociological studies in IR face a challenge similar to that discussed by Martin Wight in ‘Why is There no International Theory?’ Classical social theorists conceptualized ‘society’ in the ontological singular, leaving their successors with a ‘domestic analogy’ problem which has dogged attempts to provide a social theory of International Relations. Overcoming this problem requires an expansion of the premises of social theory to incorporate those general features of social reality which generate the phenomenon of ‘the international’. This expansion can be achieved using Leon Trotsky's idea of ‘uneven and combined development’. Specifically, the existence of ‘the international’ arises ultimately from the ‘unevenness’ of human sociohistorical existence; its distinctive characteristics can be derived from analysis of the resultant condition of ‘combined development’; and its significance, thus sociologically redefined, entails a reconceptualization of ‘development’ itself — one which removes the source of the ‘domestic analogy’ problem for historical sociology.

@incollection{smith_geography_2006,
	address = {London},
	title = {The {Geography} of {Uneven} {Development}’ in 100 {Years} of {Permanent} {Revolution}},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Results and {Prospects}},
	publisher = {Pluto Press},
	author = {Smith, N.},
	editor = {Dunn, Bill and Radice, Hugo},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {180--195},
}

@incollection{matin_uneven_2006,
	address = {London},
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development} and “{Revolution} of {Backwardness}”: {The} {Iranian} {Constitutional} {Revolution}, 1906–1911},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {100 {Years} of {Permanent} {Revolution}: {Results} and {Prospects}},
	publisher = {Pluto},
	author = {Matin, K.},
	editor = {Dunn, Bill and Radice, Hugo},
	year = {2006},
}

@misc{dunn_100_2006,
	title = {100 {Years} of {Permanent} {Revolution}: {Results} and {Prospects}.{London}: {Pluto}},
	language = {en},
	editor = {Dunn, W. and Radice, H.},
	year = {2006},
}

@incollection{davidson_china_2006,
	address = {London},
	title = {China: {Unevenness}, {Combination}, {Revolution}?},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {100 {Years} of {Permanent} {Revolution}: {Results} and {Prospects}},
	publisher = {Pluto},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	editor = {Dunn, Bill and Radice, Hugo},
	year = {2006},
}

@incollection{davidson_uneven_2006,
	address = {London},
	title = {From {Uneven} to {Combined} {Development}’},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {100 {Years} of {Permanent} {Revolution}: {Results} and {Prospects}},
	publisher = {Pluto},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	editor = {Dunn, Bill and Radice, Hugo},
	year = {2006},
}

@book{barker_beyond_2006,
	address = {London},
	title = {Beyond {Trotsky}: extending combined and uneven development},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Pluto},
	author = {Barker, C.},
	editor = {Dunn, Bill and Radice, Hugo},
	year = {2006},
}

@article{rosenberg_globalization_2005,
	title = {Globalization {Theory}: {A} {Post} {Mortem}’},
	volume = {42},
	language = {cs},
	number = {1},
	journal = {International Politics},
	author = {Rosenberg, J.},
	year = {2005},
}

@article{shilliam_hegemony_2004,
	title = {Hegemony and the {Unfashionable} {Problematic} of {Primitive} {Accumulation}’},
	volume = {33},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Millennium – Journal of International Studies},
	author = {Shilliam, R.},
	year = {2004},
}

@book{teschke_myth_2003,
	title = {The myth of 1648: class, geopolitics and the making of modern international relations},
	isbn = {978-1-85984-693-3},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Verso},
	author = {Teschke, Benno},
	year = {2003},
}

@incollection{lin_uneven_2003,
	address = {Amsterdam},
	title = {Uneven and {Compressed} {Development}},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {The {World} {We} {Are} {Entering}},
	publisher = {Dutch University Press},
	author = {Lin, Chun},
	editor = {Wallerstein, Immanuel and Clesse, Armand},
	year = {2003},
}

@book{davidson_discovering_2003,
	address = {London, UK},
	title = {Discovering the {Scottish} {Revolution}, 1692-1746},
	isbn = {978-0-7453-2053-3},
	language = {sq},
	publisher = {Pluto Press},
	author = {Davidson, N.},
	year = {2003},
}

@book{trotsky_writings_1998,
	address = {New York},
	title = {Writings on {Lenin}, {Dialectics} and {Evolutionism}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Trotsky’s Notebooks},
	author = {Trotsky, Leon},
	editor = {Pomper, Philip},
	year = {1998},
}

@article{rosenberg_isaac_1996,
	title = {Isaac {Deutscher} and the {Lost} {History} of {International} {Relations}’},
	volume = {I},
	language = {en},
	number = {215},
	journal = {New Left Review},
	author = {Rosenberg, J.},
	year = {1996},
}

@article{thatcher_uneven_1991,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development}’},
	volume = {4: 2},
	language = {en},
	journal = {Revolutionary Russia},
	author = {Thatcher, I.},
	year = {1991},
	pages = {235--258},
}

@article{oconnor_uneven_1989,
	title = {Uneven and {Combined} {Development} and {Ecological} {Crisis}: {A} {Theoretical} {Introduction}‘},
	volume = {30},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Race and Class},
	author = {O’Connor, J.},
	year = {1989},
}

@incollection{elster_theory_1986,
	address = {Cambridge},
	title = {The theory of combined and uneven development: a critique’},
	language = {en},
	booktitle = {Analytical {Marxism}},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Elster, J.},
	editor = {Roemer, J.},
	year = {1986},
}

@book{deutscher_marxism_1984,
	address = {London},
	title = {Marxism, {Wars} and {Revolutions}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Verso},
	author = {Deutscher, I.},
	year = {1984},
}

@book{lowy_politics_1981,
	address = {London},
	title = {The {Politics} of {Combined} and {Uneven} {Development}: {The} {Theory} of {Permanent} {Revolution}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Verso},
	author = {Löwy, M.},
	year = {1981},
}

@book{knei-paz_social_1978,
	address = {Oxford},
	title = {The {Social} and {Political} {Thought} of {Leon} {Trotsky}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Clarendon Press},
	author = {Knei-Paz, B.},
	year = {1978},
}

@article{novack_law_1976,
	title = {The {Law} of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development} and {Latin} {America}’},
	volume = {III},
	language = {en},
	number = {II},
	journal = {Latin American Perspectives},
	author = {Novack, G.},
	year = {1976},
}

@book{trotsky_my_1975,
	address = {Harmondsworth},
	title = {My {Life}. {An} {Attempt} at an {Autobiography}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Penguin},
	author = {Trotsky, L.},
	year = {1975},
}

@article{romagnolo_so-called_1975,
	title = {The {So}-{Called} ‘{Law}’ of {Uneven} and {Combined} {Development}’},
	volume = {II},
	language = {en},
	number = {I},
	journal = {Latin American Perspectives},
	author = {Romagnolo, D.},
	year = {1975},
}

@article{weaver_relative_1974,
	title = {Relative {Backwardness} and {Cumulative} {Change}: a {Comparative} {Approach} to {European} {Industrialization}’},
	volume = {9},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Studies in Comparative International Development},
	author = {Weaver, F.S.},
	year = {1974},
	pages = {70--97},
}

@book{trotsky_leon_1973,
	address = {Novack New York},
	title = {Leon {Trotsky} on {Britain}, introduced by {G}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Pathfinder},
	author = {Trotsky, L.},
	year = {1973},
}

@book{trotsky_1905_1973,
	address = {Hamondsworth},
	title = {1905},
	language = {sr},
	publisher = {Penguin},
	author = {Trotsky, L.},
	year = {1973},
}

@book{novack_understanding_1972,
	address = {New York},
	edition = {[1st ed.]},
	title = {Understanding history: {Marxist} essays},
	shorttitle = {Understanding history},
	abstract = {Major theories of history from the Greeks to Marxism. -- The long view of history. -- From Lenin to Castro; the role of individual in history making. -- Uneven and combined development in world history. -- The uneven development of the world revolutionary process. -- Hybrid formations and the permanent revolution in Latin America. -- Notes (bibliographical: p. 160)},
	language = {eng},
	publisher = {Pathfinder Press},
	author = {Novack, George},
	year = {1972},
	note = {Book Title: Understanding history : Marxist essays},
	keywords = {History, Philosophy; Dialectical materialism},
}

Major theories of history from the Greeks to Marxism. – The long view of history. – From Lenin to Castro; the role of individual in history making. – Uneven and combined development in world history. – The uneven development of the world revolutionary process. – Hybrid formations and the permanent revolution in Latin America. – Notes (bibliographical: p. 160)

@book{trotsky_revolution_1972,
	address = {New York},
	title = {The {Revolution} {Betrayed}},
	language = {ky},
	publisher = {Pathfinder},
	author = {Trotsky, L.},
	year = {1972},
}

@book{trotsky_third_1970,
	address = {New York},
	title = {The {Third} {International} {After} {Lenin}},
	language = {lb},
	publisher = {Pathfinder},
	author = {Trotsky, L.},
	year = {1970},
}

@book{horowitz_imperialism_1969,
	address = {New York},
	title = {Imperialism and {Revolution}: a {Radical} {Interpretation} of {Contemporary} {History}},
	language = {pt},
	publisher = {Random House},
	author = {Horowitz, D.},
	year = {1969},
}

@book{deutscher_prophet_1963,
	address = {Oxford},
	title = {The {Prophet} {Outcast}, {Trotsky}: 1929–1940},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {OUP},
	author = {Deutscher, I.},
	year = {1963},
}

@book{trotsky_permanent_1962,
	address = {London},
	title = {The {Permanent} {Revolution} (1930) and {Results} and {Prospects} (1906},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {New Park Publications},
	author = {Trotsky, L.},
	year = {1962},
}

@book{trotsky_history_1961,
	address = {New York},
	title = {The {History} of the {Russian} {Revolution} (1932},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Pathfinder},
	author = {Trotsky, L.},
	year = {1961},
}

@book{deutscher_prophet_1959,
	address = {Oxford},
	title = {The {Prophet} {Unarmed}, {Trotsky}: 1921–1929},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {OUP},
	author = {Deutscher, I.},
	year = {1959},
}

@book{novack_irregular_1957,
	title = {The {Irregular} {Movement} of {History} the {Marxist} {Law} of the {Combined} and {Uneven} {Development} of {Society}},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {A. Bandara for Spark Publishers},
	author = {Novack, G.},
	year = {1957},
}

@book{deutscher_prophet_1954,
	address = {Oxford},
	title = {The {Prophet} {Armed}, {Trotsky}: 1879–1921},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {OUP},
	author = {Deutscher, I.},
	year = {1954},
}